Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IT Salaries and Hiring Are Up — But Just To 2008 Levels

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the living-in-the-average-of-past-and-future dept.

The Almighty Buck 198

tsamsoniw writes "A mid-year salary survey has a mix of good and bad news for IT professionals: The good news, hiring is slowly increasing as companies bring more IT operations back in house and salaries are creeping up a bit. But compensation (including benefits) are just now reaching 2008 levels — and hiring will remain soft, at least until the presidential election is over."

cancel ×

198 comments

Citation needed (4, Insightful)

ccguy (1116865) | about 2 years ago | (#40581415)

The article says this:

"However, hiring overall will remain soft in coming months, particularly with the presidential election in the United States and economic turmoil in the European Union."

The EU part is obvious, but there's no explanation about why the presidential election would have an impact or where they are getting that data from.

Re:Citation needed (4, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 years ago | (#40581435)

Businesses may be hesitant to make major investments in hiring (or anything) until they know which way the wind will blow after November.

Re:Citation needed (1, Insightful)

Glock27 (446276) | about 2 years ago | (#40581519)

What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now, along with a massive tax hike. The US will likely continue with the Great Depression II in that case.

On the other hand, if Romney is elected, the country has a fighting chance to recover.

Re:Citation needed (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#40581547)

What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now

I'm hardly an expert on US matters, but I've always thought that this "disastrous approach" actually predates the Obama presidency, which is forced to cope with its results. Or is there some hope among the US people that a potential non-Obama future president would be able to solve the economical problems of the US in one swift stroke using his magical superabilities?

Re:Citation needed (2, Insightful)

Short Circuit (52384) | about 2 years ago | (#40581567)

The best thing a government can do for an economy is get out of the way. Even outside of extreme regulation, taxation and foot-dragging bureaucracies, a government that doesn't change is better than a government that changes every six months, and whose leadership announces sweeping new initiatives almost as frequently.

Nobody in their right mind wants Romney to "fix" the economy, they just want him to get out of the way.

Re:Citation needed (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581671)

This was the prevailing ideology leading up to the financial crisis, where drastic deregulation to get government "out of the way" paved the way to disaster.

Any time you can put nine people in a room that are responsible for trashing the world economy, and you have to beg them to let you save them with taxpayer dollars just to avoid a situation worse than the Depression... you've gotten too far out of the way.

This notion that we should be pushing for the mythical laissez-faire sort of capitalism, and that it will naturally evolve into a stable, working system that distributes resources in a reasonable manner, is bullshit. It's an imperfect world filled with imperfect people.

Re:Citation needed (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581717)

The GP wasn't advocating deregulation, but rather that the government stop changing the rules. Once the rules are established, businesses can adapt and the economy will stabilize. If the rules change every few years, the economy will keep fluctuating.

Re:Citation needed (3, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | about 2 years ago | (#40581961)

And the point of the response was that we have proof this doesn't work. Disastrous proof.

Re:Citation needed (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582125)

And the point of the response was that we have proof this doesn't work. Disastrous proof.

No, that's not the point of the response. The point of the response was to get all butthurt and rant, and he didn't prove dick.

Look, no matter what approach the government takes to business, it needs to maintain some amount of consistency. Even when you change things, you need to have certainty in the Law. Hell, it's a fundamental principle of Law in general, not unique to business.

The responder is correct in general terms, other than kind of missing the point of the post he responded to. That post was trying to say that a big part of the problem with the economy is that the government keeps tinkering around with it when they are either clueless, corrupt, or both. And it's true- a lot of our current financial mess came as a result of both direct and indirect meddling with business, in all the wrong ways.
But I didn't see anything which made me think he was calling for a complete Open Season for business, either. You have to have some rule and regulation, but the government needs to focus on regulation which is more effective and less burdensome.

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582759)

I love how the Rushtards never can quote actual economists to support their pet theories.Actual economists agree: the cause of much of the current crisis is Republican policies and deregulation fervor [go.com] .

Republican deregulation created Enron.
Republican deregulation created the housing crisis.
Republican deregulation created the credit/banking crisis.

Republicans have been on the wrong side of economics for at least 30 years.

Re:Citation needed (1, Insightful)

FairAndHateful (2522378) | about 2 years ago | (#40581991)

The GP wasn't advocating deregulation, but rather that the government stop changing the rules. Once the rules are established, businesses can adapt and the economy will stabilize. If the rules change every few years, the economy will keep fluctuating.

Thank you for stating this. Businesses are not able to act confidently when they are worried that the rules are going to keep changing. It's not like playing a boardgame where it's all part of the fun. Real things are at stake, and people tend to be very cautious and try to remain flexible and not put any chips on the table when the rules keep changing. (apologies for the mixed gaming metaphors)

Also, I think there's a semantic problem between the people that argue against and for "deregulation", as they seem to be using the term differently. Some people view it as a simplification of the rules, and in some cases, a removal of the more expensive and onerous of those rules. Other people view it as a case of simply changing the rules in whatever way is necessary so businesses can maximize profits. I think an argument can be made that the changes to the financial rules that led to the crisis can be fairly classified as the latter.

Re:Citation needed (3, Insightful)

Alomex (148003) | about 2 years ago | (#40582257)

Businesses are not able to act confidently when they are worried that the rules are going to keep changing

Another meme courtesy of the republican party. Rules change all the time when you are in business. New competitors arise, trading treaties are signed, programs appear and disappear, new threats appear out of left field. Change is what businesses do best. To think they are sitting on untold monies because they don't know what will come is ridiculous.

Re:Citation needed (2, Insightful)

FairAndHateful (2522378) | about 2 years ago | (#40582435)

Another meme courtesy of the republican party.

Oh, yeah, because businesses favored by democrats don't hedge the same way. This bullshit cuts both ways. You're thinking with your politics, not your brains.

Actually. (3, Insightful)

publiclurker (952615) | about 2 years ago | (#40582635)

he was just pointing out that the parent post is nothing but regurgitated corporate whoring from the republican platform. What you are doing is acting like a young child trying to deflect responsibility by claiming that the other kids did the same thing.

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582741)

The rules have to keep changing because it is profitable for rich organizations and people to hire large teams of highly competent lawyers who will find any loop holes that there are in the rules. It is necessary to change the law to close those holes as soon as someone starts exploiting them. It's exactly how it is necessary for operating system vendors to maintain a steady rate of patches because otherwise security holes will go unpatched for too long. However, companies who complain about this are probably the ones exploiting the holes that are being closed - I'm not too worried about that. Though of course there should be an effort to fix exploits without changing the situation for non-exploiters too much.

Re:Citation needed (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581997)

When the economic playing field is young and full of independent entrepreneurs, the "get out of the way" philosophy works well.

Once the economy is mature, and full of monopolies and cartels, government regulation of business is the only thing that can prevent an overwhelming crime wave or outright bloody revolution.

We all know that people are greedy, and accepting that fact is why capitalism shines when the market is actually free. A cartel/monopoly-controlled market is the opposite of free, and the greed of the people at the top of these cartels and monopolies makes them every bit as destructive as a totalitarian dictator, with just as much power to boot. They set up barriers to entry which prevents any new business, even one with a superior offering, from ever getting a foothold, and all the benefits of capitalism go up in smoke. If the government does not keep the megacorporations on a leash, the people wind up largely hopeless and desperate, so they take up arms.

Re:Citation needed (2)

SaroDarksbane (1784314) | about 2 years ago | (#40582133)

The barriers to entry in a market are created by the government in the first place. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Big business uses government regulation to create cartels and monopolies. You're basically saying that we need a government big enough to save us all from destructive influence of big government.

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582207)

I'm sorry, the diagnosis is cancer.

But don't worry, we're going to transplant some additional cancer-ridden organs into you. Then we can point at the cancer and say, "It's not our fault the patient died, he had cancer!"

Re:Citation needed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582385)

If there's a choice, for example, between a government that doesn't tolerate melamine in the food supply and a government that doesn't care about melamine in food, I'll take the first one.

Crazy thought: there are some good regulations.

Re:Citation needed (4, Insightful)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 2 years ago | (#40582065)

Um. No. That's how we got a financial crisis in the first place. The repeal of Glass-Steagal during the Clinton administration is how banks in the USA got the ability to gamble with *your* money instead of their own. Building a socio-economic environment without regulation is a bit like building a house without any building codes. Firewalls, plumbing and wiring codes exist for a reason. Ditto for financial regulations. It's to the advantage of the wealthiest gamblers NOT to have regulations. For the rest of us who will never win the capitalist lottery in a big way, the regulations protect us.

Oh, and might I point out that the most successful economy in Europe, is highly regulated AND they have universal health care. Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway aren't doing so poorly either with their regulated economies. Of course, the Swedes were smart enough to let the banks fail and be sold off during their last banking crisis. We, sadly, were not.

Re:Citation needed (2)

Surt (22457) | about 2 years ago | (#40582131)

How many times does history need to beat us over the head with the untruth of the claim that getting out of the way is the best thing a government can do for the economy before people start from a position of getting regulation right instead of getting regulation gone?

Re:Citation needed (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#40582705)

How many times does history need to beat us over the head with the untruth of the claim that getting out of the way is the best thing a government can do for the economy ...

I think the problem is that history doesn't actually teach that. Can you point out some examples in history were free economies did worse than comparable regulated economies at the same time? You may be able to find a few, but there are far more examples of the opposite. Some people have pointed to the Great Depression of the 1930's as something caused by under-regulation in America, but the Great Depression was just as bad or even worse in countries that had more regulation.

So move to Somalia (0)

publiclurker (952615) | about 2 years ago | (#40582615)

if you really believe that load of crap. Basically what you want it the freedom to screw over anyone and everyone for your own personal benefit under the self-deluded impression that you won't actually be screwed over by everyone else.

Re:Citation needed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581575)

Don't even try to explain something as simple as that to an United States of American. They have the attention span of a five-months old. Anything older than six months ago or planning ahead for more than six months is impossible for their little brains.

Re:Citation needed (1)

kubusja (581677) | about 2 years ago | (#40581707)

Oh, yeah, definitely... it's all Bush fault: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Public_Debt_Ceiling_1981-2010.png [wikipedia.org] So Bush is not without guilt but Obama made it much worse...

Re:Citation needed (1)

Alomex (148003) | about 2 years ago | (#40582299)

If I burn the house and then let you take over after that, sure you will max out the credit cards buying replacement goods for all the things I destroyed.

Using your twisted logic, you made things much worse by buying replacement underwear, clothing and basic goods.

A mild recession is akin to you losing your job, you cut on expenditures and try to survive until you get a new one.

A depression like the one we are in is like your house burning down. You approach your relatives/friends/bank and ask for a hefty loan which you will pay over the next ten years as insurance monies come in, you get back on your feet, get an extra job, etc.

You don't understand. (1)

publiclurker (952615) | about 2 years ago | (#40582649)

scapegoating (especially if you have a minority as a target) is the only thing people like the parent poster have. well, there is accepting responsibility, but you know how bad children are at doing that.

Re:Citation needed (5, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 2 years ago | (#40581723)

I'm hardly an expert on US matters, but I've always thought that this "disastrous approach" actually predates the Obama presidency

Correct. I'm Canadian, so I'm greatly affected by what goes in the US Economy. What Obama struggles with, and continues to struggle with are largely related to his predecessors and include, but aren't limited to -

1) The "Bush Tax Cut" which ensured the US federal government had insufficient taxes to do their job, combined with the trillions spent on overseas wars.

2) Governments that preceded him being unwilling to regulate the financial sector, resulting in the meltdowns in 2008. (I blame Clinton here too - His presidency is largely to blame for the subprime mortgage mess.)

3) An obstinate congress which blocks anything, regardless of whether or not it is good for the country.

Re:Citation needed (4, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about 2 years ago | (#40581989)

1) The "Bush Tax Cut" which ensured the US federal government had insufficient taxes to do their job, combined with the trillions spent on overseas wars.
 

Passed by Both Houses of Congress based on what was thought to be good information at the time. [wikipedia.org]

2) Governments that preceded him being unwilling to regulate the financial sector, resulting in the meltdowns in 2008. (I blame Clinton here too - His presidency is largely to blame for the subprime mortgage mess.)

It's good you mention Bill Clinton's administration on this. [wsws.org]

3) An obstinate congress which blocks anything, regardless of whether or not it is good for the country.

Oh Like when Obama's Administration with a Democratic House and Senate majorities failed to pass budgets? [foxnews.com]

Look, this is Slashdot [youtube.com] and Politics aside there's a ton of blame for the mess we have. As Will Rodgers once said "If you find yourself in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging."

The fundamental problems with our government are created by the people who vote for these idiots over and over again. From the people who vote for corrupt politicians [nbcnewyork.com] to those who vote for people with IQs less than the McDonalds dollar menu prices. [yahoo.com]

Speaking from direct experience, the leadership we have is no better than what you find in an episode of "The Office", what should we expect? It doesn't matter, Democrat or Republican and there is the problem, there's only two degrees of separation between them. Close your eyes and you get the same turd sandwich, it's all shit just go ahead and take a bite. Both parties have rigged the political processes, the election laws and created a million barriers for qualified people to run for office. What ever happened to write-in candidates? That's a whole other discussion.

Back in Feb. 2009 I flew from DC to RDU and sat behind two congressmen. One was so myopic that even with glasses he had to keep the paper an inch off of his nose. When they boarded they were high-fiving each other saying "We passed it" referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). During the flight they kept passing pieces of paper back and forth, you couldn't help but overhear occasionally even on a noisy plane. One quip was disturbing "I didn't know that was in there" referring to the ARRA
legislation.

So, two congressmen who voted yes on a bill that became law and they didn't read it. Two votes making decisions for you and I. I can't fault their political views or party affiliations but I can fault them for not at least reading the damn legislation that they were voting on. It sounds like they should be part of a human centipad. [southparkstudios.com]

  True leadership means making the decisions that are best, not politically expedient and not all of them will be popular. Doing your best also means researching the problem and understanding what you're trying to solve. Unfortunately nowadays everybody in this country has the attention span of a 4 year old and now we have an entire generation of adults who grew up not paying attention, barely passed their courses in College and now are running things.

Nobody can fault somebody for serving in public office, but it would be nice if there was at least some brighter individuals who would run. Yeah, you'd get rocks thrown at you but at least you'd be doing the country's business rather than trying to get elected all the time.

Re:Citation needed (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582239)

1) The "Bush Tax Cut" which ensured the US federal government had insufficient taxes to do their job, combined with the trillions spent on overseas wars.
Passed by Both Houses of Congress based on what was thought to be good information at the time. [wikipedia.org]

It's never that simple and easy, every single vote by every last member is a twisted web of politics and inside deals.

3) An obstinate congress which blocks anything, regardless of whether or not it is good for the country.
Oh Like when Obama's Administration with a Democratic House and Senate majorities failed to pass budgets? [foxnews.com]

Ok, now you're just trolling. But what the hell...

You can replace that with "Oh, Like when Any President with a Either Party House and Senate majorities failed to pass Whatever Legislation . (And then point it to a reputable source such as the Congressional Voting Record [google.com] instead of a hack of a news channel.)

Re:Citation needed (0, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#40582339)

All wrong.

1. The current economic problems are not a result of any tax cuts, they are a result of constant increase in spending without any production behind such spending and spending is the real tax, it's not the rate.

Even with 'Bush tax cuts' (which were not tax cuts, because spending keeps growing, so it's just being put on the tab rather than being paid by taxes) the US gov't still is able to fund itself with borrowed and printed money, so what exactly is it that the government cannot do just because of 'tax cuts'?

When the rate is cut but the spending continues and in fact grows all the time, all that happens is that the payment for the rate cut is deferred into the future and there will be more interest added to it, of-course every politician out there keeps saying that government should be spending more, because it is able to borrow at the lowest interest rates (and with the Fed buying so much of the new Treasury debt it's clear that most of the new spending is just 'financed' by inflation).

2. The financial sector has over 100,000 regulations applied to it on the federal level and there are other regulations too. The number of regulations is constantly increasing, this year there were 0 applications for new banks in USA for example, that's simply because it is no longer possible for any startup to comply with the regulations. All laws are regulations, Patriot Act for example is a huge regulation on the financial sector as well, it turns the entire financial sector into an IRS and CIA agent. To call mortgage crisis 'subprime' only is an understatment by the way, the problem only started with subprime, but it was all throughout the mortgage market because of the government backing all loans, not just subprime, and because of fake interest rates coming down from the Fed more than half mortgages were ARMs (adjustable rate), which had to reset at some point too.

But don't forget, there are people on both sides of the transaction and so with ARMs the banks were getting less and less return with every step that Greenspan and then Bernanke took to lower the rates, which propagated to all markets, including mortgage market. So there was less and less return on every mortgage that was given out.

Less and less return created the same situation that government created in the private equity market, where people are no longer looking for the bonds to get dividend payments, they only trade the stock itself trying to buy low sell high, it was turned into casino.

Same thing with mortgages - they were turned into casino because of low interest rates (fake money). So banks started selling mortgages to each other as if they were stocks, not hoping to live off of the dividend payments (monthly mortgage payments) but instead just hoping to gamble with those. Then came the derivative products, which is to say that bets on mortgages turned into options.

Some would say that repeal of Glass Steagall was the problem, but Glass Steagall didn't create the problem of no returns, it only allowed trading of the options, it didn't actually set the state for not getting returns on the mortgages. This view also overlooks the reason for Glass Steagall, this was introduced as the counterbalance to the FDIC, which is the moral hazard for people not to care about the banks, not caring that some banks maybe riskier than others, you shouldn't care, right, because the government 'guarantees' your deposit.

Well, gov't can't actually guarantee your deposit anymore than it can 'guarantee' your retirement or medical care or anything else, gov't doesn't have money and whatever it collects in taxes it always spends to the last penny leaving behind IOU notes - bonds.

But Clinton and Rubin were responsible for refinancing the US debt at very low rates, same thing that these so called 'home-owners' did every chance they got - refinanced their homes, left no equity in them.

It's funny to hear liberals cry about the poor home owners. Why is anybody crying? The 'home owners' never owned those homes, they never paid anything for them, never had equity, whatever equity they had, they immediately extracted and spent on Chinese goods, vacations and plastic surgery. Or they bought other homes with this so they could be 'rich'. That's what they believed, buy a home - be wealthy.

Well, homes were never an investment, not homes that you live in. Maybe if it's an investment property that is rented out, then it maybe an investment (if it's a good area with jobs around it).

3. Congress was supposed to block everything, there should be very little laws ever passed and yet in 2012 40,000 new laws came into effect. What is terrible is that Congress wasn't really blocking everything, what it MUST have blocked (always) was the raising of the debt ceiling, this would have always prevented any unfunded spending (thus new taxes). But they never fail to raise that, it's not a ceiling, it's a rocket. It will only end when the creditors stop lending, then it will be a real hard ceiling.

In reality USA was on a disastrous approach since Theodore Roosevelt times.

which fox site did you cut and paste this BS from (2)

publiclurker (952615) | about 2 years ago | (#40582677)

it has to be someone that pathetic, since no-one else would debase themselves to the point of claiming that lowering taxes is not a tax cut. Face it boy, the bill for your self-serving sense of entitlement came due earlier than you thought. now you cry like a spoiled four-year old at the thought of having to clean up your own mess. how about you just go to your room and the grownups will call you when we have decided your punishment.

Re:Citation needed (2)

Gamer_2k4 (1030634) | about 2 years ago | (#40581987)

Or is there some hope among the US people that a potential non-Obama future president would be able to solve the economical problems of the US in one swift stroke using his magical superabilities?

Well, it was a similar hope in a magical President that got Obama into office in the first place, so...

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581993)

Something to remember about U.S. politics is not that the political system itself is broken--because we all knew that a long time ago--but that its citizens (or at least a majority of them) still blindly believe that the system works. Not only that, many of them already knew that it's broken but they're either too lazy, too afraid, or powerless to do anything about it.

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582219)

Obama has single handedly stopped the Keystone pipeline from Canada, over 10,000 jobs.
He is single handedly trying to stop Boeing from opening a manufacturing plant in the Carolinas because it is a right to work state.
He has destryoed an entire industry around hand rolling cigirettes.
The Obamacare bill has a huge unknonwn amount of taxes and fees on employees you have, if you have over 50, with NO BENEFIT whatsoever if you live in a state refusing to comply, like Florida.
He is refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts, which he renewed a year and a half ago because he knew it would devistate the economy at the time, and will again.
He gave amensty to 800,000 illegals, which typlically work construction jobs, not picking fruit like everyon claims, putting construction workers ever further behind than they already were.
He has raided Gibson guitar twice, while leaving Fender Guitar alone despite both having the same "shady buisness practices" because Fender donates heavily to the DNC.

This country has become one were you are either a union shop or heavily donate to the DNC, or Obama uses his full weight of power to destroy you. Mostly he is destroying big fish and working his way down the ladder to smaller ones. Those of us at smaller ones know if he gets reelected there will be a good chance we will be next. You don't see things like the fight between Arizona and the Federal Government if things are going good, but that state is so fed up they are voting to see if they are allowed to IGNORE federal laws in order to have some sanity.

Yea, I'm sure people can try and refute all my points with liberal talking points from MSNBC, but how many things like I've listed have to come up before you have to start wondering if it actually IS Obama instead of EVERYONE ELSE.

Re:Citation needed (1, Insightful)

Alomex (148003) | about 2 years ago | (#40582333)

None of those need to be refuted. Even if they were true, they in no way would be responsible for the current state of the economy. Even if true they would be minor gaffes in a trillion dollar economy.

What really screwed up this country was two unfunded wars by GWB, financial deregulation starting with Reagan followed by Clinton and GWB, and the original GWB tax cuts at a time where we were waging two wars and more, not less revenues were needed.

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582805)

Amazing how you bring up the wars from W, but FAIL to mention the nearly $1 tillion in a single year stimilus from Obama, along with his $600 Billion omnibus that gets renewed each year, that didn't help the economy a single bit. Its almost as if you refuse to acknowledge reality in order to keep your bias.

Uner Bush, biggest deficit $500 Billion (last year).
Under Obama, average defict $1.5 Trillion.

After three years, you think he could have done SOMETHING to improve things, but he just dosn't seem to care as long as he can say its Bush's fault and people like you say its true. The economy would already be fixed if it weren't for biased people still supporting what they know is a horrible president, but I guess misery for the "lower class" is acceptable as long as your guy wins.

Re:Citation needed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582329)

I live here. The "disastrous approach" for an Inforworld article is whatever displeases Infoworld advertisers, particularly major corporate advertisers. It is _not_, by any means, a politically or economically neutral publication, and such advertisers are very unhappy with caps on H1-B visas, enforced health coverage for contractors, or economic oversight by the SEC. They want the business friendly Republicans back in power as quickly as possible, even though the poor Republican handling of extremely speculative investments in housing helped bankrupt the nation.

Re:Citation needed (5, Funny)

paiute (550198) | about 2 years ago | (#40581557)

What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now, along with a massive tax hike. The US will likely continue with the Great Depression II in that case.

On the other hand, if Romney is elected, the country has a fighting chance to recover.

Translation: You are in a coma after being shot in the head. Doctor A's treatment of IVs and drugs and stuff isn't having you up and back to work in a week, so your family panics and brings in Doctor B, whose treatment is to shoot you in the head again.

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581701)

What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now, along with a massive tax hike. The US will likely continue with the Great Depression II in that case.

On the other hand, if Romney is elected, the country has a fighting chance to recover.

Translation: You are in a coma after being shot in the head. Doctor A's treatment of IVs and drugs and stuff isn't having you up and back to work in a week, so your family panics and brings in Doctor B, whose treatment is to shoot you in the head again.

A better analogy is that you're in the hospital with a broken leg. Doctor A's treatment of putting you into a drug induced coma seems a little silly, so your family brings in Doctor B who puts a cast on you and send you home.

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581919)

BBRRRRZAAAP! Sorry, you both are wrong. The patient in question worked (slaved?) for a corporate imperialist, making minimum wage, and has no health insurance. The patient will die. The family will attempt to sue both doctors, but find the judges have been bought and paid for by the ruling plutocracy. Finally realizing that the whole system has been corrupted, in a last gesture of defiance, the family will take the matter of justice into their own hands and __you fill in the blank___.

analogy does not mean blatent lie. (1)

publiclurker (952615) | about 2 years ago | (#40582695)

so how can your BS be better?

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582051)

Doctor B wants to turn you into a zombie by shooting you in the head again. A zombie is what everyone has been preparing for. At last something we know how to kill.

Re:Citation needed (1)

ErikZ (55491) | about 2 years ago | (#40582121)

How come none of the other recoveries took this long then?

All that came before, it was blindingly obvious when things are getting better. With Obama, all of a sudden it impossible to fix.

Maybe it's not the economy. Maybe it's him and his policies.

Re:Citation needed (3, Insightful)

Alomex (148003) | about 2 years ago | (#40582419)

How come none of the other recoveries took this long then?

Except for the great depression or the current Japanese and Irish depression all of which you conveniently forget to mention.

Maybe it's not the economy. Maybe it's him and his policies.

Or maybe all the other recessions were created by tightening of monetary policy and quickly cured as interests rates went down when inflation subsided.

In contrast when recessions are caused by deleveraging they all have in common that they are really hard to solve, like the great depression, like Japan, like Ireland. The only way out we know is massive spending as in the great depression. The republican party is opposed to this always, regardless of how out of the ordinary the circumstances might be, requiring an exception to be made.

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582659)

You should perhaps look into the Depression of 1929 and compare and contrast it with subsequent recessions. Let me start you off with this wikipedia link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

You may want to pay special attention to the "Causes" paragraphs and to this kind of quote
"Some economies started to recover by the mid-1930s. In many countries, the negative effects of the Great Depression lasted until the end of World War II.[8]"

and then shut the fuck up. Thanks.

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581593)

What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now, along with a massive tax hike. The US will likely continue with the Great Depression II in that case.

On the other hand, if Romney is elected, the country has a fighting chance to recover.

You're so delusional it hurts.

Loaded terms like that don't even deserve a debate. (How much Hannity/Limbaugh do you watch?)

Re:Citation needed (1)

znrt (2424692) | about 2 years ago | (#40581711)

in other words: just propaganda.

i thought so. moving on.

MOD PARENT DOWN!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582785)

He said something negative about the Republicans! Mod him down! Worship Romney! HEIL TEH JOB CREATOR ROMNEY!

Re:Citation needed (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40582297)

> What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now

We don't have a disastrous approach to business now. Businesses are enjoying record levels of profitability and have immense amounts of cash on hand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html [nytimes.com]

"GORMAN: Well, they won't hire more people until they have a business need to do so. And behind your question is the fact that many companies in North America adjusted very quickly to the significant downturn. And what companies I think found is they could get by with fewer people if they used technology in a way that they could really become more and more efficient."

Gorman is the president of KeyBank in Cleveland.

With the EU and China not growing, and the US able to grow worker productivity as fast as the economy there just isn't a need to hire.

What would change this is an increase in demand. But we are in the middle of a credit retrenchment (housing crash) so even near zero interest rates will do squat, and China and Europe demand is declining.

The Republicans are in for a rude shock if they think that they have the ability to change this. Cutting taxes for the wealthy does nothing to increase demand.

Re:Citation needed (1)

IANAAC (692242) | about 2 years ago | (#40582365)

What these comments are dancing around is that if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now, along with a massive tax hike. The US will likely continue with the Great Depression II in that case.

On the other hand, if Romney is elected, the country has a fighting chance to recover.

Which is a really myopic and uninformed way of looking at things.

Business taxes (and incentives) are determined at the state level, not federal level. Companies don't pick up and move to other states or anywhere else because of federal elections.

Re:Citation needed (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#40582449)

What these comments are dancing around is that if Obama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach to the economy we have now

You mean if Obama is elected the Republicans in Congress will continue their approach of scuttling any proposal that has a chance of helping the economy improve in the hopes that if they make the country collapse badly enough, it will rebound against the party of the incumbent in the next Presidential election?

Plausible, but more of a reason to vote against Republican candidates in the Congressional elections than for their candidate in the Presidential one.

Re:Citation needed (1)

hoggoth (414195) | about 2 years ago | (#40582577)

> if 0bama is reelected, businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach
> On the other hand, if Romney is elected, a different set of businesses will continue to face the same disastrous approach

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Citation needed (4, Insightful)

Gorobei (127755) | about 2 years ago | (#40581549)

Businesses may be hesitant to make major investments in hiring (or anything) until they know which way the wind will blow after November.

Businesses hire because they need more people to do the work they have in the pipeline. Outside of a few firms in Washington, presidential elections have about 0% impact on that.

Anyone saying otherwise is has either never run a business or has an agenda to push.

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582047)

and yet, on a macro-scale, presidential elections themselves, and the time leading up to them DO affect hiring.

Re:Citation needed (1)

Gorobei (127755) | about 2 years ago | (#40582107)

Really?

So we pull up the non-farm payroll numbers for the past 40 years. Chart the time series. Nothing. Do some stats on the data: nothing significant on a 4 year cycle. Hell, let's do the stats on NFP^2 (maybe there is a volatility effect?) Nope. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

You are wrong.

Re:Citation needed (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 2 years ago | (#40582127)

.Businesses hire because they need more people to do the work they have in the pipeline. Outside of a few firms in Washington, presidential elections have about 0% impact on that.

Anyone saying otherwise is has either never run a business or has an agenda to push.

I run a small business and work with other businesses small and large daily. What happens in DC affects every job in this country and the administration is responsible for setting the tone and direction of the nation in terms of it's social and economic agendas. This gets codified into laws on: ... From taxes, regulations, foreign trade the list goes on and on. Have you ever taken a look at the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs)? [slashdot.org]

Once a law goes on the book it stays there unless somebody passes another act to amend or replace it and they can be used as a carrot or a stick depending on what the administration and the congress is willing to do in terms of establishing those laws. The sad part is that they stay there unless the legislation has a built in clause for termination or it gets amended or repealed.

There's even a great section on the regulation of Steam Train Boiler modifications and repair. [cornell.edu]

Now, I'll admit that's a bit out of date in terms of relative history, but you know if we keep putting billions in to passenger train service in this country Steam Trains may make a come back with all that Coal that's not being used to generate electricity. You just never know.

Yes, this administration inherited a big mess, but it is their job to get things moving on all fronts. It's a daunting task but they could also be helping businesses in this country using the carrot and stick approach more to give those incentives to businesses to hire more in this country unlike Apple which decided a long time ago to export manufacturing overseas. You see when you create enough sticks in the forms of regulations and taxes, people will take their business overseas where they can get a better return on their investments. Then you get free trade agreements and H1B that allow your now outsourced labor and material to come in as product and you dump it on the market putting more Americans out on the street. You get that by buying lobbyists and contributing to political campaigns and eventually you get a supreme court who then says that your big business can spend whatever it wants on political ads because it's protected as "free speech."

Don't get me wrong, there's too many crybaby billionaires out there who don't want to pay their fare share however the deals they get are also in those CFRs and were legislated by the same guys in DC that seem to not have any affect on business as you say.

Re:Citation needed (0)

Richard Dick Head (803293) | about 2 years ago | (#40582201)

It still matters though.

I've chatted about the economy with quite a few principals, and it is still heavy on everyone's mind. The *perception* is that Obama and friends are out to legislate policy that is well known to cool down economies (hello Europe), come what may, and that they are only interested in bailing out big players who are bankrolling the party. Doesn't leave much room for the small- and medium-size businessman. Much of that perception is the administration's fault (look where the bail-out money and the health care waivers are going).

Even if that means nothing in the long run, and the perception is incorrect, it still has a big impact. Keep in mind, globalization has been squeezing businesses (and individual workers) for some time now, and the general response from government has been "deal with it" or that it is "positive competition beneficial to the consumer". So, we see a similar response...hunker down, cut jobs, and outsource. (As you've read in the employment threads, consultants are rolling in dough right now)

Essentially what Romney has promised is a return to the past by cutting the new legislation and government growth. Anyone who knows economics knows that, historically, that will screw the economy in the short-term, but nobody cares because in two years we'll be back to normal, and that happens to be about the same amount of time required to see a return on investment anyway.

So, like it or not, a conservative-leaning election is the finger on the trigger for *billions* of investment dollars, and *millions* of new jobs. (Yeah yeah, that "isn't fair", I know). People are more familiar with the Reagan (circa 1981) and Bush (circa 2002) formula...make hard cuts that screws everyone over for a short period of time, then ride the boom that follows. Again, I'm not saying I agree with that perception, but it is what it is.

Anyone who doesn't follow that formula gets boned. Obama and Bush Sr. are in the same boat here.

Trust me, I have no love for Romney and his frequent promises of skyrocketing immigration and an obscenely high H1-B cap. But in the long run we're better off with him, no matter what he does, due to the perceptual niche he occupies.

So, as I and I'm sure any other independent voter, see Obama's activities and really love some things that he is trying to do (insurance reform) and are ecstatic about what he has been able to knock out of the ball park (persecuting and convicting H1-B visa violators). But it isn't enough, and as a matter of practicality, I have to vote for Romney. There is just too much prosperity consigned to his coattails at this particular moment. If times were better, I'd vote differently.

And I know i'm going to get super angry replies and downmods from non-independents from both sides, but it has to be said. You should not ignore the human element when casting your ballot. There is a good time for Democrats and a good time for Republicans. (Honestly, Kerry would have done a better job, and so would have McCain) And with the situation in front of us, sans the frothy idealism, there is only one good way to go here.

Re:Citation needed (2, Insightful)

Alomex (148003) | about 2 years ago | (#40582351)

Trust me, I have no love for Romney and his frequent promises of skyrocketing immigration and an obscenely high H1-B cap. But in the long run we're better off with him, no matter what he does, due to the perceptual niche he occupies.

Sorry but the facts are against you. The economy grew faster during the "bad perception" years of Clinton than during the "good perception" years of GWB.

Re:Citation needed (1)

oztiks (921504) | about 2 years ago | (#40581437)

IT spending would be reduced in preparation to the election because people in govt jobs would be concerned for their own jobs. Plus spending on anything big would be put off until after the election incase a new govt is put in place, the old govt wouldn't want the new govt to get the kudos on anything good and anything bad can easily be blamed on the past govt decision

Re:Citation needed (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#40581451)

there's no explanation about why the presidential election would have an impact or where they are getting that data from

We don't live in a free market state. Its assumed that major government provided economic numbers are kind of pencil whipped before the election to support the incumbent. Reality is never completely on display, however, you'll get a much better look at it a couple months after the election, rather than before. You can tell any lie with statistics.

Re:Citation needed (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#40581457)

The current makeup of the US government means cooperation between parties is required to do anything useful. Current political polarization means no cooperation. The election has the possibility of changing this.

Re:Citation needed (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#40581483)

It's nonsense, that's what it is. Same as when the business press talks about "uncertainty" - it's always uncertain what's going to happen in business, and what they're really saying is "There's a slight chance that the federal government won't just do exactly what we in industry want, Waaaa!."

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581621)

Uncertainty is bad. The election could shake things up quite a bit. If Congress and the Presidency both go to the same party (whether GOP or Dem), there will be major changes. And if we have a split government again, that could be even worse. We face major challenges on the horizon regarding the national debt, entitlements, health care, and education. If the government doesn't tackle these problems (and the current group is ignoring these issues), investment will be tepid.

Presidential factors (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 2 years ago | (#40582029)

Here's a few things I hear about when I talk to business owners. 1) bush tax cut - hopefully it stands 2) buffet tax increase - hopefully it just stays a gimmick 3) estate taxes - should I divest now and drop the cash in a trust or can I wait a few years 4) h1b - how many more Indians can we get

Re:Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582039)

why the presidential election would have an impact or where they are getting that data from

Why? Uncertainty in terms of payroll concerns. Depending on who wins will determine how aggressively healthcare laws will be fucked with, and that translates into uncertainty regarding labor costs and predictions.

As for where the data comes from, well I'll put it rather simply- it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Business types listen to the news, news says they are nervous or should be nervous, business types get nervous, then tell the news they are nervous. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. It doesn't have to be that way, but largely it is.

However, I'm glad growth is slow. I'm sick of people expecting everything to boom forever. You almost always can have your choice of either a constant boom-bust cycle, or a slow stable growth cycle. The slow growth is good because it means people are just being a bunch of emotional idiots about everything, and are taking the time to really think through decisions. It means people are playing a conservative game with their money, and that's really what we need in the long term. As long as people don't listen to the government and news channels and actually panic, things should be just fine.

The powers that be (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 2 years ago | (#40582197)

would prefer Romney get elected. This isn't wacko conspiracy theory either. You need only look at the fact that Romney is the first challenger in history to out-raise and out-spend an incumbent president. That money isn't coming from the rank and file after all (they don't have it).

It's not hard to see why the ruling class prefers Romney. He's one of them (Desert Bagels anyone?) and he's made it very clear he will cut taxes on high income earners and slash government spending to make up the difference (going so far as to cut funding for police & fire departments).

Basically, we're got a ruling class that is actively crashing our economy....

Re:The powers that be (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 2 years ago | (#40582433)

Actually, I doubt this. I think that Romney is being set up by the RNC to fail. Look, the RNC leadership knows what's coming. The economy isn't going to get magically "better" or start to grow in any *significant* way, ever. By the time we get to either debt forgiveness, or debt payback, the energy resource problem starts rearing it's ugly little head (i.e. ever declining energy return - not quantity), energy prices rise globally, and down the world's economies go again.

Who the hell wants to be the party in power as all *that* happens? Better to let the lobbyist checks keep rolling into campaign coffers and the numbered anonymous accounts offshore and let the Democrats take the hits.

Fags pay me more$$$$$$$$$$ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581417)

fp

political uncertainty? (2)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#40581455)

However, hiring overall will remain soft in coming months, particularly with the presidential election in the United States and economic turmoil in the European Union.

It'll be interesting to see if this really is perceived as the problem. At least with the US, we'll see or not see big shifts in the markets after election day which is a means to test that particular part of the claim.

Re:political uncertainty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581559)

Whoever wins the next presidential elections in the US, it will make no difference.

Re:political uncertainty? (2)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40581573)

Whoever wins the next presidential elections in the US, it will make no difference.

Sure, but keep in mind that with large businesses and financial institutions, which puppet gets elected matters less than the uncertainty of not knowing which puppet gets elected. Mr Market hates uncertainty.

Re:political uncertainty? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 2 years ago | (#40581585)

Damn you, time paradoxes!

Re:political uncertainty? (1)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40581565)

However, hiring overall will remain soft in coming months, particularly with the presidential election in the United States and economic turmoil in the European Union.

It'll be interesting to see if this really is perceived as the problem. At least with the US, we'll see or not see big shifts in the markets after election day which is a means to test that particular part of the claim.

Alternatively, shit hits the fan in financial institutions, and it'll be 2008 all over again before the elections.

FIRST POST!!!!!!!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581459)

FIRST POST!!!!!!! I finally got one! Been trying for years. =^.^=

N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O P E ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582421)

You fail it.

Entitlement problems (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581473)

One of the biggest problems that I see with people who are still without jobs is that they wouldn't accept anything less than what they were making before. I know plenty of contractors from AT&T who were making $45/hr in 2006 with only Network+ and Security+ certification and a little bit of vim experience. Since the market reset itself, a couple of those guys simply refuse to take anything less than their pre-recession salaries, but they will complain to high heaven about not being able to find a job.

On the other side of the spectrum, I know plenty of kids straight out of college who expect to make $45k/year with their fresh MIS degree, and won't accept anything less. One example--it's been two years since a guy at my gym graduated college--he's still working at the same gym as a personal trainer--and won't even get his foot in the door by taking a job in the industry because they won't pay him (as an entry-level worker) what he "expects" to get paid.

Finally, and this is not a knock on our military IT people, but a lot of guys who are getting out expect to make $100k+ just because they had a high-tech job and were making $50k as an E5 (that includes a housing allowance). IMO--and I did eight years in the USMC--most of the military has a very comfortable life in terms of benefits and pay compared to the civilian world. Simply put, a lot of military IT jobs have no direct equivalent in the civilian sector unless you are willing to stay on base as a contractor, or move to DC.

My advice to these three groups: take whatever job can get. At least you will be working, and will remain marketable. The industry--hell, the entire marketplace in general--is still re-adjusting after the crash. There will likely be another crash + recession very soon. Don't expect to be flying high like we were in the Web 2.0 crash.

Re:Entitlement problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581545)

What your saying is true but it's more than that, the GenYers these days are being bread so arrogantly in uni they don't understand the concept of what a dollar is worth or where it comes from, sad thing is our economy has taught them to be that way.

I can understand the once I made $X concept and that's what I'm worth now, that eventually goes away after you can't make a mortgage payment. GenY is different, live life on credit and let the world worry about it now... I'll pick up the slack after I make my 1st million anyway.

Re:Entitlement problems (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581649)

There's a flipside to this. IT workers *have* been traditionally underpaid since around 1995 and the first wave of large-scale internet boom. Our salaries gained a bit and almost approached "worth it" around 1999-2000, but then the big dotcom bubble hit in 2001 (the people I'm talking about worked for real businesses, not stupididea.com, but were all still affected). From then on as the markets have gone through periodic mini-recession cycles and layoff seasons, the net result has been no raises. Most people I know in the IT industry are making today roughly what they made in Y2K. On average, they missed years of their expected ~5% raises per year for performance/tenure/whatever, and never really got adjusted for inflation. Sometimes it's because the layoff cycle had them switching jobs too often with every company's policy being to wait on raises for a full calendar year. More often it's just that businesses keep telling even their long term It employees things like "The economy sucked and our business is down a bit, so no raises this year".

It is complete horse-shit, and it won't turn around until people who deserve better start demanding it. If you were a productive IT employee making, for example $80K in salaried spot at a mid-large company in 2000, and you've stuck with your career and performed well and not made too many unnecessary changes of employment, and grown in responsibilities as appropriate, you *should* be making ~$130K+ today. But you're probably making $90K. They screwed you, the whole industry...

Re:Entitlement problems (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581893)

Most people I know in the IT industry are making today roughly what they made in Y2K

Uh, welcome to the real world.

It is complete horse-shit

The idea that there's supposed to be a magical fountain of never-ending salary increases? Yeah, that is complete horse shit.

Re:Entitlement problems (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about 2 years ago | (#40581731)

I'm not so sure. Some companies are loathe to hire people when they know it will be a cut in pay for the job candidate they are considering. I've had this happen to me. The potential employer assumed that I would be uninterested and not motivated when all they had to do is ask. Then, some employers have opined that new employees that have taken a pay cut from a previous job will only stay a short while. This is also flawed thinking because most people change jobs every 3-4 years nowadays anyway. In fact, I've found diminishing returns to stay with a company longer than four years because they hire new people in at higher salaries than they are willing to pay to promote within. For just one second, get off of your moral high horse and consider what it must be like to have worked hard to obtain a good salary only to get laid off. It's understandable that someone earning 45.00 per hour for a skilled position is not immediately willing to go to 20.00 per hour. I'm sure if you were in that position, you might have an ounce of understanding but, alas, I make an assumption.

well IT does not need college / the loans that (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#40581733)

well IT does not need college / the loans that come with it.

It need a trades / apprenticeship system that no only is quicker then a 2/4 year college it also give people real job skills.

Re:Entitlement problems (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | about 2 years ago | (#40581781)

Mod parent up. I've seen this pattern so many times, it's ridiculous. I've walked friends through the process of finding places to work, but they feel it's undignified to be paid less than the guy who's been there for a while.

I have seen JR / level 1 / entry-level jobs that w (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#40581797)

I have seen JR / level 1 / entry-level jobs that want a lot of experience so are there even real entry-level jobs out there.

Re:Entitlement problems (2)

staticneuron (975073) | about 2 years ago | (#40582011)

I am one of those techs that does not settle and it simply for one reason. Cost of living. If I am forced to suffer a tech job that will pay me 20k a a year or less for my abilities and experience, why bother put up with the stress. I could simply go work commission based retail or go back into the catering business. I have been in the workforce for so long and worked in so many different fields that I find that it is just plain silly to "accept" what they are offering. IMO all techs that see jobs that underpay for experience and knowledge should just avoid applying for that position because that is a trend that needs to be curbed.

Entitlement is one thing, but estimating your own worth is another. No one can tell you what you are worth (even if it is an inflated estimation) these companies are the ones that will have to make a sacrifice or simply not be able to fill a need that will only grow worse.

Re:Entitlement problems (1)

i286NiNJA (2558547) | about 2 years ago | (#40582337)

There are three Computer Science jobs for every computer science graduate. We're not getting paid enough. I also note that the military worked hard to give you low expectations, lose that attitude quick, it was just them trying to scare you into staying in. Also the pay in the military is sort of ok but not really great. A civilian who works as hard and plays the game as well as anyone in the military will go far just as long as they know where they should be expending their effort.

Re:Entitlement problems (2)

twisted_pare (1714106) | about 2 years ago | (#40582467)

I don't mean to offend, but I think we need to make some differentiation between the levels of "IT." To the lay person IT might mean someone that works with computers. However, as the TFA points out, there are many levels of IT from the person that installs desktops and support desk, to the application developers, to the datacenter operations technicians, to the CIO. The compensation varies wildly for these roles as does the level of education and demand. Personally, I'm an app dev at for a financial institution that has specialized in some Java technologies over the last several years. Our devs make well more than TFA figures and where we are located (RTP in Raleigh,NC) IT unemployment is 3%. It is very difficult to even find skilled devs before someone else hires them. What's more, our devs are flocking to SF in droves too for even higher pay. So yes, specialize and learn more. Become a Java/Compiler/OO/UML guru. Then you'll certainly be able to earn more. And, if you want better pay, go somewhere where you'll be in demand like SF, DC, RPT, etc.

Re:Entitlement problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582575)

This is true, alot of college kids expect too much, however making 20k a year in IT is not why we went to school. most entry jobs are below a living wage for someone with 60k in dept or more from student loans for colleges that said that out of college you would be making 40k or more. and when you still make the same for the job 4 years later after a promotion because of (economic hardship and raise freezes that are as long as the companys complete history) 20k a year is not enough when the student loan payments are close to 10k a year, figure in food, transportation, bills, and housing and something has to give.

and this is my problem, ive worked for 4yrs at the same job, got one raise and im now getting 10.25 an hour for tier2 work. the place i work for pays 4-6$hr less than everyone else however we are not contract, all other IT jobs i can find are all contract work were yes i can get paid more but you either have to figure looking for a new job everytime the contract expires (why hire, you dont have to give benifits) or hope you get paid in a timely manner on contract work for many companies when you go through platforms like (onforce, workmarket, fieldnation, PCSOS)

Hirring for IT has always been strong. (1)

NetNinja (469346) | about 2 years ago | (#40581607)

This is dependant for certain areas in the U.S.
You need to go to where the IT jobs are at, if you think your dirt water town is going to have an IT hirring binge you are misinformed and dilussional.

However I have seen IT salaries stay within year 1998 ranges and they never recovered after the Dot bomb crash. They have never kept pace.

Also a lot of small companies (less than 100 people) hire one IT person to be Head Chef, Bottle washer and waiter and the pay is 25% less of an expert in thier particular discipline.

The only way you are ever going to go over the 100k mark and above you need to specialize in an area that is hot and always remain hot.

1.CTO
2. Management
3. CCIE
4. CISSP
5. Oracle DBA
6. Government contract

I am sure there are others but as I have been in the job market for the past year companies are hiring at bargin prices.
If this current president is voted out we will see empolyeers start to hire and wages will go up and those employers who thought they got such a great deal hirring IT man because of a "Weak Economy" will find themselves scrambling to keep thier bargin basement IT man.

But then I have seen IT people put up with a lot of B.S. for the scrap they are managing. I have been in 3 IT compaines in the past year and to see how they manage thier infrastructure is amazing.

Low priorites
No security or lack of it
Outdated equipment including the software that should have been updated as part of the original maintenance plan.

Re:Hirring for IT has always been strong. (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about 2 years ago | (#40581763)

Some of the parent's advice might be good. Particularly the part about specializing. While it can be reasonably concluded that being a jack of all trades when it comes to IT might actually be advantageous, actually the opposite is true. Being a jack of all trades means you can be utterly abused for 30% less money per year. Specialize! A quick glimpse at the IT jobs on craigslist want SAN, NAS, DBA, and Windows Server Administration and Engineering and then the salary they are willing to pay is 45 - 50K. To keep all this running, you would be driven mad but then you are a dime a dozen. If you are truly specialized in one or two aspects of IT you are better off.

Re:Hirring for IT has always been strong. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582651)

you really need to be both. Being too specialized puts you at risk at suddenly becoming irrelevant. Being too general means you can't compete effectively with specialists for salary. Being a generalist with a specialty gives you options + some salary punching power

Re:Hirring for IT has always been strong. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581941)

I didn't go into management, and I didn't corner myself into a braindead corporate bullshit thing like CCIE, CISSP, being an Oracle DBA, etc. I've remained a *nix hacker doing cool things with a variety of good tools. Some days I'm writing infrastructure code in C and Perl, or helping developers scale application server code. Or maintaining Linux systems with automated deployment tools, or working on network infrastructure issues.

And I'm making well over the $100K mark. Salaried, full time, F1000 company, liberal-but-optional work-from-home policy. You don't have to sell out.

Re:Hirring for IT has always been strong. (2)

Shados (741919) | about 2 years ago | (#40582361)

I'm confused. On one side you tell people to go where the jobs are and on the other side you say that the only way to get over 100k is to go in specific roles. You do realize that in the big zones (California, Massachusetts and new york come to mind) , if you have over 5 or 6 year experience, don't completely suck and make under 100k you are getting screwed even if you're a code monkey, right?

Re:Hirring for IT has always been strong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582411)

Among my friends, I number a dozen open source and freeware geeks who9 do a lot of mix and match skills, SMTP, DNS, networking at every software and physical layer, security, etc. We're doing pretty well when companies aren't trapped by a long list of buzzwords they've passed to HR and expect the candidate to have every single one of those skills, but without so much expertise they'd have to pay more. (Those applicatoins are sometimes fake job ads, designed to gather arbitrary H1B workers and block more expensive Americans. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU )

A number of our clients have also realized how grotesquely expensive using foreign contractors is: the communications phase lag of a 12 hour time difference, and language differences, and the outright fraud in many resumes from overseas that is more difficult to check the references for is grossly expensive when you try to clean up the resulting mess, so I've been doing well organizing systems that they've messed up.

Re:Hirring for IT has always been strong. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40582429)

The only way you are ever going to go over the 100k mark and above you need to specialize in an area that is hot and always remain hot.

This just isn't true. Here, for example, in the Bay Area, salaries for mid-level-and-above developers of all types are higher than $95K/year. People with 5+ years of experience have no trouble finding jobs $100K/yr. And for those of you thinking that it's merely a cost-of-living adjustment, I can tell you it's not. I lived in Ohio for 7 years and the cost-of-living differential is somewhere between 10% and 15% but the salary differential is between 30% and 80% (or more).

The issue is, as one poster above put it, that Silicon Valley and the Bay Area are where the jobs are and if you're in IT and want good pay, this (and some parts of NY) are the place to be.

im making more than i did in 2008 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581719)

im making 25k more than i did in 2008. maybe those who arent are self entitled mba idiots?

Re:im making more than i did in 2008 (3, Funny)

Bigbutt (65939) | about 2 years ago | (#40581933)

Congratulations on your first job.

[John]

Re:im making more than i did in 2008 (1)

pijokela (462279) | about 2 years ago | (#40582101)

You now are not you five years ago. I think they mean that someone with X years of experience got $Y in 2008 and now they can expect about the same.

It will get worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40581863)

"... and hiring will remain soft, at least until the presidential election is over." Then it will go into the tank.

Obama will do whatever he can to get the economy revving prior to the election, including things that can't be sustained or won't work in the long run. After the election we will go back to reality.

If Romney wins, it will be worse than if Obama wins but neither has a magic bullet to revive the economy and increase employment in IT (here rather than India or China).

Uncertainty is a conservative talking point (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 2 years ago | (#40582079)

It's the gut-level certainty of most small business owners that things will get worse that's keeping them from hiring.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...