> We called it the ‘Great Reshuffling,’ because we kept seeing that people would land those jobs so quickly, even in the Bay Area,” Ratliff said. “... The jobs were still being available. They just weren’t paying as lucratively as we saw people paying right after the pandemic.”
If we were in a deep recession or something, I'd understand. Can somebody give me another reason why they did this--"coincidentally" all at the same time--other than to deliberatly lower our salaries?
What recourse do we have? Are we really powerless to do anything about this? If so, what's to prevent them doing the same thing next year?
> Can somebody give me another reason why they did this--"coincidentally" all at the same time--other than to deliberatly lower our salaries?
Market actors respond to market forces. Information cascades are real. Etc.
There are plenty of reasons we see lots of people doing the same thing at the same time that does not actually require any sort of direct coordination or conspiracy.
Well, can you give me something a bit more specific and less tautological than "Market actors respond to market forces"
What, exactly was the "market force" they are reacting to here? Is it even a market responding to market forces, or a market's efficiency being compromised by market manipulation?
The HR dept that's hiring guesses that with all the recent layoffs, people might accept a low offer, and tries one. With a few tries and candidates, the HR dept has guessed a new salary level.
Sure. But the layoffs have not stopped...so next year, people will accept an even lower salary level....etc etc.
Lowering the salaries at all during a time of record profits is a violation of the social contract, and should not be acceptable. But somehow, it's become the new normal.
The biggest factor is that internet companies experienced a huge boom during COVID and hired assuming this boom was permanent, but it turned out to be temporary, so they ended up with more staff than they needed, particularly when growth seemed to stall.
With a glut of people on the market companies naturally needed to pay less to hire them, leading to a general depressed wage level for new hires.
The COVID boom was basically over at the end of 2021, and all of 2022 was quite flat with minimal growth, and we did not return to growth until 2023.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can see 2023 as a return to growth, but it's hard to tell those early signs as different to noise without seeing the rest of the chart going into late 2023/2024.
Big tech companies have recovered now, but hiring is still restrained since they found they had a lot of work that could be cut, and nobody is excited to do layoffs again in general. Layoffs were very bad for morale.
If there are large numbers of software developers being paid much less than they are worth, start a software development company, hire them for more than they are being paid now but less than they are worth, and get rich while helping to solve the problem.
Alas, this is not really a solution: A company can happily pay a programmer way less than the value of that programmer to them---and at the same time, be paying them far more than they could earn anyplace else.
The "worth of a programmer" is not a property of that programmer, its relatively to the programmer's environment.
For example, a programmer can be many times more valuable at Microsoft--which has network/lockin effects--than they will be at a company which faces more competition. And certainly more than a company which doesn't even have a product yet, like a startup.
If you think a just wage is "whatever salary you can get", then I guess you won't find that very persuasive. But if you think a just wage is "one which is commensurate with the value the company adds to the company," you'll agree.
Looking at the numbers in the report [0], average tech salaries in 2023 were still slightly ahead of inflation relative to 2019 [1]. We were making $146k on average in 2019 (worth $178k in Dec 2023) and were making $182k in 2023.
In other words, the salary slash was more of a correction from the 2020-2022 bubble that we all knew was temporary.
17 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 52.0 ms ] threadIf we were in a deep recession or something, I'd understand. Can somebody give me another reason why they did this--"coincidentally" all at the same time--other than to deliberatly lower our salaries?
What recourse do we have? Are we really powerless to do anything about this? If so, what's to prevent them doing the same thing next year?
Market actors respond to market forces. Information cascades are real. Etc.
There are plenty of reasons we see lots of people doing the same thing at the same time that does not actually require any sort of direct coordination or conspiracy.
What, exactly was the "market force" they are reacting to here? Is it even a market responding to market forces, or a market's efficiency being compromised by market manipulation?
Lowering the salaries at all during a time of record profits is a violation of the social contract, and should not be acceptable. But somehow, it's become the new normal.
With a glut of people on the market companies naturally needed to pay less to hire them, leading to a general depressed wage level for new hires.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can see 2023 as a return to growth, but it's hard to tell those early signs as different to noise without seeing the rest of the chart going into late 2023/2024.
Big tech companies have recovered now, but hiring is still restrained since they found they had a lot of work that could be cut, and nobody is excited to do layoffs again in general. Layoffs were very bad for morale.
And I say this as someone who usually leans right :-)
If there are large numbers of software developers being paid much less than they are worth, start a software development company, hire them for more than they are being paid now but less than they are worth, and get rich while helping to solve the problem.
The "worth of a programmer" is not a property of that programmer, its relatively to the programmer's environment.
For example, a programmer can be many times more valuable at Microsoft--which has network/lockin effects--than they will be at a company which faces more competition. And certainly more than a company which doesn't even have a product yet, like a startup.
If you think a just wage is "whatever salary you can get", then I guess you won't find that very persuasive. But if you think a just wage is "one which is commensurate with the value the company adds to the company," you'll agree.
In other words, the salary slash was more of a correction from the 2020-2022 bubble that we all knew was temporary.
[0] https://app.hubspot.com/documents/21821778/view/776264836?ac...
[1] https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=146000&year1=2...