The current job market is punishing poorly run companies. It's too easy to pick up the phone and get a new job quick these days if you're unhappy, contributing to churn.
Some industries are so backwards and difficult to disrupt that many companies can just continue operating this way for many generations of staff turnover.
Once the talent pipeline fills up (not likely) or leadership realizes that technology is a mixed blessing and may not be worth the complexity. Right now you have to have technology to compete but eventually mid sized companies will realize it's not worth the millions a year it takes to try and keep up with the Joneses and keep the technology as simple as possible.
However, it's also difficult to find unskilled labor so the only alternative is automation. Just look at all the companies that won't answer a phone anymore and force you to do everything through an app.
So IMO tech wages will remain high for quite some time.
Many people look at a chart that goes up and down and imagine they see cycles. It's popular to speak of business cycles, for example. Unfortunately, it is not clear that anything in the economy oscillates such that it's appropriate to describe the system as having cycles.
You might have heard of Fourier transforms. Any time-series can be transformed into its sinusoidal components, even if a composition of waves is not a good model.
It's possible, and in my opinion more likely, that the business cycle is not a cycle at all.
Close. It's more a comment on the structure of those random variations, and whether it's appropriate to describe the system as periodic at all.
For example, sometimes it rains, and sometimes the sun shines. Is the weather cyclical? Depends on the place, time, and time-scale you're considering.
Maybe a better example is roulette. If you watch the "cycles" of red and black, you might imagine you could make predictions. Gamblers are often fooled by this randomness.
How is everyone moving and also moving somewhere better? Is it not the case that the majority of open job opportunities are ones other people have recently left from unhappiness?
I think there's a lot of "grass is greener" moves happening. Unless you have trusted friends working in a company, it is very hard to tell if it actually is better than your current situation until you've tried it. None of the sources of information available to an outsider (including Glassdoor reviews and HN posts extolling the virtues or sounding off about the horribleness of a given company) are particularly predictive of what your individual experience will be, from what I have seen. There's just too much variability, and too much bias in each narrator.
Not only that, jobs seem to have a "honeymoon" period after which you start to notice more issues you might have originally ignored (so things seem fine for the first few months)
> How is everyone moving and also moving somewhere better?
Several of us exited a toxic company semi-recently.
For what it's worth, it was common for people to take minor cuts to total compensation. The old, toxic company had evolved to pay well because it was the only way they could retain people (however briefly) through the obvious toxicity. We just didn't talk about it publicly much.
But it didn't matter. Huge quality of life improvement and I don't really miss the extra money.
I just ask if they do daily standups, and see what they say. It's a pretty good indicator. The more clueless the more religious they are about them (imho)