[apohn]

It's hard to understand if this is actually related to layoffs based on larger market forces, or just a once a year house cleaning.

I've worked at places that laid people off once a year. It's a common way to give managers a way to get rid of under performing employees without the hassle of going through a PIP. The manager gets rid of a bad fit, the employee gets some severance, so both sides get something.

But since this is happening at the same time as other companies doing layoffs it can seem like it's all occuring for the same reasons.

[pinewurst]

I feel it's more market psychology in many cases - having to demonstrate to the analysts that you're being fiscally prudent (hence the commonly resultant stock price increase) rather than any particular internal need. It's a shame that perfectly decent people are being let go so that some Wall Street Chad can make a check mark.

[pixl97]

I mean it doesn't matter in the sense if those laid off can't find a job easily. The numbers are starting to build up.

[that_guy_iain]

The thing with people getting laid off is I think many of them are in the position where the only place they would fit in is a mega tech corp. And since all the mega tech corps are doing layoffs, it really doesn't seem like it's going to be that easy for them to find a job.

For example, if you've been working on a database system for 8 years, there aren't that many companies that need to develop their own internal database system so the matches are slimmer. Or if you've been doing SRE on 1k k8s clusters, there aren't that many companies that are doing k8s at that scale and working at lower scales is completely different.

Another thing with going from a mega corp to a startup/smaller business is the expected performance. Mega corps are slower with low acceptance of errors while smaller businesses are faster with a higher acceptance of errors.

This doesn't even factor in that it also seems like smaller companies are also doing downsizing at the moment. I'm seeing smaller companies add in policies which are clearly designed to make people want to quit to companies getting rid of all of their remote devs because they're the easiest to fire. The job market doesn't look good right now.

[shagie]

Yes... with qualifications.

I saw the dot com crash up close (wasn't laid off, but I saw the people who were recently laid off in the local pub with a pager that wasn't buzzing next to a pint glass... or the guy with a masters working the late shift at Blockbuster). When the housing crash came with its recession and layoffs, I was part of that.

If I had done a "I want to keep living in SF and maintain my big tech standard of living in an expensive city" it would have been difficult since there were thousands of other people who had that same idea.

Instead I moved to the midwest and got a job working in the tech department of a retail company. I did not have too much difficulty finding that job.

I've since switched to public sector and that job was not hard to get either (and for those who have applied, we've hired every competent dev who has shown up in the stacks of resumes - as this is public sector, not many apply).

There are a lot of jobs out there. Pull up https://careers.walmart.com and go to 'technology' and follow it from there. Hundreds of open positions.

If one moves away from expecting that the median job is the big tech job in SF or one that they can get remote... there are a lot of jobs out there.

However, from many that I've see on tech career sites, the mere thinking of getting a job at Wallmart is beneath them. That SRE with 1k k8s clusters? https://careers.mcdonalds.com/global-corporate/jobs/40600010... or https://careers-chickfila.icims.com/jobs/12125/lead-site-rel...

[apohn]

You are correct that if you are unemployed and looking for a job it doesn't matter. All you see is increasing competition in the job seeker market and that sucks.

But it does matter for people who are employed and looking for jobs. If you are unhappy and/or underpaid at your current job, layoffs all caused by larger market forces might be interpreted as a hint that you should think about staying at a "safe" job unless you really hate it. However, if some significant portion of the the layoffs is due to recent over-hiring and that has now swung the other way into layoffs, changing jobs might be less risky.

[y-c-o-m-b]

> If you are unhappy and/or underpaid at your current job, layoffs all caused by larger market forces might be interpreted as a hint that you should think about staying at a "safe" job unless you really hate it.

That's an excellent point. I'm itching to leave my company at the moment, but I've avoided looking elsewhere because it's relatively "safe" (for now), so you're spot on. This also appears to be the case with literally everyone I've spoken to about the topic in my social circle. That being said, all those people have reported recent layoffs at their companies; across many different sectors and income brackets. My sister works in healthcare and said the hospital just sent out letters notifying everyone of upcoming layoffs.

[that_guy_iain]

I stayed at a company I hated for too long because it was safe - I was literally the only person who could fix the legacy system that was responsible for half of the company.

After I left, I realised how much of a negative effect the company was having on me. I had coworkers point it out and say they were sad about it but I never realised it myself until after I left and realised the difference just in my dreams nevermind all the other stuff.

[1letterunixname]

It's the upheaval and the lack of security. Not everyone can get a job instantly, especially if they're older or fresh out of college.

Another reason to favor worker-owned co-ops rather than publicly-traded companies.