It seems like most news outlets treat "tech workers" as anyone who works at a "tech" company. I wonder if they would call her a "construction worker" if she worked in the same capacity for a construction company.
I posted a comment a while back about this same phenomenon, which I can't for the life of me find now, but it was quoting some data from media posts about job cuts in the tech industry. The overarching theme was that the "tech worker layoffs" almost never featured actual, STEM degree educated, feature making, bug fixing, engineering focused, individual contributors. The layoffs impacted Sales, Marketing, Product, HR, and Manager roles. Despite this, media outlets continued to make it out as if engineers and scientists were the ones being primarily impacted. They were doing it by hiding the actual jobs roles of those being interviewed deep into the article, in a short one-liner. There was never good data to suggest who those being most effected really were.
I don't understand the reasoning behind it beyond blatant ignorance, or perhaps that they have a dislike for silicon valley types and get satisfaction out of demeaning the job role in some way by making engineers out to be as "easily dispensable" as everyone else. It's bizarre. I guess, whatever generates the most clicks.
Most of the 2022 and 2023 layoffs were for "Non-Technical" or "Tech-Adjacent staff". [0] [1] [2] [3] [4]
The market is still incredibly strong for SV caliber devs, and I see no signal it's going to slow down. If anything, it kept compensation for engineers from cratering by propping up the stocks.
> The market is still incredibly strong for SV caliber devs
Perhaps if you're comparing it to other industries, but compared to tech's own (recent) past, it's most definitely not "incredibly strong".
Not trying to be snarky, but have you actively searched for a role recently, say in the last 2 months or so? Recruiters reach out far less frequently now on LinkedIn, the common theme even among many experienced engineers these days is instant rejections, or if not that, then being rejected after goin through the final round. Very few are able to land well paying, interesting roles within weeks (or a month at most) of starting their search like they were able to even as recently as a year ago.
It's still possible to find work, but you'll quite likely have to accept a lateral move (at best) or accept a pay cut these days if you've been laid off.
Jobs fill with applicants within 30 minutes. Recruiters have 100+ applicants to chose from. Roles are not interesting. I wish you luck if you are searching..
> Jobs fill with applicants within 30 minutes. Recruiters have 100+ applicants to chose from.
That's not different than pre-layoffs.
The overwhelming majority of applicants are not qualified, or are "tech adjacent" applying for SWE to try to get "a foot in the door" (I kid you not, it happens).
> The latest round of layoffs at Facebook parent company Meta is impacting workers in core technical roles like data scientists and software engineers — positions once thought to be beyond reproach.
> Meanwhile, the economy is not as strong as it was, and Wall Street is telling tech companies that less is more. The rise of AI at work is also a contributing factor, since it allows coders to be more productive, or potentially allows employers to do the same work as before but with fewer workers.
Zero of these people have been let go because of ai yet vox is peddling this myth. How long until vox takes vice’s path?
> I don't understand the reasoning behind it beyond blatant ignorance
Because class warfare and hate drive clicks and reads. Now who else to hate if not those members of society that earned what should be normal pay? Isnt that more entertaining than hating on those who earn billions, pay little tax, drive inflation up and make us poorer by the day?
You know, the good old pity worker against worker.
No but you can say they work in the construction industry, like how the health care industry is more than just nurses, doctors, and surgeons.
I think it's fair to say that product owners and UI designers are tech workers too, but maybe the issue is that "tech industry/worker" is way too broad of a term. Especially when a lot of these roles are extremely new to humanity (engineering and doctor/healer have been around for thousands of years whereas a marketer is barely over a 100 years old).
I lean towards the "people have been people since there were people" side of the debate and assume there has been marketing since at least the invention of agriculture and its resultant ability to allow humans to make a living doing something other than calorie acquisition.
Interesting, I wonder if it would be pedantic in construing modern marketing being drastically different than marketing pre 1800s? It doesn't seem fair to to me to classify a shopkeep from antiquity shouting they have the best wine in a bazaar to be equivalent to a marketing job in Meta.
But the examples in your wiki page show just that, really neat stuff. Thanks for sharing.
If you make marketing pre-1800s, with people branding their widely distributed amphorae, making ads and so on as drastically different than modern techniques, you'd have to also consider engineering drastically different. Also, the idea of surviving a visit to the doctor is a pretty novel modern concept.
Modern consumer product branding with respect to e.g. food mostly dates to when self-service supermarkets put in an appearance. So mostly 20th Century. Although certainly there were sales adjacent and promotional activities long before that that are pretty much marketing, at least if you squint a bit.
I think there is an apprehension to use descriptive titles for whatever lame reason (I think it was to avoid status signals originally). What's wrong with administrator, clerk, etc?
Technically yes. Just like healthcare workers are people who work in healthcare and arent necessarily doctors or nurses but could be, for example, administrative or academic.
They do this with actual products as well. Companies like Ycombinator for some time were often thought of as "tech companies" and not investment banks.
I don't understand the reasoning behind it beyond blatant ignorance, or perhaps that they have a dislike for silicon valley types and get satisfaction out of demeaning the job role in some way by making engineers out to be as "easily dispensable" as everyone else. It's bizarre. I guess, whatever generates the most clicks.