U.S. Added 818,000 Fewer Jobs Than Reported Earlier | Hacker News Reader

U.S. Added 818,000 Fewer Jobs Than Reported Earlier

nytimes.com

64 pointsnickwritesit102 comments

It's hard not to anticipate a rate cut right around the corner. But it's also kind of refreshing to be in a place where there is a meaningful rate cut the Federal Reserve can make.

Really unbelievable. I can't see any reason for a revision this big as anything other than purposeful deception.

That doesn't mean it's purposeful deception, though. Flawed methodologies have caused more and larger corrections in many things.

What would be the point of the deception? To keep rates high? Politically it would be very stupid (dropping a bomb 100 days before a national election).

The point of the deception is that no one reports the corrections while the 'X jobs added in May' reports are on the front page

Im having a hard time taking this comment seriously when this article is on the front page

Also as far as I know historically, the Govt always publishes revisions publicly. It's just that people dont know about it and dont really care to learn.

I never said the gov't doesn't publish them. I just said papers don't report them prominently. This is the first time I've seen it on the front page, despite similar corrections being made.

EDIT: actually it's nowhere to be found on the front of nytimes.com, which is dedicated to the DNC. You have to scroll to get it. Whereas the positive jobs reports are often the headliner.

> I just said papers don't report them prominently.

News, especially bad news (and when it comes to financials, news that falls outside expectations), is what gets reported. These revisions down are all over the news today.

People report this though. It's literally on the front page of the NYTimes right now (with the article this is linked to)

So this is the first time I've seen it on the front page of the NYTimes. The Biden administration has been doing this consistently for years now and normally it's buried deep inside.

EDIT: actually it's nowhere to be found on the front of nytimes.com, which is dedicated to the DNC. You have to scroll to get it. Whereas the positive jobs reports are often the headliner.

It's the third featured story for me now. The top story is one that criticizes Harris for her economic policies.

I can't find the web version for the day the original report came out, but in print the initial jobs report was on B1.

https://www.nytimes.com/issue/todayspaper/2024/03/09/todays-...

I'm not even sure if your conspiracy is that the government is cooking the books - or that newspapers are covering for Democrats.

It's not a conspiracy. It's just something I've noticed when talking to people. They will happily cite the jobs number that came out in the original report and then look blankly at you when you mention the revision. To me that indicates an imbalance.

You're literally commenting on a thread for a NYTimes piece reporting on the corrections.

If I was going to try and deceive someone, I probably wouldn't publish a revision contradicting my previous numbers. I'd publish something saying the previous numbers were correct.

If you want to keep posting numbers that show that some metric is getting better and better, you are mathematically forced to go back and reset the baselines every so often, because otherwise you're going to claim that the United States has a billion and a half jobs before long.

Plus, revisions are expected and normal. These stats are hard, and over time more data comes in about the past. What gets suspicious is how consistently the revisions are always in the direction of worse, for whatever "worse" is for the given metric. "Random" errors ought to be distributed more-or-less around zero. It indicates, if not proves, that there are more politics in these numbers than we'd like for supposedly objective metrics.

But... if you think about it hard enough, and perhaps have a dash of cynicism, it's what you'd expect. It just requires something that pretty much everyone reading this has personal experience of doing with their own managers. You know which direction to shade the results, to indicate how far the bug is towards being fixed or whatever. Nobody has to tell you. You figure it out pretty quickly.

Well, it's not just you and your manager.

The fact that revisions tend to be in one direction should tell us there’s probably some systemic/procedural reason for it, not that it’s political. I’m certainly cynical about politics, but the political explanation here just clearly doesn’t make sense.

Perhaps it's political, but not partisan. Every administration wants good economic news and more jobs created.

Where there are humans, there are politics.

There's a reason I grounded my cynicism is something that I defy anyone who has been working in a commercial environment for more than, say, a year, to say they haven't done. You've shaded the stats too. But people get this block where they think that there's some sort of boundary somewhere where people pass it and stop doing it. There isn't one. We're All Just Folk. That includes government economic statistics collectors as much as it includes your HOA as much as it includes you personally, dear reader. We're All Just Folk. There's no educational attainment, no level of responsibility, no certification, no amount of training that un-humans the humans. We're All Just Folk.

What's jerf is saying is that the systems and procedures end up being selected (to some extent maybe unconsciously) based on political considerations. This isn't a radical view. Economists and many other kinds of academics have a long history of adapting ideas, metrics and systems to please political masters. Or more accurately, to appear useful to political masters.

For example the famous 2% inflation goal is regularly presented as an apolitical target based on firm economic theory. In reality it was invented out of whole cloth for purely political reasons:

https://www.reuters.com/markets/mouse-that-roared-new-zealan...

What if, they asked, they just told everyone the rate should be much lower - say roughly 2% - and then aim for that?

"It was a bit of a shock to everyone, I think," said Roger Douglas, the Labour Party finance minister at the time who worked with the Treasury and Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) to pioneer the policy. "I just announced it was gonna be 2%, and it sort of stuck."

Like that, inflation targeting was born.

I think I understand what you're saying. Rather than "The Biden admin cooked the initial numbers to make themselves look good", it's more "The process for generating the initial numbers has been influenced by politics over the years to favor initially higher numbers." That does make sense and is certainly a possible and perhaps partial explanation for what's going on.

Yes and it's not specific to the US or any specific administration. It's also not in this case a long term thing, the problem has appeared quite recently.

Earlier this year a gap opened up between what Americans were reporting in economic confidence surveys and the official stats. Historically they've tracked very tightly, almost in lockstep, so that gives some confidence in the official data. Then suddenly Biden was touting an amazing economy and the job numbers departed from what people were reporting as their on-the-ground impression. The cause is probably double counting due to remote work, zombie job ads and so on: lots of jobs that are being advertised but are duplicates or don't really exist, caused by a combination of the pandemic and new job board websites. But if you're on Team Biden are you going to prioritize figuring out why the gap between your data and public sentiment has appeared? Maybe making yourself look bad in the process? Or will you decide that there are more important priorities elsewhere? It's probably the latter and won't even feel political, just like it's the right thing to do. Of course because these are unarticulated decisions not policies, there's always a risk of some other process or person coming in and rearranging priorities for you, which maybe is what happened here.

For another example look at the UK. Their population statistics are a mess and have been for many years. At one point the ONS even reclassified them as experimental. If you're a strongly pro-mass migration politician or cabinet, are you going to be down at the ONS giving them hell about this every day? Probably not. It's not that the numbers are cooked, but more that problems arise that nobody cares to fix because the fix would create new problems for them.

Where there are corrections, they often tend to be correlated and in a consistent direction.

e.g. Feb 2023:

> Overall, revisions to monthly growth in 2022 meant 311,000 more jobs were added last year than previously reported.

https://www.businessinsider.com/job-growth-unemployment-rate...

The surveys often seem to minimize both booms and busts, and the revisions tend to reinforce the trend.

But then you can get caught for lying or at least being incompetent, instead of just playing it off as "statistics is hard :(" If the initial claims get more press than the revisions, then it pays off. I'm really curious how often the revised figures are worse, rather than better. I have a feeling the revised figures are always worse for whatever administration is in power.

Run with bogus numbers, let the narrative set in, release revised numbers, and they hurt you for a few days but are quickly forgotten. Especially if they are released during the middle of your convention where every major outlet is absorbed with releasing puff pieces about how the VP pick is "America's dad".

Less cynical is they were crossing their fingers things would go back up. Kind of like a day trader in the red, keep on betting because eventually things will go up --maybe just not in time... this time.

Basically. Put out 10 headlines of job growth to set expectations -> market behaviour. Last part important because you can keep economy humming for some time via perception management and collective delusion. Which affects voter sentiment during election season. Have media that favours you, which MSM does dems, not emphasis revisions in news cycle. It's not about fearing getting caugh because BLS is "transparent", transparency matters much less when you have influence/control over setting news agenda.

That said, were consistent downward revisions last year historically anomolous? I've seen conspiracize so, charts et all. If true, then there's charitably some new artefact in system or uncharitably deception.

That's because you are not hoping for a rate cut in September to boost the economy right before the election.

The employment numbers have been so sketchy that this was pretty much predicted by the people who looked at them

Purposeful deception by whom and for what purpose?

By the current administration to get re-elected? I mean.. I'm not saying that's what's going on, but the motivation seems obvious to me.

What would be the point of releasing good numbers a year before the election and then forcing yourself to release worse numbers just a couple months before the election?

This observation should be really obvious. The people who think this is nefarious believe they are thinking critically. What they fail to realize is that they are skipping the part where they critically examine their own thought process.

With a retraction by the Labor Department sent out a few months ahead of the election?

One non-boogeywoman scenario is that they were hoping the numbers would reverse and look good --so they bet things would get better, but they didn't. It's a chance people will take, sometimes.

If they were willing to cook the numbers a year ago, they would certainly be willing to cook the revision numbers right before an election.

Well a simple (cynical) take is that the current administration is no longer up for re-election, they’ve been replaced by a new candidate and so now it’s okay to blame the current administration.

Equally simple is the observation that the new candidate is also a member of the current administration.

I don’t disagree, but there are also plenty of articles on many news sites which are simultaneously trying to distance Kamala from Biden.

Harris is literally the VP and takes an active role in advising and perhaps even running the current administration. Yes, she's not president, but one would hope the second-in-command would be taking on some responsibility in the administration. Thus, she very much shares this administration's success and failures.

how would releasing this new info be helpful? or are you saying this latest release is not by the current administration but the previous inaccurate release is?

I'm saying the Biden administration is ultimately honest of their own accord, but they rush to publish numbers and the media rushes to publicize the original numbers, in such a way as to make people overestimate jobs created. I've talked with people who will still cite old jobs numbers as reasons that Harris should be re-elected.

The article doesn't suggest doing this would have helped the current administration at all. Considering this was always going to get corrected around this time, quite the opposite. Any objective look at this is going to suggest it doesn't help the current administration get elected. So if we are considering conspiracy theories...

"By the current administration to get re-elected" how? Without more specifics, this is a statement you could write about literally anything the current administration is doing or not doing, so it has no explanatory power at all.

Surely revising the numbers downward close to election when people are paying most attention to them is exactly the opposite thing you would want to do to get re-elected? I'd argue the motivation for malfeasance only makes sense the opposite -- BLS does not want the administration reelected and thus is releasing worse numbers close to the election.

The scandal of never having released the numbers and a future administration finding out and publicizing it is way worse than just admitting it up front and hoping no one cares. Mark my words, when it comes to media pundits, they'll still use the old numbers from the original publications, and everyone will just go along. That's how these things work.

From Reddit[1]:

Believe it or not, I work at the BLS.

You can either choose accurate numbers or timely reports, but you can't have both.

If you want accuracy, then we need to wait for the QCEW report to be released. This is quarterly, so we wont know what the employment number for January is.. until possibly late April or Early May.

Do you care what employment was 5 months ago?

Thats why there is an annual benchmarking process, where we look back at the previous 5 quarters of QCEW data and are able to reconcile the differences.

The monthly estimation is like playing the "telephone" game. Maybe you played as a child. One person whispers a phrase into the ear of the person next to them and it gets whispered down a big line of people. Once at the end everybody laughs at how different the final phrase is compared to the original phrase.

The further away we get from the benchmarked data is the same as being further away from the first time the phrase was whispered - noise WILL enter the data - and it will begin to diverge from the "universe", or the original phrase in the telephone game.

There is no conspiracy. There are literally millions of businesses who report their employment data every month. There are easily 100+ eyes on the employment data at the BLS.

It is statistically impossible that all 100 BLS employees and the millions of reporters are all in a big "help Biden" conspiracy and there isn't a single iota of evidence or whisperings of a conspiracy.

Welcome to the nature of statistics!

1: https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/1exrj5u/comment/...

Fact-based rebuttals are not useful. People aren't seeking truth and don't care whether what they write is true or not. That's not the point.

I have the counter-reaction - this is incredibly complex data that has to be collected, and expecting it to be perfectly correct immediately every quarter is kind of nuts.

Yeah, I thought it was well known that the data is messy. They make educated guesses off the data they have monthly, and then continue to clean it up as they get more data.

Such a big revision shows the Fed may already be behind with cuts. Odds were already 100% for a cut in Sept, this new data continues to move the odds up from 25bps to 50bps.

As an aside, big government conspiracies always make me laugh because they often come from the same people who say government is incompetent.

"a downward revision of about 28 percent."

I don't expect numbers to be perfect, but with the amount of data access and computing we have, 28 percent off seems like a large amount.

The underlying estimates are for total current employed so the error was -0.5%.

Easier said than done to get an accurate estimate.

If you could do a better job, I'm sure the Federal Reserve would be interested.

This is a ~30% miss for the year, which is historically large, but not egregious.

https://www.marquetteassociates.com/nonfarm-payroll-employme...

Yeah, it was strange to see the reports.

The numbers were rosy but all the people I knew looking for jobs had a hard time landing things in contradiction of the numbers. People started doubting themselves. But I think to anyone it was obvious the numbers were wrong. In previous years, even 2022 and 2023, there was a constant stream of recruiters who late last year and all this year had dried up...

The US economy still added jobs during this period, just fewer than previously calculated.

But what kinds of jobs? Bottom of the barrel jobs, or semi-skilled, skilled and professional? That maters a lot.

I’m not making any claims about the quality or types of jobs added, just that they were. You can read the BLS publication for that kind of information.

These numbers have very little to do with a small sample of people looking for a job. Something like ~5-10 million people are looking for work at any given time, this is changes that by about 0.07 million per month.

What matters to your social circle isn’t overall jobs but how well each sector is doing. LLM’s for example probably have negligible impact on 99% of the economy but that 1% has seen real disruption.

These numbers are calculated with a lot of statistical inference. That means, among other things, that the numbers calculated at the start of a downturn end up being way off because the markets change quicker than calculations of trends.

While we need to hold data to the highest standard, these wild thoughts without proof are dangerous. The new norm of suggesting conspiracies without any evidence is a scary future for me.

Yes, the federal government could never just make a mistake.

Revisions happen all the time, sometimes more and sometimes less. https://recruitonomics.com/revisions-to-the-job-numbers-may-... It’s a headline now for different reasons!

> The revisions, which are preliminary, are part of an annual process in which monthly estimates, based on surveys, are reconciled with more accurate but less timely records from state unemployment offices. The new figures, once finalized, will be incorporated into official government employment statistics early next year.

Or you could just assume everything is a stupid conspiracy

> Really unbelievable.

It's actually not. It's only unbelievable if you don't realize this happens literally all the time.

FTA: The revisions, which are preliminary, are part of an annual process

Annual process. It happens around this time every year.

> I can't see any reason for a revision this big as anything other than purposeful deception.

Your ignorance doesn't make it deception. The argument you are making here is that someone wanted to hide these figures until less than 100 days out from the election?

If you want to go down the road of conspiracy theories: Who would benefit from that, I wonder?

The reality is this is normal, and the only people raising a fuss about this are people who don't know this happens routinely and this is not abnormal, or people who have an agenda they are pushing through deception.

This is the second largest revision ever.

But let's say it's ordinary. I'll bet that if a different admin wins the election, the same people saying this is no big deal will make it a big deal, specially if it's around mid-term elections. That's just how it is.

> But let's say it's ordinary.

Revisions happen every year. It is ordinary. It's so ordinary, that people were making predictions about these results months ago.

> I'll bet...

You'd be wrong. Because it has happened in the past, and no one is going on about conspiracy theories about us being lied to because it's dumb.

> That's just how it is.

No, it's not. Once again, you ignorance doesn't make something true.

And doubling down on that ignorance doesn't help you make your case.

I think politicians desperately want to report only positive news, and with the election coming up, it might make it easy for them to overlook certain ethical parameters. I don't know if this was purposeful deception, perhaps optimistic deception is a better way of putting it.

Did you research previous corrections? It’s my understanding that this is not unusual at all. Usually the less “evil” reason is the correct one. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/08/23/heres-why-...

https://archive.ph/SOTUY

On top of the sad state of the job market, there is a trend now on companies posting fake jobs:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/27/4-in-10-companies-say-theyve...

I haven't received a meaningful human response to my CV for two years now. First contact of any human is salary requirement and it's not 120% of pre-Covid levels but rather 80%. Big businesses shook off all employees but the most desperate and docile.

I wonder how Long COVID affects this given the Japanese are dropping out of work.

https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/medical/20240821-OYT1T50067/

The US has a scary picture too with ~11% of adults affected today:

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/long-covid-update-20...

I'm sure getting paid not to work has nothing to do with the long covid stats.

https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-...

Claiming disability benefits is way harder than you think.

A friend of mine just got a month off of work and it was trivial. All it took was telling a doctor they were tired and fatigued after COVID. Easily approved.

Your friend told me he lied to you to make you look the fool because you happily repeat anything you hear.

Why don't you do it, then, if it's so easy?

My wife is on long-term disability (Aflac) and they put her through the wringer constantly. It's as-if they have a progressive scheme they work through. As an individual reaches certain milestones, they're thrust into some new defensive position. Prove you have these problems that you have!

They send very, very misleading and confusing paperwork to her Doctors offices. Sometimes the administration staff at her specialist fills it out incorrectly, and, *poof, just like that we're going 3-4 months without disability payments while it all gets sorted out through a game of telephone.

Anyway, they're currently forcing her to appeal the SSAs decision to not give her Social Security benefits early... Which means we've had to retain a lawyer to help us understand what we're dealing with, to help us shuffle through the process, etc. Until such a time as the appeal comes back she's, once again, without disability pay.

Financially, for now, we're fine, but it's been a nonstop a headache. It's a non-trivial part of her time every week to manage this situation. Hours and hours spent on the phone with Aflac, collecting a seemingly endless amount of documentation, oftentimes having to submit, resubmit, re-resubmit the same documentation. Having to get new opinions, being told to retrain to a different career through their job placement people, etc. And it's all bullshit, and Aflac knows it -- my wife is a Senior SWE, she isn't retraining to a different career that 1) will somehow lessen the physical turmoil she's in, and 2) pays her as well as she's currently paid. And nevermind the idea that they can force you to get a new job anyway. But that doesn't matter. The goal is to keep you on the defensive, keep your back against the wall. Aflac pays an army of people to keep you totally entangled in their bullshit.

And usually she deals with her case manager, but sometimes some random case manager will call her up and they're always very, very hostile. They're very clearly trying to get an emotional reaction out of you. They pretend to not know all of the details of the case, but they're calling in a "case manager" position. They berate you, they try to get you to slip up and admit to fraud, whatever. It's a fishing expedition. It's happened probably 4 times over the last 18 months or whatever.

It just never stops. It makes me wonder why I bother with supplemental at all. If I'm dead, are my wife and kids going to have to walk through Hell and back to get that money? What's the fucking point?

One, you either didn't understand your link or over simplified to extract the scenario that fitted your view, that is not a very healthy way to discourse for you nor for the community. Saying you have long covid does not mean you can claim disability nor that you get money for said disability, it's like step one on a thirty step process.

Two, you would be surprised at how quickly staying home not doing anything gets boring. Ask any at home parent after the kids "went away". That there is a share of the population who would enjoy this yes, that this is most people no. We're simply not made to not have challenges and activity in life, both physically nor mentally.

Long COVID is a well documented health issue affecting many workers. Here is a recent publication in nature regarding how many hours are being lost in various economies.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03173-6/tables/1

National press is wedded to the narrative of "soft" "cracking" etc. but any way you look at it this nation is almost dangerously over-employed. When the labor force is bouncing off all-time highs, any direction you look is down, if you are a dedicated doom journalist.

> any way you look at it this nation is almost dangerously over-employed

Look at labor participation rates. And percentage of stem degree holders working in stem fields.

OK, I am looking at it right now. Prime-age workforce participation rate stands at 84%, a 20-year high and nearly the all-time high. What did you want it to be? Have you actually ever seen this stat?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1sW5m

I've concluded there is some segment of people who really just want everything to fail and fall apart. Any data that goes against that narrative must be fake.

I more generously conclude that they are simply being influenced by bad-faith commentators who appeal to the desire to seem smart, while the victims are also unwilling to take the time to look at primary sources. It is superficially true that the gross labor force participation rate is falling, and it is easy for shadowstats grifters to point that out. They are hoping you won't notice that this is caused entirely by Boomers retiring.

I have to generously conclude that people who think all is well live in communities of similarly educated high achieving adult.

At least 20% of adults are incapable of following a schedule, let alone holding a white collar job.

To put it another way; I don’t know a single person outside of well educated circles who is doing ok in employment (and a lot that aren’t anyway).

The bias in institutional reporting is not toward collapse. Its toward institutional status quo.

So are you just abandoning your theory of the labor force participation rate, or do you want to revise it?

Nope. I stand by all comments in this thread.

Look at wages, not jobs. Someone working three jobs who cannot make ends meet is not a success story, it is a symptom of dysfunction.

“You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that."

To a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005” ― George W. Bush

Businesses are trying to squeeze as hard as possible to maintain margins and profit levels previously seen (running "lean", outsourcing to India and South America, etc). Regardless, it is time to cut rates, no less than 50 bps next month. Preserve the labor market, to hell with the last of inflation unlikely to be squeezed out because of housing shortages and corporate consolidation.

Tech and Google are not the economy, broadly speaking. They are microcosms in a macro of ~157 million US workers (give or take).

I tend to agree that it's a pointless race to the bottom with too many jobs per household, but that's really a game theoretic outcome. If your neighbors want to "get ahead" by having two employed adults, or several jobs each, then it basically forces you to earn equivalently or you'll be priced out.

However, the most interesting thing to note is the discourse. You and the sibling commenter have advanced incompatible and opposite narratives.

I don't think it's incompatible, I think you are having trouble reconciling the data (which is totally fair, we are discussing a very complex system with a lot of inherent data blindness). Labor force participation rate is high because higher price levels have brought people back into the labor force (which fuzzes the unemployment rate, because people newly looking for a job are considered unemployed while searching), along with folks having to work multiple jobs and households that require dual incomes just to get by.

If labor force participation rate is at all time highs, unemployment is historically low but ticking up, the consumer is not confident, the number of folks searching for new jobs is at all time highs, it is taking folks 3, 6, 9, 12 months to get a job (even with "low" unemployment), and credit card and auto loan defaults are hitting a decade high, what does this tell us?

Everyone employed is meaningless if they're living hand to mouth, their job can evaporate at any time, they're filling the wage expense gap with credit (that there is evidence they're no longer able to service), and if you get knocked out of your job, it could take months or a year+ to get into a new one. I argue the economy can handle "labor shortages" (or rather, having to pay people a living wage) vs the current macro, by lowering the federal funds rate. If the Fed waits until there is a labor market crises, they're already too late.

https://www.kitco.com/news/off-the-wire/2024-08-20/fed-offic...

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/28-americans-are-no...

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/23/oxfam-report-low-wage-worker...

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/29/us-workers-are-less-satisfie...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-consumers-increasingly-tap...

https://www.bai.org/banking-strategies/credit-card-and-auto-...

https://www.marketplace.org/2024/08/20/for-most-u-s-househol...

I have tech buddies that have been out of work for almost a year now. Also Moscow is being attacked. Buckle up.

The Ukranian forces are still at least 600km away from Moscow. I doubt they would be able to achieve the same speed of advance as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion . The advance is still through lightly populated areas and has yet to reach the Kursk nuclear reactor. The main side effect is likely to be a few hundred thousand internal refugees and Russia starting to fill its own territory with landmines, rather than just its defensive lines in Ukraine.

I believe they are referring to drone strike on Moscow today: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-launches-drone-...

Honestly the most plausible explanation for same is that tech people are so overpaid with so much excess savings that they can easily spend years between jobs for no reason.

That might be the case for the top 5% of earners, but I doubt those are even the same people who have been hit by recent layoffs.

Please elaborate. For example the Google layoffs clearly targeted their most senior and highest-paid people. One of my friends with > 15 years at Google was laid off and not only are they still paying him because of the terms of the layoff, but he's also basically retired and very much not giving AF, even though he's a "prime working age" White guy that some political commentators feign so much concern over.

Have to agree because I've seen the same. One of my mentors was laid from a major tech employer after > 18 years with this organization. He's on a lengthy severance package, his kids are out of high-school, their college is set up, and he's sold out of California and moved to the other side of the country, having now bought property near where he grew up, and has started teaching as an adjunct for a nearby university. Not retired, per se, but this man has a Wikipedia page that highlights his career in this industry -- he has so much more to give but no tech employer to give it to. Good for the kids he's going to be teaching, maybe, hopefully, but it's sad to see him essentially forced into retirement for $REASONS.

Stock number go up!

Median tech people don't fit this narrative. Maybe the top 10% (if that) of tech people do.

Not to mention that software has indeed eaten the world, and now there's not much left on the menu. Especially with the recent AI hype (which is of course the end of the road, software will eat itself too).

So we will see how long these salaries are sustainable. (Oh, and of course there was a definite overproduction of developers, when everyone and their dog assumed that remote will be the undisputed default during the pandemic.)

> Honestly the most plausible explanation for same is that tech people are so overpaid with so much excess savings that they can easily spend years between jobs for no reason.

I like how people in tech are always overpaid but IP trolls, investment bankers, and physicians running "telehealth" (pay and play) clinics aren't.

People in this industry just seethe with envy whenever anyone makes more than they do. I don't know what it is so special about this particular industry that makes everyone want to be a crab in a bucket so fucking hard.

How can anyone look at the state of retail on Main Street USA since Covid-19 and think that there are lots of jobs?

Second observation - the central unemployment rate has always been a political measure.. it has always been "cooked" from the earliest days. The actual measures are complex and hard to ascertain with certainty, yet a stable single number appears out of the miasma somehow.

There isn't a stable single number.

There's not even a single number from the BLS. They produce separate numbers based on the household survey and the payroll survey.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com