Live data from Hacker News

How much have tech layoffs affected engineers vs. other departments?

blog.interviewing.io

231–240 of 359 posts

Re: How much have tech layoffs affected engineers vs. other departments?

#231
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm seeing a massive uptick in recruiting for contract roles compared to a year ago though. A year ago (and even, 3-4 months ago) it was all full time positions nearly exclusively, now it's all heavily weighted toward contract Lots of "18+ month" or "long term" contract verbiage, but contract none the less. Definitely a shift. Seeing more contract to hire too

Contract rates are down though, less than what you would expect to earn as a FTE.

I haven't seen this at all, I'm currently contracting and I see rates anywhere from 63.50 per hour to 80+. Depending on the locale and whether we're talking FAANG or not those are pretty good rates. (130-150+ respectively)

Re: How much have tech layoffs affected engineers vs. other departments?

#232
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, myself and several others I know don’t care to work on the problems that the big tech corpos are working on, no matter the salary. I make well below what I could because the things I work on are important contributions to society rather than helping an advertising business or help a closed garden become more closed.

Where do you work?

I’ve worked at several companies that have efforts in renewable energy and building energy management optimization. Reducing use and reducing peak demands mostly.

Re: How much have tech layoffs affected engineers vs. other departments?

#233

We (large FANGish) are more or less in a hiring freeze but still grabbing a few new hires here and there. A friend just interviewed for SSE at AAPL and seemed to have the job only to be told they closed the req. I'm still getting lots of recruiter spam though so I think we're still fairly early in any sort of layoff cycle. The economy is still trucking. Despite many people trying to be first to declare it, we're not…

> we're not in a recession yet. Yes, yes we are. > The Bureau of Economic Analysis, an independent federal agency that provides official macroeconomic and industry statistics, says "the often-cited identification of a recession with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth is not an official designation" and that instead, "The designation of a recession is the province of a committee of experts at the National…

I'm not convinced.

According to that page, we had 24.6% growth last year:

1.062 * 1.07 * 1.025 * 1.07 = 1.246..

YoY growth last quarter was 7.3%:

1.025 * 1.07 * 0.994 * 0.984 = 1.0727

The US GDP usually grows 3-4% per year. It's beat that on average since Covid started:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-...

So, by any reasonable definition of the terms, we're simultaneously in the middle of an economic boom and a recession.

The last few years broke all sorts of macroeconomic rules of thumb.

shrug

Re: How much have tech layoffs affected engineers vs. other departments?

#234
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like non-officially most people think of a recession simply in terms of like are less and less people able to make ends meet and less and less able to afford the same luxuries as they did before.

Sure, and by those metrics: We are at an all-time high in terms of people employed: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=UysZ People are consuming more than ever before (even accounting for inflation): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=UOQs Now, to be my own Devil's Advocate, real wages are falling (though they are at about where they were pre-pandemic: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/f…

> an all-time high in terms of people employed

The population goes up over time (and in fact is currently at an all-time high as well; the US population has never shrunk year-over-year), so this is a bum metric. The labor force participation rate is still lower than it was pre-pandemic: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=UOVS

Consumer loans are substantially higher than pre-Covid: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=UOVO (I know this isn't per-capita basis, either, but that's all they have ;-))

So, there are some data points that don't look so rosy, as well. I agree with you that the feeling on the street isn't one that of a recession, though there are hints that we are headed that way.

Re: How much have tech layoffs affected engineers vs. other departments?

#235
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bar here is interview performance bar. There is no way to judge a person's performance in 4 hours. Anything you come up with can be hacked or imperfect. Therefore there is no way to set a bar.

You can't perfectly judge someone in an interview context, but you can get pretty good if you ask the right questions with the right structure. Where I work the final round interview we give the candidates a week to write a design doc for a recent project they have worked on and present it to us in a 45 minute meeting. We deep dive on their impact, the decisions they made, the tradeoffs etc. It has been an extremely…

That process would be biased to those with experience and enough rank to be able to make decisions. It would miss those who are capable but who haven't gotten the chance. There are many, many people who haven't gotten the chance and a diminishing market of those with experience. How would an interview process identify the capable but not experienced?

It's infinitely hard. I mean, you take the same group of people and change the circumstances slightly and have a completely different outcome. Some groups don't gel. It's like last year's Super Bowl team, they're all still good but the circumstances have changed. Nobody knows how to predict who will step up in a situation and past performance is not a good indicator. The circumstances have changed.

Every interview technique has some horrible downside and therefore it's not really possible to correctly assess talent. Just biasing towards experience isn't solving the problem of figuring out who can do the job. Even just knowing who was capable would be a step up from the current state. Figuring out how to moneyball a team together to win the Super Bowl (hit launch goals) is a whole added level. Our 45 minute tell-us-about-your-previous-projects-interview is nowhere good enough.

Re: How much have tech layoffs affected engineers vs. other departments?

#236

This is likely to be the recession that halts the rapid inflation in tech wages. Rising risk free rate has hit growth companies the hardest, and there are likely to be a large swath of layoffs right as we have tons of people bootcamping and switching into the industry. Supply and demand of labor in tech will enter balance for the first time since ~2010. The FFR is looking to have a reasonable chance to go to 5% at th…

Contrary view - this will sprout more startups that were previously starved for talent rest&vesting at faang&co and we'll see much tighter market in 2-3 years.

Sprouting startups funded by what? All indications as I read are VCs becoming note risk averse right now.

Re: How much have tech layoffs affected engineers vs. other departments?

#237
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDP isn't a measure of "net drag". It is a measure of "domestic production". Imports might be relevant to some other measure of economic health, but they are irrelevant to the total value of domestic production. You want to ignore or exclude them when calculating GDP. But they are hard to exclude, because they get commingled with spending/consumption/investment. So what do you do? Leave them there, but then subtract…

Ok so now I get your convoluted point, but then great let's exclude net exports, the other categories like PCE etc. haven't declined? EDIT: I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here because I like where you're headed (ignoring the timing effect that would make GDP useless under your framework), I really do, but let me chew on this. Because it is interesting , though it does completely ignore FDI (which is how…

Sorry if it sounds convoluted, but just trying to convey the actual rationale for the GDP equation (which is ignored or forgotten in most media reports). You understand GDP (It's not adding up all the things that were made, it's measuring the value an economy produced.). Imports clearly don't count as value an economy produced, and should not be in GDP.

But if I import something, that increases GDP (spending is positive to GDP). That starts to mess up the GDP numbers, because that spending is not value an economy produced. You have two choices, try to break down every purchase into domestic or import (impossibly complicated), or just leave it all in, and subtract out total imports at the end to nullify all the import spending (or foreign investment).

If imports went up in Q2, that means spending on imports went up. Those two cancel out for no net change to GDP.

--

My best shot at not being convoluted:

Why do we subtract imports in the GDP equation? It is not because imports reduce domestic production, it is because those imports inadvertently get added in the GDP equation as spending/investment. So to remove the effect of imports entirely, we need to subtract total imports.

--

Last edit. :)

From the fed:

GDP measures domestic production of final goods and services. The expenditure approach calculates GDP using total spending on domestic goods; but the equation, as stated, can lead to a misunderstanding of how imports affect GDP. More specifically, the expenditure equation seems to imply that imports reduce economic output. For example, in nearly every quarter since 1976, net exports (X – M) have been negative (see the graph and Table 1), which seems to imply that trade reduces domestic output and growth. This can influence people's perspective on trade. This essay explains that the imports variable (M) corrects for the value of imports that have already been counted as personal consumption (C), gross private investment (I), or government purchases (G). And remember, the purchase of domestic goods and services should increase GDP, but the purchase of imported goods and services should have no direct impact on GDP.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2018...

Re: How much have tech layoffs affected engineers vs. other departments?

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess hiring for contracts routes around arbitrary headcount limits.

I think it has more to do with getting around benefits, usually. The expense for businesses isn't just the salary, in fact alot of businesses, if they could just pay the salary, would be able to retain / hire more people, but benefits + high salary is harder to take on. This is a great argument for universal healthcare and a nationalized pension system, but I digress

Tech workers are so highly compensated anyway that benefits aren't a huge percentage of the total cost of employment. The main reasons to prefer contractors in times of economic difficulty are: (a) contracts are fixed length, so it's easy to simply let a contract lapse rather than renewing it if conditions worsen/don't improve and you want to cut headcount without having a layoff, and (b) contractors frequently count differently on a balance sheet (as operating expense vs employee expense).

Re: How much have tech layoffs affected engineers vs. other departments?

#239
post #219
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tldr things are great, vote dem.

Irrelevant to the conversation and not adding anything meaningful other than revealing your biases.

And you don’t think you’re doing the same?!

Re: How much have tech layoffs affected engineers vs. other departments?

#240
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is in a recession. It has seen two quarters of negative economic growth.

I feel like a broken record but, the 'Two quarters' rule is an unofficial metric that does a bad job of representing recessions when you back-test it (no recessions from 1992-2008 in that case). In the US, a recession is defined by NBER after the fact.

I disagree with all of you. Why? I learned in middle school that a 'recession' is defined by multiple consecutive months of GDP shrinkage. That is it. That is why most experts think we are "heading" into a recession without being in one, and news flash: they are right. My normal skepticism tends to go out the window when that particular definition pays dividends over and over again.
Post reply on HN