Is the Job Market Dying?

Just as we saw in 2001, the market is worst for (a) recent graduates who have not yet established a professional network and (b) people who had poured into fungible commoditized job roles during the boom and were a dime a dozen when the bust came. (b) is roughly "programmer/analyst" in 2001, "Java developer" in 2008, and "data scientist" today. It's not that some people working under those titles don't have non-fungible skills, but that there are so many others with that job on their resume, that it's hard to differentiate. My advice is, _don't go looking for those jobs._ The opening anecdote in the article describes how terrible it is to try to get hired as a data scientist right now. And no wonder. The job market is flooded with low-quality data scientists.

My experience working with data scientists has drastically lowered my expectations: you get a mediocre Python programmer (you must be willing to accept Pandas + Jupyter notebooks as their work output), combined with a mediocre statistician (can do linear regression and ANOVA, but don't expect them to do it right), combined with a mediocre SQL programmer (probably SELECT, maybe JOIN if you're lucky), and a mediocre machine learning specialist (has a list of preferred sklearn functions in random priority order depending on training, plus maybe one other random library that stops working in the middle of the project due to an API change). They made up for their cheap salaries by spending lots of money on AWS.

Maybe I just got unlucky. Didn't know how to hire well. I'm sure there are good Data Scientists out there, but it's so easy to hire bad ones that it's no wonder people are reluctant to do it. If you're one of the good ones, and if you're in any way qualified for a job with a higher barrier to entry, or even just a job with a more unusual title than Data Scientist, go for that instead of trying to stand out in a sea of mediocrity.

I guess this is some high-handed attempt at a put-down.

I think you have to consider what game job-hunting/filling is.

IMHO it's essentially quite similar to mating.

In that case, you see all kinds of strategies, tailored to the environment, and other realities.

Have you thought about why you're getting all these applications that clearly don't match?

Is it because people are stupid, or lazy? Or do you think there might be some logic behind a strategy of just sending out semi-customized applications in search of a match, knowing that most are simply ignored anyway?

I mean, someone who thinks through why things are the way they are, and what to do about it, even if they can't get to an answer, is someone I would want on my team.

The last time I was in the market was September and I didn't have much trouble (I got a solid offer but decided it wasn't time to move yet). If things have changed in the past 6 months then yeah, I don't have firsthand experience in todays market. But I always see people complaining about this kind of stuff so I'm used to writing it off. If you think its gotten that bad I'll take your word.

I'm also in the market as a senior, went to a big name university and have been at a few companies that everyone knows so my experience being choosey may be different than others.

    I guess this is some high-handed attempt at a put-down.

I would also compare it to mating. If you're on a dating app and write love letters to every girl who's profile you like you will get roughly 0 dates (this being the "spend hours applying" approach). If you are confident, believe you're the prize and try to find girls you're a match with then you will have a lot more success.

like sometimes that bureaucracy is a good thing. i remember an uncle who worked for EMC talking to me about being a big company vs. small company person; each has an advantage.