Some really good news

That's certainly good to hear, Juice.

Thanks for brightening the day. :)

were the jobs in Manhattan...no matter where they located it's great news.

That is good news. No hiring news but friends co. EBIT is up big from prior month. First time that has happened in over a year.

Well, I'd like to say that I'm seeing this too, but I'm not. Instead seeing more layoffs, increased workloads, pay freezes, and in one case, a job opportunity that instead was outsourced, b/c that was cheaper.

Anyone getting a new job will be making much less than what they were making 2-4 years ago. In some cases 50% or more less. People can spin things to make them feel better, but the bottom line is that we were living beyond our means for a decade and that BUBBLE ECONOMY WILL NOT RETURN in our lifetimes. Time to adjust to reality.

Not everyone, Bsex.

Yes, pretty much anyone. Anybody making more than 2007 will be the proverbial exception that proves the rule. Heck, people still with jobs are making MUCH LESS than 2 years ago. Just accept it. Facts are stubborn things...

Um, no Bsex. That's not true at all.

Perhaps in YOUR industry, but not in mine.

BSexposer, you don't know what you're talking about as usual.

so...mattt 50% salary bump for you + 3000% bonus increase, no doubt? what does that bring your total comp to? $600?

Um, great real NYCMatt - you are utterly clueless. What industry are you in, bankruptcy counselling? Family dollar stores? Are you a repo man? YOU ARE ANOTHER NUTJOB IN DENIAL, BRO.

Sure, tax receipts are way down because...incomes are up - LMAO!!! You are a nut. Pick up a newspaper or something, dude - and READ IT.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/06/2009-07-06_senate_follies__tax_shortfall__ny_budget_nightmare.html

"get real"

matt doesn't do real.

Bsex, I work in network television. Despite my industry's relative volatility, I don't know a single colleague who left a job and took any kind of pay CUT when they found a new position. Most of them get raises. Offhand, I can think of five people who landed jobs -- with raises -- just since March of this year.

you and matt lauer, huh?

Yes, Matt is a colleague of mine.

"I work in network television"

Yeah, OK, maybe you're right about everybody getting raises - after all, I've heard from trusted sources that ad revenues are WAY UP over the past year. So, consequently, salaries in the industry must be skyrocketing. LMAO!!!

Maybe you hang out with the 20-something gofers fresh out of undergrad who recently got promoted to production assistant and went from $8/hour to $12/hour. Big deal - I'm talking about people who make real money, not $35,000 a year, dude.

how about al roker? big friend of yours as well, no doubt? you are hitting new heights of ridiculous.

p.s. when's barry coming over to dinner at your pad?

"Maybe you hang out with the 20-something gofers fresh out of undergrad who recently got promoted to production assistant and went from $8/hour to $12/hour. Big deal - I'm talking about people who make real money, not $35,000 a year, dude."

Well, since you brought it up ...

-- One colleague was hired as a news writer at one of the Big Three evening broadcasts -- $230K, up from $175K.
-- Daytime writer (soap opera) -- $550K, up from $120K when she changed from news writing to entertainment.
-- Network VP -- $600K, up from $400K as an executive producer.
-- News producer -- $170K, up from $140K at his old network.
-- Cameraman - $120K, up from $85K when he switched shows.

hilarious.

Matt, seriously, you really expect ANYONE to believe your made up BS numbers???? I mean, c'mon, dude. The "daytime writer (soap opera)" one takes the cake - very funny. You have a great imagination, I'll grant you that...

So I guess Wall Street wasn't overpaid after all.

I'm happy to hear it, Juice (you know me well enough to know I mean it), but unfortunately what I'm seeing is much closer to what tandare describes. A bunch of laid-off colleagues, freelancers half as busy or worse, scared waiters and bartenders, staffers who could always count on overtime being kept to straight-eights... Yesterday at brunch my sister was lamenting the loss of her OT and my mom was talking about a friend in her 60s working much harder for the same pay since her office was shrunk (didn't stop us from having a great day, though).

Matt, I know plenty of people in that industry and while many are chugging along as before, there have also been many layoffs. The folks I know haven't recovered as yours have. Budgets, in general, are way down.

Here is the REAL:

Investment banker - $550K in 2007, $250K in 2009 (ex-Lehman, joined boutique firm)

Lawyer (corporate) - $250K in 2007, $0 in 2009 (laid off)

Accountant - $300K in 2007, $200K in 2009 (retained job, no bonus)

ETC, ETC, ETC

BSex, you really have no clue.

Three of those people are covered by union contracts -- and two of them managed to negotiate overscale, even in this economic environment. I think that's pretty damn good news.

...not to mention all of the newly minted law school and bus school grads, classes of 2008, 2009, 2010, with no job prospects and drowning in debt from student loans. MASSIVE LABOR POOL MEANS LOWER WAGES - supply (excess) and demand (minimal) - econ 101, mattnyc.

BSex, I don't work in finance. I really can't say with any authority what they make. I'm assuming you do have some expertise in that area, so I'll defer to your numbers.

But I've been working in television for 20 years, and I know the industry, and many of the major players, inside and out.

BSexposer, you are wrong on WS compensation. Base salaries of MDs alone are $250K. You must not be from the industry.

"..not to mention all of the newly minted law school and bus school grads, classes of 2008, 2009, 2010, with no job prospects and drowning in debt from student loans. MASSIVE LABOR POOL MEANS LOWER WAGES - supply (excess) and demand (minimal) - econ 101, mattnyc."

Uh huh.

Sad.

But that has nothing to do with my industry. Those out-of-work lawyers and MBAs are not in competition for writing, producing, and directing jobs in broadcasting and film.

"BSex, I don't work in finance. I really can't say with any authority what they make. I'm assuming you do have some expertise in that area, so I'll defer to your numbers"

Yes, I work in finance. Yes, I've seen the carnage. Maybe you didn't realize it, but 75% of the NYC economy is driven by finance. It's called Wall St - and it imploded over the past year. Sorry, but network TV ain't going to save the economy in Manhattan - no chance.

But if you union guys can squeeze the network brass for a few extra bucks, more power to you - we saw how unions destroyed the automakers, no doubt you guys will destroy the networks as well. Good luck.

"But if you union guys can squeeze the network brass for a few extra bucks, more power to you - we saw how unions destroyed the automakers, no doubt you guys will destroy the networks as well."

BSex, given the fact that my industry continues to chug along WELL in the black, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Especially an industry that can pay one of its "network brass" $60 million a year.

"BSexposer, you are wrong on WS compensation. Base salaries of MDs alone are $250K. You must not be from the industry."

Why don't you tell everyone what the base salary for 2009 is for all Lehman and Bear Stearns employees. Oh, wait, I forgot, they all lost their jobs - nevermind.

"BSex, given the fact that my industry continues to chug along WELL in the black..."

Yeah, I've really see the robust health of the networks reflected in CBS's stock price - mid-2007 it was $35, now it's $6. Get real.

BSex, do you realize that stock price is not that same as earnings?

BTW, CBS lost $55 million from continuing ops in the 1st Q of 2009 - and they are "America's most-watched network", right? But, you're right, NYCMatt, things are just swell in your industry right now. LOL.

BSexposer , "Maybe you didn't realize it, but 75% of the NYC economy is driven by finance."

No you idiot. Financial services account about 35 percent of the NYC's economy.

...should've never kicked out Dan Rather. Moronic decision.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/CBS-shares-fall-as-Deutsche-apf-330187324.html?x=0&.v=1

CBS did not "lose" $55 million -- it made $55 million less. That doesn't mean it's operating in the red.

...NYCMatt, here's some more good news for your industry - DVRs are going to destroy ad revenues - sorry, dude.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/147205-dvr-ad-skipping-to-hit-18-in-two-years

"should've never kicked out Dan Rather. Moronic decision."

On this we are in perfect agreement.

"CBS did not "lose" $55 million -- it made $55 million less. That doesn't mean it's operating in the red"

Matt - are you REALLY THIS CLUELESS about your own industry? Or do you simply not understand financial statements? Read the link - they LOST (i.e., the opposite of MADE) $55 million dollars in Q1.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30625521/site/14081545?__source=yahoo%7Cheadline%7Cquote%7Ctext%7C&par=yahoo

What you apparently don't realize, BSex, is that advertisers are taking a proactive approach to this, resorting to a lot more product placement and even scripted mentions of their products in programming. It's no accident when you hear on a television show someone specifically ordering a "Coke" or reminding someone "don't forget to pick up Windex -- not that crappy generic stuff that never works."

Here, I will make it easy for you and excerpt the part about the 55 MILLION DOLLAR LOSS:

"The crash in advertising spending was reflected in the company's first quarter loss of $55.3 million, or 8 cents per share. That was down from a profit of $244.3 million, or 36 cents a share, in the period a year ago.

Revenue fell to $3.16 billion from $3.65 billion, a greater-than-expected drop for the only TV broadcast network to post increases in its prime-time audiences during the latest season. TV revenue fell 12 percent."

"The crash in advertising spending was reflected in the company's first quarter loss of $55.3 million, or 8 cents per share. That was down from a profit of $244.3 million, or 36 cents a share, in the period a year ago."

So that means they're only $189 million in the black.

Matt - you should stop posting on this subject - you embarrassed yourself enough for one day. GL.

"So that means they're only $189 million in the black"

HUH??? Dude, you've lost it completely - I feel sorry for you.

BSex, every company in every industry has ebbs and flows. Do you really not understand this?

tenemental - I'm also hearing from bartenders and waitresses about MBAs, Execs with 10+ years experience and so forth -- laid off and looking to work as bartenders or waiters. Laid off law librarians, hourly admin staff being told they’ll be working significantly more hours, but not getting paid for those hours. People in advertising, banking, et cetera — all seeing negative impacts.
I’m sure that there are people like those NYCMatt points out that are doing well. In every job market someone there are people who do well. I’m just not really hearing about many of them.

Matt - I'm sorry, but I can't have a discussion with somebody who is so clueless that they don't even understand a simple concept such as quarterly losses or gains. I just can't.

"hourly admin staff being told they’ll be working significantly more hours, but not getting paid for those hours."

How is that possible? If they are paid on an hourly basis, then they get time and a half once they go over 40 hours. That is the law.

You seem to know an awful lot about getting paid by the hour, Alpine. Just sayin'...

A lot of people are paid by the hour, not the least of which include doctors and lawyers.

ThePresident - one would think so, yet that is what this particular group of workers are being told. No idea how the employer is rationalizing this to them, I only know what I said here.

NYCMatt - I am well aware that doctors and lawyers are often paid by the hour too, but clearly that's not the group I was referring to.

ThePresident - another way of looking at it is basically the employer is saying that they will be getting a paycut across the board - their hourly rate is being cut, b/c now they'll be working more hours, but getting the same pay, thereby diluting their hourly rate by 10% or whatever the % is.
Don't ask me to explain, that's all I've got.

I have a whole shelf full of law books so I just pulled out my Employment Law book. Plus I know a lot about "getting paid by the hour" since my father was a subway conductor and as a kid he would tell me all the different ways to get the most overtime.

"NYCMatt - I am well aware that doctors and lawyers are often paid by the hour too, but clearly that's not the group I was referring to"

WRONG - lawyers (unless they are contingency fee lawyers or contract attorneys) are either (x) paid a SALARY or (y) receive a portion of the PROFITS of their law firm, and they BILL THEIR CLIENTS by the hour.

In my personal case, we simply had our hours cut (and thereby our pay).

BSexposer is right. Lawyers bill hours, but they are paid on an annual salary.

ThePresident - Really I'm not arguing about this.
The people I know of in the above situation have a base schedule of less than 40hrs per week -- adding 10% more hours doesn't bring them past 40hrs. I don't disagree with you, I have no idea what this employer is telling these people, I don't work there. I only know what I am told. I think the net effect is their hourly rate is reduced enough so that adding hours to their schedule means their employer still pays them the same money each week. -- So if 30hrs/week = $1000, now with their new "revised" rates 35hrs/week = $1000.

and there is nothing wrong with getting paid by the hour, FYI. There are plenty of hourly workers who mnake over $100k: plumbers, electricians, cops, etc.

"and there is nothing wrong with getting paid by the hour, FYI. There are plenty of hourly workers who mnake over $100k: plumbers, electricians, cops, etc."

Network television writers and Hollywood script editors among them.

Wait, who said there was anything wrong with being paid by the hour??

To get back to the original point, I claimed that Manhattan incomes will be down massively in 2009 from 2007. In my own case, in 2007 I made approx $150/hour (including cap gains). In 2009, I will likely make about $140/hour (assuming I break even in terms of cap gains), however I will likely work about 600 less hours this year due to plummeting demand for services from clients. Thus, my overall income will be down 30% from 2007 (assuming I don't get laid off). In 2008, including my capital LOSSES, I basically had ZERO NET INCOME (e.g., my investment losses completely offset my after-tax income from my job).

I ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that the vast majority of people working and living in Manhattan will be in the same boat as me (or will be worse off) in 2009 (and had a similar experience in 2008).

Dwayne Pipe cast an aspersion.

In my previous job I was paid a salary, but for the purposes of overtime, fees, and penalties my salary was pro-rated on an hourly basis to calculate the overage.

my mother is a registered nurse. Her salary has declined by $0. In fact, I think she misght even be able to get a raise.

"my mother is a registered nurse. Her salary has declined by $0."

That's great for her - however, it's meaningless in macro terms - what matters is what happens ON AVERAGE to people living and working in Manhattan. ON AVERAGE incomes in NYC are going to be WAY DOWN this year compared to 2007 (approx 20-30% less in my opinion).

No BSex, what's MEANINGLESS is computing averages based on Wall Streeters who were being paid unrealistically high compensation and have now been brought back down to reality.

NYCMatt - you are on ignore, sorry.

These are Manhattan finance jobs I am speaking of and candidly, a very small sample. They probably did accept jobs for less money but none felt like they took a job "just to work". I don't know, I was happy and encouraged by it, but I guess some of you hope no one ever finds a job.

read more carefully my friend. no one is happy about this situation.

Matt: know anyone who wants a Real Estate "investigative reporter"?

gotta remember. matt's a retired postal worker in his robe...he can't help any of us.

"but I guess some of you hope no one ever finds a job."

Aw, c'mon, Juice. Sure there are a few assholes here who feel better when other people are doing worse, but I think it's safe to say there are plenty of us here who are happy to hear of people landing on their feet (your friends included) but, man, it's an anxious time. I'm having a good year *knocks wood* - I do that a lot lately - but it's hard not to feel it when so many people you know are going through tough times.

Tandare, what you mentioned above is a big issue now: people seeking employment a few rungs down the ladder, pushing out people who would have previously been considered appropriately experienced.

JuiceMan, no one's happy about it. Glad your friends have done well, it's a tough market. I just reported what I'm hearing and experiencing myself -- and isn't so rosy for many people. But I certainly hope people keep/get decent jobs.

tenemental -- yup, it isn't much fun being in that position. Such is the market currently I guess. Not much any individual can do about it.

"Aw, c'mon, Juice. Sure there are a few assholes here who feel better when other people are doing worse, but I think it's safe to say there are plenty of us here who are happy to hear of people landing on their feet (your friends included) but, man, it's an anxious time. I'm having a good year *knocks wood* - I do that a lot lately - but it's hard not to feel it when so many people you know are going through tough times."

tenemental, agreed as always. Unfortunately two such people seem to have a lot to say on this thread, but that's what happens around here. I think most people are genuinely sympathetic as they know no one's totally immune. On my end of things, I can say (and again, very small sample size) that we are actively hiring, though surprisingly receiving few resumes, let alone decent ones. Several finance people who are tough to weed out since it's unclear whether they're just looking to land a job they might not otherwise be interested in. As for compensation, we did get a decent bonus this year, so yes, some people are making more now than 2 years ago, but I believe we're in the minority.

"Matt: know anyone who wants a Real Estate "investigative reporter"?"

I might.

Do you know one?

My EX is my barometer and she is dealing with at least 4 Temp agencies and it is bone dry. She has been temping for years and it was bad the last 4 years but now even the staff at Temp agencies are getting laid off. They have never seen it this bad......EVER!!!!!

BTW I also know many contractors and plumbers and they are barely surviving. My brother who has never struggled as a plumber has recently asked me to spread the word that he is willing to do smaller jobs. He is surprised and how bad things have gotten.