Plenty of NYC Jobs Await Tech Workers

Pres, we are quite realistic. We have settled and hired people who are average when necessary. However, there are some key positions/key projects where we cannot just settle. We eventually find what we are looking for, many times through referrals/networking. It's almost always worth the wait. For the times where we settled, we were disappointed more than half the time.

"Perhaps the perfect candidate your looking for does not exist. Plenty of employers have unrealistic expectations and that is why their jobs go unfilled."

TRUE STORY:

I was wooed by the CEO of a PR agency a few months ago. Apparently a friend had dropped him my resume and he gave me a call. He was looking for a VP of Media, and the "ideal" candidate would have had at least 10-15 years of "solid media experience."

I have 22 years. At the highest levels at two television networks and four radio networks. Check.

Then he drops the other shoe.

"Well, I was kind of hoping that in addition to your impressive media background, you were going to tell me that what the resume didn't say was that you'd also had at least 7-10 years of AGENCY experience. And since most of our clients are from the financial sector, another 7-10 years of Wall Street experience -- preferably at a hedge fund -- would have been ideal."

WTF???

I lost all pretense of politeness and said "Well, unfortunately, I'm only 40 years old. You just asked for 40 YEARS of experience. The "ideal candidate" for this position, according to your criteria, started his media career while Nixon was in office, moved over to Madison Avenue just after the crash of '87, and then landed his hedge fund job right around the time we all started using cell phones and logging onto the Internet."

He said he liked my "spunk" and said "let's keep in touch."

Whatever.

Are you Spunky?

"More specifically, I was trying to tell NYCMatt that his friends might not be as overqualified as he/they claim to be, because if they truly were, they would be employed by now, especially in the tech field. "

Agreed. I'm hiring at multiple levels, and haven't found one overqualified person yet!

"Agreed. I'm hiring at multiple levels, and haven't found one overqualified person yet!"

If you're in HR, you wouldn't know a "qualified" applicant if it bit you in the ass.

Sorry, but that's been my experience with every HR person and "recruiter" (just another name for HR person) I've ever encountered.

Uh, I'm not in HR.

And I know what qualified is for the positions I'm hiring for. Can't tell you how many underqualified folks with long resumes I've interviewed.

Well, if you pay enough, the "qualified" applicants will come.

I do, and they eventually do. You just have to wade through a lot of people who think they are overqualified and just aren't.

btw, I agree with you on HR reps, but it also sounds like you've never worked with a good recruiter, who is very different. Lousy anything is lousy. A good recruiter, when you work with them to define specific needs, can be a good first filter.

NYCMatt, I always enjoy your stories. No sarcasm.

We never expect someone to actually have everything we specify in our job reqs. As part of the interview process, we ask about the experience/skills that we listed in the job reqs that they don't have. A good response will include details on how they can utilize the experience that do do have to quickly pick up the experience/skills that they don't have if given the opportunity. Show us their ability and willingness to learn. Close by drawing our focus back to the strong relevant experience that they do have.

While your 'spunky' answer is entertaining, it probably won't get you the job.

NYCMatt, I agree with the stupidity of the whole thing, but they were only asking for 22-35 years of experience, not 40.

inonada, why can't the 10-15 'solid media experience' be at an AGENCY dealing with Wall Street clients? Employers always look for the 'ideal candidate' and the candidates look for the 'ideal job', but both eventually learn and accept that they just have to settle on the best they can find.

Here's the latest NYC unemployment report:
http://www.labor.state.ny.us/stats/nyc/index.shtm

Who thinks unemployment rate will be below 9% in NYC by the end of the year?

I'm already starting to hear the phrase "hiring freeze" being whispered...

"inonada, why can't the 10-15 'solid media experience' be at an AGENCY dealing with Wall Street clients? Employers always look for the 'ideal candidate' and the candidates look for the 'ideal job', but both eventually learn and accept that they just have to settle on the best they can find."

agreed. you can easily have overlapping experience.

"U.S. To Train 3,000 Offshore IT Workers"

"$22 million, federally-backed program aims to help outsourcers in South Asia become more fluent in areas like Java programming—and the English language. "

http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/integration/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226500202

Our tax dollars at work.....

Maybe some of the unemployed Americans should get a h1b equivalent visa in one of those south asia countries and signup for one of those jobs. Most should be able to pass the English portion of the training.

Because technology is cheaper than labor. Until we lower the cost of labor, by removing taxes and mandatory costs, technology will win the equation and the only workers who will be in demand, besides those who drive sales, are those who run technology.

"Until we lower the cost of labor,.."

In order to reduce the cost of labor to make the US Competitive with China and India, workers would have to be willing to make $2 an hour with no benefits. Are you willing to take this salary?

Also, anyone who does more than 2 minutes of research will easily find out that there is no shortage for tech jobs. Many companies scream that there are no engineers so that they can import more HIB engineers while US engineers are at home unemployed.

Study: No Shortage of U.S. Engineers

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2009/db20091027_723059.htm

If someone is jobless, but there is a job that pays $2, should we deny the unemployed the opportunity to make $2?

But that isn't the point. I don't want any American making $2 per hour. I want to encourage employment at fair middle class wages or better. And we do that by lowering other barriers, including taxes, government spending, waste, tolerance for illegal immigration and other bullshit.

Pres, despite the title, the article you posted doesn't actually support your view.

"Labor leaders and some experts contend that the high-tech labor shortage is a myth.

"The industry claim to need H-1Bs to remedy a labor shortage is false. Their claim that the H-1Bs are 'the best and the brightest,' needed to keep American firms innovative, is also false in the vast majority of cases. Instead, the employers' goal is use H-1Bs as a source of cheap labor," writes Norman Matloff, a computer science professor at University of California, Davis, in a 2007 report.

Regarding green cards, he says, "though the law says that an employer must attempt to find an American to fill a given job before resorting to sponsoring a foreign worker for a green card, the law is so full of loopholes that it is easy to circumvent -- fully legally."

He refers to a damning 2007 video to prove his point.

The video, which was written about in Business Week, shows immigration attorneys explaining how they help employers hire permanent foreign workers by disqualifying American workers."

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/165656.asp

Be sure to watch the video in the last link I posted. It proves my point 101%.

Tech firms invent shortage panic

It’s become the mantra of critics that public schools are not turning out enough qualified math and science graduates to meet the needs of companies in this country.

We’ve all read the stories and seen the news reports that China and India are graduating four times as many engineers as the United States and that shortage is growing dire.

But repeating something often enough does not make it true.

This year, nearly six months after the government began accepting applications for what has always been the coveted H-1B visa for qualified high-tech workers, only 46,700 petitions have been filed.

This compares with the 65,000 visas that were snapped up in just one day last year when the window opened.

But what’s overlooked is that regardless of economic conditions, companies continue to insist they need to recruit abroad because of the shortage of science, technology, engineering and math graduates produced by schools here.

Their claim doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

The latest evidence comes from a study released last month titled “Steady as She Goes? Three Generations of Students Through the Science and Engineering Pipeline.” Investigators B. Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown University and Harold Salzman of Rutgers University found that the flow of math and science students is strong — except among high achievers, who are defecting to other majors and fields.

In 2007, the same researchers reported in “Into the Eye of the Storm” that about three STEM graduates exist for every new STEM position, not counting openings caused by retirements.

They concluded that the educational system is producing a supply of qualified STEM graduates far in excess of demand.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/tech-firms-invent-shortage-190632.html

Pres, I think the H1B visa program is a net positive for the country. I am mostly against off-shoring because I believe cheap labor is available in low cost locations through the country. My opinion is based on experience hiring/managing H1B visa workers from various countries (through consulting companies), offshore staff in India and Singapore, and workers in low cost locations in other states in the US. I am not the owner of the company and my compensation is actually not based on the company's profitability. In other words I truly know what it's like on the ground and I have no reason to be overly bias.

Pres: That last article identifies the crux of the problem: the flow of students is strong "except amongst high achievers". Great. So there's a vast supply of low achieving math and science graduates. This comports with what Sunday and I have mentioned upthread--there's no shortage of people who say they'd like your job, but not many who might actually be good at it.

(I do agree that H1Bs shouldn't be used just to push down the price of labor and it seems like sometimes they are. Companies should have fair pay policies that pay people who achieve similar things similar amounts, regardless of visa status.) It's worth noting, though, that most tech work doesn't *need* to be done in the US. Trying to force companies to hire less qualified or artificially expensive US workers because of xenophobic restrictions just means more work will get moved fully offshore.

"Great. So there's a vast supply of low achieving math and science graduates."

I don't know where you got this from, but that is not true. Just because someone did not not go to MIT or Cooper Union does not mean they are a low achiever. If someone is or artificially expensive US workers a low achiever, they are likely going to flunk otu of engineering school and not graduate.

"artificially expensive US workers..."

How are US workers artifically expensive. Are you saying that a tech worker in NYC should get paid the same as one in Mumbai?

"I do agree that H1Bs shouldn't be used just to push down the price of labor and it seems like sometimes they are."

They are used to push down the price of labor. Why else would compnaies use them if there is absolutely no tech shortage in the US? Have you looked at any of the job ads for tech workers on sites like Monster? 99% of them require years of experience. Nobody wants to hire recent grads.

" that the flow of math and science students is strong — except among high achievers, who are defecting to other majors and fields."

yes, sounds perfect! plenty of engineers, just dumb ones.

When I saw this article, I just had to bump this BS thread:

Once a Dynamo, the Tech Sector Is Slow to Hire

"The chief hurdles to more robust technology hiring appear to be increasing automation and the addition of highly skilled labor overseas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/business/economy/07jobs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

Another reason that the tech labor shortage is complete nonsense is the rampant age discrimination. A UC Davis professor studied this issue very closely and found that only 19% of computer science grads are employed as programmers 20 years after graduation, compred to 52% of civil engineers employed in jobs relating to their major:

http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~matloff/h1b.html

@somewhereelse made a great point differentiating b/w people with lots of qualifications vs. people who are not qualified for the actual job at hand (which makes them UNDER-qualified).

I also agree that senior level people are UNDER-qualified. Depending on the industry, they simply are not qualified to go back in the trenches, if it requires skilled work. Assembly line? Sure. Knowledge worker? Not.

NYCMatt comes from the media sector, where I suppose Sr. Mgmt can just roll their sleeves up and do the dirty mid-level stuff again, if that lower level work is just not innately complex.

somewhereelse comes from a tech/finance sector, so his bias is knowing that nothing is more laughable than some manager who has been dealing with Gantt charts for 5-10 years thinking he's going to "just start coding/trading again". Yea, I don't think so. Often, they were barely mediocre even the first time around. If I were hiring for a financial software developer, I would never hire someone who has been rotting away in mgmt. Or someone who hasn't made a trade in 5-10 years. He's UNDERQUALIFIED b/c he's effectively worked in a different career, for the last 5-10 years. You might as well hire an oncologist or family law attorney. They're equally "overqualified".

Can you guys having trouble filling $100/hr+ gigs specify what sort of sector/roles/positions they are? And how the applicants are falling short when drill down into what exactly they know. Thank you

> Only 19% of computer science grads are employed as programmers 20 years after graduation, compred to 52% of civil engineers employed in jobs relating to their major:

Nonsense study. So many confounding variables there. Perhaps CS majors have a higher IQ. Hence, they might move ono bigger and better careers. Smart people simply have more options. For example, How many quant traders do you know with a CS degree? Now, how many Civil engineers? Also, a CS major is more likely to get paid well for 20 years (6-figs within a few years), and leave the field entirely via early retirement. The age discrimination myth in tech is rampant bullshit, provided you have maintained your skillset, and are willing to work a full week. People over 40 tend to do neither.

Those are some pretty loaded comments captive. The NY Times article backs up my claim about age discrimination very well. On one hand, it profiled a 49 year old unemployed software engineer. Then, on the other hand, you have companies that are only recruiting from college campuses:

"We are firing up our **** college recruiting program, **** enduring all manner of humiliation to try to fill these jobs,” said Glenn Kelman, chief executive of Redfin, an online brokerage agency for buying and selling homes that is based in Seattle and San Francisco."

college recruiting program = Old people need not apply

Silicon Valley’s dark secret: It’s all about age

An interesting paradox in the technology world is that there is both a shortage and a surplus of engineers in the United States. Talk to those working at any Silicon Valley company, and they will tell you how hard it is to find qualified talent. But listen to the heart-wrenching stories of unemployed engineers, and you will realize that there are tens of thousands who can’t get jobs. What gives?

The harsh reality is that in the tech world, companies prefer to hire young, inexperienced, engineers.

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/08/31/silicon-valley%E2%80%99s-dark-secret-it%E2%80%99s-all-about-age/

"The half-life of an engineer, software, hardware engineer is only a few years"

Craig Barrett, Former Intel Chairman

There are many unemployed rotary phone repairmen as well. Dig a little deeper. Pithy quotes and links are missing the blatant reality. You'll find the unemployed are COBOL programmers. People have haven't done squat in 15 years. Not only are they UNDER-qualified, they are UN-qualified. If you think Redfin has a bunch of college interns building their business, you're sadly mistaken. It takes a good decade before you can consider yourself a master "engineer, software, or hardware engineer". Are you even in this field?

As an engineering major, I've seen many recent graduates who have had difficulty landing a job all over the country over the past 6 years. There just aren't that many jobs, especially entry-level. I looked hard in the tri-state area for the past year and nearly position wanted 5 - 10 years experience which is ridiculous since there haven't really been many entry-level jobs available during the past 5 - 10 years. So yes, we're under-qualified in that we don't have the job experience, but many of us don't have the opportunity to get the experience that they want.

@mmarquez110, yes that is a tough Catch-22 to get that early break & meaningful experience. Also, your evidence points to the opposite of ageism. Firms want people who can get stuff done right. Often, that means experienced. End of story.

"Also, your evidence points to the opposite of ageism. Firms want people who can get stuff done right. Often, that means experienced. End of story."

NO, not "end of sotry." Ageism depends on the specific type of engineering we are talking about. Ageism tends to be the most prominent in hardware/ software enginggering as opposed to civil or mecanical engineering.

That ageism study is ridiculous. As Captive points out, it doesn't control for any of the reasons that people might leave their jobs. Just compare the personality types of people likely to enroll in a CS degree versus a civil engineer 25 years ago--likely risk-takers with a penchant for innovation jumping into an emerging field versus people looking to make important but well understood contributions to society in a stable field. Is it really surprising that the folks in the latter camp have stuck with the same career for longer? Why don't we compare computer science to music school graduates? I'm sure vastly more computer science grads remain in their profession versus professional musicians 20 years later.

It is also true that computer science is evolving far more quickly than, e.g., civil engineering, so if you don't continuously update your skillset it is possible for it to become obsolete quickly. This isn't a matter of ageism, although it does mean that those that have learned computer science more recently (regardless of age) will tend to have more relevant skills than those that learned the trade decades ago. Being a really awesome COBOL programmer is about as useful as being able to make the greatest log cabins anywhere. Now, the COBOL programmer can certainly use that knowledge as a foundation to quickly develop a skillset that will be appealing to more employers today (and, indeed, the additional experience the COBOL programmer may bring to the table will surely help avoid a lot of mistakes in situations that they've seen before), but this requires continuous reinvention on behalf of the employee rather than just assuming that what they've been doing for a long time will continue to be a marketable skill.

But ageism is not the only problem facing tech workers. It is also the fact that TONS of jobs have been lost due to outsourcing and competitition from H1B visas.

So come on, where are all the corporate whores who are going to challenge my comments about there being few tech jbs due to outsourcing and H1B visas?

Perhaps yhey're busy applying to the $100+/hr tech. jobs (ie: $250k/year) that other posters here are unable to fill and are going begging...... in the worst recession in 70 years.

"@somewhereelse made a great point differentiating b/w people with lots of qualifications vs. people who are not qualified for the actual job at hand (which makes them UNDER-qualified).

I also agree that senior level people are UNDER-qualified. Depending on the industry, they simply are not qualified to go back in the trenches, if it requires skilled work. Assembly line? Sure. Knowledge worker? Not. "

Bingo, captive. Thanks for the support.

I like your "qualifications vs. qualified" distinction... that really nails it. I see lots of long resumes with interesting experience, that often doesn't come close to the actual requirement.

@somewhereelse, you posted a dim view about Gen Y's work ethic. (Loved the "your brand" comment)

> > Showing up on time is often beneath them. Basic writing skills are so basic they apparently don't need them.

I know young bankers and lawyers who clock brutal & inhuman 7 day workweeks. The sleep in the office kind of work schedules. Also, most are ivy educated, and have impeccable writing skills. What segment are you talking about? I agree that it exists, but I just didn't envision this in finance and law.

I assume you work in finance, as per our exchange about risk premium regarding moving from cash to RE (vs. the price action itself being the risk premium, as per buying varying beta stocks like AAPL vs. MO), but I digress.

NFW, NYC isn't for true tech workers anyway.

Right now all the tech companies have it good for hiring. There's all these recently laid-off workers with tons of experience who they can cherry pick from. There's no incentive for them to hire entry level people because they can get more experienced people cheaper now.

I know a few Columbia recent PhD engineer grads who had to leave the US because they couldn't get jobs here, and many were looking all over the country. It's a bad situation.

Is it safe to say that a PhD in Engineering is overkill, if your end goal is simply to have a decent job? I doubt very many firms need or care about deep original research and theoretical aptitude. Real world experience trumps that.

Well the PhD engineerswill do the RanD which is rarer in NYarea, I know that. But this country ain't going anywhere unlesd we develop new technology which is what many eng. PhDs aRe about. But I know many well qualified BS grads that could not find jobs other than in sales.

I have an idea on how to improve the tech job market without costing the government ANY moeny at all (Riversider should love this): Suspend the H1B visa program. Suspend ALL work visas for skilled workers until the U6 unemployment rate drops to 6%.

"Right now all the tech companies have it good for hiring. There's all these recently laid-off workers with tons of experience who they can cherry pick from. There's no incentive for them to hire entry level people because they can get more experienced people cheaper now."

They can also pay peanut wages thanks to the recession. Adjusted for inflation, salaries for engineers have FALLEN.

It would appear that we're both on the same prez.

> @somewhereelse, you posted a dim view about Gen Y's work ethic. (Loved the "your brand" comment)

yup

> I know young bankers and lawyers who clock brutal & inhuman 7 day workweeks. The sleep in the office kind of
> work schedules. Also, most are ivy educated, and have impeccable writing skills. What segment are you talking
> about? I agree that it exists, but I just didn't envision this in finance and law.

Finance and law, not so much... but consider those are the "sell your soul" fields. You're getting a very specific segment of high achievers who know about the long work weeks but want the $$$.

But keep in mind... these positions have existed for quite some time. This isn't the first generation to work these jobs.

I'm thinking more about the "middle" ivy-type grads. When I was graduating, banking was still hot, but consulting was hotter. Banking had been hotter before. But think what got even hotter... the kids want hedge funds. Skip the 100 hours, work a little less, get rich quicker. Even the extremes are pulling back.

But think more of the middle. I do remember how in the dotcom era HUGE numbers of banking analysts (many of my friends) tried to jump to dotcom as well.

And I see more and more kids wanting to start companies, or join startups or whatever. Are they truly more entrepreneurial. No, thats not what the word means. They see it as a quicker way to get rich.

> I assume you work in finance, as per our exchange about risk premium regarding moving from cash to RE (vs. the
> price action itself being the risk premium, as per buying varying beta stocks like AAPL vs. MO), but I
> digress.

Used to be, and even now I'm still more on the analytical side in a field not known for being that analytical. Also just lucky that I got to study under Shiller, Swensen, etc.

Who can blame anyone for wanting to skip the 80 and 100 hour work weeks? Those kinds of schedules will put one into an early grave.

"And I see more and more kids wanting to start companies, or join startups or whatever. Are they truly more entrepreneurial. No, thats not what the word means. They see it as a quicker way to get rich."

Aside from the fact that you rant reeks of curmudgeon, this is just plain wrong. Of course there are kids out there who see Mark Zuckerberg and his purported net worth and decide to follow suit just for the money, but these are rare in the startup world (the perceived job security, for one, is simply not there, even if that perception is somewhat false - but that's for another time); I really don't know where you got this twisted opinion. Besides, the minute you start branding a wide swath of people younger than you as "lazy" or "so different from my generation" is the minute you become old and out of touch.

The 80-100 work weeks are common for first year lawyers out of the top schools and investment bankers.
It's also something not uncommon in India, China and our competitors. You may want to read Tom Friedman's "The World Is Flat"

"It's also something not uncommon in India, China and our competitors."

At Fox Conn they work 35 hour shifts. Think of the Chinese slaves the next time you use your i Phone...

Leave to to the President to compare Computer Programmers & Bankers to semi-skilled laborers.

>> Tom Friedman's "The World Is Flat"

Otherwise known as little Tommy Friedman, age 7, talking to himself in the back of a taxicab.

Every time someone mentions him, I feel compelled to remind everyone that he has the blood of thousands on his hands:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2007/08/is-tom-friedman-bad-person.html

Chinese and Indian real wages are going up like 10% a year, sorry to break it to you. REAL after inflation wages. Google the term "Chinese workers" and "strike" or "India" and "wage increases". Hell, Indian companies are outsourcing to Vietnam now. Seriously.

The free market actually does you know WORK. You can't have double GDP growth, and in the case of China, a demographic time-bomb MUCH WORSE than Japan or Italy, and NOT have wages go up.

I will help you out:

"The rising power of the Chinese worker
In China’s factories, pay and protest are on the rise. That is good for China, and for the world economy "
http://www.economist.com/node/16693333?story_id=16693333

"India's Infosys [the OUTSOURCING COMPANY] Sees Profits Trimmed By Wage Hikes"

http://www.cio.com/article/599265/India_s_Infosys_Sees_Profits_Trimmed_By_Wage_Hikes

Chinese and Indian real wages are going up like 10% a year, sorry to break it to you. REAL after inflation wages. Google the term "Chinese workers" and "strike" or "India" and "wage increases". Hell, Indian companies are outsourcing to Vietnam now. Seriously.

Speaks against deflation argument. We buy from these guys, but they still cost less than American workers.

It does, you are right. The Chinese currency is also slowly appreciating versus the yen and dollar and Euro. Very true. This will cause inflation for Chinese imported goods, but conversely make investing in the US cheaper for them. Which will also help repatriate dollars, and by a stimulus of sorts.

As for the wages being less, very true, but wages are but one component of unit costs, and as your German example shows, or as tech employment in Silicon Valley shows, its not enough to make them outsource every job. Quite the contrary - even in this dire economy tech employment in the US is much better than virtually all other sectors.

I actually worked for a tech company for a while that outsourced maintenance to India, but used that savings to hire more developers in the US, who created new products to sell, and ended up net-net with about 10% MORE US based programmers and developers and 40% MORE US-based employees overall in a span of about 2 years.

I actually worked for a tech company for a while that outsourced maintenance to India, but used that savings to hire more developers in the US, who created new products to sell, and ended up net-net with about 10% MORE US based programmers and developers and 40% MORE US-based employees overall in a span of about 2 years.

Yes, free-trade benefits everyone. But to the extent we've had lower inflation due to outsourcing or benefiting from low cost imports that game is over. The fox-con strike speaks to that.

As far as the global competitiveness, Everyone country has unique problems. We've been lucky enough to be the world reserve currency, but borrowing from abroad raises costs, and hurts our economic flexibility. And if government spends too much it also hurts or balance of trade and government spending ultimately mus be financed either through higher taxes or higher interest rates.

"The 80-100 work weeks are common for first year lawyers out of the top schools and investment bankers."

And they were pre dot-com as well, as I noted.

> It's also something not uncommon in India, China and our competitors.

Or for many immigrants here, now and before.

Difference is, I would never compare me spending 92 hours in a suit at a desk, joking around waiting much of the time, with the work my great grandfather did in the same number of hours.

Not even close.

riversider actually worked? i don't believe it.

No he was quoting me from above, he forgot the quotes.

He and I basically agree on all this.

I DO think the US needs to do more to cushion the lower classes, and I even like Mitlon Friedman's reverse income tax idea (watered down as the EITC). But like, the orginal textbook version. Not what we have now.

phew.....

I didn't want to have to change my basic opinion of him. thanks.

"I actually worked for a tech company for a while that outsourced maintenance to India, but used that savings to hire more developers in the US, who created new products to sell, and ended up net-net with about 10% MORE US based programmers and developers and 40% MORE US-based employees overall in a span of about 2 years."

That's not how outsouricng works at most companies. The savings goes to dividends and executive compensation.

"Quite the contrary - even in this dire economy tech employment in the US is much better than virtually all other sectors."

Not according to the NY Times article:

"Additionally, computer scientists, systems analysts and computer programmers all had unemployment rates of around 6 percent in the second quarter of this year.

While that might sound like a blessing compared with the rampant joblessness in manufacturing, it is still significantly higher than the unemployment rates in other white-collar professions."