
Getting Laid Off in Tech: The Myth of Upper Middle Class Security - logicx24
https://hackernoon.com/getting-laid-off-in-tech-4e3efed8649b
======
refurb
Having been laid off due to downsizing, I think everyone should go through it
at least once. Sure, the first time will leave you panic stricken, but you'll
come out the other side with a lot more clarity about the employee-employer
relationship.

You are disposable. Even the CEO is disposable (as I've seen many times). Once
you realize that, you'll stop the BS about loyalty to your company. It's a
business arrangement, nothing more. Your job is to get the most you can
(money, experience - whatever floats your boat). If it no longer works for
you, leave. They'd do the same to you.

~~~
redundo_twa
Throwaway account because I'm currently in the middle of being laid off
("redundancy" in UK).

I thought I always had that somewhat-cynical outlook by default, coming from a
leftist family; but still, the unfairness of this process (first time for me
in 20 years of work) boils my blood. Metrics massaged to target this and that,
backstabbing, disrespecting people who built the company... all that will
forever scar the company, no matter what. Your best and brightest don't want
to live in fear, once you scare them like this they _will_ leave.

I don't understand why companies with troubled books don't just _spin off_ the
departments they want to cut: give people a chance to fend by themselves,
keeping teams together and offloading risk without losing knowledge and
propagating fear.

~~~
mseebach
Can you elaborate on the idea that companies should spin off departments? On
the face of it, I don't see how that could work, but I probably don't
understand your idea fully.

~~~
allannienhuis
The idea might work better for products than departments.

I worked for an employer who did exactly that when one of the new
product/business they'd built wasn't growing (enough?) to warrant more
investment. So he set up a couple of the developers working on the product
with the rights to the product and helped work out new contracts with the
existing handful of clients (it was large enterprise software). There was
enough revenue (maintenance contracts) to support the two guys, and so the
existing customers were taken care of in terms of maintenance. Worked out
pretty well for everyone as far as I know.

~~~
mseebach
But was the alternative in that case to fire the two employees? It sounds more
like the case that they wanted to cut the product.

Specifically, in the case of the article, spinning off the redundant employees
leaving them in a new firm with no product and no revenue sounds like a
cruelly dystopian option. And if the company was willing to put money into it,
I'm pretty sure most employees would prefer that as a severance package
instead.

~~~
allannienhuis
Cutting a product often comes with layoffs. The other products may or may not
be able to support the staff that were working on the products being cut.
Obviously the larger the company is the more likely there are other options
aside from layoffs.

In this case I expect he might have made a spot for those employees working on
a different product, but that's not certain - technologies & skills were
different & the vertical markets were completely different.

And in this specific case, the two staff thought it was an amazing opportunity
for them - I think their short-term salary went up & they got a lot more
flexibility plus potential upside if they could grow the business even slowly.
Obviously some downsides in terms of benefits, etc. But even if it didn't work
out it would have been a pretty good line item on their resume. :)

~~~
benatkin
These seem like extremely competent developers. They could have transferred
them to more important projects that had less competent developers in them,
and let two or more less competent developers go.

------
gojomo
Author is 22 years old, and was _not_ laid off. But, because some peers were –
from Snap, a boom-times high-flyer – he's now facing a crisis-of-confidence,
first in himself, and then in what feelings of security might be available
from reaching "[t]he upper middle-class, the professional class, that
venerable example of American wealth and mobility".

Well, of course working for a single hot company at 22 doesn't mean your
career is set for life. What, did he think he was going to _retire_ at Snap?

There were idiosyncratically high expectations here... and now there's an
idiosyncratically low mood, concluding "you do not have power. Remember that,
always... being a well-ground cog is exactly what sustains our machine of
systemic oppression, benefiting no one but those above."

That reads more like personal depression than an accurate extrapolation of
lessons from his recent experience. Wait until he sees a dot-com crash, or a
2008-recession – then some broad despair might be (temporarily) justifiable.
But even then, people with skills and creativity bounce back, and thrive. Not
just in tech, but other sectors, too.

But to do so, you can't let a disappointment like a layoff (of yourself or, as
here, others) send you into maudlin rumination about your own inherent
powerlessness, and the 'systemic oppression' that sometimes paying gigs end
sooner than you'd hoped. At least you can't stay in that mindset for very
long.

You can look at the same facts and instead focus on what power you do have –
the time and ability to build skills, relationships and savings that can
deliver security across many possible futures and industry cycles, without
reliance on any single employer's choices.

The people actually laid-off here may handle things better than this author –
because they have no choice but to dust themselves off and engage with a
broader world. And when a few months or a year later, they realize they're in
a _better_ place than Snap, they'll have less of the "woe-is-us" hopelessness
expressed by this author.

~~~
pm90
I kinda agree. The author does sound like he's basically still living in the
school mentality: I do X amount of work and expect Y benefits, no matter what
the economy or market is like. This seems to be his first experience with
external factors almost getting to him which made him think that the world may
not be so fair after all. Surprise, surprise...

~~~
DubiousPusher
Seems to be the author's awakening to that reality. I think that makes sense.
Money provides you guardrails akin to the guardrails institutions like school
provide.

------
vinceguidry
The author of the article is misinformed about the true landscape of wealth
and income inequality.

The middle class is ultimately defined by the ability and need to build your
own safety net. The upper middle class is able to do this with plenty of
wealth to spare for luxuries like private schooling for their kids, income
security is provided by their network. Just tap your network and find another
job. The upper middle class is unconcerned with skills and only concerned with
leeching off of the upper class.

The 'regular' middle class still needs to lean on their skill set and
willingness to move in order to provide income security. If a layoff is enough
to throw your lifestyle into disarray, you're not upper middle class, in fact
you'll never be upper middle class because you probably spend too much time
messing around with getting stuff done and not enough on greasing the
political wheels.

The upper class doesn't need to fool around with a network, they are networks
unto themselves. At this level, enough ambient wealth is floating around that
you can hire professionals to manage it for you and never have to do anything
you don't want to.

The difference between the lower class and the middle class boils down to
whether you have enough to provide for your daily needs, much less a safety
net. The lower class cannot meet expenses each month without assistance, has
no ability to build a safety net and so has no safety other than what the
government provides.

What distinguishes the lower middle class from the regular middle class is
whether they have enough left over every month to save for the future or a
rainy day.

~~~
wolfspider
This is so horribly wrong- I've known upper middle class that get there by not
spending hardly anything and owning their own business and operating it (e.g.
Gas Station + Auto Repair). No leeching there. No accounting for "Luck" here
or proximity to resources and opportunity. Do they actually teach this in
schools or what nowadays? starting to seem prevalent. Life is what you make
it, tomorrow holds no promises, opportunity doesn't knock it looks backwards
through your peephole, can't take it with you, go where the food is(!!) Heh,
how about some more pragmatic advice huh?

~~~
vinceguidry
The idea behind talking about classes isn't that there aren't people who don't
fit the mold, but to just discuss the broader trends. For every frugal
business owner making upper middle class incomes, (and deeply concerned that
the economy will continue to support their livelihoods) there's fifty filling
up middle management spots in midsize organizations or upper management spots
in small organizations, safe in the understanding that the firm they're
working for will insulate them from market trends and confident that they can
find a new berth if it doesn't.

Also, my descriptions aren't intended to be prescriptive, just descriptive.
You want to know what the landscape looks like before you try to safely
navigate it.

~~~
ericd
The problem is that unless I'm interpreting it completely incorrectly, your
descriptions are comic book renditions based on common prejudices that don't
really map to reality, which makes me question whether this is based on
experience and exposure to people in the middle and upper class or just an
amalgamation of memes you've been exposed to online and have taken as
evidence.

Doctors and lawyers typically work incredibly demanding jobs that require a
lot of up-front investment of time and money to make their outsized salaries,
and they make up a huge portion of the class you called "leeches". And far
from not needing to maintain their network, networking is incredibly important
for upper middle and upper classes.

~~~
vinceguidry
I consider professionals to be middle and not upper middle class.

~~~
ericd
Why? Many of them pull down in excess of $500k/yr.

Who do you consider to be upper middle class, if not them? You mention middle
management, most of whom make less than financially successful
doctors/lawyers.

------
replicatorblog
I'd be curious to ask the author,

\+ Have many of your laid off peers had trouble finding work, post-layoff?

\+ Do you think you'd have a difficult time finding another job if you were
laid off?

Most people in tech, who are willing to live in one of a half dozen specific
cities, have job security prior generations could only have dreamed of. Tech
skills are far more portable than a skilled line worker at Ford's River Rouge
plant in the 1960s, where job-hopping was nearly impossible due to union
senority regulations.

I work at a VC firm and every company struggles with hiring enough talented
people. I don't know many, really any, people who are moderately skilled and
unable to find work in this environment. That could change if there's a big
macro swing.

That's not to say the broader criticism of job security is wrong. I have
plenty of 50+ family members that are struggling on the finish line to
retirement. Other people in my circle never had a fair shot at the start, but
I don't know that there's ever been a better time to be a member of the
professional class, even at a mid-skill level.

~~~
Rafuino
I'd be curious to ask you what "tech skills" means. What's demanded by the
companies you refer to is likely shifting constantly. If you're not working in
the hot stack, you're not going to have job security "prior generations could
only have dreamed of."

~~~
zanny
HN might not like to hear it, but what this hive mind likes to think of as
"hot stack" \- React, Node based software in general, etc - is not even close
to the "hot stack" of almost anywhere except in the microcosm of California
around SF.

At the end of the day there will still be a dozen programming jobs in .Net or
Java to every one in the latest and greatest web tech. In equal parts because
on one hand finding people who stay contemporary with the "latest and
greatest" is expensive and because businesses don't want to use the latest and
greatest if it means changing the software they already wrote twenty years
ago.

~~~
thoughtpalette
This is an absurdly narrow view with regards in what the market/industry
wants, especially in regards to geolocation.

------
rubicon33
> Fewer and fewer careers offer a stable path to the financial and personal
> security that underwrote the Baby Boomers’ “American Dream.” Technology is
> the one career that has an optimistic future, isn’t beholden by regulation
> and credential inflation, and actually attempts to create some sort of
> meritocracy, and so, those that are fortunate enough to be in it want to
> preserve the one island of paradise left.

This really resonated with me, for a number of reasons. Primarily, it's
because I am hyper aware of how delicate this "tech boom" really is. The good
times will end, and I believe they will end sooner than most believe. I was
layed off once before because the company I worked for outsourced their entire
engineering department. That was a quick lesson for me early in my career that
you are EASILY replaced. There are people in India, China, the Ukraine, you
name it... who will do your job for half the cost.

There is an enormous, GLOBAL, influx of software engineers that is rapidly
diluting the worker pool and is quickly reducing the implicit bargaining power
that we've enjoyed for the last 10 years. Big "thanks" to all the initiatives
by well meaning, but naïve, individuals and organizations who want to "spread
the wealth" without realizing that the wealth is already spread very thin, and
is being spread thinner, and thinner, every day by mechanisms outside of our
control (cost of living, housing, taxes, etc.).

I am trying my best to save, but somehow the cost of merely existing seems to
increase month over month. I don't have kids, can't afford them. I don't have
a car payment, I bought a junker. I have minimized my expenses down to the
bare necessity and even then coming up with the down payment for a home is
going to take years. At my age, my parents were already on to their second
home. My wife has enormous student loans that cripple her ability to save so
even our dual income seems weak in this environment.

So what can you do? I'm starting a business in my after-hours and weekends,
desperately trying to establish a source of low-overhead income. I'm
specializing within my field, attempting to learn new skills in a niché
programming field that can't be easily learned by bootcamps and YouTube
videos. Above all, I'm remembering that right now things are good. This is the
calm before the storm.

~~~
Spooky23
Tech is not a meritocracy. Many of us like to think of it that way, but the
reality is that most of the jobs associated with tech are bullshit, and much
of tech headcount is IT.

The last big place that I worked could easily cut tech headcount in half and
hardly notice. A decade from now they can probably reduce headcount 80% in IT
and 75% in the business.

The impact of global growth won’t impact jobs directly for awhile. When
Chinese companies start pumping out superior product that westerners cannot
even read the manuals for, that will be the big crack.

~~~
rubicon33
> The impact of global growth won’t impact jobs directly for awhile.

That's a definitive statement that is more nuanced than that. There are
definitely people (myself included) who have been directly impacted by global
tech outsourcing.

I won't get into the specifics but I can tell you that there are an increasing
number of dev shops outside of the US that are specializing in solid
communication. That's been one of the biggest problems and hesitations from US
businesses. You need a manager in the other country, who is good. These
companies are specializing in providing a excellent teams that at a fraction
of the cost of a US team.

~~~
Spooky23
I didn’t mean to come across in such an insensitive way.

The perspective I was coming from was a little more meta. To date we’ve seen
outsourcing of business functions and consolidation of job functions where
technology advancements have reduced labor needs. VMWare eliminated datacenter
hardware teams. AWS eliminated data centers. Modern clients eliminate all of
the bullshit associated with Windows PCs.

We are getting to a point where business functions will go down the same path.
This is an age of giants.

------
sizzzzlerz
I just passed my 40th anniversary since college working in the valley. I've
worked for 3 companies, the current one I'm in my 26th year. Although all 3
companies had one or more periods of downsizing, I was never a part of any of
them but I did have to suffer colleagues and friends leaving because of them.
It's no more fun for those who are left than for those who are shown the door.
The lesson learned from that is your employer is not your friend, not your
buddy. You should never expect them to be regardless of what they say in the
mission statements. You're employed because you have some value to them. That
value goes away, you'll be out the door. Don't ever forget that and plan
accordingly.

~~~
Rafuino
Congrats! What do you think about the seemingly more common approach for newer
grads to work 2-4 years per job and then move on? I hear MBA grads on average
stay in their first job ~18 months. It's around the same length for software
engineer jobs: [https://deeptalent.com/blog/tenure-length-tech-titans-
compar...](https://deeptalent.com/blog/tenure-length-tech-titans-compared/).

Where I work now longevity is highly valued, and I think leadership is
disconnected with the reality of today's job market.

~~~
sizzzzlerz
Not having done that, I can't speak from experience but it really is an
individual decision. My first job was 6-1/2 years, the second, 9. I chose to
stay because I liked what I was doing and the people I worked with, the work
was nationally important (contracts with the intelligence community), I was
very well paid compared to peers (according to surveys I read), and the
benefits were top-notch. And, to be complete, I really hate interviewing and
starting out at the ground floor in new jobs.

Keep in mind, this is me. Your mileage may vary.

------
urda
Why is this on the front page? A recent grad, at a startup that grew too fast
taking on too many employees, and didn't even get laid off, is writing about
getting laid off? This is a medium.com fluff piece if I have ever seen one.

Come back and talk to me when you have actually been laid off.

~~~
pnw_hazor
...only when the author is 40+

I was laid off once, I made it through the first round, the day they cut me in
the second round I accepted another job offer.

Any time a company started cutting, I started looking. It was always a good
signal to leave.

------
twodave
I don't get why people ever thought a job was anything other than a strictly
professional relationship. Your employer is not your family, and if they say
you are then that's a red flag because it means your employer will want you to
give them more than they deserve.

If you are relying on a business to pay your living expenses indefinitely
because you've been loyal or whatever other nonsense, that is lunacy. If
you're not producing some kind of value then you are dragging your company
down, and you should be let go. In my opinion businesses aren't proactive
enough at firing non-contributors. Layoffs aren't great for anyone because
they kill the culture, but to avoid that someone really has to pull on some
pants, swallow their pride, admit to hiring mistakes and rectify them.

~~~
outworlder
> If you're not producing some kind of value then you are dragging your
> company down, and you should be let go.

Have you worked at big companies? This has nothing to do with producing value.
It has to do with whatever "strategic direction" the company wants to take.
You can be profitable, but your whole division will be cut off if there is a
conflict with whatever a more powerful exec is doing.

Layoffs are different from firing "low performers".

~~~
twodave
This actually explains excellently my own averseness to working at big
companies.

------
brighteyes
> Technology is the one career that has an optimistic future, isn’t beholden
> by regulation and credential inflation, and actually attempts to create some
> sort of meritocracy

One the one hand, tech might have less regulation than others - you can call
yourself a "software engineer" and work as one without any formal credentials.

But on the other hand, plenty of other fields have optimistic futures and good
guarantees of employment, the exact things the author is worried about (and
the regulation in those fields often _helps_ achieve those goals).

For example, nurses need to be certified but then they work in a field with
good salaries and plenty of jobs in a rapidly growing market:

[https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/registered-
nurses.htm](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/registered-nurses.htm)

Tech is an ok industry to work in, but there are others. Anyone that says
"tech is the only good career" is either uninformed, living in a bubble, or a
snob.

------
110011
Jesus, can you be more melodramatic, self-congratulatory and pointless all at
the same time?

~~~
qstyk
It appears the original author would be better suited in a union shop. It
would also appear that they’ve never owned a business.

~~~
Clubber
The thing about owning a business is you never hire someone unless you
absolutely, positively need to. This apparently wasn't the case at BigCo.
Maybe they're the ones that never owned a business.

~~~
bdcravens
Well, it's Snap, so that means they were pumping that sweet VC cash roll into
headcount (like any similarly funded startup). Then one day they realize that
doesn't deliver the desired growth, and they cut headcount. I've said it
before, and I know it sucks, but startup layoffs are often the result of
letting go of people that in a normal business probably shouldn't have been
there.

------
pkaye
This is how it always has been in the tech industry. It is just that the last
few years been very prosperous that many recent graduates have not even
experienced the down sides. Best things to do is keep building your skill sets
and maintain relationship and help out coworkers so that they are there when
you next need referral for a job.

------
gthtjtkt
> My first thought was relief. But that relief quickly turned back into fear.
> How disposable I was, I thought. How bound I was to the whims of others.

This is why I think we need to build more communities around cheap housing
(think manufactured homes) and shared agricultural space. At least if you lose
your job in that type of community you won't have to worry as much about
homelessness or starvation.

We're far too dependent on others for life's basic necessities, and that
drives millions of people to work themselves to death doing jobs that make
them miserable for employers who don't care about them.

------
erikb
In another context I went through that same realization of powerlessness
myself and even today I'm still surprised how we first-world people are raised
so we think so invincible about ourselves. And it's not just about our
position in society. You could just as easily die any minute. Accident,
natural disaster, world war 3, crazy coworker, jealous ex-wife. The options
are unlimited.

It shouldn't change that we take risks. Taking risks is important. But it
should make us more aware about which risks to take (e.g. waiting might be a
risk too), and how to approach risky situations.

------
mevile
Ugh, that layoff process sounded amateurish. Tapping people on the shoulder?
So snap basically called in people one at a time leaving people who were not
going to get laid off thinking they might for hours? They should have
separated everyone at the beginning into two groups, those who were getting
laid off and those who weren't so that the people who stay aren't left with
such a terrible experience.

After layoffs the company's priority should be to reassure their remaining
workers that they're OK because a shocked, shattered workforce is not a
productive one. Employees are humans and they should be treated that way, and
that should have been their priority. Snap seems terribly run based on this
post. If I had experienced this I would be looking for new work. As long as
the same people remain in charge who made those bad decisions, more bad
decisions lie on the horizon.

------
dv_dt
I think is is maybe more of a personal realization for the author, but a job
isn't security. Saving an 6-18 month buffer of expenses is a better level of
security, having a marketable skill set is some level of security.

------
desireco42
I am one of those weirdos, that change jobs so often, I do contracting often
enough, that I get fired quite often, or quit.

I remember when one big corp I had long term contract decided to 'trim the
fat' and laid us all. My neighbor felt bad and wanted to make lunch for me. I
explained her that the same day, I went to another big corp (pretending to be
startup) and got much higher rate I always wanted.

That lasted a year, then I was on my own again.

It really makes you stronger, your wife more stressed out, but my skills are
way more awesome, I contribute way more and I don't care if you need to fire
me. It will make me sad for sure, as I care about people I work with.

Anyhow, this is still true. I would love to have a place I can stay for 10-15
yrs like 'normal people'.

~~~
mancerayder
I went a similar route (contracting) but you seem to have more resilience. I
recently went a couple of months in between contracts after a long-term one
ended and started panicking after 2 months, jumping into something that wasn't
ideal. It's feast or famine with contracting, which I'm still getting used to
(hint: the feasts are easier to adapt to).

~~~
desireco42
I had those. Definitely should count on those. I don't have any good advice.
In the past I had recruiters and contacts that I could get work within days.
It gets harder.

------
scarface74
The problem is that too many people in tech think that their financial
security comes from their job and don't concentrate on learning marketable
skills.

I was at a company from 2008-2011 that went through quite a few rounds of
layoffs until they finally shut the door. Without fail, everyone who was laid
off had another job within a month.

We all knew the writing was on the wall in 2011. Management was completely
honest with us. When the day came, we all went out to lunch after our layoffs
joked around and from looking at everyone's LinkedIn profile, everyone had a
job within a month - we all got a months severance.

I'm in my mid 40s and have no desire to start a company or go into management.
I never want a job that doesn't involve hands on coding. These days I go back
and forth between contracting, full time "senior software Engineer" and
"architect". But I am aggressive about learning, I keep my resume up to date
and I'm always networking.

I don't expect any loyalty from a company. I do my best work while I'm there
and all I expect is a check twice a month. I know they will let me go if it's
best for their business and I'll leave if I can get a significantly better
offer or if I'm not growing and keeping my skills marketable.

It's never in 20 years taken me more than a little over a month to get a job
making more money from the time I've started looking - and that includes a two
week notice. I'm not bragging. In my market (not on the west coast), most
developers who know current technology can say the same.

------
trhway
this is why i don't move out of Bay Area - me and my acquaintances have been
through lay offs here at various years, during the booms and busts, and nobody
had any significant issues promptly finding a new job (with a salary increase
usually :). Compare that to, for example, the next best thing in US tech -
when AMZN says come to Seattle i always imagine being laid off from it few
years down the road (with a non-compete on top of that :), and if for any
reason i don't get a job at the only other game in the town - MS - then what?
Probably move to Bay Area :)

~~~
seattle_spring
I think it's hilarious that you think Seattle is some backwater tech nowhere
with only 2 companies.

~~~
trhway
or putting it in numbers : 530K vs. 130K (with 40K being employed at
AMZN/Seattle and 40K at MS/Seattle) - "Information" at

[https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ca.htm](https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ca.htm)

[https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/washington.htm#eag](https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/washington.htm#eag)

as i said, the next best.

Compare the scenarios:

\- a 10%, 4K layoff from AMZN would present a high, by tech standards,
unemployment situation of 4% (4K / 90K of the rest of tech capacity in WA with
almost half of it - 40K - being just one employer - MS). So it would be very
hard to choose and pick and negotiate on a new position, if any.

\- a 10%, 4K (judging by various sources, 4K is probably a bit more than 10%
of Google employees in CA) layoff from Google would just result in a hiring
frenzy by the rest of the 500K industry trying to fill the positions.

~~~
taurath
We have a 4% unemployment rate locally and there are signs everywhere for all
sorts of jobs - its pretty damn good. Most common complaint of any company in
Seattle is they can't find enough people to hire. Even a 4k layoff would
easily get absorbed (though at different rates, and many would probably get
worse pay, since AMZN is at the top of the pay scale here).

~~~
seattle_spring
Amazon's only at the top due to stock appreciation. Lyft, Airbnb, Google,
Facebook, and Uber (all of which have offices of varying sizes in the Seattle
area) pay better than Amazon.

------
throw2016
There is always a lack of empathy in these discussions. If the world looks
different depending on the situation you personally find yourself in it can't
lead to any productive discussion.

A lot of decisions that can impact the lives of many are often made for short
term self interest of a few. And upper management who make these decisions or
run companies to the ground keep floating from one high paid job to another.

The 2 senior most execs of Well Fargo for instance responsible for the fraud
and a $1 billion dollar fine get a golden parachute of around $250 million
between them. Who is going to pay for this? Customers or job cuts? And this is
not an exception. There seem to be a huge dissonance between idealized values
and reality in upper segments of society.

Ultimately as a society you commit to a set of values. These values are
reinforced by politics, media and your own experiences. Maybe you have a great
life and you don't question them, maybe you are born privileged and your
perspectives and life experiences are by definition different. But as educated
adults its your job to understand and define your society. You make the bed
and you have to lie in it.

------
awat
To comment on one of the sentiments in the last paragraph. I often find myself
wondering about the people doing the bidding above them where they are the
last one compensated on a middle-upper class level before the VP or CEO or
whoever that makes the 100X worker salary. What motivates that person? I’m
sure they are compensated very well but at an exponentially lower rate than
the will they are serving.

~~~
mseebach
You seem to imply that those top people receiving these large compensations
are obviously unfairly and massively overpaid, and that this is an
uncontroversial fact.

This clearly isn't the perception at that level. At least some number of
people at the board level, as well as presumably these top people themselves,
probably don't share that view[1]. This probably extends to the layers
immediately beneath them.

I know from my own work that I'm not bothered by the fact that other people I
sometimes interact with (I'm not the last layer before them nor do I think
"doing their bidding" accurately describes my relationship with them) are paid
significantly more than I am. I can plainly see that they are bringing skills
and experience to the table that I or others at "my level" simply do not have.

1: Never mind the fact that the market also doesn't agree. The departure of a
good CEO can move the market cap by a substantial multiple of the CEOs
compensation.

~~~
heurist
This article on CEO compensation packages is relevant:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/how-
com...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/how-companies-
decide-ceo-pay/530127/)

> Through the 1970s—when the ratio of CEOs’ pay to that of the average worker
> was much lower, at somewhere between 20:1 and 30:1—the lodestar was
> “internal equity,” or how an executive’s pay compared with that of other
> employees in the company. A nascent industry, executive-compensation
> consulting, changed this. Consultants recommended switching to “external
> equity,” meaning compensation would be based on what other CEOs were paid.
> This was merely a useful sales tool—even though the consultants didn’t have
> solid evidence or theoretical justification for this method, they could
> attract business by vowing to set ambitious goals for their clients. Still,
> corporations adopted the standard of external equity, and CEOs got a lot
> richer.

------
FlyingSideKick
After having worked at large companies and startups including founding a few
of my own it is clear that job and financial security is about equal between
the two. The last Fortune 100 company I worked for would cull thier workforce
including whole teams often regardless of individual performance every March.
If you had just happened to work on the wrong team for the wrong director too
bad for you. All to often I saw dedicated people who had sacrificed years and
long hours just get laid off seemingly out of nowhere. Directors seemed to
have the worst longevity as when a VP was let go they often got rid of his or
her management team as well.

The days of company loyalty are long gone. If you work at a large company and
have been there over a year keep actively looking for the an even better
position. You are expendable and therefore owe your employer nothing more than
what you are paid to do today. I hate being so negative but sadly this seems
to be the state of affairs these days

------
squozzer
Not sure if any job or career exists that is impervious to some kind of
replacement / oversupply. Maybe doctors, but the barrier to entry is almost
stratospheric.

Ultimately, to paraphrase Machiavelli, our ability to thrive rests on our own
prowess. I only wish such statements were immediately useful instead of
requiring lots of introspection, filed-testing, etc.

------
davepeck
I wrote about how my experience with layoffs at Silicon Graphics in 1999
turned out, in retrospect, to be extremely lucky bad luck:
[https://davepeck.org/2009/02/11/the-luckiest-bad-
luck/](https://davepeck.org/2009/02/11/the-luckiest-bad-luck/)

~~~
ghaff
Yeah, I've been lucky as well. Got laid off shortly after 9/11 from a company
that had been a really bad fit. But got a job with another quickly. Things
ended up being a bit rough financially because of industry events but it
wasn't terrible and I liked the work. Then when the writing was on the wall
for _that_ company I ended up with a new employer. It's been great across all
dimensions and probably only happened because of what I was doing previously.

------
hpcjoe
This was one of the reasons I made the case to my wife that, at the time, we
should be in control of our own destiny. No corporation would have my families
best interests at heart. No one would be looking out for them when they swung
their axe.

So, I argued that I should form a company, start working on selling,
marketing, developing, etc.

I used my layoff severance, loaded up credit cards to buy what I needed. Built
a business that survived for 14.5 years. Generated millions a year in revenue.
Had a small team working for me.

Until a bank came along and shot us in the head over an out-of-formula LOC.

So I am back working for the man. But I have so much more experience now. Much
richer in business, in management, in sales and marketing, in addition to
engineering and support. I would have done a number of things differently.

This said, having the control over your own destiny, to some degree, as much
as your customers allow, was fantastic. You winning or losing was predicated
on how hard and smart you worked.

The article is fairly accurate. Coding tests have become a thing. I've noticed
that some places ask esoteric irrelevant questions specifically to stump
people. Others are genuinely interested in your experience.

If only there was a way to avoid wasting time on the former to spend time with
the latter.

------
jpao79
Rich Dad Poor Dad has some interesting concepts. The book actually is really
poorly written (and a bit scammy) but these video synopsis actually do a
decent job of describing the concepts of passive income and differentiating
between employee, self employed, business manager and investor:

\-
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qdtzLMrb8zQ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qdtzLMrb8zQ)

\-
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1ScfCny38](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1ScfCny38)

I like to think in a small way if you own any stocks/bonds, you are in a sense
hiring employees (indirectly at arms length of course).

If you are buying SNAP, you are giving Evan Spiegel, the employee, his own
business unit and promoting him. If you are holding SNAP and not buying more,
then that's like putting Evan Spiegel on a PIP. If you are selling it, its
basically like firing Evan Spiegel for poor performance.

I'd recommend to the OP spending any remaining time after your side coding
projects learning about businesses/cashflow. To just blindly hold S&P Index
funds in your 401K is a bit a kin to hiring never doing an initial coding
review and never doing an annual perf review on your employees.

------
kraig911
Survivor Syndrome to the T. It's a part of our modern life I'm afraid. It
could be a lay off. A car crash. Any event of trauma where you didn't feel in
control. I've been laid off 3 times now - there's not a lot of ways to spin
it. Rather than trying to find it as an opportunity or BS any it all it's just
best to say it really sucks that are minds can mess us up that way. It just
sucks. Leave it at that.

------
outworlder
It's good that they realized that doing your job does not guarantee anything.
Going far and beyond you job description also doesn't guarantee anything,
although you may increase your changes of survival. There are probably
diminishing returns here. Networking inside the company, if it is big enough,
will also increase the chances of survival, as you may be able to jump ship to
another group, or even get some advance warning.

Still, the best insurance is to stash money for rainy days and have the resumé
up-to-date. As soon as the weather starts to turn (which you can detect in
many, but not all cases), jump ship. Company has zero loyalty to employees, so
theirs should not be much higher than zero either if they want to be fair.

------
justherefortart
Work for yourself. That's the answer.

One job means you get fired and you're looking for a new boss.

10 clients means if one fires you, you still have 9 you're hopefully keeping
happy.

I try to follow what I read about Gates starting Microsoft in some Biography.
He tried to keep 2x the salary of all the employees as cash on hand, so if
something went bad, they could try to weather the storm as long as possible.

So before hiring anyone as an employee (including myself), I do this with my
startups. (I work 1099 in the beginning as well and I fire myself [work
without pay] first).

Getting laid off lets you know where your loyalties should lie. The circle of
you, is what I call it.

Each circle goes out from there. For me that's the circle of my wife. Then my
immediate family. Etc.

~~~
jcadam
If I knew how to find consulting/contract clients for non-third-world-
peasantry rates, I would quit my FT job today. My employer bills me out at
~$150-200/hr, so I know it's possible, I just have no idea how to get started.

~~~
mywittyname
> I just have no idea how to get started.

Have a whole team of eager engineers ready to go for the next big project.
That's 90% of the reason your company gets the contracts they do; they (claim
they) can get 5-10 qualified engineers in the building by next Thursday. Which
is something you obviously can't do.

It's hard to find good work as an indie dev unless you have a skill-set that
works well in that setting. Either you're an industry specialist in a field,
or you're awesome at stuff that small companies need. And the market for the
latter is getting tighter every day.

Everyone I know that makes a good living as a indie contractor has themselves
as an employee, working on apps or niche websites to pay the bills during the
lean months. The outstanding ones I know can learn a new technology by
creating a marketable product from it. As in, their very first iPhone app /
website made them money.

------
minikites
>Because you do not have power. Remember that, always. When you get promoted,
when you enter management, when you get a stellar performance review, you are
simply fulfilling the whims of someone else.

I hope the author learns about labor unions some day, hopefully soon.

~~~
phil248
If you look at the advancements in worker protections in recent years, they do
not come from unions. Paid maternity/paternity leave, higher wage floors, pay
equality, paid sick leave... these are all being mandated by governments and
they apply to all workers, not by unions that represent one industry.

~~~
gamblor956
Those advancements that you speak of were all pioneered by labor unions. And
in most states they were also negotiated by labor unions, who negotiated
directly with legislators.

------
coldtea
> _And in that sense, I was as trapped as every other person who’s forced to
> work for an income. My job offered shallow perks and self-affirmation, and
> that gave me the feeling that somehow I deserved anything I’d achieved: that
> I was, in any sense of the word, “successful,” and that working at a tech
> company was something more than just a paycheck. I was nothing, I realized,
> and in my hopes of actually accomplishing something, I’d deluded myself into
> thinking I already had._

Well, sort of. At 22, and in IT, still way better off than any single mother,
non-college educated, or 40+ yo laid off person, in any other industry.

------
freshhawk
Hmm, if only there was a way for workers to actually get power ...

------
gaius
The harsh truth: you may be an excellent engineer. But your company can
probably make do with a mediocre engineer for half the cost. You may write
superb quality thoroughly tested code. But your company just needs something
that mostly works most of the time. You might be able to implement that
feature in a week, your company would be happy to have it in 6 weeks or even
months. Talent is no guarantee of job security.

A fair severance package is 1 months salary per year of employment.

------
zeveb
I'm not certain what he expects: lifetime risk-free employment? Yeah, there's
stress involved with risk. But the risk one has as an upper-middle-class
American is tech is _nothing_ compared to the risks that others alive today
face, and less than nothing compared to the risks that others in the past have
faced.

Nothing last forever. Not a job — not even one's life. Make the most of it
while you can.

~~~
logicx24
Author here. Not sure why you're being downvoted, I completely I agree with
this. The fact that even upper middle class doesn't guarantee any real
security was a huge wake-up call for me, and I can't imagine what it's like
for everyone else.

~~~
toss1
'The best security is insecurity.' \-- a concept that became apparent to me
early on, and has served me well.

To realize that whatever security there once was on corporate jobs is at best
a vanishing illusion. To realize that the way forward isn't to build on a rock
that will likely be flooded at some point, but to realize that you must surf.

While that doesn't mean that it'll all be great, it does prepare you for when
the wave does crash down on you and pummel you into the sandy bottom -- you
get back in the mix a lot faster and more capably than those who bought into
the expectation of stability.

Also can lead to a much more interesting career, even if not as consistently
lucrative.

------
fallingfrog
I can tell you exactly why they kept you and not someone else: you're the most
junior developer. The senior ones are more expensive. I've seen it before- to
make the profit margins look better in preparation for a sale they axe all
their most experienced people. It's possible that snap is about to get
purchased.

------
sunstone
Tech and security are uneasy bedfellows. Just look at what GE is going through
now, before that Nokia and before that Northern Telecom among a lot of others.
If you want security find a profession that requires a license to practice.

------
JepZ
The occupational psychologist would probably diagnose the Survivor syndrome:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_guilt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_guilt)

------
jarsin
I prefer to only work with people who have been laid off. The reason is I
can't stand all these "I'll do anything for the company types."

Truth is they are dumb and naive.

------
mooreds
The real myth is that your job is going to make you who you need to be and
provide for you.

The only thing that will make you who you need to be is you, and that is going
to require hard work to determine who you want to be and who you are capable
of being.

The only entity that can provide for you is yourself, and your determination
and willingness to work hard and take advantage of the environment you are in
to the best of your ability.

------
badpun
TL;DR: a 22 year old CS grad gets a job and learns that vanila software
development career is not going to be as exciting and rewarding journey as
he'd imagined. Good for him; for some people, it takes much longer to figure
this out.

------
debt
Hm. So he didn't get laid off? What am I reading? Why do I care what this guy
has to say? He hasn't been through it.

------
magic_beans
I can't help but wince when I read this. This guy got laid off from his very
first job. He is young -- in his twenties -- and has no family to support. He
likely got some sort of bonus/severance. He's not the LEAST bit in any sort of
dire straits...

Did he need to get laid off to realize that a) no job is forever and b) doing
all "the right things" won't ALWAYS lead to success.

I figured those were common sense.

~~~
nsp
Not that it helps, but he didn’t get laid off - just saw coworkers getting
laid off.

