throwing838383

alot of people are saying it's just a dead cat bounce. REalVision presented that in most of the past drops of this magnitude, you typically see this type of rebound before it goes lower back to retest the recent lows.

not only that but in highly competitive markets like the bay area, they may even hold out for buyers that use one of their own agents (and try not to sell to others). That way, they can make 3% commission on both the buying and selling side. It's a huge conflict of interest to their own client which technically isn't legal ~ they're supposed to consider all offers.

As a consumer of Zillow and Redfin, I like their website. But, as a house buyer, I really dislike the fact that they always try to push their buyers Agents on you.

well, it depends on whether your in a high margin or low margin business or and whether or not your a monopoly business. Amazon, entertained many offers from many cities to find the best tax incentives.

I would imagine businesses that compete with low margins would be looking for such incentives.

To get people to move somewhere, you mainly just need jobs. Everybody wants jobs. There's no choice, people have to go where jobs are because employers have much more bargaining power.

So, create some large enough tax incentives for companies to move there, and people will follow.

If you're looking for the best ROI where there are the highest SE salaries per living cost, check out: https://skilldime.com/blog/see-which-cities-pay-the-highest-...

There's many places that have great ROIs but Palo Alto isn't one of them: they're dead last.

There are many examples where that's not true: places like the beautiful college town of madison, Houston, Chicago, etc.

High living costs are a self imposed problem: housing regulation and zoning.

It's important to remember a simple fact about artificial sugars: they're about 10 times less dense than sugar (at least the one i use, which is a combo of maltodextrin and sucralose). This means that 10g of sugar is sugar sweet equivalent of about 1g of artificial sweetener. Which means if you're switching your sweetener from sugar to artificial you're getting 10 times less sweetener! Which means, even if sugar and artificial sweeteners were equally bad for you gram for gram, you're still getting 10 times less of thus 10 times less bad for you.

are there unemployment statistics for software engineers? The overall unemployment statistics are probably way off from the subset of professionals and or software engineers.

It's to keep fear of lay offs high thus making people work harder. this is especially effective with H1Bs.

However, some well qualified engineers won't be bullied by such routines: they'll simply go work somewhere they're appreciated.

i think it's just standard hire/lay off routine. It's not about the employees that get laid off.

The purpose of the lay offs is to keep everyone else working even harder. People will work even harder to keep their jobs.

For 2019 I see the following:

Less than 5 years 41% 5-10 years 27% 10-15 years 14%

As you can see, there has been a massive supply increase of junior engineers (probably entering the industry). And this massive increase will in a few years result in a massive increase in senior engineers. Right now being a senior engineer is still a huge advantage but that will diminish quickly over time.

no, data analysts as in the ones who take data exports and excel files and turn them into meaningful insights. Analyzing retention for various cohorts, analyzing revenue, engagement, etc. Data analysts mostly use SQL and maybe some Python to extract insights.

data scientists is a step up from that, and typically requires a PHD and will utilize more sophisticated statistical models.

I don't get why it's been downvoted so much. I'd expect a much warmer reception from the HN crowd.

In the bay area, Non-engineers, like product managers, MBA types and data analysts, etc are having a really hard time finding work (sometimes taking 1 to 3 years to find their next job!) based on what I've seen in my circle of friends. (unless your in a specialization that's in high demand like User acquisition).

It's the senior engineers (5+ years) which have multiple emails from recruiters and are in really high demand, not so much junior engineers.

Look at the last StackOverflow dev survey: the number of devs with 0-5 years of experience is almost double the number of devs with 6-10 years. That means the number of senior engineers will be increasing very rapidly over the next 5 years. You can bet it's going to be much harder to get a job in about 5 years or so, layoff or not.

The real problem is that the people who decide to use the software are not the ones actually using it. This is the problem with top down decision making. And this is why enterprise software often sucks

We already have way too many people on the planet. if no one died, it would cause all our environmental problems, lack of wealth problems to multiply.

Actually, I think we need to get our population down to a much lower level where we're not stressing our the planet and not stressing the limited resources we have. politically speaking, we just can't handle this many people on the planet.

i've seen the 1500/1300$ figure thrown around a couple of times by tesla owners: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/door-handle-replacem...

As, for the drive unit, I thought it used to be 10K maybe it's a bit lower now

Yup. I absolutely agree. this is exactly why tesla is not on the top of my to buy list.

it's about total cost of ownership. All it takes is a couple of bad door handles (1500$ each) and a broken drive unit (10K$) and now your total cost 16K, just in repairs! if depreciation is roughly 15K over 10 years, then the cost of ownership doubles!

It's misleading because the rich that they're talking about already paid a much higher rate when they originally got the money in earnings. It's just the 2nd round of taxation: the capital gains which is lower, as it should be.

And let's not forget, taxes are extremely high on everyone. The US Govt spends 38% of all US GDP, currently (recently above 40%!). https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spendi...

And that's not even including 2nd order effects. When you go to spend it, your costs are much higher because part of what you're paying is someone else's really high tax rates. IE: the plumber has to charge you 300$/hr instead of just 200$/hr.

That's actually a very good point. That's kinda why Housing will always return 0 (real return - not including all the costs, like property taxes, repairs, HOA, insurance, etc) in the long run. And if we're actually making progress on housing, it'll return negative returns.

Now as for other stuff, returns can be greater than 0 because there's more stuff to buy, later on, hence greater than what there is today. There are two components to long term returns above 0: population growth and productivity growth. In the past century we've done quite well on both fronts. Productivity has expanded at 2% per year and populations have increased by a massive 1.6% per year, add to that the 4% dividend and 3.5% for inflation and that gives you the 10% return on equities everyone is quoting.

but the future returns are expected to be much much lower. labor force size in the US is projected to grow 0.4% and per capita increase in productivity is now at about 1% for the last 20 years. and dividends are roughtly 1.8%. So, in the longer term, not including a contraction in PEs, we can see roughly 3% increase in equities on average/yearly

This is key: "The goal of Son, and increasingly most large financiers in private equity and venture capital, is to find big markets and then dump capital into one player in such a market who can underprice until he becomes the dominant remaining actor. In this manner, financiers can help kill all competition, with the idea of profiting later on via the surviving monopoly."

Your not the only one. MBA majors have it just as hard if not harder.

For the majority of professional jobs out there, there's a vast oversupply of labor, and thus the unemployment rate for professionals is much higher than the overall unemployment rate would suggest.

Software engineering is one of the few areas where there some semblance of balance between supply and demand. But, this too will eventually go away. There's nothing that's stopping the supply of Software engineers from growing. Indeed, the Stack overflow surveys suggest there's a huge wave of junior SEs joining the industry. I predict in 15 years, SEs will be in such high oversupply that they will no longer have an advantage in the market place.

Here, even in super expensive CA, In college I got by with less than 2-3$ per day on rolled oats (70c per lb), Onions, potatoes, flax seeds, green peppers, bananas, whole wheat flour etc, all of which were less than 1$ per lb if you go to the right stores (for example Sprouts).

Going to McDonalds is much more expensive, something like 20$ per day!

With the proper education, you can eat cost effectively and very healthily. And, I know it's really controversial to say this because of the decades of conditioning we've received from the dairy and meat industry, but Meat and Dairy aren't needed in the diet, and have been shown to even cause cancer, heart disease and heart stroke for many. (source Forks over Knives, the documentary, plus the China study -> check it out, seriously.)

One lesson we can all learn from this: You don't hire a x10 engineer, you nuture it. Year by year, as an engineer develops more and more of the skills required, their productivity increases. A lot of engineers doing hiring, think they can just get one of these engineers off the shelf by paying some recruiter 50 grand to make one materialize. It doesn't work that way. x10 engineers are born of years of company specific specialized labor.

Think of it like Climate Change. Sure, we can't fix the entire environment by planting a few trees, but every little bit helps.

we owe it to future generations to try our best and get as much housing supply as we possibly can. The whole problem isn't going away in 1 year, it took 4+ decades to create this problem and it will take multiple decades to fix it completely too.

Look at Houston. It's the 4th largest city in the US and growing much more quickly than any other city in CA. Their housing prices are 100$/sq ft!! How did they accomplish that? No zoning laws. Developers built as much housing as people needed and everyone prospers: it's win/win, more jobs, more housing, more prosperity. There's no reason this can't be done in an area with "nice weather"

can someone please pin this at the top of every housing related post?

Look at all the cities that don't have Zoning, like Houston, TX. They don't have the kind of housing problems that over regulated CA does. Despite a population of over 2million (3 times more than SF) and growing much faster too, those places are much much more cost effect (100$ per sq foot vs over 1200$ per sq foot in SF). People need to learn how supply and demand work.

Sure, if you start building in SF, it's going to take time to fix. But not adding more supply is like saying, "Well, we've turning coal plants into solar panels but C02 levels are still rising". Just like every solar panel, Every bit more supply will help.

And even more important, is the underlying cost to build. If that's not low enough, the problem will never be fixed entirely. The underlying cost, is usually to high in Blue cities due to regulation, zoning and the loss of the middle class which raises labor costs.

believe me, I abhor the thought of not having the usual invisible hand determine the outcome of the effects of supply and demand.

But, when your head is bleeding out in an intersection, and you're about to die, it's not the best time to be shopping online for an affordable ambulance. Just so you know, an ambulance ride can cost you 3000 to 5000$ even if it's less than half an hour away.

"I was feeling down in the dumps and wanted to revel in my misery a bit more by submitting Thoughter to Hacker News" I see, I'm not the only one who does this. lol.