https://www.wired.com/story/tech-jobs-layoffs-hiring/
Tech companies have laid off more than 400,000 people in the last two years. Competition for the jobs that remain is getting more and more desperate.
Basile says he’s also spent his free time studying AI tools, and he keeps tweaking his resume, cutting it from 10 pages to two, then beefing it up to 24.
Maybe he should start by dropping that tome of a resume.
1 page (niche industries maybe 2). If you can't get your point across in 1 page then that's a huge red flag....24 pages? When I was in HR I wouldn't have even read that resume, I'm amazed he's gotten a single interview with that let alone 60.
I was just thinking that a 10 page resume sounds like you're going to be a nightmare to work with. If any work gets done it will be needlessly complicated and make everything harder for everyone.
Exactly. Either they are clueless about or refuse to follow conventions like using 1-2 page resumes, are incapable of taking outside advice, are unable to communicate succinctly, or have some other major issue.
2 pages is fine, most resumes I see is two pages, especially if you have 10+ years of relevant experience to cover
I thought this too and then I saw the requirements to apply for federal jobs. They require literally 24 pages of content.
You're right tho 2 pages and maybe a portfolio is more than enough.
Government (US) job applications, interview process, and selection criteria etc are so far removed from any civilian process that it needs to be a completely separate conversation. If he's ocassionally changing his resume down to 2 pages or getting 60 interviews a month he's not applying to US government jobs.
It seems that he has not even taken the time to understand the basics of how to find a job with a 10 page resume.. let alone 24.
Yeah, there's no way anything over a couple pages is going anywhere but the trash. No one is going to want to spend the time figuring out how he's inflating his resume.
My field has quite a bit more educational and licensing requirements than most tech jobs, and I've been practicing for nearly two decades...... I still don't think I could make a 24 page long resume.
I use a multipage resume where the first page is functional as one and if they want more detail they can flip.
The first page of my resume covers my technical skills, a summary of myself, and my most recent jobs.
When you go past that, it gets to older jobs that are still relevant, then into school, then to side projects, volunteer, etc. basically, if you liked the first page, the rest of it gives them more about who I am.
I think at this point it's either 3 or 4 pages and every time I've gotten a job it's been one where they asked me about the hobbies on the bottom of the last page, which meant they liked what they saw and liked my interview well enough.
When I update it for my next search, I'll take my first internship off because it's no longer relevant, but most everything else is.
yeah. this sounds a lot like mine. I have what grade school I have at the end but don't expect anyone to go that far but its part of who I am. I don't expect anyone to go past page one necessarily but if they drop it in the trash because its four pages then I dodged a bullet as far as I am concerned.
We need to unionize, or the existing Tech/Communications unions need to get better and expand to include us.
We also need to force tech departments to stop offshoring their workers, I love our Indian tech Bros as much as the next guy, but companies need to hire local first rather than ripping off Indian tech Bros on the cheap just because they can.
And lastly, let remote workers who can do their jobs perfectly fine working remote stay remote, there is absolutely no reason why someone who works in cloud or virtualization technologies should have to be onsite, same with developers, same with so many other positions, both tech and standard.
The visa rules make it too easy for employers to take advantage of foreign workers. 30 days to find a new job isn't enough, IMO, so they have to put up with a lot more than they should.
He estimates he’s had about three interviews a day
Bullllllshit. Three introductory calls with recruiters per day, maybe, but not interviews.
If you're a project manager in IT, and you don't have a technical background, you can fuck right off.
It's absolutely a tech job if it's being done right.
"okay and our client specifically said make it pop. James can you do that for us by end of day?"
100%. My company is suffering from this so bad. Also bad are the overly ambitious managers in tech. These guys are simply dangerous and will cut the talent out of a BU just to save 10% and get that promotion.
Say you don’t work in tech without saying you don’t work in tech.
I’m a dev. Love them or hate them, PMs are vital to success of projects.
This right here. I have worked with a dozen PMs in 30 years, only two were any damn good. One managed an IT team, and she didn't know tech worth squat, but God damn, did she keep the flow going and know how to get shit done without being an ass about it.
On the other hand, I faught with a PM once because he didn't understand the concept of priorities or how to manage a crisis. "You want me to fix the outage or attend a meeting about it?" "Both." "Pick one. You have a choice. I can fix the issue in the data center, or join a blame session in the meeting room. Which one?" "BOTH!" I got to the meeting room, and he demanded we put down our laptops and pay attention. He invited EVERYBODY regardless of whether they were needed or not. Twenty seven people all bitching about the outage and not a single person fixing it. No meeting moderation. Just chaos until he had a panic attack. Just useless.
haha, I've seen people try to have a root cause analysis meeting with all of the parties involved, prior to any cause being identified.
I got a project now that doesn't have one and you can definitely see it. Stuff is being missed left and right. All the different companies aren't talking together. A few months back I just straight up recommended that they bring a PM to the lead scientist and they weren't interested. So far I would say they have made a total of 90k mistakes on a 850k project.
Of the 30-50 PMs I've worked with in my career, I've had 2 actively contribute to the success of my team's work. I've had a handful scuttle projects because they couldn't manage the clients, the rest just kind of hung out and collected a massive paycheck.
The highest performing teams I've been on had the lead developer play that role.
The role is vital, the PM it's self is not.
Completely agreed that the role is vital. For me, my PM is a life saver as my workload is simply too much to also handle PM duties.
That’s said, I also agree that there are many useless PMs. But a good one is worth their weight in gold.
I’ve worked in tech for 20 years and can count the number of Project Managers I’ve met on one hand. It varies a lot depending on the company.
The labor force just gained tens of thousands of America's most talented engineers, and as you pointed out, they likely have the funds to choose their next job carefully. I'm optimistic about what they will do!
Big Tech companies, like Meta, Google, and Amazon, have cut tens of thousands of jobs in recent months. Hiring freezes at many firms have followed. Meta recently rehired dozens of the people it laid off beginning last November—a drop in the bucket compared to the 11,000 people it let go last fall—and then completed more layoffs in its metaverse-focused Reality Labs division.
Large companies are a different breed. I can't imagine working for an org that expands and contracts by the tens of thousands. The fuck do you even do with that many people?
In the past month, he estimates he’s had about three interviews a day and gotten close to a role in a few companies, but he hasn’t been picked yet.
Scheduling 3 interviews a day and not getting an offer sure seems like something.
He’s doing something wrong or doesn’t have the right background. He may be padding his resume for all we know. I’m not buying the narrative.
I'm just thinking of going back to school, I graduated with an assosites and I feel like the same place I was with my high school diploma
Go if you like but set your expectations. I might suggest something like informatics or information science because that usually has a project management and user experience side to it that is useful in any industry.
Times like this I am glad I went into infrastructure/factory automation. The highs are nowhere as high but the lows are nowhere as low.
About 30% of my customers are governments. Sewage, garbage, traffic lights, recycling centers, incinerators etc. These are big contracts with complex requirements. Governments just go into debt when they have recessions. And the field as a whole moves at a glacial pace.
The other 70% is private sector. Big projects that can easily go on past the year mark just in construction alone. You can't be fickle with this stuff. Had a bad business quarter? Sorry, not my problem, here is the bill and your million dollar metal stamping process.
In the beginning of my career I was in more of a pure software setting. Constant turn over. Don't miss it at all.
Ah so you're a consultant. That makes sense then. I was thinking you were a 9-5 FTE in some magical industry.
No, I work for a company that is often a subcontractor, often an OEM, and occasionally a lead.I work the standard 40. I wouldn't describe the industry as magical. It is more like a layer of corruption and nepotism covering actual productive work.
Still, the work is steady and I will never be unemployed.
Sounds like they design/build/maintain stuff like factory assembly lines. They won't become an overnight millionaire doing it (like some software whiz) but they also won't go hungry when the economy is rough.
In my experience, good candidates (including interns/juniors) are still landing the roles. Hiring in tech/design/product is tough because there's a deluge of applicants who've either coasted during the boom, or been sold a lie by an educational institution.
You can spot the ones who apply for 40 jobs a week, and those who've used chatGPT a mile off, and they're usually the worst candidates, with long, bland, unfocused resumes.
LinkedIn is full of my worst ex-colleagues bemoaning the lack of opportunities, like they're entitled to it.
Please tell me if I'm being unfair. Maybe I should be less cynical.
You are being unfair. I have been searching for 6+ months for a position in IT, had 2 companies that paid $40k+/yr, 1st one didn't pan out, 2nd one is in progress. Countless $15-20k/yr offers though. I am in Europe looking for remote only positions in any form of tech support, python programming but preferrably linux server/desktop support. I don't use AI, all applications are written by me. My CV is 2 pages, modern theme. 10 years experience.
I don’t believe you are in a bubble. My experience matches with your initial assertion. We just recently hired for 3 SRE roles.
Hundreds of applicants in a 24 hour window.
We had people using some kind of LLM tool during interviews, obviously so. Others were sharing the same resume with only slight modifications, and plenty of folks who couldn’t pass the screening call or a very simple tech interview.
We also had wildly unprofessional candidates who were no-shows, or had profane/NSFW desktops or couldn’t even use a terminal - for an SRE role.
So no, you’re not alone. The great candidates get hired, headhunted even.
Name was different, resume exactly the same. It was probably a scam or the folks applying were scammed in someway. Someone on our team told us stories of scummy “we’ll get you a tech job” services in their country and this “copied resume” phenomenon was par for the course.
That's my experience too. Just absolutely to brag, but I wasn't actively applying in the last 10 years, I was always headhunted.
I mean not personally as if everybody knows in the industry that Golem is the shit, but as in when I get bored after 2-3 years at my current job and I want a nicer salary bump, I start to answer some of the more interesting LinkedIn messages and usually in about a month I land something new.
I've been wondering about this. Is it reasonable to ask those recruiters through the linkedin chat about salary before wasting time on the phone with anyone? I've been thinking about answering some of those messages lately like you mentioned you did.
Absolutely fine to politely ask for a salary range, in my experience. I've never found they hide it, but the ranges can be broad.
I am based in Romania but looking for WFH jobs globally, so I wouldn't think the specific job markets would make much difference.
I’ve been saying for years that the market is saturated with too many people with too many expectations. Universities are out of touch with the actual job market and need to stop recruiting so many people into CS or engineering programs.
Unfortunately it seems there are no consequences for the universities, and it's not hard to make those qualifications seem both alluring and lucrative.
There's got to be a way to hold them to account for the countless graduates who don't end up finding industry positions.
It’s the job of universities to recruit and train people. They are offering the degrees people want. Not sure why they should be punished for that. It’s really the students and families going in with unrealistic expectations that is an issue here.
Blaming young adults and families is unfair. Many institutions need to be held to account for advertising outcomes which don't materialise for their students.
You're right in my experience, I graduated highschool in 2016 and I remember how hard they pushed comp sci as some sort of magic success bullet. I thought I was terrible at math and kids who I knew weren't much better were choosing it as a major. I genuinely think in 10 years we're going to find out guidance councilers were being paid kick backs by colleges à la the pharma industry.
Cry me a river. You guys work from home, get all your meals expensed, and make $200k+
Tech industry has been due for a correction for a long time.
Edit: your tears of rage sustain and vitalize me
This just plain isn't true for the vast majority of engineers. And exceptions occur in any industry. Focus your anger on billionaires and companies rather than your peers.
I recently started making more money, but until very recently tech workers were not my peers. They're upper middle class and have very little in common with me. Sure, I'll side with them against the ownership class, but calling them "peers" is a stretch.
If you seriously believe we still have a middle class, let alone an upper section of it, I’ve got a bridge to sell you
You know why they are your peers even before the salary bump you mention? Because you are INFINITELY closer to them then you are the upper class elite.
You need to zoom out and stop bashing heads with your fellow workers simply because they don’t perform the exact same job for same compensation.
If you seriously believe we still have a middle class, let alone an upper section of it, I’ve got a bridge to sell you
$250k+ household income is absolutely upper middle class, what the hell are you talking about
You know why they are your peers even before the salary bump you mention? Because you are INFINITELY closer to them then you are the upper class elite.
Meaningless distinction. The upper middle class doesn't have to worry about their utilities getting shut off due to nonpayment. They don't have to worry about eviction. They have an emergency fund and college tuition fund for their children.
Sure in terms of pure monetary wealth, they're closer to poor than rich. But in terms of life experience, all 3 classes are very different from each other.
You keep saying 200 and 250k, where are you getting these numbers? In my 20ish years in IT, I haven't seen or met anyone making that. The only jobs I heard about that paid anywhere near that were overseas during the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. Defense contractors were paid insane amounts of money to do next to nothing other than be near an area of conflict and render simple IT services.
I've read about some engineering positions in big tech companies that made 200-500k, but we are literally talking about .01% or maybe even .001% of tech jobs making these amounts.
It's not impossible that a household is pulling this, but you are also talking about 2 potentially highly educated and highly employable people able to make 100-125k each to make those numbers.
These 100k+ positions are also usually found in higher costs of living areas. It's not like these people are pulling in these salaries, but paying the cost of living equivalencies as in rural areas. If you don't already live in a major city in the US. I want you to do the math, double or triple your salary until you cross that 100-125k mark then look at the nearest major city to you (ie San Fran, Atlanta, NYC, DC, LA, Houston, Philly). Then look to see if you can afford a house/condo, food, utilities, transportation for your family in or near that city to live a lavish life like you seem to be claiming.
People seem to think that all of these workers that make more than them are in the same position for cost of living as them. Or have all of the same resources that they do. You need to think outside of your own little bubble and realize that not everyone is like you. As others have said above, you should direct your anger and frustration to people making insane amounts on money that they will never use or have a need for.
It’s not impossible that a household is pulling this, but you are also talking about 2 potentially highly educated and highly employable people able to make 100-125k each to make those numbers.
That's what I was referring to by "household income".
And I live in SF. I make that amount. And like I said, until recently I was quite poor.
It's night and day the difference. Upper middle class lifestyle is nowhere near working poor lifestyle. Not even in the same ballpark. I'm going to be able to retire in my mid 60s. If I had kids, I could put them through college. I will probably be able to buy a house at some point. These are all achievable dreams for me which are NOT for the average working class person. And most of these middle class people were BORN with those options.
Equating those two classes is just not rational, except in the very specific circumstance of both being opposed to the truly rich.
As long as you're not joining forces with the rest of us peons against the billionaires their plan is working.
This is literally us telling you to join and you're calling people dumbass. Please have some perspective.
Edit: I just saw your edit to your original post. Consider this my last response. Very childish.
They are still your peers when it comes to the battle of workers vs employers. Sure, put it in a different context and it may sound wrong.
yeah. everywhere I worked did some expense while traveling but traveling is a pain and I only do it when I have to. Usually there is someoen else on the team who loves to travel and so unless it has to be me I bow out.
im guessing they go to the ceo's nephews. I mean I would be happy enough to get the whole all your meals expensed part of it (note im not saying I would prefer it over 200k just I would take that particular crumb)
Damn I get free meals? Those fuckers owe me a fortune for the last 20 years. Not to mention all the quarters I dropped on shitty office coffee.
The correction ought to be aimed at these ridiculous monopolized firms. The labour force just gained tens of thousands of America's most talented engineers, and as you pointed out, they likely have the funds to choose their next job carefully. I'm optimistic about what they will do!