Industry figures indicate employment in IT is still above pre-covid levels. Companies over-hired and are normalising. We’re not seeing this labour activity in most other sectors. There’s no reason to panic.
That’s one way to look at it, if you’re looking to downplay the human impact. The way I look at is these companies had a short sighted hiring spree and now thousands of people are without income and can’t just get a new job as the industry is laying off everywhere. That seems like a reasonable source of panic for the people with no income and not a lot of prospects.
Why is it that in my own experience Atlus and Nintendo are the only two companies that provide fun games that run with little to no issues and meanwhile every single other triple A company doesn’t anymore? Look at both of them, Persona 3 Reload, Mario Wonder hell even indie games like Palworld are more fun to play. Wtf is wrong with the gaming industry nowadays?
Why spend millions on QA, delaying games, etc when people buy millions of copies regardless? You get an influx of cash that can sustain further development. If the game sells badly, you saved millions when you sunset the game without fixes. If not, you fix stuff, add content that was meant to be in the game and diehards love it.
People aren’t patient and they buy the next big thing. They don’t want to play a game half a year after release, they want it now. They want fifa 24 or whatever it is, not 22. You wait on Baldur’s Gate 3 - you got to play an excellent game way after everyone. What if the next Call of Duty is as good as BG3 was?
Obviously we all know that won’t be the case, but if gaming is what you do for an hour every week, you probably won’t do a lot of research.
Exactly I waited 6 months for Persona 3 Reload and I am very happy with my purchase just like I was with FES/Portable. These companies need to do better
Nintendo isn’t really pushing the envelope on, well, anything and they are basically the Disney or Apple of video games with hordes fans who can see them doing no wrong.
At a certain point in capitalism, a wealthy person can get enough money to live comfortably the rest of your life. If you decide to continue to grow your wealth from there, you’re essentially not just making money for yourself, but so others can’t have it.
I have a feeling that number is well below a billion, but I’m no economist.
There was a study from 2010 that said that the happiness already plateaus somewhere around 75k annually. But more recent studies suggest that for some people, more money means more happiness well beyond that, and for some it doesn’t. Basically, if you’re generall an unhappy person, money doesn’t help much. …upenn.edu/…/does-more-money-correlate-greater-ha…
But I agree that owning more than 1 billion (or even 100 million) is just useless hoarding, since no one can spend that much money in a lifetime (at least without decadent spending for spending’s sake).
But you miss that having the money isn’t necessarily the point they have power and control over resources people and machines as well as influence in government
Also not a psychologist, but attended a four hour lecture on psychopaths recently (out of interest). I don’t think happiness as a concept exists for actual psychopaths, because they don’t really feel emotions the same way.
It’s called hoarding and it’s an unhealthy habit so why isn’t anybody doing anything? Because if you give them enough of that money they won’t complain.
If you decide to continue to grow your wealth from there, you’re essentially not just making money for yourself, but so others can’t have it.
This is a zero-sum fallacy. The size of the economy isn’t fixed. It continues to grow each year. The hyper productive people you’re referring to are disproportionately responsible for that growth, and they are disproportionately the recipients of that growth. My father was one of those people. Working 18 hours every day for 30 years. It led to a divorce and our family falling apart, but fuck did he generate a lot of economic value for the world, his company, and himself. He didn’t steal it from you. He created it.
While true, the growth of the economy has been wildly outpaced by the rate of hoarding at the top. After all that extra work, how much better off was your dad after everyone above him benefitted?
Nearly all social animals would be punished in some way for hoarding resources from the group. Between loss of social status all the way to being killed. Our closest relatives like apes straight up murder individuals that do this.
It’s a mental illness. We’ll probably find out it was caused by lead or micro plastics if our species survives this time.
For now. I believe the correct call to action involves guillotines. We can dial it back if things get better.
It’s annoying seeing people buy the same copy paste games from AAA companies then complain that games aren’t good anymore. Like no shit, you just preordered it without even looking at a review
There’s a hype cycle that companies like MS ride to bolster stocks, during the hype they over hire to give investors the impression that they are doing really well, when the hype starts to fall, they use layoffs to inch out a bit more, because it shows investors that they’re slimming down now that the hype is falling off. One of the interesting things he mentioned is that the hype is more important than the product, the product is just there to increase the hype and justify the hiring, showing investors that something great is on the way.
Might sound like a bit of a conspiracy theorist here, but if all of the big tech companies lay off people at the same time, why could they not hire their recently laid off competitors for a fraction of the cost?
Obviously it drives down the cost of the salaries and lowers the average hiring rate. Huge wins for all these massive companies.
And to prove that they all did this “together” when they all did it a few weeks apart will be rather difficult too.
Maybe that’s just me thinking from both corporations and employees side at the same time, though…
Why would it? I usually get a pay raise when I get a new job.
What’s actually going on is they’re massaging the numbers a bit to get investors to invest more. Salaries aren’t the concern here, it’s just a game of staying on the investing trends to get the most investor capital they can. Employees are just caught in the crossfire.
Have you done this from a position of not having a job in tech though? Having thousands of other employees also vie-ing for that same position with equivalent experience or better?
If you have obligations any job is better than no job from a position of no job, no pay.
Yup. I lost my job at the start of COVID in tech and found a new one with a better salary. I had a house, wife and kids, and I was the sole bread winner. It took several months, but I had cash reserves and found a good position at a good company (I was a bit picky).
I wasn’t part of a huge layoff, but a lot of people were looking for jobs at the same time due to shifting markets. My old company was downsizing due to market shifts, and the new company was expanding due to unrelated, company-specific reasons.
As another poster said, those of us in tech generally get a significant pay bump, significant. Hell, that goes for most people with skills and experience.
I’ve preached before on here, move on, keep moving on.
You don’t need an MBA to know that the goal of a large business is to deliver profit to its investors and that this can be accomplished by cutting costs.
Add comment