3 ms·

I know this article is explicitly about the tech industry, but the title of the submission isn't. To put things into a wider perspective, here is about 20 years

I know this article is explicitly about the tech industry, but the title of the submission isn't. To put things into a wider perspective, here is about 20 years of seasonally adjusted "total nonfarm layoffs and discharges": https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSLDL. The level through 2023 has been at or a bit below the monthly average level of ~2 million layoffs per month. And here it is for the "Information" subsector: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTU5100LDL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTU5100LDL. It's much more volatile, but there's a fairly consistent "normal range" between about 20k and 40k, with fairly frequent spikes down to 10k and up to 60k. You can see that the January spike was indeed pretty big (61k), but the rest of the year has been around that "normal range". But there were spikes nearly as big in January 2018 and July 2019 and I don't recall those being particularly notable or commented upon, and they certainly weren't due to AI! My impression is that even within this "Information" subsector, there is a much smaller subsector of "famous tech companies" (or maybe "silicon valley adjacent tech companies") where the layoffs this year really have been notably far above a baseline that has been very close to zero for a very long time. But this is just an impression, as far as I can tell there is no definition for this subsector of the Information subsector, and thus no data tracking it. But I think it is useful to put this in perspective as a phenomenon in a subsector of a subsector of the economy, rather than a trend in the economy as a whole. I think if the story here were really "economic downturn and the influence of AI are claiming numerous jobs", it would be showing up much more broadly than this.

southernplaces7 3y ago
excellent work in locating these data points for the needed dose of cold water on the clickbait. Thanks.
rubyfan 3y ago
> and they certainly weren't due to AI! TFA has not a single shred of evidence to suggest any one of these have anything to do with AI. It just seems like poor journalism and/or clickbait.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Yes the article is terrible. I thought I'd take advantage of it nonetheless being highly voted, to try to write something more informative, that hopefully people will read and not just take the article and submission title at face value.
  - rubyfan 3y ago
    Well done.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"But I think it is useful to put this in perspective as a phenomenon in a subsector of a subsector of the economy, rather than a trend in the economy as a whole." Maybe also useful to ask, "Is there a connection between the economy as a whole and this subsector of a subsector?" If yes, what is it. If the subsector of a subsector is in a downward spiral while the economy as whole is strong, what does that suggest. It's not surprising that "famous tech companies" are "famous" given that they are in the practice of surveilling and intermediating communications between remote computer networks for a large segment of the population. The opportunities for self-promotion and/or manipulating the flow of information to prioritise their own interests are neverending.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Yeah it definitely is not surprising that this little niche punches above its weight in the public psyche. But it's good to try to remind oneself of the difference between perception and reality from time to time. I agree those are useful questions. These are just, like, my opinion man, but here's what I think the answers are: > "Is there a connection between the economy as a whole and this subsector of a subsector?" No, I really don't think there is, more so than usual for its size. I do agree that it affects perception and sentiment a lot more than its size would suggest, but I don't think it has notably broad systemic ripples throughout the national economy. I think sectors like housing or trucking or energy and some subsectors of those do have these magnified effects throughout the economy, but I don't think this "famous tech company" subsector does. I think it definitely does impact the SF bay area economy though, and the whole California economy to a lesser extent. But even those relatively big economies are small relative to the whole US economy. > If the subsector of a subsector is in a downward spiral while the economy as whole is strong, what does that suggest. I guess there are two questions here, the first being: Is the "famous tech companies" subsector in a downward spiral? I don't think it is. I think what we saw in "tech" from the end of 2021 to the beginning of 2023 was normal cyclicality, it was a moderate downturn that is already in the early stages of recovery. These cycles are happening constantly all across the economy. A healthy economy is not one where every sector is healthy, it is one where sectors are not all unhealthy simultaneously. It is expected and normal for some to be up while the others are down and then later for others to be up while those previously up are down. We were one of the down ones, and now we look poised to again be one of the up ones. The second question is: Assuming "tech" is in a downward spiral, what does that suggest? Again, it is normal for once-leading sectors to no longer be so. What does it mean that the railroad sector is not dominant like it was at the end of the 19th century? It doesn't mean anything. What does it mean that phone companies aren't growing like they were in the middle of the 20th century? Not much. There will always be once-hot industries reaching a steady state and new industries, or new iterations of old industries, on the rise. In my view this is all just: same as it ever was.

southernplaces7 3y ago

excellent work in locating these data points for the needed dose of cold water on the clickbait. Thanks.

rubyfan 3y ago

> and they certainly weren't due to AI! TFA has not a single shred of evidence to suggest any one of these have anything to do with AI. It just seems like poor journalism and/or clickbait.

sanderjd 3y ago
Yes the article is terrible. I thought I'd take advantage of it nonetheless being highly voted, to try to write something more informative, that hopefully people will read and not just take the article and submission title at face value.
- rubyfan 3y ago
  Well done.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

"But I think it is useful to put this in perspective as a phenomenon in a subsector of a subsector of the economy, rather than a trend in the economy as a whole." Maybe also useful to ask, "Is there a connection between the economy as a whole and this subsector of a subsector?" If yes, what is it. If the subsector of a subsector is in a downward spiral while the economy as whole is strong, what does that suggest. It's not surprising that "famous tech companies" are "famous" given that they are in the practice of surveilling and intermediating communications between remote computer networks for a large segment of the population. The opportunities for self-promotion and/or manipulating the flow of information to prioritise their own interests are neverending.

sanderjd 3y ago
Yeah it definitely is not surprising that this little niche punches above its weight in the public psyche. But it's good to try to remind oneself of the difference between perception and reality from time to time. I agree those are useful questions. These are just, like, my opinion man, but here's what I think the answers are: > "Is there a connection between the economy as a whole and this subsector of a subsector?" No, I really don't think there is, more so than usual for its size. I do agree that it affects perception and sentiment a lot more than its size would suggest, but I don't think it has notably broad systemic ripples throughout the national economy. I think sectors like housing or trucking or energy and some subsectors of those do have these magnified effects throughout the economy, but I don't think this "famous tech company" subsector does. I think it definitely does impact the SF bay area economy though, and the whole California economy to a lesser extent. But even those relatively big economies are small relative to the whole US economy. > If the subsector of a subsector is in a downward spiral while the economy as whole is strong, what does that suggest. I guess there are two questions here, the first being: Is the "famous tech companies" subsector in a downward spiral? I don't think it is. I think what we saw in "tech" from the end of 2021 to the beginning of 2023 was normal cyclicality, it was a moderate downturn that is already in the early stages of recovery. These cycles are happening constantly all across the economy. A healthy economy is not one where every sector is healthy, it is one where sectors are not all unhealthy simultaneously. It is expected and normal for some to be up while the others are down and then later for others to be up while those previously up are down. We were one of the down ones, and now we look poised to again be one of the up ones. The second question is: Assuming "tech" is in a downward spiral, what does that suggest? Again, it is normal for once-leading sectors to no longer be so. What does it mean that the railroad sector is not dominant like it was at the end of the 19th century? It doesn't mean anything. What does it mean that phone companies aren't growing like they were in the middle of the 20th century? Not much. There will always be once-hot industries reaching a steady state and new industries, or new iterations of old industries, on the rise. In my view this is all just: same as it ever was.