Unemployed Freepers?

Lucent to Cut 5,000 More Jobs - Source Thu Apr 11, 4:28 PM ET By Ben Klayman CHICAGO (Reuters) - Telecommunications equipment maker Lucent Technologies Inc. plans to cut about 5,000 more jobs than previously expected by the end of June because of the slowdown in the telecom sector, a source close to the company said on Thursday.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Report Abuse | Bookmark Discussion ] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just got to thinking, with the economy supposedly recovering, and layoffs continuing all around us, how many Freepers are currently out of work? How are they finding the job market?

1 posted on 4/12/02 11:59 PM Pacific by SpyderTim [ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: SpyderTim

Luckily the coapany I worked for Did Good and accelerated my options when I was voluntarily laid off. Job market is pretty bad out there in high tech (programming). At one time or another 10 friends of mine were laid off this past year.

2 posted on 4/13/02 8:31 AM Pacific by lelio [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: SpyderTim

Just got to thinking, with the economy supposedly recovering, and layoffs continuing all around us, how many Freepers are currently out of work? How are they finding the job market?

Agreed. I know more people in the last year that have gotten laid off, and have remained laid off, than I do those who had no work and found it. This "recovery" is pure fabrication and spin pushed by the WH. The facts are that over half the new jobs created are being done by the government! GDP has increased primarily because of government spending!

3 posted on 4/13/02 8:35 AM Pacific by Kobyashi1942 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Kobyashi1942

My company announced its office relocation way back in April of 2001. My last day was November 30. I've been networking and interviewing since then but haven't found quite what I'm looking for yet. It's not a bad job market if you know what you are doing, but it isn't as good as when I first graduate from college in 2000 either.

4 posted on 4/14/02 1:53 PM Pacific by SpyderTim [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I don't know about your particular situation, but I see deal-killing mistakes in resumes every day.

Some common mistakes: a virus or compressed resume, a resume in MS Word format instead of text, a jack-of-all trades resume, a resume that includes "reasons" why you aren't currently employed, a resume that makes it appear as though you are currently employed when you really aren't, a lack of references, and lack of a cover letter.

Of course, the biggest deal-killer is upsizing. You would be amazed at how many resumes my firm gets from laid-off techies (e.g. programmers, DBA's, and system administrators) wanting to be "managers".

Suffice it to say that when you are unemployed is NOT the time to be trying to give yourself a promotion.

TIPS on getting hired: include in your cover letter your willingness to relocate, travel, and work overtime. Name your salary and make sure that it is LOWER than the industry average for your skillset. Pricing yourself out of the job market is NOT the thing to be doing when you are unemployed. Once you are in the door, THEN negotiate a market rate (it will be easy at that point, too, since you came in below the industry average).

In your resume, make certain that it is specific. If you are a Java programmer, detail your Java training, tools, and related experience. Omit non-Java descriptions (such as a brief system administration position that you may have held while Lucy was on maternity leave, et al).

Show a progression. Your experience should show that you started as an entry-level junior programmer, put in your time and became a Java analyst, and was later promoted to team lead. If there is no progression, then any claims to being a "lead programmer," "senior programmer," or "project lead" will be discounted. If your resume shows that you held a confusing array of positions, then you will be at the bottom of the stack for every hiring manager in the country. Your resume is NOT the place to advertise Attention Deficit Disorder. Listing ten jobs in five years plus a 6 month "sabatical" is not going to get you the right kind of hiring attention (unless, of course, it is for a fixed-length temporary contract position).

In short, when you are laid off and WANT to get hired quickly, insure that your cover letter spells out attractive terms, that your references are included up front (naturally, you've already contacted them so that they know to expect reference checks), and name your specialty. Your resume should be focused on your specialty, and you should not be trying to give yourself a promotion (e.g. to a project manager from a programming position) or a raise.

There is a triangle which can help point out the big picture. "Timing" is on top of the triangle, "Location" is on the left, and "money" is on the right. An educated, experienced, non-felon in America can always get a job that gives you one of those conditions. Really good or lucky people can get any two of those options. The unemployed are those who insist upon all three...

Good luck!

I left the world of big business 7 years ago to work for my fathers business its an industrial wholesale company that sells equipment to manufacturers,mines etc.In the last 3 years things have declined rapidly,sometimes I have a long wait for salary and its a struggle keeping the house at times.We are going to try to sell it,I've started looking at the job market,I've got an Administration degree and prior finance company management experience,Im striking MBA's for 40k sales rep jobs.

The problem basically is the world has become run by bean counters once you could rely on loyal customers and factor in a premium for carrying the stock and employing the service people,now most get three quotes and the cheapest wins,even if its crap compared to your product,price wars are going on the customer gets the benefit but the truth is maintenance and engineering these days is Mc Guyvers workshop.

An engineer once if he needed something,just bought it,now he has capexes etc,they wait for the damn place to break down then expect yesterday service.On top of that no one respects territories or trade agreements anymore,I've got to deal with major purchasers of the goods I distibute that have greater buying power straight out of Hong Kong,Singapore and other places in some cases their prices have no duty.

Its the same with management,they set their own level of renumeration but the first thing done these days to improve share price is to sack everyone mid management down(then rehire half as consultants at 2-3 times the cost because no one can run the damn place anymore).But its not just cheaper labour its Government policy to build factories in China,for example in Australia you can get cheap power,get 2 dollars for every one,have access to the same markets and have access to a highly educated and by US standards cheap workforce-but no-ones going there.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY WHICH COMES OUT OF THIN AIR AND IS BACKED BY NOTHING,and us small folks are expendable.

You're saying that I'm going to see "Made in America" on computers, robotic equipment, and new machines based in nano technology, but I want to know exactly how you think this will be able to come about, how the present economic situation will bring about that situation, which, I agree would be a great thing. Ok, now how is it going to happen? What's going to make American labor more cost effective then as compared to now?

A recent article by Bruce Bartlett:

Many of those supporting President Bush's decision to impose tariffs on steel imports do so not so much because they care particularly about the steel industry. Rather, they are concerned that too much of the U.S. economy appears to be devoted to producing services, like banking, and not enough to producing goods, like autos.
Typical of such people is Gov. Jim Hodges, South Carolina Democrat, who recently said: "I do worry that one day we'll wake up and be a nation that can't make anything. We've got to realize that our American economy is one that knows how to make things."
This view strikes many people as reasonable. After all, we don't want the United States to become a nation of "hamburger flippers," as former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich used to say in the 1980s. Wealth and power come from factories, it is often said, not from shuffling papers in air-conditioned offices. In short, making "things" people can see and touch is good. Services, sometimes called "invisibles" because they cannot be seen and touched, are per se inferior.
This infatuation with "things" has justified many government policies. Tariffs on steel are just the tip of the iceberg. We also have tariffs on hundreds of other products, loan guarantees and other subsidy programs — all to encourage the production of "things." The Japanese have a whole Cabinet department devoted to this. They call it an "industrial policy," and many people, like Mr. Reich, have long thought we should have one, too.
There are many problems with this theory. The biggest is simply that there is not the slightest bit of evidence supporting it. The truth of the matter is that the U.S. economy produces a higher percentage of goods as a share of total output today than at any time in its history. Production of goods — "things" — is not falling, as implied by the industrial policy advocates, but in fact has been rising steadily for the last 30 years.
If one looks at the production of goods as a share of inflation-adjusted gross domestic product, which measures the total output of goods and services in the U.S. economy, one sees that goods production rose sharply during the 1930s through the end of World War II. At the trough in 1932, goods production represented just 28.3 percent of gross domestic product. But by 1943, this figure had risen sharply to 35.5 percent.
The production of goods then fell gradually during the 1950s and 1960s, falling from 34.6 percent of GDP in 1950 to 32.3 percent in 1972. This is ironic because many industrial policy advocates imply that the 1950s and 1960s were the "good old days," from their point of view. That was when manufacturing industries like steel were strong and vibrant, and paper-shuffling businesses like banking and finance were backwaters.
The late 1970s and 1980s were a disaster, as far as the industrial-policy types were concerned. Factories were closing left and right throughout the industrial Midwest. American manufacturers were moving offshore, where they could get cheap labor and no unions. The people who made fortunes during that period did so in businesses like investment banking, where they used "junk bonds" to finance hostile corporate takeovers that produced nothing of value. This point of view was immortalized in movies such as "Wall Street" (1987) and "Other People's Money" (1991).
The only problem is that it wasn't true. Production of goods as a share of GDP rose steadily throughout the 1980s, hitting 36.1 percent of GDP in 1989. This was the highest level in American history up until that point.
Then a truly amazing thing happened in the 1990s. Production of goods literally skyrocketed from an already high base. By the middle of the decade, production of goods accounted for 38 percent of GDP, and by the year 2000 was up to 40.3 percent, according to official government data. In short, goods production is now about 20 percent higher as a share of GDP than it was in the "good old days."
Economists are still debating what led to this surge of growth in manufacturing. However, none has suggested that tariffs or subsidies played any role whatsoever. It appears that most of the growth took place in businesses such as computers, software and telecommunications — which lack the high visibility of steel and auto factories or textile plants. But, like Rodney Dangerfield, the high-tech newcomers seem to get no respect from the industrial policy crowd. This may be because the newcomers neither want nor need tariffs, subsidies or anything else from government, except to be left alone.
There may be good reasons to impose tariffs on steel. But doing so because of a concern that the U.S. economy is not producing enough "things" is surely not one of them.

1) Move South. Texas is not in the tank.

2) If you can, move to Jackson County(folks are smart enough to elect Ron Paul).

3) Houston is a madhouse BUT there are PLENTY of NICE places in the boonies north and west of there.

4) Stay in high-tech.

5) ALWAYS remember: employers(unless they're your parents) don't care about ANY employee when it comes to the bottom line.

We moved from north of Lake Pontchatrain(24 mile bridge to New Orleans) in '89 to Houston.....that lasted 3 months....then to 110 miles west of there(and fulltime, tech employment for the last 12 years). Current employer has gone through the motions(some impact) by dumping contract employees, relocating "northerners" to Texas, eliminating bonuses, and freezing pay for upper management+above....."holding" at the current time BUT because of writing on the wall AND #5 above, I am looking! Dependents? Yes, 2 at home and one in college.....BUT family, children, love in the home, etc. ARE more important than loot......children would MUCH RATHER have a Dad at home with lower paying job(s) and less "stuff" than a "roadwhore"(never at home Dad) making megabucks....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.