I've been casually job hunting for a couple months since rounds of layoffs started at my company.
I've applied to umpteen places and haven't had a single callback. In my twenty+ years working as a dev, this is the worst I've seen it since about 2005.
Laid off from tech and out of work for two years. Thousands of applications. Ran out of contacts, luck, savings, patience, everything. I start my retail career next week earning $12/hr. I can't even provide for my own rent and utilities anymore, even after moving.
I almost can't believe it's come to this, sometimes. But another part of me says that's just ego talking, and anyways plenty of others are also desperate for any and all scraps to feed themselves. Problems like mine aren't difficult to come by.
Recently went on the market after my employer of 16 years went to shit. Got lucky with a hybrid gig that is really WFH 98% of the time after 120 applications and 26 interviews spread out over 15 companies. It was a roller coaster that I do not recommend.
I’m in the same boat. I’ve been employed since 2019, got laid off 3 weeks ago. I’ve applied to over 70 jobs and not a single has replied other than to reject me. This is brutal.
The thing that seemed to work best for me was reaching out to dev shops in my area and starting a conversation even if they didn't have a position posted. Go to meetups and talk to people, join their discord, etc... and job fairs, as lame as they seem, produced contacts for me that are still reaching out "just in case" even though I found a position eventually.
What's old is new again. Get those soft skills warmed up and go out and shake hands.
Job fairs are super underrated. When my spouse and I were a bit in flux years back for where we were going to live long-term, we ended up living in the city where we met which is very much not a tech hub - only a few big companies that hire engineers - despite spouse applying to various places in SF, Denver, and Seattle.
He landed the local job first by going to a career fair that I randomly discovered on Twitter. Affected the whole trajectory of our life.
I believe they're the current "cheat code" to the hiring process. If you get called up for an interview after talking to a company at a career fair, there's a good inclination that you have already passed or at least have a leg up on the "culture fit" part of the interview.
With hundreds to thousands of people spamming every job posting under the sun the second it is posted, just getting your credentials read by a human is a major barrier right now that career fairs help alleviate.
Took me over a year to find new employment. Hell, at one point I was getting rejected from low/no-skill positions. Y’know the same ones that had been bitching and whining not too long ago about “no one wants to work”.
In the end, I was saved solely by the grace a nepo-referral. for a job I was arguably less qualified for than all the ones that had been rejecting me.
There are no jobs. I've done this for two years now. Bunch of bullshit job ads or referrals to jobs that turn out never got approved internally.
Tech hiring is gone, especially in non-direct-engineering roles such as Product, Design, Project/Program Mgmt etc
I'd caution from reading too much into numbers like this. 400 applications is borderline spamming, putting quantity over quality, which employers would notice.
It can be far fewer if you have a focus/specialty and specific industries that you target.
No doubt though, it's a slog right now. My recent process was around 10 applications - which became 3 interviews - and the last 2 were offers, one that came via a recruiter. Even this is a marked increase in difficulty vs 4 years ago.
Being deliberate hasn't helped me. Hell, I've learned quite a bit about this one company. In my last interview, I asked a question that surprised the interviewers. It was about something they had yet to start work on which came up in another interview for a different position which I had already been rejected for. They still rejected me. At this point, I'm guessing I'm black-balled.
I've been there, but just because you did things the "right" way and got rejected from one company doesn't mean you should throw away what worked. After all, they did interview you for a second role after the first one.
That said, especially in a tough labor market, finding a job is like dating, and the vibes matter a lot. While you control your side of the vibe, you don't control the other side. Technical people especially often don't want to think about the interpersonal factors, but they are a real part of the process.
> I've been there, but just because you did things the "right" way and got rejected from one company doesn't mean you should throw away what worked. After all, they did interview you for a second role after the first one.
Several rejections by multiple groups. I'm pretty sure I won't get an interview from there for a while. I've not been interviewed by the same group for more than one position. Continually getting rejected and failing to achieve more than one interview per group is not what I call working.
> That said, especially in a tough labor market, finding a job is like dating, and the vibes matter a lot.
Thus, it makes perfect sense to just throw your resume at everything that moves. Vibes seem to matter more than fit. I interviewed at another place where one of the interviewers just had a week or two worth of tech experience. They were somehow a test lead. They couldn't answer a single question about testers interact with developers or how they test. I'm sure I was labeled as problematic because of my questioning even though I had zero knowledge of the lack of experience until after a few questions. The person they hired had zero experience outside of university classes. No internships. No personal projects. The position wasn't listed as a junior position.
> Technical people especially often don't want to think about the interpersonal factors, but they are a real part of the process.
It's the only aspect I've been thinking about for over a year. The "technical interview" is often a joke so I can't help but think they are using it as a hidden "vibe" interview.
Mostly the priorities are not competing. You can and should build more homes but the end goal is to improve utility of land which can further drive prices up thus helping both cases.
You can first build more homes - prices go down and more people come into the city and prices start going back up because of increased economic activity.
Yes. The entry point to ownership lies within a state of affordability.
> but the end goal is to improve utility of land
For who? If it's anyone other than typical wage earners, this goal competes with home ownership by pressuring ownership costs upward and away from affordability.
For context, home purchases are mostly (if not fully) impossible for typical wage earners.
For the city or country. Home ownership is not impossible, I know you meant it as hyperbole.
We shouldn’t mind if home ownership becomes costly if more economic activity results out of it. More economic activity means more money in the hands of wage earners (just that proportionally more money is spent on housing which is okay).
There are many places in the US where you can buy a house for less than 50k.
If you want prices to drop in popular areas then we have to make it easy for people to actually build houses and increase supply in popular areas. Of course giving homeowners a say about whether housing is allowed to be built near them, of course they are going to vote against it because they have an incentive to keep prices high.
I think it’s natural for homeowners to be resistant to new builds in the same way office workers hated the move to cubicles.
I was in the Midwest recently and it was wild to see a block of high density houses in the middle of farmland. Houses that look exactly the same, shoved onto tiny lots with little gap between them, and surrounded by miles of corn.
These are obviously attractive to developers as they are maximized profit vehicles, but the downsides to everyone else are enormous.
In my opinion, we need to build housing above stores, so communities can actually work. Build a town, not a subdivision. What’s the point of a $50k home if you have to spend two hours a day driving to make it work?
For whatever reason, those houses get snapped up quick. I've lived in the midwest my whole life, and those cornfield subdivisions are hugely popular. I have a house near a small city, and I've had numerous friends and family ask me why I would live where I am rather than in one of the "much better subs".
I don't think people quite wrap their head around the fact that the US population love their cars and their huge subdivisions. A massive percentage of the US have no desire for walkable cities.
It is a bizarre alien thought to me, too, but it has become very clear to me.
My place is actually rural, but there's one of those little cornfield subdivisions (I like that term) a few miles from me. I don't really get it either. I like living in the country, but they don't seem to, since they bring their town ways with them, landscaping their places to a T like they're competing with each other, calling the police on stray dogs, and stuff like that. They don't seem to live any differently than they did in town, so I guess it's about the presumably cheaper land and the distance from noise and crime that makes up for having to drive 20-30 miles to town for work and groceries.
It's unlikely that the people in that rural subdivision are driving two hours a day for work. In the US Midwest, you're rarely more than 30 minutes from a town large enough to have some jobs. For instance, there's a town of 1100 near me that has a veterinarian, general store, post office, gas station, auto mechanic, school, a couple bank branches, and so on, which all employ people, some at pretty good salaries. And within ten miles of that town, there are a couple of those little blocks of suburb-looking houses like you describe.
Or the people living in them might be retired, or work from home, or work on local farms. Whatever the case, they're not driving a long way for work.
I would really love to see a billionaire tackle this. There's loads of empty, or nearly empty, space in this country. Heck, take over a town if you really want! Sink a few million dollars into kickstarting small-scale urbanism.
I'm not usually much of a billionaire-hater, but today's lot for the most part seems to be uninspired, when it comes to projects like this.
First institute a land value tax. If you have a regular property tax you are going to get speculators, and then eventually vacant lots
This is part of the housing supply mystery. It's not very profitable to build housing when you are punished for building upwards and making good use of the land
Some states are biasing property taxes more toward land value to get some trade off. The problem with a pure land value tax is that you can be forced to sell your home ir redevelop (if you can afford it) if your land value appreciates over time (this should happen eventually, but will happen perusals too quickly with an LVT). Also, services (schools) rendered with property tax money scale as more people live there, and if you go for pure land value, you wind up with some whacky rates to support schools.
I'm a big proponent of LVT, and even bigger of gradually replacing most taxes with LVT, but the great thing about being a billionaire is you can just buy up a whole town and develop it as you see fit and not have to worry about speculators engaging in rent-seeking behavior.
I don’t think you’ll ever see a billionaire tackle this. To become a billionaire, you have to have a complete lack of empathy.
This is why the only solution we see are maximized profit vehicles. The qualities that would make someone want to create a lovely place to live exclude them from making billions of dollars in the first place.
Did you both not see the project that is trying to do exactly this in Solana County CA and has had immense criticism at it, far more than positive coverage...
Looks like it's stuck in the typical hell of environment impact reviews and local politicians seeing how many sinecures they can obtain through the project. I wish the project well and will follow up on it.
Yes they do, there are many normal houses which can be bought for very cheap just spend some time on Zillow looking at areas outside of major metro areas.
You could very easily live in a big city and work a job to save up 50k or a down payment for a 50k mortgage and then buy one of these cheap houses to live in. But most people don’t want to do that. They want nice weather and fun things to do, access to a good job market, and good schools. But the reason why those houses are 50k is just because of simple supply and demand. There is very little demand to live in Louisiana or West Virginia and tons of demand to live in the Bay Area or Seattle. If you increase supply, eventually prices will fall and accessibility will increase.
The demand isn’t there because there is no supply of money… it’s much safer for your life/family if you live in an area with an abundance of employers and not a small town with very few employers and low wages.
Also these areas have poor education systems for kids.
I agree with all of that, but I think there is additional nuance. I would love if the path were as simple as:
(1) Make housing easier to build.
(2) Receive sufficient housing supply.
Even if you make it easier to build houses, there is a market for the capital that housing developers access. Currently, that market also assumes that prices will go up (or at least not go down). Thus, once we go far enough past the point where existing prices are higher than the return on new housing, even all of our dream reforms may not lead to a flood of new housing starts.
I want to be clear: loosening zoning, reforming regulations, and so forth, are all still worth doing. It is better than nothing. But if the result is a shock of supply, the financing for new homes from the biggest players will dry up. That doesn't make a solution impossible, but it does complicate it.
That does indeed seem to be a problem but there's a flip side. If you can't afford to buy a thing, then renting it is actually preferable. Rental is normally fine, unless there is a virtual monopoly on housing that forces people to rent and manipulates prices. In the absence of a monopoly, the rental price is just the time value of the place plus a reasonable service fee decided by a free market.
It's basically illegal to build dense homes in most cities. And despite what people say, the vacancy rate is at historic lows so its not just "people are keeping them empty"
Its a disgrace that people deny the supply crunch we are in
Housing as an investment creates all kinds of terribly misaligned political incentives for local democracies. A land value tax would've helped by shifting people's nest egg from the value of their homes to their accumulated savings from income.
As it is, NIMBYism is likely the biggest driver of rising costs of living, rising homelessness, rising municipal debt, and generational class divides.
Devil's advocate, I don't think we should keep building more housing insofar as it encourages population growth (which it does). Like highways, there will always be barely enough, no matter how many lanes/houses we build.
But population growth is the overwhelming factor in all of our sustainability issues.
The reason there will never be enough lanes is not population growth. It's that we generally don't provide people with alternatives to driving, and adding more lanes just makes even more people have to drive, since things get even farther apart.
So in response to the rapidly rising prices, we should not build any housing because it doesn't matter? Surely there is still a positive benefit since there must be less than one person wanting to move in per new unit otherwise they would have already moved in?
I think if you believed 7-8% loans were normal, you might be more likely to bite the bullet and make your move.
But if you believe 3-4% is normal, then you’re probably waiting for rates to return to “normal.”
I think it’s a side effect of years of low interest rates… people are conditioned now to believe low is normal, and they want to hang on until we get back to that.
I was hoping rates would stay “high” for a while which I thought would soften the housing market so I could buy, but that doesn’t seem to have happened. Instead of prices dropping, inventory just dried up.
Shows how silly I am for thinking I could time the market.
It's the other way around. If you think 3% is normal, you buy now and refinance while people think that the house is unaffordable. Remember that lower interest rates make home prices go even higher!
If you think it will stay at 7%, that 3% loan you already have is a treasure to keep using for a decade or two.
I would have agreed, but in reality, higher rates haven’t improved affordability.
Instead, high rates plus economic uncertainty has reduced supply significantly because no one wants to sell.
Maybe lower rates will make prices even more unaffordable, which would make this a low period by comparison, but if you look at home price to income numbers, they’re still near record highs.
Maybe it means: if you think the line is always going up and to the right, today is the best day to buy, but that’s a weird way for me to think of a house, which I still kind of see as a consumable good rather than an investment vehicle.
Yep, it's insane that people think 3% loans will magically fix the housing market. It's beyond delusional that they refuse to accept it accelerate home price increases and bidding wars.
Real estate market will soften as the economy comes off the rails [1]. 6-12 months from now should have more motivated sellers depending on market (foreclosures in Clark County Las Vegas market are up 32% year over year June 2025, for example [2]). Short sales and foreclosure auctions are also options. If you still want to buy down the road, be in the strongest financial position possible to get financing and make an offer when the market conditions turn more buyer favorable. Seller concessions can be used to buy down the mortgage rate, if that’s useful information.
Put in other words, in any market, there are bids and there are offers. Prices don't move until one side gets in a rush. A seller's market (like in 2021) is one where buyers are in a rush and will lift the offer. A buyer's market (like during GFC) is one where sellers are in a rush and will hit the bid.
The pressure on buyers, at least in the past couple of decades, is that the increase in the supply of housing has not been at all commensurate with the increase in population. That, combined with a great increase in the money supply, makes for tremendous upward pressure on real estate prices.
Sellers generally aren't in a rush except in times of economic crises, especially paired with a period of overleveraging running up to it; i.e. the GFC. Economic softening appears to be in the works at the moment, so buyers should get a little reprieve soon, but since there isn't the same overleveraged buyers all rushing for the exits like in 2008, a similar crash is unlikely.
The housing market won't soften until we build a shit ton of houses which will never happen until there are a lot of very angry people willing it into existence.
I don’t think we’re ever going to build houses again at the rate we did before the 2008 GFC. A substantial portion of people who work in construction are undocumented (and will be targeted for deportation by this admin for the remains of their term), zoning remains a challenge, cost of materials continues to inflate. How many years would it take to get back up to speed? 5? 10? What does the economy look like then? Will enough young folks go into the necessary trades to meet the demand for this labor? We might keep building along at the anemic pace of today, but I argue we’ll never build again at the rate we did pre GFC.
We don't build slow because the cost of labor or raw materials have gone up. In fact productivity and efficiency has gone up across the board in the past century. We build slower because there is a will to build slower. We let local people kill high speed rail, high voltage DC, and, above all, housing. You know how we built rails in the 1800s and highways in the 1900s? We didn't give a shit when someone said "no". That's what's changed.
Supply and demand for labor will work itself out- prices will go up, companies will invest in efficiency, etc. People just need time to figure out the details, and the legal right to do the job.
Indeed, that's my thesis, I appreciate you making it crystal clear. The pipeline has failed, and if there is a will to fix it, it will take time. Until it's sorted, year after year, there will be folks who go without affordable housing. There are, as you said, going to be losers from this policy failure.
There are lots of businesses eager to build houses. The trouble is overwhelmingly that we can't afford it. Angry people won't get it done unless they take up construction or manufacturing as a career in huge numbers, or else rob or enslave people who can build houses.
What we have is a general shortfall of prosperity. Housing is affected by money supply in an outsized way. Prices are at least partly going up because our economy is stagnant, and wages are going down in real terms as credit continues expanding to keep the wheels from coming off.
Reduction in childcare cost in my linked comment, not real estate. Unsure how you made such a connection. From that comment:
> It doesn't make sense if you need both incomes to survive. It just pushes the total fertility rate down faster when prospective parents realize they cannot afford childcare nor one parent to remain at home.
In the context of this thread, there are not enough houses for demand, that is why they are expensive, but if an administration beats on the economy hard enough, causing job destruction and increased unemployment, those who cannot continue to afford to service their mortgages will be forced to sell. This would contribute to real estate price softening. Child care costs will never come down (as I assert in my other comment) because the government refuses to subsidize it and there are labor shortages, with childcare providers unable to find staff for the childcare wages on offer. Labor shortages will persist well into the future due to prime working age population compression due to structural demographics. Citations for this are in my comment you linked to, but I can provide as many as you would like.
If you could get a lower price on the higher interest loan, you could pay it off early and save a lot of money. If you have a very high price with low interest, paying it off early has much less impact on the amount paid.
The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent, and in a world where every home is priced this way it’s not like you could go to an alternative housing market.
Truly upsetting that what was a joke is now my best plan: van, river.
Absolutely zero interest in sharing walls with people again... or participating in building the next Company City. Bidding against colleagues is enough to make the bosses laugh.
So, behave like a dragon. Hoard coins and, eventually/occasionally, fly. Maybe burn some stuff.
> I expect in the not to distant future, the only way someone will get to own a house is to inherent one.
Only if the current insanity around zoning and regulation persists. In many real estate markets, it's literally illegal to increase the supply of housing; in others, price controls make it unappealing to invest in increasing the supply of housing.
I don't know what kind of toxicity is unique to the Anglophone world that exacerbates this problem, but at some point we just need to rip off the band-aid, tell existing homeowners to cry more, and just build, build, build. There's no inherent reason why the price of houses should so far exceed income in this vast country.
>just build, build, build. There's no inherent reason why the price of houses should so far exceed income in this vast country
You are right, but there is always a but :)
Seems right now the "good jobs" are only being create around a few mega cities. DC, NY, SF and a few others. DC stalled a bit I think due to DOGE. In a lot of those areas NIMBH is big. So if you build like crazy in many "fly over" states, where is is plenty of land, at best the builders will not make a profit. But probably the houses will stay empty.
As with everything else, politicians will not make the hard decisions due to fear.
I use to be against term-limits, but the last 25 years proved me wrong :(
The job market is scary. I can afford a better house right now but am scared shitless I won’t be able to keep my income up. So we stay in our small old house for now, maybe forever.
Yes - looking around at the volume of people on the job market after years of layoffs, it is a very humbling experience thinking that if I do end up unemployed, I will have a hard time orchestrating my personal soft landing.
Complaining because you can "only" afford to buy a median house without needing a mortgage has to be one of the more shockingly out of touch things I've heard on this very out of touch site.
General median home price is a metric but of a limited value. There are a lot of homes in remote areas and they don't cost much. The only downside is that they cost so little because they are in remote areas without jobs. One can buy such house only to retire.
In a way this is the ultimate goal of conservatism in its literal sense to conserve. The rich want have their place in society safely entrenched at the top, with no risk of people rising from below to displace them. Those at the bottom should stay locked in there and work and toil because that is the natural order of things.
Mobility is not just about assisting the those in need, its also about having opportunities for advancement.
If you're trapped in a job because of its health coverage, that's restricting mobility. People can' take the risk on changing jobs/locations or even something like starting their own businesses because of the would lose coverage and don't have the wealth to self-pay.
If you're working so many hours just to cover essentials like rent you just too exhausted to look for better work or take courses for a new profession.
If costs and prices rise way faster than your wages, then you start losing ground and do so at an ever increasing rate while those at the top who live on investments and passive income benefit because the value of their assets rise faster.
If opportunities for high paying jobs dry up because, for example, AI replaces those jobs.
If fees and interest on student debt keeps you locked down forever.
If all best and highest paying jobs just go to family members of the already rich through systemic nepotism.
The list goes on. I'm not which of these the American public voted for.
- people trapped in poorly paying jobs and/or jobs with terrible conditions by blocking or dismantling unions.
- locking people out of high paying jobs via network effects. Like nepotism in hollywood or firms only hiring from certain universities which you can only get into
> Mobility is not just about assisting the those in need, its also about having opportunities for advancement.
I think it's really hard to do one without improving the other. They're inextricably linked. I only like to focus on the first one because it's easier and the ROI is higher.
I absolutely agree that its important, but social assistance for the poor is just one facet of bigger picture that is exponentially growing inequality of which reduced mobility is a symptom. Another counter-measure is raising minimum wages which can have a huge ROI for those who work long hours for such low pay. And despite all the rich people on TV warning us of the doom that would befall the economy by paying hard working poor people more, ultimately when pay does go up it turns out ok. Having unions also helps improve wages, conditions, and overall quality of life for workers - even those not in unions. But unions are under hard assault. Another could be to stop actively supporting these stupidly high salaries to CEOs by capping how much of those pay packages can be a tax deductible expense for corporations. The list goes on. Ultimately the american public, whether pinky liberal or staunch conservative, do want the ideal of the american dream of being able to work hard and succeeding. No one is voting to work forever in debt slavery to a hereditary aristocracy, but that is where we're headed.
Nobody is switching jobs because if you move you likely have to switch two jobs rather than just one.
Improving mobility means that you have to make a single earner household a viable pathway again. That means bring house prices down and subsidizing childcare.
Which would cost a bunch of billionaires a couple of pennies. So it will never happen.
The problem with building more homes and bringing down the cost of housing isn't a couple billionaires as much as a massive geriatric class of NIMBY homeowners.
I'm surprised you were downvoted because it is a huge difference with previous generation. Its also a reason people move to big cities because its easy to get a variety of jobs for each partner.
Almost no one under 40 cares. In fact for most of us we'll net a profit (not expected, straight up in most cases including one or two events) just self insuring.
Unprecedented mobility allowed unprecedented competition. The core of the problem is that when there's a job posting or a house for sale, you're competing not only with people in your local area, but also with people from all over the world. For example, in my city HALF of home sales are to foreigners. The effect is that top x% keeps amassing wealth, while the rest suffers from brain drain and depopulation. Literally same problem as Tinder - it promised men to date all over the world, in effect it made them compete with other men from all over the world, and nobody's getting dates.
The problem will fix itself when moving to a big city completely stops being a viable option, and average Joe will be forced to live in bumfuck nowhere. Once enough Joes stay in bumfuck nowhere, they'll eventually build a working small-scale local economy.
As far as I can tell, the problem isn't so much a lack of jobs or a lack of homes but rather that they aren't in the same place. In small town America, the problem isn't a lack of housing stock, it's that it is hard to afford it with few good paying jobs. In big city America, the problem isn't lack of jobs, it's that it is hard to find a job which pays enough for you to afford the limited housing stock.
I think this is a large reason behind the polarization in America today. We aren't all facing the same aspect of this imbalance.
I was hoping that the work-from-home movement was going to help with this, but RTO seems to be in full swing. So, I think our best bet would be to stop incentivizing the concentration of job creation. Absent a fix, we will have to wait a few decades for the imbalance to even out.
It's a little unfair to blame startups, they largely just set up shop where the capital is. Most VCs required startups to be headquartered near by for easier management/communication. The tech scene in SV had such exceptionalism that it quite literally viewed any startup not in SV as an inevitable failure. Even YC mandated startups be in SV.
Most of the real estate "in the mountains" here in Colorado is basically SF prices, with a whole extra set of challenges. Even the front range I think has even worse home price to median income than a lot of the other places people think about when bitching about housing affordability.
I had also hoped WFH would solve that problem. For sure it alleviated it for the time it lasted - at least some people moved to more affordable locations. Unfortunately, for some reason many CEOs decided to take a step back.
> In big city America, the problem isn't lack of jobs, it's that it is hard to find a job which pays enough for you to afford the limited housing stock.
Maybe the more fundamental problem is that in big city America, it's easy for existing homeowners to band together to forbid any further housing stock from being built.
See Silicon Valley: amazing concentration of high-paying jobs, laughably low population density.
We're heading further into a reality where there just aren't enough jobs. All the money has been hoovered into the stock market. There's just not enough floating around to pay people, it's all going into LLM electricity or graphics cards.
We should be living in a time of ease, where the whole planet is sustained with all of us only working a few hours a week. Instead most people are fighting for scraps barely able to afford rent.
It won't continue like this forever. The line doesn't always go up.
Wouldn't it be nice if individuals decided at the start of their career how much money was "enough" for them, and made a pledge to retire once they hit that number. Then society can give them an "I won!" hat or gold card or something, and the next guy can take the role. In this way all enterprises become an engine pulling new hires off the street, and emitting independently wealthy people to go and enjoy their lives.
But instead we have a tiny minority of people who control more and more capital. This has well-known and terrible consequences for society from almost every angle. What I don't understand is why the .1% don't want to step aside and let someone else have a turn. It's funny that our bodies have stomachs, so we know when we've eaten "enough". But money doesn't get stored in the body.
The drive to become that wealthy and powerful does not turn off. It’s a similar failure mode as a meth addict stripping a substation for copper. Neither persona can help themselves.
> It's funny that our bodies have stomachs, so we know when we've eaten "enough".
Humorously on topic, GLP-1s patch the reward center in your brain and say “enough is enough.” If only there was a similar protocol for wealth and power.
I think there's a strong case for having maximum wealth above which you'll just get a 100% tax.
All the billionaires are equal parts clearly miserable people, and also terrifying and psychopathic. I assume they didn't start out that way, but there's also probably a personality that just has a need to run up the score.
I think if capitalism had a kill screen, that you get to and then you have to go do something else for a while, both the billionaires and the rest of us would all be happier and healthier.
Money only goes to the company to get reinvested when the company sells shares, so at IPO time, when an insider sells, when more shares are issued, etc...
Otherwise, it's one asset holder selling to another asset holder, usually at ever increasing prices. So yes, a lot of money is simply sitting in the stock market.
Now, some does come back in the form of share buybacks and dividends. That being said, the average dividend yield is significantly less than the long-run average (it's less than 2 percent right now, long term average is above 3%).
Question really comes to what does the seller do with that money? Buy some other stock? Buy some other asset. What fraction they actually spend to buy goods and services?
EDIT: I wrote this in a rush intending to refer to general market entry. In a broad sense, what I ended up writing is incorrect. To preserve the accuracy of the comment history I will not remove my mistake.
>All the money has been hoovered into the stock market.
I think you might misunderstand what the stock market is. Or perhaps you misunderstand what what stocks are? When you purchase stock, it doesn't get locked in a vault, with your name written next to it, and the number of shares it got you on that day. That money goes to the company, and they use that to finance their operations (and ideally, further growth). That financing may go directly to salaries, or even if it goes to services, those services are paid to someone who pays salaries.
If your claim is instead that "all" of that money, or some meaningful majority of that money, is going to electricity and AI silicon, I would invite you to do some basic math on the companies involved.
When you purchase stock, your money goes to the seller of that stock. That's what makes a "market". The stock market isn't a bunch of companies selling their stock to the public.
Just a single data point against this. I got interviews with 4 companies out of 30 or so I applied to. Cleared all the onsites. Think FAANG, famous hedge fund, popular data analytics platform, and defense. 4 different industries. Job market's not the best, but it's also not that bad if you have 5 YOE+. Offers were good, ~$50-100K over my current pay.
So many people are using AI during the interviews to cheat, as long as you don't use AI and are good at leetcode, probably not that hard to snag an offer. I also interview people at a FAANG, and #1 reason to reject people these days is AI use. If you don't use AI and can leetcode and system design, you're pretty solid and will stand out from other half-baked candidates.
Was this very recent? The job markets for software engineers has been horrid, at least from mid 2022 to mid 2025. Maybe it’s changed now?
Anecdotally, I know a few engineers with 10+ YOE in NYC, Seattle, and California, all with actual FAANG or FAANG adjacent work experience, who couldn’t find jobs. One of whom even took a minimum wage job, and another who nearly did the same as well.
Maybe the tax code change is kicking off an industry revival?
My friend that left cruise got a 2.3x pay bump (post-ipo) moving to Figma in Feb 2025. He also had interviews at Meta and other FANGA (where he used to work).
If tier3 companies are paying $540k-$1.5m for staff in 2025, then I assume the market is turned around.
Let me guess, you went to an elite university and you worked in Big Tech? I think you should be proud of your success, but it's not indicative of the larger American economy or the tech industry in general. There are reports that new grads in CS have higher unemployment than philosophy majors. Something is structurally unsound, even if the kernel of the industry composed of people like yourself is sound.
I'm finding it really hard to detect who is using AI and who isn't for leetcode questions. I'm not even sure its a big deal because as soon as they start they get all the AI tools anyway. I try to talk more about their work experience now.
There is a very simple solution to AI cheating and I'm not sure why it hasn't made a comeback - fly candidates in for in-person interviews (which btw, if people remember, was the norm before COVID).
Not the OP, but I interviewed a candidate for a remote position. He was kind of halting in his responses, until he suddenly wasn't. Borderline erudite, and I recognized some LLM speech patterns. I told my manager I thought he was using an LLM, but we hired him anyway.
After a few months on the job, he hadn't done any meaningful work. His responses to support tickets were clearly written by an LLM and offered only the most generic (and therefore unhelpful) support. He was eventually let go, and deservedly so.
For every candidate who gets accused of using an LLM and is actually using one, there are five candidates who get accused but are not actually using any LLM.
