this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
284 points (100.0% liked)

People Mastodon

379 readers
7 users here now

People tooting stuff. We allow toots from anyone and are platform agnostic (Mastodon, BlueSky, Twitter, Tumblr, FaceBook, Whatever)

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PLS_HELP@fedia.io 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Am I confused looking at this graph? That these numbers represent the “total change” in tech job for these fields during these time spans? Sort of like a graph of velocity over time, not distance travelled?

So to get a representation of what this graph might look like as total jobs, it would be (omitting 2020) a huge spike in total jobs then a plateau and slight decrease?

While relevant, it seems a little deceptive that people might look at this and say “there are less jobs now than one years ago” rather “there are still more jobs than two years ago”

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

My read is in the context of "trying to get a job".

To get a job, you gotta match an unfilled position with a person.

This either happens through a company re-hiring for the same position because of attrition, or a net new job created that you can fill.

This graph shows the latter.

You can roughly interpret this graph as showing the net-success of people entering that workforce.

So, if you're trying to get into the field, this is painting a bleak picture that in general, people are unable to enter the field (at least without at LEAST one person exiting it)

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago

There's also more people trying to get a s tech job so for things to remain the same the graph needs to be positive