I used to be an executive recruiter and I can tell you: the worse a recession is, the more demanding the prospective employers become. I remember trying to fill high-level software sales positions after the dot com collapse for hiring managers who didn’t want “any of those dot com people.” (Apparently they showed too great an affinity for risk-taking.) And yet, all the experienced candidates worked for them, so they ended up hiring people who didn’t know what they were doing.

One of my carpentry masters was an African-American gent from New Orleans. Back in the early 1970s when I first began working for him and his partner (a Caucasian gent), he told me that how he’d found work in tough times was to approach the foreman of a construction project, point to a worker on the site and say that he could do more work than that guy.

The foreman would give him a once-over and put him to work. The next day, the other guy would be gone and my boss would have his job.

That’s called getting and holding a job based on output and nothing else.

Everything Microsoft has tried recently hasn’t worked. They tried the “I’m a PC” ads, a knockoff of the Mac ads - didn’t work. Tried the Zune, a knockoff of the iPod - didn’t work. Tried redoing MSN Search again and again, as a knockoff of Google - didn’t work. What’s the world coming to, when Microsoft can’t build a monopoly around a knockoff?

It’s those effing customers. They keep choosing the best experience.

Google, concerned by the recent departures of several top executives, has developed an algorithm to try to identify which employees are likely to quit, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

I guess the first version is just a keyword analysis tool applied to performance reviews, looking for particular keywords (”demotivated”, “concern”) and statistical analysis tools looking at data like last date of promotion, ongoing training, denied requests for raises, etc…
It is not particularly difficult to do, companies don’t have to be Google to do the same thing!

My Personal Credit Crisis - NYTimes.com

If there was anybody who should have avoided the mortgage catastrophe, it was I. As an economics reporter for The New York Times, I have been the paper’s chief eyes and ears on the Federal Reserve for the past six years. I watched Alan Greenspan and his successor, Ben S. Bernanke, at close range. I wrote several early-warning articles in 2004 about the spike in go-go mortgages. Before that, I had a hand in covering the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the Russia meltdown in 1998 and the dot-com collapse in 2000. I know a lot about the curveballs that the economy can throw at us.

The recession has led to massive layoffs and downsizing. But not every job field is in trouble. Some professions are expected to see faster than average employment growth over the next few years. Here are 15 job markets thought to be recession proof.

To test this hypothesis, the authors added an extra layer to the experiment. After the students either touched or didn’t touch the Slinky and coffee mug, they asked about half of them to imagine picking up the products and bringing them home. They asked the other half to simply evaluate the products in their minds. Among those who touched the products, imagining ownership did not affect the price they’d be willing to pay for them. However, among those who didn’t touch the items — a group that shares the same hands-free experience as online shoppers — picturing ownership led to significantly higher valuations of the products.

But even better are the less read The Economy of Cities (1970) and Cities and the Wealth of Nations (1984), twin volumes which do nothing less than demolish and rebuild macroeconomics. Economics went wrong, she explains, with the work her titles allude to, Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Nations aren’t the proper unit of macroeconomic analysis; cities are.

Jacobs arrives at this conclusion by considering the stagflation of the 1970s– simultaneous high unemployment and high inflation, something that was not supposed to be possible under either left-wing (Keynesian) or right-wing (monetarist) economics. They were supposed to trade off. She points out that this condition– high prices and not enough work– is normal for backward regions; Western economists mistook the fitful but constant economic boom from Smith’s time on as a permanent condition.