HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ wopwopwah

I was also sent off from Microsoft last Thursday. What a day. My observations:

- This was the best kept secret ever at Microsoft. Many VPs and directors were not knowing until the day of.

- It's clear the layoff decisions were not personal or based on talent or seniority, but just rather the high executives each doing a large pruning of their own branches. Whole branches of the company being lopped off because they had no role in the future picture. Especially after the Nokia buyout the total headcount was too high so this was also to get headcount under control.

- Severance terms were good.

Overall I can't blame Microsoft. Their competitors are making much more hay with much less people.

⬐ dapz

Layoffs not based on talent? As competitive as the market is, throwing away valuable people seems insane to me.

⬐ cmsj

Agreed, but at the scale they're talking about, trying to rank competent people out of the tens of thousands being let go... you're gonna need a lot of Bobs ;)

⬐ Mc_Big_G

I'm not against H1B visas or green cards for skilled immigrants and, in fact, have great friends who fit that profile. However, considering this massive layoff, what reason could Microsoft and Bill Gates have to lobby so aggressively for H1B high-skilled tech talent, besides wanting cheap labor?

⬐ Infinitesimus

Maybe because the H1B process right now isn't too great?

⬐ curtis

Because most years they hire more people than they lay off.

⬐ untog

Because the H1B process is pretty broken right now. Very skilled people can be denied a visa because the quota is filled with less talented developers that got lucky.

⬐ fndrplayer13

Hopefully things work out better for him outside of Microsoft. Microsoft is just another big company these days, and their policies and products reflect/have reflected that for quite awhile. Work for yourself, or work for a small company, you'll feel more rewarded and hopefully like a more important part of the team.

My 2 cents after having worked for a huge company and now working at a small company.

⬐ TheMagicHorsey

I feel bad for the guy, but Microsoft really does need to reinvent itself, and the deadweight of a huge Windows-focused testing-QA bureaucracy wasn't going to help that mission.

After 15 years at MS, this guy is probably unemployable anywhere else unless he is open to learning new things and retraining.

Big company people often just learn how to operate in a big company environment, and forget how to do real work.

⬐ Ecio78

After 15 years at MS, this guy is probably unemployable anywhere else unless he is open to learning new things and retraining.

I've not seen the video so I don't know what he was really doing in Microsoft, but you know that there are other places where Microsoft software is used outside Microsoft, right? I don't get whz he should be unemployable anywhere else..

⬐ TheMagicHorsey

I don't know of too many places other than Microsoft where testing Microsoft software with Microsoft internal testing tools is an applicable skill.

⬐ tdicola

The SDET role varied a lot by team, but in my experience it dealt a lot with building automated test tools and not manual testing or other rote tasks. The skills are definitely applicable elsewhere.

⬐ kamaal

>>I don't get whz he should be unemployable anywhere else..

Your ability to get work done has nothing to do with getting a job.

Getting a job depends on clearing interviews. These days that means live coding over shared sessions, all kind of crazy math and puzzle questions, getting grilled over esoteric corners of CS, and your regular tests of algorithm wizardry.

If you haven't interviewed in 1.5 decades. Its very likely you are going to go through hell before you find something you like.

⬐ throwaway12312

Ageism is overblown to the point of being a myth. I'm 34 as well, my resume is not really that impressive, and yet I've had interviews with Google, Samsung and Amazon (+ some name-brand statups) in the past 6 months. Sure, I didn't land any of them, but I wasn't far off. If you're getting interviews, they want to hire you.

⬐ throwaway12312

Caveat: Ageism is probably a real thing in small startups, to their own detriment.

"Let's hire 23-year-old Stanley who can't program for shit because he's got a strong hairline and wears a hoodie and Converse! Fuck that old guy with 10 years of direct experience!"

⬐ buckbova

I'd love to be laid off with a good severance. It's an extended paid vacation.

It might be a slam to your ego, but every doer out there needs to know, you are seen by management as a cog in a machine, easily swapped out. Everyone is replaceable.

⬐ nilkn

For most people, it's extremely risky to treat a severance package as a vacation. You should typically start looking for your next job immediately and with considerable haste and seriousness.

A gap of unemployment on your resume, for any reason, is going to hurt 90% of job seekers.

⬐ fencepost

If you regard it as an "extended paid vacation" there's a good chance it's going to impact your earnings for years if not decades.

It may be an opportunity to work on your side projects, get some training/education, reevaluate your options and direction, etc. but it's not a vacation. It's "unemployed" and just having that gap in your resume/job applications can really start to hurt you - in part because other people aren't treating it as a vacation. If you're a cog but nobody's chosen to slot YOU in place of someone else "easily replaceable," what's wrong with you? "What did previous interviewers see that I'm missing? Meh, he's a cog, why risk it, 'NEXT!'" Just ask some of the long-term unemployed about how hard it is to even get a call back.

Even if you avoid that, one of the questions you're going to get is "What have you been doing since you were at XYZ?" and you'd best have an answer.

⬐ YZF

Q: What have you been doing since you were at XYZ?

A: I took a year off.

I don't think it's really that bad. People do that. It's not like you're going to be looking for a job on Mars, when you come back you'll call your friends (who by then have found jobs or started new companies) and through them you will find plenty of opportunity.

Those places where you're a cog - you probably don't want to work there anyways.

We need to rewire these workplaces. If they want cogs don't work there and let them know why.

⬐ nilkn

Getting laid off after 15 years at a large tech company is a very scary notion. For aspiring developers, here are some encouraging thoughts:

Pay is currently sufficiently high that you could, with a sufficiently frugal lifestyle and prudent investment habits, go from zero to millionaire in that time period. Being a millionaire isn't what it used to be, but that would provide one hell of a buffer should you find yourself laid off after 15 years.

Think of it like this. If your total compensation over that period averages $150k, that's about $7.7k/month net in CA, $8.8k in WA. If you can invest $4k of that per month at a conservative 4% annual return, you'll have $1M in 15 years; about $1.2M if your return is 6%; and about $1.4M if your return is 8%.

This is all assuming that you have don't marry a spouse during that period who is also earning an income and helping boost those savings.

This is just a back of the envelope calculation, but my main point is that if you're dedicated to the task and you work hard, you can create for yourself a very strong safety buffer over the course of a 15 year career in the technology industry. $1M is almost enough to retire off of if you were to move to a rural area of the country and continued to live frugally--health insurance would be your most costly concern.

⬐ tdicola

Housing costs don't really make it practical in WA to put away $4k/month when you're pulling in $6-7k/month after taxes. A mortgage on any decent-ish place is going to be around $2500-$3500+ a month. If you just bought a place recently your savings were probably tapped out out to come up with the $100k+ down payment. It's definitely possible to save a lot of money, but $1 million in the bank is pretty tough IMHO.

⬐ nilkn

I said "sufficiently frugal" for a reason. You can't do this if you want to buy the big house in the big city and a fancy car right off the bat.

The way you do this is fairly simple: don't buy the house. Rent an apartment (not a luxury one), possibly even share it with a roommate.

I recognize that not everybody will be willing to do this. But owning a home in a major city is a luxury these days IMHO.

Besides, this is assuming you're doing this all on your own -- no income from a spouse. Why do you need a house by yourself?

(By the way, the income figure I cited was $8.8k/month in WA after taxes, not $6-7k.)

⬐ YZF

There's the slight problem of there not being a conservative 4% annual return and inflation. How about marrying a spouse during that period who is raising your children and not working? Also that 1M is basically your house (or a portion thereof).

I think the reality of our generation is that the middle class (and yes, these guys are all middle class) has faced erosion of its standard of living. Salaries for engineers have barely kept up with inflation (in some case simply not) coupled with higher risks. Just as you say, being a millionaire ain't what it used to be and a lot of these middle class families are far from being millionaires. MS like many other companies is hoarding it's cash and helping increase the class gap.

That said it's still better to be an engineer in MS with a good salary than a homeless drug addict. Clever/frugal/single/some people can save money but it's not as easy as you make it sound.

⬐ nilkn

I was talking about one specific scenario (no kids, living very frugally).

If you want kids and you want to do it on a single income, you're going to have to make compromises, very serious ones. Unfortunately, that's all there is to it. Keep in mind that one possible compromise is that you move--take a 20% paycut (or more) and move to an area where you can afford the lifestyle that you want while still saving a reduced but proportional amount to my example.

It's frankly a really bad idea for someone making very low six figures to try to raise a family on that income alone in an area where homes cost $1M (as you suggest they do).

⬐ socrates1998

It sounds rough, but if you are not invaluable to your company, then you are always at risk. And almost no one is invaluable at such a large company.

There is no more "lifer" jobs.

⬐ Tactic

Nobody is invaluable at a company. Period. And especially in the tech industry. Code is just code. It doesn't take a magical power to read it.

⬐ wsc981

Unless of course you'd take some extra measures to increase your job security: https://www.thc.org/root/phun/unmaintain.html

⬐ billmalarky

On the flip side, being "irreplaceable" isn't necessarily a good thing either because it generally means you are needed for one specific task that will stagnate your professional growth.

⬐ 2J

He says that he will try to be a youtuber full-time now, but I don't think that it will last very long. He was definitely earning a lot more while he was working in Microsoft, and working on videos full-time while he only has <150k subscribers seems a bit low, especially considering his son's situation. He obviously has plans to make his channel grow and has to be earning a fair amount to make this decision, but I think that it would've been a better choice to just keep youtube as a hobby and apply for a different job in a company or become part of a start-up.

This particular guy's future aside, I wonder what exactly Microsoft's "future picture" is that they chose to lay off what seems like a large number of talented people. How will the company function without the people in key roles? I wonder how they will relocate the remaining manpower so that they will continue to be successful.

⬐ smrtinsert

It's really sad to hear him talk about his son. What department was he in, and what could the new direction be?

⬐ kevinstubbs

SDET in Windows.

⬐ badman_ting

Anecdotally it seems like a lot of the people let go were in SDET roles.

⬐ yuhong

Yea, I think it is deliberate, they want to merge dev and test.

⬐ kevinstubbs

It's part of an effort to move towards something called "combined engineering" and was started as a pilot in Bing. The basic idea is less testers, more devs. Devs take on more responsibility for testing, while at the same time getting more details about usage from customers in the wild... My understanding is that it's like A/B testing features - something Bing does a lot with "micro-flighting".

⬐ ianstallings

It made me a little sad but ultimately when he said he wants to be his own boss it gave me hope. I believe we're in an age of personal empowerment for developers and others in the industry. The idea of a one man shop isn't so far fetched these days.

⬐ billmalarky

Working for yourself is pretty high risk though especially with a special needs child.

Though his risk is offset by being able to find a job if need be rather quickly I would think (being an ex-microsoft engineer).

⬐ ausjke

Don't we have Obamacare these days? why COBRA is still mentioned here? is it still relevant as it used to be?

I thought OBAMACARE is beneficial for those who got laid-off, as low income got a huge discount, is it?

⬐ akg_67

COBRA is not only for health insurance. It also includes other insurance such as dental and vision. ACA only covers health insurance.

COBRA is still relevant for health insurance if you employer offers to cover part of health insurance premium for certain duration after being laid off. In this situation, you will come out ahead with COBRA than ACA. Also, ACA doesn't cover vision and dental for which you will need to go through COBRA to get decent coverage with too much restrictions.

⬐ bitexploder

Except the healthcare MSFT has is probably way better than anything you will get on the individual market. So you aren't in the terrible position you were before ACA, but you are still in a less good position.

⬐ guelo

COBRA is an extension of your ex-employer's healthcare program that you pay out of pocket.

You have always had the option to either buy COBRA or buy individual coverage on your own. Often it is cheaper to buy individual coverage through private insurers than to buy COBRA, especially if you're willing to settle for catastrophic-only insurance.

Obamacare is a new Marketplace for buying individual coverage that includes regulations on the types of coverage offered and includes subsidies if you make less than $46k over a tax year. Since Obamacare doesn't offer bare-bones catastrophic insurance it will often be cheaper to buy outside the Obamacare marketplace if you're not getting a subsidy.

Obamacare also has the awful anti-consumer feature called "Open Enrollment Period" which means you can only buy Obamacare insurance between November and February of every year, which makes it useless if you get laid off now.

⬐ mjwhansen

Actually, if you experience a "qualifying event" such as job loss, marriage, or having a baby, you can enroll under something called a Special Enrollment Period. (Private group employer plans also have open enrollment and qualifying event enrollment). For example, https://www.healthcare.gov/screener/marketplace.html?state=V...

⬐ fencepost

Private insurance has always had the chance of being cheaper if you could get it - COBRA's advantage was in cases with preexisting conditions.

Since this is in the context of COBRA, the ACA has something called a Qualifying Life Event that includes changes in income, family size and state of residence. With those, there's a good chance you'll qualify for a Special Enrollment Period and be able to purchase coverage (though you might still keep COBRA for a month until the new coverage kicks in).

There may also be some limitations on the non-exchange catastrophic plans that will curtail their availability in the future - I haven't paid attention to this, but one of the "Obamacare killed my insurance coverage!" issues was that the ACA mandated certain minimum levels of coverage or service and the plans that were being killed off were ones that didn't meet those minimums. After the outcry I believe there were some deadline extensions to grandfather in existing plans, but those will end at some point.

⬐ mercwear

Being laid off can really take a shot on your confidence but the approach you are taking seems to be a healthy one. You have also got a great set of skills to "fall back on" should bring your own boss not work out (I hope it does!).

I personally believe that Windows PowerShell desired state configuration experience is about to become worth its weight in gold as more Windows shops move towards automation. If you have any experience with DSE finding a rewarding and well-paying job in the future probably won’t be too hard.

⬐ _random_

I guess, maybe it's OK to live in a socialistic country and pay a lot of tax. That insurance thing is a horrible situation to be in.

I wonder how many staff will be replaced by cheap(er) fresh immigrants in the end (I am not against immigration BTW).

⬐ abhinavk

They are sliimming down, not replacing them by outsourcing to cut costs.

⬐ humanrebar

It isn't because of socialism. It's an accident of the tax code. Medical coverage is tax-deductible for businesses (as an expense) but not for individuals. This loophole in the tax code was not closed by the recent healthcare reforms, which is a big shame.

⬐ mimog

34 years old and has been at Microsoft for 15 years? That seems a little strange

⬐ vyrotek

I know a guy on the Entity Framework team who started working for Microsoft at the age of 19. He already had his BS in CS as well. I went to school with him.

I don't know what this guy's situation was but I imagine there many young & smart individuals at MS.

⬐ sjg007

Sounds like a great opportunity to start a startup or join one in the Seattle area.

⬐ acchow

Honest question as a Canadian - what do you do about health insurance when you're 50 and get fired from your lifer job? Should you really have been paying for your own policy in parallel with your employer's so that you can continue with the low premiums post-employment?

⬐ throwaway1dh9

I'm from Europe (Germany).

Worried about insurance for your kid? Can't happen here, the government will deal with that. Losing your job? Get paid for one or two years by your work insurance. After that you fall back to a free basic income (for as long as you need). And still this system is generally not exploited: People work hard here.

And it's not just unemployment. There are people begging for money on HN regularly, because they are dying (often of cancer) and are now worried about their families. This is just cruel and can't happen that easily on this side of the Atlantic.

But it seems US citizens want to live like that. Why?

⬐ runamok

A lot of people didn't like ACA because we would have preferred single payer. Many others felt we would just be sending much more money to the for profit insurance companies who were already treating us horribly and making record profits.

We also have heard many stories of people having to wait months if not years for non-emergency treatment. Such as getting an MRI for an injured knee in Canada for instance. As a very healthy avid runner it would be very frustrating to not be able to pay for something critical to me like that (once again I am not saying this is always or mostly the case but it is a scenario I have heard about). I suppose our imaginations extrapolate if health care is more or less free for all then our level of care will be much worse. I am not really sure.

If it was up to me, I'd kill all insurance companies with fire, have us all pay into a pot for medicare and just use that.

⬐ Chinjut

This business about having to wait months for treatment is always an odd objection to me. Here in the U.S., under our existing system, I have many times had to wait months to see a specialist or begin a particular course of (non-emergency) medical treatment. It's hardly as though our current system somehow gets rid of the problem of waiting for appointments.

⬐ SnacksOnAPlane

We don't actually want to live like that.

We just have such distrust in our government that we don't want them running the health care system. Witness, for example, the recent VA Hospital scandals. Our government is dysfunctional. And it's already incredibly intrusive, too, and some of us don't want the feds knowing all of our health problems (even though they probably already do).

I would love government health care, just not from this government. The free market doesn't work for health care.

⬐ greggman

I agree with you that the german system sounds nice. But I couldn't let this slide

> The free market doesn't work for health care.

Where is there a free market for health care that would could test this idea? Certainly not the USA.

I believe Singapore is the closest to free market healthcare and they seem pretty healthy. Though even that is not "free market" healthcare

⬐ james1071

The only realistic way of providing healthcare is by an insurance system, which can be private or public.

Necessary conditions are that insurance is compulsory and that insurers cannot refuse coverage.

It should be obvious what would happen otherwise.

⬐ imgabe

Most people don't want to live like that, but health insurance companies profit from the current system and they have deep pockets to influence the government to keep it that way.

⬐ krapp

>But it seems US citizens want to live like that. Why?

Well first, not all US citizens do.

Primarily this seems to stem from a free-market, conservative viewpoint. Central to this viewpoint is the thesis that not only is labor just, but the sociological outcome of labor is also, always, just (unless the government interferes). In other words, those who can afford healthcare have earned the right to it, those who can't were simply to lazy or ignorant to work hard enough to afford it.

Also, there can be a deep aversion to the government (any government) interfering with a person's property and income, where any program which requires people to give for the "greater good" is seen as not only theft, but an existential attack on the fundamental ideals of American individualism and personal liberty. The argument here is that governments are by definition corrupt, fascist and incompetent, and only a free market with as little regulation as possible could handle something like "healthcare" efficiently and fairly.

Therefore, advocates for limited government will see social programs as interference by an increasingly "big government" regime which has no right to force a moral imperative on people or relieve them of their property, and conservatives and free-market believers will feel that social programs undermine the moral principles of capitalism while insidiously creating a dependent class of lazy left-wing radical neo-immigrants.

Also, it's probably worth mentioning that not many Americans appreciate that there is a difference between liberalism, socialism and communism, and nor would they care.

⬐ mseebach

There's a lot (a lot) to be said for universal healthcare, but to answer you question in the general case (why americans don't want to be more like Europe), this might give a good hint:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-c...

Becoming Germany, Britain or Sweden would probably be a tolerable tradeoff, but a lot of factors go into that, it's not something that happens as a result of a single policy or two. Do note that in Portugal the rich are worse off than the poor in the US, and Italy and even France aren't far off.

⬐ dfxm12

Germans get more benefits provided by the government than Americans because Germans pay more taxes. The trade off is Americans get more take home pay and get to decide what benefits they wish to buy on their own, in the private market.

At least in theory, anyway...

⬐ mistermann

> But it seems US citizens want to live like that. Why?

Only "god" knows for sure, but I have a strong suspicion you answered your own question, at least in part:

> And still this system is generally not exploited: People work hard here.

⬐ dfxm12

According to Forbes, Americans' GDP per hour worked is better than that of the Germans, and the Americans are happier while doing it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/10/30/the-pursui...

This also shows Americans work more than the Germans and this doesn't say anything about how hard people are working, but don't forget the old adage: Don't work harder, don't smarter!

⬐ mistermann

Agreed, but productivity per hour worked and moral willingness to abuse social programs are two different issues.

⬐ Chinjut

What does it mean to abuse a program of universal healthcare?

⬐ mistermann

The original quote was:

"Get paid for one or two years by your work insurance. After that you fall back to a free basic income (for as long as you need). And still this system is generally not exploited: People work hard here."

⬐ dragonwriter

> But it seems US citizens want to live like that.

US citizens, in aggregate, want to live like that (or, perhaps more accurately, want other people in the US to have to live like that) when opinions are aggregated by effective political power, sure, but effective political power in the US is largely a function of wealth, which is extremely unequally distributed.

⬐ sjg007

It is the health insurance lobby that doesn't want it. Also corporations don't want the flexibility because it encourages people to stay and keeps salaries down.

⬐ yoodenvranx

German here who lived in the US for a year. I lived there during the time when obamacare was presented and I had a lot of discussions about this. The main reason which I heard over and over again (and sometimes word for word) "The German system is communism. We don't want that here!". I am not even kidding, there are people who truly believe that a german insurance system would be the beginning of communism in the US. One guy who told me this broke his arm and had to pay about 15000 dollar because he had no insurance. An other couple paid 75000 dollar behause at the birth of their first child there were some medical problems during birth and they did not have insurance. And still both got angry at me when I told them that I'd prefer the German way.

After hearing this stuff for half a year I am really glad to be back in Germany. I am funemployed since a few months and I pay 150 euro per month. Next week I have an appointment at the doctor because of my severe hip problems. I might get some xrays done and perhaps some MRT. What will this cost me? Nothing! I am so glad that I live in a deeply communist country...

⬐ grecy

I'm an Aussie that's lived and worked in quite a few countries, including the US, and I share this experience.

I was in Mexico partying with a bunch of US college kids when Obamacare was on the table, and we talked about it for a while. All of them said "We don't want it because it's Socialism!".

When I inquired as to what that meant, or why that is undesirable to them, the entire room of 30 of them went silent. Not a single one even know what Socialism meant, or why they had distaste for it, but they sure were certain they didn't want it!

IMHO, people in the US have been lied to for multiple generations, to the point where they don't even know why something is good or bad for them personally, they just know what they're supposed to think about something.

⬐ alrs

Oh, they know what they think about it.

What they are thinking, but not saying, is:

"We don't want our tax money going to black people and Mexicans."

"Socialism" is a dog-whistle term that usually indicates racism when used in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

⬐ ajross

These days you go to your state exchange (for the putative ex-MS person, that's likely to be https://www.wahealthplanfinder.org/), search for a plan, click on it and sign up.

It used to be worse, of course. But even then it wasn't a disaster for the case at hand: the COBRA act allowed you to continue to buy your existing plan at the same premiums for a year and a half until you found a new job.

⬐ oddevan

Should be noted that in most cases your employer would cover most of that premium. My insurance went from $10/month (with my employer covering $580) to $590/month on COBRA when I was laid off.

⬐ nanidin

As a mid 20's single male, I had the same experience. My premiums were fully paid by my employer, so it was quite a shock when the COBRA paperwork came stating the monthly cost would be almost $600/month.

⬐ chris_mahan

As a mid-45 male with a wife and kid, my cobra 5 years ago was $1200/month, and I was glad to pay it. 14,000 a year is nothing compared to one major incident involving a hospital.

⬐ kstrauser

COBRA is impossibly expensive for many people. When you simultaneously have your salary drop to $0 and your portions of your insurance premiums triple (say, if you have a spouse and kids covered by the plan), that's a rough situation to be in.

About the only good thing about COBRA is that it covers preexisting conditions.

⬐ dataminded

I can cosign this. Cobra for my wife and I was ~$1000/month.

⬐ bmelton

Not to contribute to the ACA vs. non-ACA arguments further, but ACA plans for my wife, daughter and myself are more than double that in Maryland.

I don't know what the differences would be if I were earning $0 per year, especially as the relevant question (on the form I filled out) was something like "How much do you anticipate earning this year?" which is a question I have no idea how I would answer if I were currently unemployed.

⬐ nknighthb

> I don't know what the differences would be if I were earning $0 per year

Your premiums would be $0. You would be immediately enrolled in medicaid.

⬐ bmelton

That is the correct answer. Danke.

⬐ krschultz

Then that sounds about on par, because a family plan is usually 2x the cost of a couple's plan.

⬐ pgeorgi

I'd answer that with "0", and send them an updated form as soon as things change. Filling out that form is not the time for heroism.

⬐ kyllo

And that within 60 days, you only pay the premium if you use it, because that's how long they give you to enroll in it. So if you get sick/injured within 60 days after being laid off, you can apply for COBRA, pay the premium, and you will be covered retroactively.

⬐ usefulcat

It's impossibly expensive because US health insurance is impossibly expensive. It's not like there's a significant extra cost associated with going with COBRA versus an equivalent individual policy. And prior to the start of this year, you might not be able to get an equivalent individual policy at any price. If you had any pre-existing conditions at all, then you definitely would not be able to get equivalent coverage.

⬐ mistermann

> It's impossibly expensive because US health insurance is impossibly expensive.

And US health insurance is impossibly expensive because US health delivery is impossibly expensive. I believe 75% of the real US problem is not insurance, it is the cost of delivery.

⬐ bodyfour

The other problem with COBRA is that the insurance company has zero interest in customer service. Insurance companies are famously horrible to deal with, but if your employer's plan gives you trouble you'll probably complain to HR. If they get enough complaints, they could lose the contract next time around. They have at least some incentive to keep you happy (or at least non-furious)

When you're a COBRA customer you're basically on your own. Good luck getting them to pay up on anything.

Can we have a single-payer system now? Please?

⬐ None

None

⬐ wyager

A very reasonable thing to do is ask for a higher salary and no company insurance. You end up paying a premium (because the extra salary gets hit by income tax, while if the company had used it to buy insurance it would not have been subject to income tax), but you get to choose your own insurance and it doesn't stop when you leave.

⬐ smackfu

How is that better than COBRA?

⬐ mike_h

COBRA rates are 3-4x higher than individual plan insurance every time I've heard about them.

In a rapid-churn economy like tech, where people often strike out on their own and companies cease to exist etc., the few $K a year it takes to maintain your own individual plan is something everyone should consider. As you age, starting a new private plan becomes frighteningly expensive, and if ACA doesn't stick, it may become impossible again for many people.

⬐ usefulcat

At various times, I've used COBRA, I've had individual plans, and I've had group plans for which I've paid the full premium. I've never seen a difference of anywhere remotely close to 3-4x for COBRA versus an equivalent individual plan.

⬐ nknighthb

The times I was on COBRA in California, it's been around 3x what I would have paid if I'd been eligible for an individual plan.

Is it possible you've had individual coverage in a state where such coverage is guaranteed-issue? That would account for a lack of distinction between group and individual rates.

⬐ usefulcat

I'm in Texas. I know that at until the start of this year, if you didn't have any access to a group plan (including via COBRA), and you applied for an individual plan and were refused, then there is significantly more expensive coverage that you can get through some program offered by the state and Blue Cross. Though that may not exist in the post-ACA world where no one is supposed to be denied coverage any more.

⬐ mike_h

I only have two personal anecdotes, one 3x and one > 4x. Both for people in their 20s, and I don't know the math but I can imagine that in group plans where rates are flat, young people cost more to insure than individually and older people cost less.

Couldn't find any good data but here's a post representative of the top few google hits for COBRA vs. private:

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/unemployed-cobra-vs-individual-he...

⬐ spartango

In the US this doesn't make sense (for most people), unfortunately.

Employers offer group plans which tend to be much cheaper and offer substantially better benefits than individual plans. The larger the company, the better the arrangement tends to be.

COBRA is designed to fill in that coverage gap when you leave, but as others have noted in this thread, it is not always economical.

⬐ danielweber

You also use post-tax money to buy an individual plan.

⬐ walkon

Buying a parallel policy could help. I don't understand why the U.S. government has a tax code that effectively makes the most important type of insurance the easiest to loose.

⬐ GFK_of_xmaspast

You get sick and die.

⬐ fencepost

Prior to the Affordable Care Act / Obamacare, you had up to 18 months of COBRA eligibility, meaning you could stay on your employer's plan but paid all premiums (expensive). During that time you frantically look for a job that includes healthcare coverage. Failing either of those, you might find junk insurance, or you simply go without and hope for good health. If your income is / remains low enough you might qualify for Medicaid, but you pretty much have to be at the poverty level for that.

Post-ACA you can now purchase coverage from any of a variety of companies through the exchanges. Rates are limited in that there's now a legal requirement that a minimum percentage of premiums must actually be used to pay for medical expenses (I believe 80 or 85%) so premiums are set accordingly. There are also income based subsidies that you're eligible for of your income is more than 4x the poverty level.

There was also an expansion of Medicaid eligibility up to 4x the poverty level with the additional cost being paid by the federal government, but some states have refused that expansion and money. This has left many poor in those states stuck unable to afford premiums and unable to get either subsidies or Medicaid.

⬐ nextstep

This is a very thorough answer.

⬐ akg_67

I went through layoff six months ago. ACA definitely has helped with health insurance. If you are unemployed (no income), you are most likely to get subsidy as it is income based. Our premiums after subsidy is little bit higher than what we were paying when I was employed.

I wish there was something similar to ACA for dental insurance. Most dental insurance plans on open market are expensive and with ridiculous terms, like 18-month waiting period! We had to take dental insurance plan through COBRA (almost 6 times as expensive as regular employee). Not sure what we will do with dental insurance after 18 months of coverage through COBRA.

⬐ fencepost

Dental is harder, and (at least in my dentist's opinion) private dental insurance just isn't worth it. I can see the merits of that, because you're less likely to have a catastrophic dental emergency that can bankrupt you. A lot of dental insurance also seems to only cover 50% of the more expensive items.

It may be worth looking at how much you're paying each month in premiums and comparing that to the annual out-of-pocket cost for preventive / cleaning visits plus perhaps a filling or two. You may find that all the insurance is really doing is smoothing those payments out without saving you much money unless you have a "years of neglect" situation that you're still working through.

It's probably also worth asking your dentist if they have "self-pay" rates comparable to what they're getting from the insurance companies. If they bill $120 but accept $80 from insurance, will they take $80-90 cash from you instead of that $120? Also, for more expensive procedures like crowns, it's very likely that your dentist's office will let you do installments to spread the cost over at least several months. That doesn't really help when you don't have current income and aren't sure when you will have it, but it does relate to smoothing out your expenditures the way insurance premiums do.

⬐ akg_67

My dentist actually mentioned that she can't charge less than what she bills to insurance company (at least on the books). It appears that if a dentist is part of an insurance network, by agreement with insurance company, s/he can't charge less to patient who don't have insurance.

I have a dentist friend whose practice doesn't accept any insurance so he is free to set his rates and charge his patient. After COBRA finishes we might go to him.

⬐ fencepost

Find out if that's can't charge less than billed or can't charge less than insurance pays. There's often a substantial difference.

⬐ badmadrad

Naturally, he is very disappointed but he should keep things in perspective. It's not that bad of situation to be in. You have 15 years of software development experience at Microsoft and there are going to be a lot of open doors. This could really be blessing in disguise.

⬐ nanidin

Yeah, I'm about to start a job search pretty soon. Not so nice that the market is being flooded with ex-MS people at the moment.

⬐ chiph

Be willing to move.

The hard part about this is convincing the HR department that you can self-relocate and don't want relo money.

⬐ kken

I doubt that relo money plays any role in a decision for or against any candidate.

⬐ akg_67

The most common objection I have heard in past six months during my job search. Another two objections that I have heard are "too much experience" and "your past salary was too much, we don't want to offer less but can't afford to pay you what you deserve."

⬐ pc86

You're don't necessarily deserve $n if the market can no longer bare it. There's nothing wrong with taking $(0.8n) if that's what the market has determined your skills are worth.

⬐ akg_67

I am open but companies are not :-(

⬐ nilkn

The problem is that the company is afraid that you'll bolt the second you get an offer at the n level again. They'd rather not hire you at all than hire you, invest in you, and then lose you just as quickly afterward.

⬐ humanrebar

Offer a longer term contract then. The guy in the video was at his last job for 15 years. I'm sure he'd be OK with that assuming the benefits were good enough.

⬐ badman_ting

I hope this person is OK but that strikes me as unrealistic. Ageism is a real problem for software developers, but also that 15 years at MS could just as easily be viewed as a negative than a positive.

⬐ spartango

That 15 years of experience at one of the world's top software companies is seen is a negative disgusts me.

It seems disrespectful to judge an employee based on the negative perception of an entire company. For all the broken things within a company like Microsoft, I think it would be foolish to mark the company's talent pool as tainted.

Perhaps this reflects a subtler form of the fanboy-ism that exists in technology culture today. The sentiment is that companies we dislike must have incompetent employees. Competent employees would surely build a better product, right? Obviously this is naive.

Absolutely right, ageism plays into this as well. If you're hiring, keep in mind that, while fashionable, it is illegal to discriminate based on age. I wish this law was slightly easier to enforce.

⬐ buckbova

It's not unlike Steve Jobs thoughts on hiring Big Blue types in the early years. They were not the right culture fit.

I don't think it's a perception of incompetence, but more of inflexibility. The thinking that a microsoft employee of 15 years is set in their ways.

⬐ s_kilk

hmm, he is however up against every one of his ex-collegues who are in the same boat.

⬐ lightblade

I heard that Microsoft is almost a direct feed into Google. Perhaps he should try there?

⬐ Scuds

yup. you're not hurting for .net / sql dev roles in the Puget sound area. Starbucks, Expedia, Nordstrom, and any number of other consulting firms and smaller dev shops.

Of course - Node, Rails, Django, Spring etc wouldn't be bad to learn.

⬐ huhtenberg

Except every interviewer will be wondering why did Microsoft let go someone with so much experience. What did Microsoft know that's not on the resume.

⬐ spartango

While I am aware that this is the reality, I find the attitude underlying this reality rather unfortunate.

As an interviewer assessing a candidate, I would like to believe that I'm thoughtful enough to see that corporations lay people off for any number reasons. The macro-scale conditions at Microsoft likely have no bearing on the candidate's quality.

Imagine if the candidate were from RIM. We'd hardly question the reality that RIM has to lay off people, many of whom are competent.

⬐ omnibrain

I don't think that's the case if he is one of 17k others.

⬐ SheepSlapper

Not to mention the fact that he worked there for 15 years. Successful companies don't make a habit of holding onto bad employees for that long :)

⬐ kamaal

That's just one way of looking at it. An acquaintance of mine who is also a HR guy once told me its in a person's best interest to keep hopping companies every ~3 years at least.

Working at one company for a long time can be interpreted in many different ways. More like a person, who isn't excited about looking for new opportunities. Or a person who is just lazy to not make a move etc etc. Also if you stay at a company for a very long time, unless the company gives you a generous raise every year your salary will be way behind market standards. And if you are OK with your work being valued so little for so long, it only means two things either you just agree that your work or contributions aren't very important to be paid enough, or you are just lazy. And both are negative indicators.

Its pointless to show loyalty that spans across 1.5 decades to a mega corporation where the boss two layers above probably doesn't even know your name, let alone the work you do. No wonder they don't blink twice before letting go some one. As much talented you might be, and how many algorithms you've memorized or how many nano seconds faster you can make a program run.

I fail to understand why anybody would stay so long, its like setting yourself up for a big meltdown sooner or later.

⬐ nilkn

Being laid off is different from being fired. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about you. I think anybody who really wonders that probably hasn't witnessed a large-scale corporate layoff before.

It can still be devastating, though. It depends heavily on how general your skills are. Being laid off is much worse for someone whose knowledge and skills were mostly institutional.

⬐ xienze

Not necessarily. Having a "brand name" on your resume tends to really impress the small-to-medium sized companies. I think there's plenty of places that'll roll out the red carpet for "the guy from Microsoft", so to speak and look past the fact that he was laid off.

⬐ seanc

Not in my experience, no. There's no stigma when you are part of a mass layoff that was national news. People understand the ax swings wildly at times like this.

⬐ gabriel34

not at this moment, not after such a massive layoff

⬐ bhrgunatha

I don't know the details of the Microsoft case, but my job was made redundant a number of years ago and I definitely was able to bounce back.

There are lots of legal regulations around terminating employment and one of the easier legal ways is to remove a particular job or position. That's why generally people are not made redundant, their job, position or title is. It's a legal method of cutting costs by pruning the organisation.

It's nothing to do with whether you are a worthy employee. Redundancies don't work that way. They are a practical, legal way of reducing numbers - payroll and staff. In the video, he's wondering why they couldn't simply find another position for him where he could apply his expertise. It's probably because they had to state his job is no longer viable and so the job (and the person occupying those jobs) are let go. If the company were to find other positions for their favorite employees, it opens all kinds of legal problems for HR.