Careers

Who lost their job in the great Recession of 2008-2009?

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 19th, 2018 8:38 am
[OP]
Penalty Box
User avatar
Jun 24, 2015
1228 posts
136 upvotes
Woodbridge, ON
yeah had to buy it for close to double what it was going for when i first tried
Hi
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 16, 2008
5988 posts
1181 upvotes
Maple
More than 85% of my team were let go (package) or went to other teams. Myself was packaged off in late 2009.
Sr. Member
Jul 7, 2013
992 posts
529 upvotes
North York
Correct me if I'm wrong but 2008 affected America a lot more than it did for Canada due to the way our banking was structured?
[OP]
Penalty Box
User avatar
Jun 24, 2015
1228 posts
136 upvotes
Woodbridge, ON
yes, but that is not the topic of discussion here, my post is specific to who lost their job in 2008/2009 FROM CANADA, yes I may be from toronto but people all over canada in my company got let go too, so they can be welcomed to this discussion
Hi
[OP]
Penalty Box
User avatar
Jun 24, 2015
1228 posts
136 upvotes
Woodbridge, ON
anyone else lost their job in O8-O9?
Hi
Member
User avatar
Feb 26, 2008
460 posts
23 upvotes
Did not lose my job because I graduated in 08. But I couldn’t find a real full time job until the beginning of ‘11. Was doing multiple part time jobs to make ends meet.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 8, 2006
1007 posts
244 upvotes
didn't get lay off but my company was on a 4 days work week and we went from 1000 employee to 500 so many layoffs. Company never recovered and was taken over multiple times. Anyway, house price did went down briefly in 2008 briefly I think and flat out and went up from there so there was opportunity to buy one for a 6 months period I think. House and condo prices only went up drastically the past 4-5 years. If you bought before this you are ahead.
Deal Addict
Oct 18, 2014
1440 posts
502 upvotes
New York City
One other observations to add:
-At my firm, most that got laid off were middle management and low-performing senior management. So the junior/entry-levels were not as impacted as we still needed folks on the ground to do the work.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 8, 2006
1007 posts
244 upvotes
McKinsey wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 9:06 am
One other observations to add:
-At my firm, most that got laid off were middle management and low-performing senior management. So the junior/entry-levels were not as impacted as we still needed folks on the ground to do the work.
companies usually take these opportunities to layoff deadwoods.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 31, 2008
9839 posts
1374 upvotes
Toronto
McKinsey wrote:
Jun 6th, 2018 11:18 am
OP, great thread btw. Gives the ability to share a different perspectives to the millenials that have not been exposed to any recessions.

Some random observations:
-Driving in the bay area and the highways are empty during "rush hour" in 2001
-Seeing all the home foreclosure signs in the US in 2008
-Huge lines at job fairs
-Those that did not lose their jobs, were all scared to
-In general, those who have been part of the recessions have a different work ethics than those who have not
Not only work ethic but a level of respect and gratitude to be employed.

These job number losses are in the US, but look at the monthly numbers for latter half 2008 and 2009.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_los ... _Recession

Scary scary stuff. Canada was about 10x smaller on average. It literally was like a twilight zone episode where people on masse would disappear and had no idea when the nightmare was going to end.

Trust me, if you have committed to expenses such as a mortgage, had any sort of debt, or had to support a family, including parents who might have had a big chunk of retirement savings wiped out, and you might have had to help out, it is something one will not forget. Staring down a cliff with no 'out' in sight.

The system fundamentally changed since then. Which explains the dysfunction and extremism today. I personally worry what worked last time won't work again the next (the Fed does not have nearly the level of credibility, flexibility, tools or options it had last time).
Sr. Member
User avatar
Oct 27, 2004
989 posts
125 upvotes
xpressmerchant wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 9:26 am
companies usually take these opportunities to layoff deadwoods.
... or the more expensive, more experienced, older people. Short-term focused CEOs who are only interested in "delivering shareholder value" see headcount as a liability. When revenues are flat or declining, the only way they can keep the bottom line trending in the right direction (while still making their own multi-million-dollar paycheque) is to cut payroll. They figure they can lay off the 50-year-old Director making $150,000 and replace him/her with 3 or 4 recent grads at $30,000 each, and the books look great.

Problem is, when everyone does that, all that disposable income vanishes from the economy, and revenues tumble even more. And then, the new kids don't have the experience to figure out how to do the work properly and the firm's product offering suffers, which causes revenues to drop even more.

The good news is that sanity seems to have returned to the marketplace somewhat, and many employers are coming back around to recognizing the value of experience. Senior people are being hired again, and being paid their worth.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 31, 2008
9839 posts
1374 upvotes
Toronto
Password wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 4:44 pm
... or the more expensive, more experienced, older people. Short-term focused CEOs who are only interested in "delivering shareholder value" see headcount as a liability. When revenues are flat or declining, the only way they can keep the bottom line trending in the right direction (while still making their own multi-million-dollar paycheque) is to cut payroll. They figure they can lay off the 50-year-old Director making $150,000 and replace him/her with 3 or 4 recent grads at $30,000 each, and the books look great.
I've seen it also applies to mid level ppl. For example, let's say someone stays at the same position for 15 years at a bank. Business Analyst is a common one. Over the years, just getting annual wage increases of 1.5-2% results in a hefty premium over the starting salary of a similar new hire. So I've seen that happen. Also, younger are more grateful and willing to take the punishment so more incentive to get rid of the older, more likely to push back employee.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 8, 2006
1007 posts
244 upvotes
Password wrote:
Jun 13th, 2018 4:44 pm
... or the more expensive, more experienced, older people. Short-term focused CEOs who are only interested in "delivering shareholder value" see headcount as a liability. When revenues are flat or declining, the only way they can keep the bottom line trending in the right direction (while still making their own multi-million-dollar paycheque) is to cut payroll. They figure they can lay off the 50-year-old Director making $150,000 and replace him/her with 3 or 4 recent grads at $30,000 each, and the books look great.

Problem is, when everyone does that, all that disposable income vanishes from the economy, and revenues tumble even more. And then, the new kids don't have the experience to figure out how to do the work properly and the firm's product offering suffers, which causes revenues to drop even more.

The good news is that sanity seems to have returned to the marketplace somewhat, and many employers are coming back around to recognizing the value of experience. Senior people are being hired again, and being paid their worth.
In my company case, they hired a temp CEO just to come in to clean up the house so no bad feeling since he'll leave after anyway.

Top