Why Bad Jobs (or No Jobs) Happen To Good Workers 1201
sean_nestor writes "Back in October, an article appeared in The Wall Street Journal with the headline 'Why Companies Aren't Getting the Employees They Need.' It noted that even with millions of highly educated and highly trained workers sidelined by the worst economic downturn in three generations, companies were reporting shortages of skilled workers. Companies typically blame schools, for not providing the right training; the government, for not letting in enough skilled immigrants; and workers themselves, who all too often turn down good jobs at good wages. The author of the article, an expert on employment and management issues, concluded that although employers are in almost complete agreement about the skills gap, there was no actual evidence of it. Instead, he said, 'The real culprits are the employers themselves.'" The linked article is an interview with Peter Cappelli, author of the WSJ piece, who has recently published a book on the alleged skills gap.
Training! (Score:5, Interesting)
What happened to companies hiring a competent worker and training them for the specifics of the job?
Agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Artifact of Specialized Skills (Score:4, Interesting)
Many technical workers are very specialized. Just because someone is "highly skilled", it does not mean they are necessarily a match for any given arbitrary technical job.
I am a good match for my current job. If I quit, they would have a very hard time finding a suitable replacement. I might also have a hard time finding work with a very specialized and technical skill set.
In Canada, if you're on EI... (Score:5, Interesting)
there was once a comic (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of it is companies not knowing how to find good workers, and workers not knowing how to draw attention of companies. If either one of these situations were fixed, then the problem would be solved.
Incidentally, one of the most crucial skills for programming managers in Silicon Valley right now is knowing how to find good workers for your team.
Re:In Canada, if you're on EI... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:O RLY? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sometimes unemployment benefits, both the size and duration, are a better option than a good job at a good wage.
Re:In Canada, if you're on EI... (Score:1, Interesting)
That's not a good policy. Look what happens after a few rounds:
1st job 100% pay
2nd job 80% pay
3rd job 64% pay
4th job 51% pay
5th job 41% pay
So, let's say you get a new job with lowball offers of 80% of your previous salary every two years.
That would take a $50k job down to $20.5k in ten years - below minimum wage of some areas.
Re:Artifact of Specialized Skills (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: O RLY? (Score:3, Interesting)
I would argue that represents a skill shortage. If wages are in an upward spiral because all the companies who want the skilled workers keep bidding each other up on the same pool of workers, that's a shortage. More trained people would yield more employment in this scenario.
(This is what's happening to developers in silicon valley right now. There is basically zero unemployment for good software developers right now. Things are so bad I can't even find qualified people to take interviews, which is sort of a prerequisite to make them that upwardly spiraling offer. As another point of evidence, new grad offers are now roughly 2.5X the national average for other BS degrees.)
Re:O RLY? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you really think that asking for a reasonable salary is the same thing as a communist revolution? Really?
I love these little flashes of insight into the right-wing mind. It's fascinating, like microscopic close-ups of insect faces: here's this creature which is biochemically and genetically more or less like you, and yet completely alien.
Actually read the article/interview... (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess I've been lucky in my career in that the three companies I've worked for since graduating were all willing/able to hire new graduates and have the senior employees mentor them. Even in my new job (just over two years), there's a lot of industry specific knowledge that really can't be learned anywhere but on-the-job. So, we regularly have learning sessions (formal and informal) about what we need to get the job done.
Re: O RLY? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is basically zero unemployment for good software developers right now. Things are so bad I can't even find qualified people to take interviews, which is sort of a prerequisite to make them that upwardly spiraling offer.
Except that these offers aren't "upwardly spiraling" at all, that's complete bullshit. Salaries have been frozen for years.
As another point of evidence, new grad offers are now roughly 2.5X the national average for other BS degrees
And what does that have to do with people with 10+ years experience? Absolutely nothing. As usual, employers want cheap workers, and want to fire everyone that's been around too long because they're "too expensive".
There is no shortage, period. There's only unwillingness to pay more.
What BS! (Score:0, Interesting)
I interview so many candidates both right out of college and those that have been working years. It is very easy to see that there is a gap between supply and demand. Sometimes it is attitude that is clearly visible as a no-no, sometimes the candidate clearly shows that he/she doesnt have a clue what he/she is talking about and just wants a job.
Expecting the company to train this person in every aspect is crazy. I mean, if you dont have any experience in HPC, do you expect me and my company to start from the basics by expanding HPC for you? If you dont have relevant experience, it will take us 6 months to make you productive. I would rather wait 4 months to get a candidate that fits and has worked in this field before. Many a times, we hire a candidate who has not worked in this field and train him and it is pretty evident that he is really not interested in this field and it was just a stop gap arrangement so that he can go back to a job where he has the relevant experience.
Among recent college graduates, we dont expect them to know our field, but to at least know about what they have worked on. ~1 in 4 candidates experienced or otherwise will be good. It is so easy to see whether a candidate is good or not and when they are fibbing (we interview separately and almost always reach the same consensus about the candidate).
Recent graduates have nothing to fear as companies replace experienced people with new many a times. If they are good, it will show during the interview and companies usually scramble to get that person on-board before some other company hires them.
The only time we hire bad people are when we have been searching for long and are on the point of losing our req due to company policy. This clearly shows there is a gap. Our expectations are not too high as we hire recent graduates too and an experienced person that is good as a recent graduate is enough for us.
Re: O RLY? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is basically zero unemployment for good software developers right now
wow, we are on different planets. I live in the valley (been working here about 20 yrs) and yet find the employment situation very dark, indeed. I'm not currently working fulltime, I'm a software guy with decades of programming and even some hardware design/implementation (along with firmware to drive it) lately. do I find even interviews? no!
I should add that I'm over 50 and that is a huge setback in the valley. if you are not young, you are not considered for software development. at least that's my experience. after 40, things were noticeably different in the job market and now at 50ish, its a cliff that I seem to have fallen off of. maybe having a resume that has software jobs continuously from the 80's thru the present is considered a give-away of your age and its immediately circular-binned by HR and most hiring mgrs?
at any rate, the valley does not seem to be very hiring-friendly to all of us. if you're in the right class, hey, enjoy it while it lasts.
Should companies train employees who jump ship? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, you know, the craziest thing about high tech is the Silicon Valley model, which sort of became dominant in the U.S., replaced the model where IT people used to be groomed and trained from within. And the Silicon Valley model of hiring just in time for what you need came about largely because they were able to poach talent away from these bigger companies that had spent a lot of time training and developing people.
The implication is that the Silicon Valley approach to personnel management helped destroy the traditional system, and it makes a lot of sense when you talk with people who work in the industry. Traditionally, companies would train and develop college hires and employees because they could reasonably expect their employees to stay with them for a set period of time, guaranteeing an ROI on their investment. However, many of these new start ups basically came in throwing around money and stock options, stealing people groomed by these companies. Even employees who would be required to pay back tuition and training costs would still make the jump because the poaching firm would pay for it. The companies that developed these employees then have incentive to give up on the practice and resort to the same sort of poaching.
When I talk with college hires before the floor fell beneath the economy, I saw that mentality: I'll go work for X firm long enough to get training from them and then jump ship to go make big money in start ups or consultancies. If you're a large firm, why would you invest in grooming employees if this is the mentality that the best and brightest are embracing? If the pool is ready to jump ship for the next big salary bump, why should you pay for expensive training and development? Only problem is that we've now begun to exhaust the pool of experienced employees and the "shortage" emerges.
Re:Not hiring the unemployed (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the same reason women are more attracted to a guy who already has a hot girl on his arm. Worse, some are attracted to married men. What is she giving him? I can give him more. Break that non-compete agreement. We'll move to a different state. They can't touch us. We'll run away together!
Re:Agree (Score:2, Interesting)
1.Being nicer guy
2.Being better developer.
Guess what? 1) pays better (and is easier, you don't have to study, don't have to learn new things, don't have to read all the time, don't have to think..)
Guess what? You loose more because the nice guys will do anything and everything to throw away their real competition, the better developer. And usually they succeed. And usually the company goes belly up.
It's an intelligence gap (Score:2, Interesting)
I've worked at a small company about 20-25 employees for 10 years. I've seen every employee except the two business owners move on. I've seen a lot of new faces. Only about 1 in every 15 people they've hired are competent enough to do their job. And I'm talking about the administrative side of things. Not the technical side of things (that's a different story). I'm talking about internal ordering, quoting, dispatching, administrative assistant, even the damn receptionist. Only about 1 in 15 people hired have the intelligence to do those jobs well. And ANYONE can be trained to do those jobs. Only requirements are a basic understanding of how to use Office. We've had people work for a year that just don't have the intelligence and critical thinking skills to do the jobs effectively.
That's the fucking problem.
And I'll go on to say that this has always been a problem. Decades ago, there was a place for that person that couldn't handle dispatching 5 techs to about 20 work orders a day. They worked in manufacturing or in textiles. They made enough money to support their family. And everyone was happy.
There's just no job for that person now. So they get hired at my place of work and can't do the job. They get paid shit and drive wages down for all of us. My stress level goes up when they can't do the job because they lack the intelligence. There are no manufacturing or textile jobs for them to do.
Re: O RLY? (Score:5, Interesting)
Move to Pittsburgh! Lots of tech companies here are starving for high-experience engineers!
Re: O RLY? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting story that illustrates your point: my girlfriend works in HR, and gets to define job positions and offers after getting the wishlist from the executives. She came back one day and wanted some feedback on what a job description should like for a developer for their internal software. Then she showed me what her executives had given her: a laundry list of languages (PHP, C++, Java, SQL) with multiple years of experience, proven ability to design system software and good presence in front of customers interested in buying said software. And they were planning to pay about 80k.
In short, they were looking for a system architect with several years of experience and the ability to sell said software to potential clients. I told her that those people do exist, but they are employed and make whatever they think they should be making. After that, I'm a lot less surprised by these stories. In essence, a lot of companies think that there's still an employer's market when it comes to jobs, and most HR people have absolutely no clue that the requirements that they're getting are either not related to the job, are utterly unrealistic or have no relationship to the offered pay.
Your last quote also neatly explains the recent strategy of HR to only look for employed people. It is born of the similarly unrealistic expectation that having a job now is somehow an indication that that person is worth more than someone without a job. And it dies in the same place: the complete lack of understanding that in order to lure someone away from an existing job, they need to make it worth that person's time and effort.
Re:super simple way to fix unemployment & coun (Score:5, Interesting)
They do this in the U.K. What it ACTUALLY does is take away jobs from actual computer science teachers, park maintenance workers, programmers (and whatever). All the while creating a free labor force that's used by corporate interests. A labor force that's VERY compliant, because if they don't do exactly as they are told, their benefits are cut off, and they will become homeless/starve/etc.
I GUARANTEE that you haven't researched any of this, and that you haven't thought through any of what you said.
Re:O RLY? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because I can hire an Eastern European, Indian, Oriental or Asian worker with a better work ethic with a living cost less than a quarter the fee I'd pay to an American and I don't even need to worry about employment contracts or benefits or anything. Right now more than half the programmers I use are foreign and I get better code from them for $500 a month than I did American and Canadian workers at 3k+ a month. Sorry, that's just reality.
And before anyone starts posting "outsourced programmers are awful" or whatever I will tell you from extended personal experience you are wrong. Some of them suck, sure, but it's about the same ratio that suck in America. Do your homework, get sample code, have a trial period, and manage them properly with good tools (Trello and GitHub are amazing!). End of story.
That said, when put in context your point is excellent - but it is pointing out a very big problem: if I'm going to pay an American $2,000 for a weeks worth of code I want something 10X better than the code I would pay to a Russian for a weeks worth of code. That's a big order to fill.
Re:Lie on your resume (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:O RLY? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right. We should all just work for free because the poor whittle companies might have to cut into their bottom-line otherwise. Oh the horrors. If these people want good people their gong to have to pay for it rather than expecting people to be wage slaves.
I don't think you understand how this works. (Score:4, Interesting)
To conservolibertarians, there are only three political ideologies. If you agree with the right wing propaganda (FOX News, Limbaugh, rightist think tanks, etc.), you are a conservative. If you disagree with FOX News, Limbaugh, et. al. on the topic of drugs and isolationism but agree with everything else, then you are a libertarian. Every single other political view in the entire world gets lumped together under "socialism".
So from there point of view, what you mention is socialism by definition, simply because it is not in line with right wing propaganda. This also explains why they can occasionally look at two opposing positions on a particular issue and declare both to be communist/socialist. You have to remember that they may use the same words, but those words have different meanings to them.
Re:O RLY? (Score:3, Interesting)
Per your example-
Outsourced programmer: $500/month ($125/week)
Domestic programmer: $3000/month ($750/week)
6x difference
Then you mention $2000/week for domestic code and say you'd want it to be 10x better than the outsourced, which comes out to either 6x or 16x the pay. One way you're expecting more than you're paying for, the other way you're paying more than you already believe you ought to be paying.
I think you need to get your maths right before you place any more demands.
Re:flexible work schedule (Score:4, Interesting)
But you might slack off if your manager can't look in on you every 5 minutes.
I think this is a minor point. Lack of telecommuting and flex time are only symptoms of the real problem, which is that lots of places treat workers very badly. Act like no one has a work ethic, or any honesty, integrity, reliability or maturity, or can even tie their shoelaces let alone competently perform a highly technical job. Seem to think they can freely abuse and denigrate people, and insult workers' intelligence with laughably bad and clumsy manipulation. Do all they can to make the worker dependent, then think less of them for being dependent. That the mere fact they are paying someone is license to treat them like dirt. Some of this becomes self-fulfilling.
It's funny how employers demand quantities of technical skills, but seem to let any old fool make a hash of managing people. The worker has to know 20 different programming languages, OSes, environments, and platforms, but the management doesn't need to have the foggiest idea what's covered in Management 101, or even remember basic socialization skills every child picks up in school. Upper management can't tell the difference between a real leader and a slave driver. Naturally, as long as the incompetent manager is allowed to get away with blaming everything on the peons, he won't bother improving himself, or do any of that teamwork nonsense that weak and powerless people have to do.
Re: O RLY? (Score:5, Interesting)
How about the SKILL that is missing is understanding what your business needs 2,3,5 years and then making sure you have an employee working toward that.
McDonald's has a saying "Green is Growing". It's profound in that they are one of the few companies that PLAN for you to move up or leave... They are built around training at every level. You are either training or being trained... In the best stores that is ALWAYS going on. Leaving because you finished school or life moves on is PART of the plan, not a problem.
I don't know how many you go into and everybody has 10-20 years at the company. If the boss isn't moving up, then the whole food gain is stalled because the only way UP is OUT they have nobody BEHIND YOU, so they're stuck trying to fill your exact job and pay grade without giving anybody ELSE promotions or raises. When there are only 10-20 people in a department that's a standstill.
Re:O RLY? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm guessing you can say this because you don't have kids to take care of. About 7 years ago my wife got laid off from her office job. The unemployment checks were about 1/2 of her salary, but while we were getting those checks we were better off than we had ever been while she was working.
Why? Dry cleaning, food, gas, but mostly daycare for our three kids. As it was, her job was just netting us a little extra over the costs of sending her to work. Without the job, all that stuff wasn't required, and suddenly we had half the pay with *none* of the expenses.
Under the circumstances, yes any followup job had to be pretty good to be worth putting the kids back in Daycare. Unemployment doesn't last very long though...
Re:Training! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not a hard problem to solve. I was given significant training by one of my early employers, even paid to attend a college course and receive more training.
It came with a catch though: I had to sign an agreement that I revoked my own right to resign for 2 years. So they had a chance to get a return on their investment. This is common practise here in South Africa, why would American companies not figure it out ? If an employee doesn't want to sign such a deal - then give the training to one who does. Sure it has downsides (guess how much over inflation my increase was the next year despite one of the best performance reviews in the department [don't ask me how I know that ;) ] ) - zilch. After all, why give a decent increase to somebody who can't quit anyway ?
But when my two year contract expired I was out of there like a shot. Now of course, if they had during those two years treated me well and not tried to milk the guy who can't quit for all he was worth - I may well have stuck around. Just because that company messed up the second half of the system, doesn't mean it's not obvious how to do it right.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:O RLY? (Score:4, Interesting)
Compared to the rest of Canada, the south-west part of BC has some of the best climate around. Winters generally don't get too cold (anything lower than -5C in the morning is unusual), and summers aren't too hot (rarely above 30C), and there may be a lot of rain, there's less snow (and less driving in it). Not all sun and beach weather all year, but it beats having to sit through day highs of -10C in the winter and 35C+ summer (like what Eastern Canada is currently experiencing).
Nevermind days in spring where it's cool enough to go skiing followed by a warm afternoon to go golfing (on the same day).
For a number of people, $15k is probably about right. Though, foreign talent will be much harder to come by - especially if you want an American.
Re:O RLY? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, there's your problem right there.
In todays job market (and it has been this way for awhile now), you don't go into a job, planning to stay there and get raises and rise through the ranks.
That is a VERY rare thing to happen.
The only way to increase your pay..is change JOBS.
You get a job..stay there 2 maybe 3 years tops. At that point, you need to be sending out resumes...interviewing (always good to keep in practice), and being ready to move to the new job.
That is practically the only way you're going to significantly increase your salary over your career....that is, if you're planning to do nothing but be a W-2 employee all your life.
I'd advise....get a few years experience under your belt, grind out the W2 lifestyle, and when you have generated experience, you are good AND, you've attained some contacts.....incorporate yourself, and become a hired gun contractor.
That's where the big bucks can start coming in, and you can save a ton of your own money in tax write offs.
Re: O RLY? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm definitely slower in getting a programming task done than, perhaps, 30 years ago. but maybe my bug count and code readability makes up for my lower lines/day output?
there are things you just pick up over time. you cannot gain experience quickly.
and part of the catch in this concept is that you don't realize how much subtlety there is to the field until you are well into it. I used to downplay 'experience' too. I started writing code in my early teens and when I was in my 20's, I had 10 years of programming under my belt and it was already old-hat to me.
there's just something you get - call it insight if you will - that happens when you see problems solved in different settings and in different levels of success. what worked well, what could have been done better, what should be avoided in the future, etc. its not about a language or its syntax or api or style; but its just something that you get over time. some people call it wisdom. maybe that's what I'm really talking about.
we used to respect people who have done their specialty for extended periods of time. I would rather go to a doctor who is grey haired than a fresher, even if the fresher went to a fancier school. I am willing to pay for experience and I see value in 'time', that way.
oblig tl;dr: there's a lot more to quality than speed of output by human code machines.
Re:O RLY? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been on EI several times.
I lost my job as an Optician in 1999 after selling too many glasses. (The AM felt I was cutting into her commissions.) I was on EI for a few months and decided to get off my butt and finish my degree.
I was let go from a post-degree job in 2006 after I optimized the code to the point they just ordered it pre-programmed from Microchip for $0.37. (That's the code that run the Project Lifesaver transmitters.) I was on EI for about a month.
My contract was not renewed in 2007 after I built a prototype to showed an existing radio set could be upgraded to work with P25 using only a software patch. That was a rough place to work. I was on EI for 5 months after that, looking for work and working on my own to keep ends meeting. Since I didn't have my P.Eng. at that time, I couldn't do actual Engineering work.
The shop I worked at after that closed during the recession in 2009. My boss (and still friend) took me out to coffee, said, "there's... no easy way to say this." "Let me guess, we're out of money and we have to close." "Uh, yeah, that's pretty much it. I don't even have money for severance." I was on EI for a few months, got three job offers, and I've been at my current place for about three years.
(Given my track record, I appear to be an insufferable ass, so next time I'm out the door I'll start my own business. )
If I hadn't had EI, I'd likely have lost my house and wife.
If you're not in town, you can't collect the benefits. If you want to head to Mexico, then you don't get the bennys for that time. There was a case where a guy had a friend call in and answer his cell for several months. He was an "involuntary guest of the Crown" for six months for breaking and entering. I guess that's one (non-recommended) way to supplement EI.
Re:Lie on your resume (Score:5, Interesting)
When is it cost effective to maintain a group of people that can parrot corporate direction, and culture? The web can hold that data better and more accurately.
Re:O RLY? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course that's exactly why the republicans are so against unemployment benefits (or any other form of government benefits). It simultaneously makes it harder to exploit workers, while also allowing unscrupulous people to sit on their bum.
I don't agree, I speak from experience...listen...I was unemployed for several years in a safe country that has a LONG-term unemployment benefit - and in the beginning I loved just having an extended holiday, after 2-3 months I was BORED out of my mind, after 6 months I was scraping on every door, after several years I was completely broken down by endless CV-training meetings and endless talk from the neighbors and ex-friends how useless unemployed people are. No matter how skilled you are, going down that welfare road is signing your own death warrant. No one wants to hire someone desperate, no one wants to hire someone who hasn't worked for a long time, it's a dead end road, literally.
My solution? I gave up my social welfare rights + unemployment benefits...I actually had the rights to receive 2 more years on benefits but said screw the system, and moved to another country still unemployed.
Within the next 6 months, I had a job as a part time teacher, within 1 year after that I had my DREAM JOB...in a place that has less than 7K population as an graphics artist.
Now I have my own house, money on my bank account...and NO social benefits insurance! You do the math!
Re:Lie on your resume (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup, that is one problem. The second, more important one was implied in the text but carefully not made explicit. We changed the implied work contract to something that doesn't work. So things simply can't remain the same, the question is how to fix it?
The old work contract implied loyalty in both directions. Up to a point the company would be loyal to their more valuable workers, pensions, bennies and trying really hard to hold onto them in hard economic times. In the other direction employees were expected to have a certain loyalty to the company. In that environment it made sense to think longer term, seeking promising talent and developing it. Now companies aren't loyal to employees and employees aren't loyal to their company. If you assume the employee you hire today and spend a year training up will be gone in three years it doesn't make sense. So if employees are interchangable free agents they are expected to come 'complete' with all required skills. But there isn't a way to get those skills and the system thus fails.
Go reread the part of the article again where it discusses how the IT startups devoured the carefully cultivated talent the old school companies had developed. If you didn't expect them to take the lesson from that beating as "stop paying to train your competitor's workers" then you aren't paying attention. And the startups are running in such a breakneck race to IPO they can't think of training anyone. That problem is worse in IT but applies in pretty much every field. Why spend a lot of time and money training somebody who will get headhunted away as soon as they can check the experience box? But once everyone is expecting someone else to hire the fresh grads and finish training them up the game is over.
We probably can't return to the old 'company man' ways and it isn't even clear we want to. So we can't go back and we can't stay where we are either; so what next?
High expectations (Score:4, Interesting)
Requirements for senior level positions:
PhD or equivalent level of education
+16 years of relevant work experience
Willingness to work for $40,000 a year or less with no benefits
Requirements for junior level positions:
PhD or equivalent level of education
+8 years of relevant work experience
Willingness to work for $20,000 a year or less with no benefits
Requirements for internship positions:
PhD or equivalent level of education
Relevant work experience a big plus
Willingness to work for free with no benefits
"But we don't understand why we don't get any applicants that match these criteria! There must be a lack of skilled workers!"
Re:O RLY? (Score:2, Interesting)
So you're basically an entitled pile of shit, then, right? Using the same standard as people like you use to judge workers who demand a living wage, by you demanding that people work for less, thus giving you more profit, you're being entitled.
Re:O RLY? (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking of this, heard an interesting discussion recently on the subject of the recession hanging on so long.
Basically, it concluded that the reason people haven't gotten back to pre-recession levels of spending is more a matter of people are paying down debt rather than spending money on (relative) luxuries.
Rather than buying a new car/computer/house/vacation, they're getting their personal debt down to managable levels. But by doing so, they're keeping the economy from picking up steam.
If these people are to be believed, in a couple more years, when personal debt levels have been worked down a ways, the economy will pick back up again.
And nothing that governnment (or anyone else) does in the meantime will move things along faster...
Re:Lie on your resume (Score:5, Interesting)
My employer uses a computer to screen all incoming resumes. Unless your resume hits every single keyword in the job description, you're kicked out and never get seen by a human being.
And the company as a whole wonders why it's so hard to fill most positions...
unmentioned factor (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of job postings are also created by going in and asking the person leaving what they do. While on the org chart they were a electrical engineer, over time they took on DB admin because that person got downsized, then network admin when they downsized that person, and janitor, when they got rid of the cleanig service and someone had to vacume and take out the garbage. This continues until the person does no electrical engneering anymore, but spends all his time being a sysadmin.
So the posted job, based on what the person leaving did, becomes "wanted : electrical engineer. Must have Oracle cert, VMware cert, CCNA, and MCSE and be able to lift 50 pounds reguarly and have a CS degree. " Jobs have so diverged from what the postion was for originally it screws up being able to hire because the listed skills no longer have any reference to the actual job being done.
Re:O RLY? (Score:4, Interesting)
Compound that with the fact that the service based economy we have been promised for the past 30 years has been a bust. You can not replace millions of manufacturing jobs with service positions busing tables and mowing lawns and expect people to stay in the middle class. When all the training required for a job is a 1 week breaking in period, there will always be a way to suppress wages for that position and push more of America's middle class into poverty.
Re:O RLY? (Score:2, Interesting)
Agree with you. Just thought I'd add though:
Knowing your worth and the people interviewing you knowing your worth are two different things. I once went for a job where I was offered a very low wage and the reason they offered me a low wage was because, though I had a job that was earning me more, they figured I was leaving my old job as I didn't like it (which was true). And they wanted me to work 12 hours a day and be on call all weekend in this new position I was being offered. I gave them a figure ($65,000) slightly higher than what I was currently working for and they told me I was just greedy and I didn't get the job. The other person going for the job (it had come down to two of us), had asked for $95,000, which was a reasonable amount for the position. The previous person in the position had resigned due to too much work for too little compensation. I have no idea what that company did after turning me down, but whoever they did end up getting probably was low skilled and maybe even couldn't do the job when they started. They were basically asking for someone who was going to be PC support/helpdesk, Sys Admin, Network Admin, database administrator and programmer all rolled into one. They had over 100 employees on their network in numerous locations throughout Australia. (More employees if you count the labourers who were not on computers). The saying, 'You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.' comes to mind.