- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Looming IT talent shortage sidesteps FOSS folks
|
|
|
Comments (30)
10 earlier comments in the full thread.
phsolide: Great post.
...but, what are "tall poles"?
...but, what are "tall poles"?
These "shortage" claims really make me angry. There is no shortage of skilled and experienced tech workers, there is only a shortage of people who will gladly work long hours for low pay (which is why the CEOs want unlimited cheap imported labor). There are of course certain skill sets which the ready-made supply may not meet demands, but there is no lack of people who can easily learn and adapt to those skills. Employers like to throw out job descriptions that are huge laundry lists with sometimes 20 different skills (sometimes virtually impossible combinations or year requirements for newer techs) and then complain because they can't find someone who is a 110% match. Gawd forbid they should make any investments into training or even let people learn on the job like they used to. Employers especially seem to overlook workers over 35 because they either say "overqualified" (meaning we think they will want too much money or they will expect a reasonable life/work balance) or they assume that anyone not a 20-something can't learn anything new.
What softwarejanitor said. And everyone else in this thread, too.
> There is no shortage of skilled and experienced tech workers, there is only a shortage of people who will gladly work long hours for low pay
Which was handidly dealt with by stock options, until the IRS and other "workers rights" people got wind of it. Then, all of a sudden, ... darn. There I go again.
Which was handidly dealt with by stock options, until the IRS and other "workers rights" people got wind of it. Then, all of a sudden, ... darn. There I go again.
Stock options are not substitutes for fair wages and benefits, though that is how the tech industry uses them. Microsoft is a classic example- they pay below-market wages, and they get away with it by giving generous stock grants. But there are several problems with this. For one, they used to be (I don't know about now) over-committed on employee options, so there was no way to honor all of them. They structure their vesting so that no matter how long a person works there, they will never vest completely, but always be five years out. That's called the golden handcuffs, and it's an effective method for retaining people. I used to know a lot of people who hung out just because of that, even though they didn't like their jobs.
The tech industry in general has gotten away with all kinds of labor abuses, such as the infamous perma-temps and eliminating overtime pay. Woohaa, innovation deluxe.
The tech industry in general has gotten away with all kinds of labor abuses, such as the infamous perma-temps and eliminating overtime pay. Woohaa, innovation deluxe.
> Stock options are not substitutes for fair wages and benefits
Define "fair".
Isn't "fair" for me different than "fair" to you?
Define "fair".
Isn't "fair" for me different than "fair" to you?
bob, when you actually have a point I might discuss it.
I see the gantlet is thrown down. This is one I will take up.
"Stock options" is nothing more than a number, of questionable veracity, somewhere on a balance sheet. When the company buys its hardware, it pays with currency, or at least an EFT transfer of like value.
And when the company buys my talents, they pay the same way. Stock options don't buy my groceries, pay my bills, put oil in my car's engine...
But they sure do disappear in a hurry when the company folds. I accepted 500 options to be valued at, what, $1.50 each? And the company says they "paid" me benefits of $1,500 in options, but I get... zero.
No options for me. Ever. I'll buy on my own, if I think the company is worth owning. In the meantime, it isn't up to the company to gamble with my wages. Let them name, up front, a dollar amount that they want to pay for my sweat and talents, and we'll talk.
"Stock options" is nothing more than a number, of questionable veracity, somewhere on a balance sheet. When the company buys its hardware, it pays with currency, or at least an EFT transfer of like value.
And when the company buys my talents, they pay the same way. Stock options don't buy my groceries, pay my bills, put oil in my car's engine...
But they sure do disappear in a hurry when the company folds. I accepted 500 options to be valued at, what, $1.50 each? And the company says they "paid" me benefits of $1,500 in options, but I get... zero.
No options for me. Ever. I'll buy on my own, if I think the company is worth owning. In the meantime, it isn't up to the company to gamble with my wages. Let them name, up front, a dollar amount that they want to pay for my sweat and talents, and we'll talk.
Gus, I could not agree more. Something Tuxchick doesn't seem to understand.
Gus, what you said. It's barely different from gambling, though in casinos you get food, drink, and entertainment.
Bob, I understand perfectly that you agree with Gus.
Bob, I understand perfectly that you agree with Gus.
> I understand perfectly that you agree with Gus.
Yet you still missed the point of "fair" for you not being the same as "fair" for me, thus using the power of the state to enforce "fair" is blatantly unfair.
The difference is force.
Yet you still missed the point of "fair" for you not being the same as "fair" for me, thus using the power of the state to enforce "fair" is blatantly unfair.
The difference is force.
@Bob:
And who is forcing whom?
Considering I'm doing factory work right now, I can't say anybody is forcing me to accept any unsavory offer in my vocation.
And who is forcing whom?
Considering I'm doing factory work right now, I can't say anybody is forcing me to accept any unsavory offer in my vocation.
Actually Bob, the way I took your comment was that it completely ignored the context, and conscripted a perfectly innocent phrase into pointless argument bait. Now that you've dragged your usual Evil State into it, I don't think I was wrong. "Below-market wages" doesn't have anything to do with the Evil State sticking its oar in, or forcing someone else's definition of fair on hapless victims.
> "Below-market wages"
There is no such thing.
If someone offers "below market wages" and those wages are accepted, they are by definition _market_ wages.
I pointed out that the state has put its oars into the waters, preventing people from accepting wages different than what the state thinks is valid.
As an example, unemployment is exacerbated, dramatically, by minimin wage laws.
To try to have any discussion about problems with the job "market", it is important to understand the state's manipulation of that market.
Now maybe you don't want to think about the 500 lbs bull in the china shop, but that doesn't make it go away.
Gus, > Considering I'm doing factory work right now, I can't say anybody is forcing me to accept any unsavory offer in my vocation.
Which is why you and I are not in disagreement.
There is no such thing.
If someone offers "below market wages" and those wages are accepted, they are by definition _market_ wages.
I pointed out that the state has put its oars into the waters, preventing people from accepting wages different than what the state thinks is valid.
As an example, unemployment is exacerbated, dramatically, by minimin wage laws.
To try to have any discussion about problems with the job "market", it is important to understand the state's manipulation of that market.
Now maybe you don't want to think about the 500 lbs bull in the china shop, but that doesn't make it go away.
Gus, > Considering I'm doing factory work right now, I can't say anybody is forcing me to accept any unsavory offer in my vocation.
Which is why you and I are not in disagreement.
Heh, I got suckered by your trolling again, Bob. When you come up with data to support your fantastic assertions such as 'no such thing as market wages', I'll pay attention. Your fundamental assertion that underlies most of your comments is wrong, which is that lone individuals have the power to bend big organizations such as corporations to their will, and can negotiate things like employment terms and consumer rights on an equal basis with them. That's well beyond fiction and way into fantasy.
> Heh, I got suckered by your trolling again, Bob.
I'm sorry you think I'm trolling. Very sorry. It means I've been unconvincing.
> When you come up with data to support your fantastic assertions such as 'no such thing as market wages', I'll pay attention.
I didn't assert there is "no such thing as market wages". I said that market wages are whatever people will offer and accept without coercion.
"Market wages" cannot be forced. They can only be observed.
You want data? XXI. WORK AND WAGES 9. The Labor Market http://mises.org/humanaction/chap21sec9.asp
A Fair Wage http://blog.mises.org/archives/005041.asp
What You Need to Know About the Minimum Wage http://mises.org/story/1603
> Your fundamental assertion that underlies most of your comments is wrong,...
You're about to be surprised.
> that lone individuals have the power to bend big organizations such as corporations to their will, and can negotiate things like employment terms and consumer rights on an equal basis with them.
In fact, I do. I, as an individual, no matter how big and powerful the organization or corporation (other than a government), have absolute power. I can say "No."
I have total control over the employment contract. I can _always_ take my labor elsewhere. The employer is entirely at my mercy, restricted to offering only what I will accept if they have any hope of getting my services.
If you want to assert that, because there might be more than one applicant for the job, I will have to accept their offer or go elsewhere, then you're going to have to accept my assertion that unless they offer what I am prepared to accept they will not have a chance at my services.
This is how it works without coercion. The company has to pay what I am willing to accept, or they will put up with lower productivity.
I have to agree to what is offered, or I will put up with lower compensation or, as Gus has pointed out by working in a factory, less favorable conditions in comparison to what he would have had if the other employer had made a better offer.
Which brings us back to "fair". Fair is subjective, not objective. How can it not be fair if I agree to pay him what he thinks his time is worth for the job?
I'm sorry you think I'm trolling. Very sorry. It means I've been unconvincing.
> When you come up with data to support your fantastic assertions such as 'no such thing as market wages', I'll pay attention.
I didn't assert there is "no such thing as market wages". I said that market wages are whatever people will offer and accept without coercion.
"Market wages" cannot be forced. They can only be observed.
You want data? XXI. WORK AND WAGES 9. The Labor Market http://mises.org/humanaction/chap21sec9.asp
A Fair Wage http://blog.mises.org/archives/005041.asp
What You Need to Know About the Minimum Wage http://mises.org/story/1603
> Your fundamental assertion that underlies most of your comments is wrong,...
You're about to be surprised.
> that lone individuals have the power to bend big organizations such as corporations to their will, and can negotiate things like employment terms and consumer rights on an equal basis with them.
In fact, I do. I, as an individual, no matter how big and powerful the organization or corporation (other than a government), have absolute power. I can say "No."
I have total control over the employment contract. I can _always_ take my labor elsewhere. The employer is entirely at my mercy, restricted to offering only what I will accept if they have any hope of getting my services.
If you want to assert that, because there might be more than one applicant for the job, I will have to accept their offer or go elsewhere, then you're going to have to accept my assertion that unless they offer what I am prepared to accept they will not have a chance at my services.
This is how it works without coercion. The company has to pay what I am willing to accept, or they will put up with lower productivity.
I have to agree to what is offered, or I will put up with lower compensation or, as Gus has pointed out by working in a factory, less favorable conditions in comparison to what he would have had if the other employer had made a better offer.
Which brings us back to "fair". Fair is subjective, not objective. How can it not be fair if I agree to pay him what he thinks his time is worth for the job?
My apologies for calling your post 'trolling'. This could be an interesting discussion, in a forum where it's not off-topic.
I'm totally with Bob on this one.
When someone asks me how to find out what some thing (collectible, or some old computer equipment, or what have you) is worth, the first thing I tell them is to look for something similar on eBay and find out what people are bidding.
It's worth what someone will pay for it.
Nobody can afford my sleepless nights babysitting Windows machines.
When someone asks me how to find out what some thing (collectible, or some old computer equipment, or what have you) is worth, the first thing I tell them is to look for something similar on eBay and find out what people are bidding.
It's worth what someone will pay for it.
Nobody can afford my sleepless nights babysitting Windows machines.
> in a forum where it's not off-topic.
This discussion is about the job market.
If discussion of factors concerning the job market is off-topic in a discussion about the job market, I just don't see it.
Shall we bring up H1-B visas? Oh, no, can't talk about that, because _governments_ issue those visas. I guess that would be off-topic too?
Honestly, seriously, I just don't think you understand how regulated everything to do with the supposed "job market" really is.
This discussion is about the job market.
If discussion of factors concerning the job market is off-topic in a discussion about the job market, I just don't see it.
Shall we bring up H1-B visas? Oh, no, can't talk about that, because _governments_ issue those visas. I guess that would be off-topic too?
Honestly, seriously, I just don't think you understand how regulated everything to do with the supposed "job market" really is.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
1. Geez, it's not like Gartner has this phenomenal track record when it comes to predicting the future. Quite the opposite, in fact. Personally, I always figured that the C-level execs got Gartner reports for the humor value. But I'm just a grunt programmer.
2. The "workers with both technology and business skills" line is very, very common. Ed Yourdon has been spouting it since the mid-90s ("Fall of the American Programmer", anyone? He had to retract it, basically.). Technology trade rags for managers (and people who wanna be managers) like ComputerWorld, NetworkWorld, InfoWorld, etc etc have always said this sort of thing. If you read technology trade rags, you will find it's the equivalent of those grocery-store-checkout-line magazine's sex advice.
Take (1) and (2) together, and you get my experience of trying to be valuable to "The Business" and the IT department at the same time:
Nobody likes you. The Business people think you are trying to take them over. This is a consequence of the endless empire building they indulge in. They can't believe you're not trying to make your own empire. Also, a lot of The Business people aren't entirely rational, so they only really have One Trick. If you try to learn the One Trick, they get very suspicious.
The IT Department thinks you aren't fully engaged in the IT department's goal of World Domination, that somehow, by gaining domain knowledge, you'll earn the IT Department less money or status. It's like they want a certain amount of bugs, tall poles, show stoppers and head butting with The Business. If it all goes smoothly, the IT Department tends to think that you're not doing anything.
I blame poor toilet training all around.