American Firms Want to Keep Older Workers a Bit Longer • Hacker News Board

Re: American Firms Want to Keep Older Workers a Bit Longer

#81

Post by analog31 » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #52

analog31 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowledge transfer should be baked into the day-to-day culture of work, not something desperately scrambled for during someone's last week. Those few companies with meaningful training and mentoring programs know this. In my observation, it's very few companies. Also, I don't think it's as easy as just saying it should happen. For one thing, hiring has changed. A lot of tech workers from my generation tended to be fa…

Great point. I'm in my thirties, my boss when I started was a mainframe systems programmer for years. They had critical business process on an unsupported platform and this guy and a colleague wrote a pretty decent TCP/IP stack for it. They also were experts in some random business processes that were ridiculously important. They were jack of all trades. When I got there they had moved into monitoring and management…

Now thinking about it a bit, there may be a sort of survivor bias thing going on. The "older tech workers" are largely the ones who stayed in tech, rather than going into management. We're the ones who managed to keep ourselves competitive, and survive the politics, for a few decades.

Re: American Firms Want to Keep Older Workers a Bit Longer

#82

Post by tpp » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 2:32 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #2

> With 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 each day, businesses are scrambling to find ways to slow an exodus of the most experienced employees and ensure that they pass along their knowledge before they leave. Knowledge transfer should be baked into the day-to-day culture of work, not something desperately scrambled for during someone's last week. Those few companies with meaningful training and mentoring programs know t…

True. Maybe the ones complaining are the companies that aren't as attractive to GenX as much as they were to baby boomers.

Re: American Firms Want to Keep Older Workers a Bit Longer

#83

Post by randomdata » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 4:11 PM UTC

cauterized wrote: post #76

randomdata wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shortage is defined as a situation where price cannot rise, such as the government setting a price ceiling. If price can rise then a shortage is impossible.

So if right at this moment the world had only enough doctors to care for half the population, regardless of the price, that wouldn't be a shortage of doctors? If there were a severe drought and only enough food to keep half of us alive, but prices weren't capped... That wouldn't be a food shortage? If there are only 10,000 people in a field who are under the age of 70 but have at least 20 years of experience, and the…

> So if right at this moment the world had only enough doctors to care for half the population, regardless of the price, that wouldn't be a shortage of doctors?

Doctors may not be the best example. Where I live, at least, the government really does set a price ceiling for doctors, so a shortage is very much possible. Ignoring that, simply not being able to afford a doctor does not mean there is a shortage of them. That means you cannot afford a doctor. Which is a problem in its own right, but not a problem defined by shortage. Not all problems are shortage problems.

> If there are only 10,000 people in a field who are under the age of 70 but have at least 20 years of experience, and the industry needs 50,000 of them to function efficiently - that's not a shortage of experienced skilled workers?

No, because as price rises, that 50,000 number will decline. There is only so much money willing to be spent. At some price point, businesses will only be able to afford 10,000 people and the demand will be met exactly by the number of people available to work. Or if the job really requires 50,000 people absolutely, they will decide it no longer needs to be done, leaving the the need at 0 people.

> Not every commodity experiences a drop in demand as the price rises.

How can that be? Not everyone has the same resources available. Like the businesses above, as price rises, some can no longer afford the good or service. That takes them out of the market. Demand does not simply mean what you want to have. Price is always a component. Like that great earlier comment here about Porches, there isn't shortage of Porches because every poor man who admires the car can't afford one. They are simply not in the market for one in the first place, no matter how much they dream about owning one.

> Markets aren't magic.

Nobody said they were. The scenarios you point out, where price is able to rise, are something, but not shortages.

Re: American Firms Want to Keep Older Workers a Bit Longer

#84

Post by ArkyBeagle » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 4:27 PM UTC

cmdrfred wrote: post #64

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies don't make bank burning people out. Burning people out is a sign of organizational... corruption. There are more incompetent managers than competent ones, so you get things like this due to that. In some, end-of-life organizations, burning people out can be a ... semi-rational decision, but .. it's an end-of-life company...

Some industries appear to operate on the "burn out model", take game dev or managed IT services firms for example.

The only people I know from either were from Perot Systems or EDS before, which is largely extinct. They didn't have it so bad.

I am sure it's a cause of pain for people but somehow, game dev. work being that way seems inevitable. My own exposure to the antediluvian music business ( back in them '80s ) was that it was The Island of the Lost Boys from "Pinocchio".

Re: American Firms Want to Keep Older Workers a Bit Longer

#85

Post by ArkyBeagle » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #77

cmdrfred wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some industries appear to operate on the "burn out model", take game dev or managed IT services firms for example.

Even in creative fields. All those young actors spending years on underpaid bit parts on off-Broadway and low budget Hollywood productions. Most of them make less than an average blue collar job. See also college athletes. A lineman at a top-tier football school in the U.S. ends up with all sorts of chronic injuries, possibly including brain damage. Very few of them make it to the pros. None are supposed to be paid a…

Blue collar jobs pay reasonably well after a few years. You might have to work pretty hard and hustle to move up the food chain. Trades gigs can be "nice house and a boat" levels of lucrative.

This is exactly why I think those football programs should be professionalized. The program should be licensed by the school - logos and all - but completely financially independent. Obviously, the money says otherwise ( football donors are a very significant stream of income ). And you'd quickly develop a "New York Yankees' problem - wealthy programs would have more money.

I have a Son In Law Candidate who is physically arranged like a left offensive tackle. Even in high school, the six hour practices put him off it.

Part of me says that "the love of the game" should be encouraged, but as you note... the costs are substantial. And I think the real money in sports is trading on the player's name, anyway.

Re: American Firms Want to Keep Older Workers a Bit Longer

#86

Post by mooreds » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

JoeDaDude wrote: post #31

I've often thought that after a certain age, instead of getting some percent increase in salary, it would be preferable instead to work some percentage fewer days or hours. Seems like the idea is finally catching on. I hope I get to enjoy it when the time comes.

I have always said that when I get to "X" income, I'd rather have more time than more money. Of course "X" changes over time, but I have definitely hit it before.

This is what consulting/contracting lets you determine, but I hear you, it'd be nice to have the option coupled with the safety and job opportunities of employment.

Re: American Firms Want to Keep Older Workers a Bit Longer

#87

Post by mooreds » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

madengr wrote: post #35

driverdan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is there a shortage? Are you underpaying people?

Not me personally; I'm an EE, not a manager. But yes, they underpay. I'm only making market salary because I threatened to quit last spring.

Ah, labor does respond to the law of supply and demand :).

Re: American Firms Want to Keep Older Workers a Bit Longer

#88

Post by mooreds » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #69

jwatte wrote: post #39

If salaries go up, shortages go down (both on silly and demand side)

Shortage is defined as a situation where price cannot rise, such as the government setting a price ceiling. If price can rise then a shortage is impossible.

> If price can rise then a shortage is impossible.

In the long term I agree. In the short term, the markets are not perfect and goods and labor are not perfectly fungible. It takes time to retool, even if prices are sending signals.

Re: American Firms Want to Keep Older Workers a Bit Longer

#89

Post by Spooky23 » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #81

Spooky23 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point. I'm in my thirties, my boss when I started was a mainframe systems programmer for years. They had critical business process on an unsupported platform and this guy and a colleague wrote a pretty decent TCP/IP stack for it. They also were experts in some random business processes that were ridiculously important. They were jack of all trades. When I got there they had moved into monitoring and management…

Now thinking about it a bit, there may be a sort of survivor bias thing going on. The "older tech workers" are largely the ones who stayed in tech, rather than going into management. We're the ones who managed to keep ourselves competitive, and survive the politics, for a few decades.

Absolutely.

You see it with old timer SEs from companies like IBM and HP and even Apple... these are folks that love solving problems and are adept at it. They are also always fighting management who is completely clueless.

One guy from one of those companies figured out a huge problem and probably generated $30M of sales. They laid him off in a random culling of the herd.

The only place you see those types of folks getting developed now are in cloud services where some of the cast off junior SEs from the big companies are doing similar things there.

Re: American Firms Want to Keep Older Workers a Bit Longer

#90

Post by eli_gottlieb » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #36

Retric wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to keep people after training, just pay them more and avoid toxic environments. Companies don't do this because they make bank underpaying people and burning them out.

Companies don't make bank burning people out. Burning people out is a sign of organizational... corruption. There are more incompetent managers than competent ones, so you get things like this due to that. In some, end-of-life organizations, burning people out can be a ... semi-rational decision, but .. it's an end-of-life company...

>Burning people out is a sign of organizational... corruption.

Well yes, but there are many ownership models that indeed impose top-down orders on the management to implement totally stupid labor decisions.