Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Employers Struggle to Match Workers with Open Jobs

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 400 posts

Re: U.S. Employers Struggle to Match Workers with Open Jobs

#101

Post by samfriedman »

owebmaster wrote: post #53
quantumhobbit wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want better than mediocre employees then guess what the solution is? More money! Although mediocre employees can often become great employees with some training and coaching.

> Although mediocre employees can often become great employees with some training and coaching. Although mediocre employees can often become great employees with some MORE MONEY !

True, but it's often the case that the money is spent inefficiently or on the completely wrong things. More money + proper spending = worker growth.

Re: U.S. Employers Struggle to Match Workers with Open Jobs

#102

Post by learc83 »

havetocharge wrote: post #84
notalaser wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... the business doesn't even generate enough revenue to afford hiring the kind of people who can keep it running well , or at least not as well as its owners would want it to be running? Should workers be doing charity work now?

No, you are free not to accept inadequate pay, just as the companies are free not to accept excessive pay. It's a marketplace, just think in terms of bids and asks.

It's a marketplace until the business starts using a nonexistent "shortage" to lobby government to add more visa slots and create programs to funnel more students into the jobs it wants to pay less for.

It's also a marketplace where one side has much more information and negotiating power than the other.

Re: U.S. Employers Struggle to Match Workers with Open Jobs

#103

Post by alexanderstears »

krapp wrote: post #79
notalaser wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But maybe the job isn't economically worth it at the higher salary? As in, their business doesn't even generate enough revenue to afford hiring the kind of people who can keep it running?

>As in, their business doesn't even generate enough revenue to afford hiring the kind of people who can keep it running? Even businesses which generate enough revenue to be able to afford higher salaries don't want to pay more for labor. They want to pay less for more.

And workers seek higher salaries. Through both entities acting in their self-interest, the market discovers an equilibrium.

Re: U.S. Employers Struggle to Match Workers with Open Jobs

#104

Post by expertentipp »

Kurtz79 wrote: post #98
expertentipp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are salaries much below the market rate. The same companies oftentimes have massive profits in these countries, profits which are tightly funneled out through IE/NL/LU/British overseas regions.

"These are salaries much below the market rate." Are you really comparing US market rate, which even varies inside the US, with that of Eastern Europe ? Or are you saying that USD 40K is much below market rate in Eastern Europe ? In the latter case I'll have to ask for sources, because my experience differs greatly.

So Eastern Europe deserves low salaries? Mind you - cars, clothes, petrol, electronics there are more expensive (sic) than in US and cost the same as in more developed EU countries. Social security net and healthcare in Eastern Europe are awfully underfunded and are more comparable to American than to those from more developed EU countries.

Re: U.S. Employers Struggle to Match Workers with Open Jobs

#105

Post by jordache »

altotrees wrote: post #91

Recently had a recruiter call me, interview me over the phone once, in-person once, and via skype once. The job seemed to be a great fit, the pay was there, everything seemed to be lined up. The recruiter called me again to tell me that they were going to be taking the next steps with me very shortly. A week of silence goes by, then another. I email, inquiring about the position. "Oh, we gave that to someone we had b…

how does that random candidate get a hold of you?

Re: U.S. Employers Struggle to Match Workers with Open Jobs

#106

Post by kazagistar »

Retric wrote: post #90
havetocharge wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are no takers, then the task should not be done, yes. What a lot if people seem to imply is that these jobs should not be advertised in the first place, which I disagree with.

Advertising is not free. Having a few unfilled jobs is natural but it's wasteful to have significant market disconnects. That said, a lot of 'jobs' are simply H1B fodder or resume bait etc.

Unless they people causing them waste incur costs greater then they benefits, it won't change. Hiring has gone digital, reducing costs, so of course garbage job postings have increased.

Re: U.S. Employers Struggle to Match Workers with Open Jobs

#107

Post by Retric »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #96
Retric wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorting resumes and conducting interviews is not free. So, you still need a cost benefit analysis.

Cost of doing business.

Wasting resources for zero gain is never just a cost of doing business.

Yes, not all jobs will be filled quickly. But, unreasonable salary expectations cause needless waste.

Re: U.S. Employers Struggle to Match Workers with Open Jobs

#108

Post by jedmeyers »

jordache wrote: post #105
altotrees wrote: post #91

Recently had a recruiter call me, interview me over the phone once, in-person once, and via skype once. The job seemed to be a great fit, the pay was there, everything seemed to be lined up. The recruiter called me again to tell me that they were going to be taking the next steps with me very shortly. A week of silence goes by, then another. I email, inquiring about the position. "Oh, we gave that to someone we had b…

how does that random candidate get a hold of you?

"It turns out I knew the person who did get the job"

Re: U.S. Employers Struggle to Match Workers with Open Jobs

#109

Post by arca_vorago »

altotrees wrote: post #91

Recently had a recruiter call me, interview me over the phone once, in-person once, and via skype once. The job seemed to be a great fit, the pay was there, everything seemed to be lined up. The recruiter called me again to tell me that they were going to be taking the next steps with me very shortly. A week of silence goes by, then another. I email, inquiring about the position. "Oh, we gave that to someone we had b…

The latter, hands down. I quit college to startup an IT support company, and despite going back in spurts, never finished. I got quite a few jobs after I left the startup though, and in retrospect I think the primary factor that got me those jobs, despite my many years of expertise, was the fact that since I didn't have a degree they could pay me less vs most of the other candidates. The most recent one, that promised 6 month pay raise, turned into a year, then more, and finally, having spent at least a year working late nights and weekends salary exempt (no OT), getting the infrastructure out of enough technical debt that I no longer needed to work the excessive hours, the company tried to make me go hourly...

Companies simply don't want to pay what they should for the level of talent they want. They are trying to find the edge case that can still get the job done but that they can also underpay so they have more money for the company/execs.

For what it's worth, I quit the sysadmin game and am now pursuing my degree in data science using my GI Bill, which I think will compliment my many years of senior sysadmin knowledge quite well. I'm there to learn, and am very excited about my classes, but I have to admit, a large part of me just wants the degree so I don't suffer the same poor pay not having a degree set me up for, mainly through weakness in the negotiation process.

Re: U.S. Employers Struggle to Match Workers with Open Jobs

#110

Post by learc83 »

icebraining wrote: post #76
owebmaster wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But maybe the job isn't economically worth it at the higher salary? That would means the company is dysfunctional and only desperate people are going to join this wagon.

How does that follow? You seem to be assuming a lot. If they're peripheral, optional tasks, like an extra service you could upsell to your clients for a small margin, it may not provide enough income for a market-level salary.

In most cases, you don't want to take a job that's worth say $100k, but not $150k to an employer.

Either the value you're bringing to the company is somewhere less than $50k, or the company is irrationally tied to not paying more than $100k.

Post reply on HN