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

161–170 of 400 posts

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

#161

Post by stale2002 »

TuringNYC wrote: post #63
jdhn wrote: post #22

"They're just asking for the moon, and not expecting to pay very much for it," Cappelli says. "And as a result they [can't] find those people. Now that [doesn't] mean there was nobody to do the job; it just [means] that there was nobody at the price they were willing to pay." In my opinion, this is the key paragraph in the article. I see this all the time when recruiters send me job postings, and they want someone wi…

There is a shortage of workers in as much as there is a shortage of BMW 7-series sedans for under $30k. I looked everywhere at that price. Massive shortage.

If going to the doctor for a checkup costed you 20K out of pocket, would you consider there to be a "shortage" of doctors?

How about if it costs a 100$ per loaf of bread?

I'd considered that to be a shortage. Even if supply is technically meeting demand.

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

#162

Post by stlHusker »

existencebox wrote: post #66
pgwhalen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What skill sets should they select for?

Having done a good handful of interviews, I tend to look for "generic problem solving" (not in the sense of trick questions, but in the sense of running through ambiguous engineering and mixed social/engineering scenarios to see how they'd move forward) communication skills (the ability to communicate the above effectively, talk about past work, problems, successes) and frankly track record. (this is obviously harder…

I really hope that more people would look at it that way.

Just my own personal experience, but I've honestly seen the trial-by-fire method used either at the sole exclusion of, or weighted more heavily than actually talking to the candidate about their past work. I can't count the number of times in the past where I've encountered this.

At most points when this occurs and it seems there is no end in sight, I typically state: "You know, I've solved some pretty interesting problems over my career, why don't you ask me about that, I think problem xyz it is similar to what you are looking for; let me tell you why". Subsequent laughs and eye-rolls later you get a canned: "I don't care about that, I care about things that matter to me" response.

When you start selecting "problems" for candidates to work through, you add additional layers of interference into the activity: 1) Have you selected the right interviewer for this type of questioning line? Can they describe a the problem adequately? Can they ask probing questions? Are they only able to follow one line of thought? Are they patient? Are they arrogant? 2) Does the problem test for what you think it does? 3) Is the candidate able to think on their feet on a minutes notice on a topic they may not be familiar with in front of an audience?

Where I work (aerospace, embedded systems) interviews are ~75% behavioral and ~25% "technical" with a major focus on having the candidate work through problems they have solved in the past, with the interviewer asking questions not to break but to really learn about them.

I have family members that work at various levels within the medical profession, none of them get the "generic problem solving" trial-by-fire experience when interviewing. (Yes, I realize there is a higher level of trust there, certifications, boards and all. I just think it is a bit crazy that we cannot find a better way).

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

#163

Post by wfo »

jdhn wrote: post #22

"They're just asking for the moon, and not expecting to pay very much for it," Cappelli says. "And as a result they [can't] find those people. Now that [doesn't] mean there was nobody to do the job; it just [means] that there was nobody at the price they were willing to pay." In my opinion, this is the key paragraph in the article. I see this all the time when recruiters send me job postings, and they want someone wi…

Indeed: here we see that the 'efficiency' of the market or its ability to solve problems as an organic optimzation machine is a myth. The market is a collection of many dictatorial kings of fiefdoms called small and large businesses, and it expresses the collective will of these kings. Theory says if there is a labor shortage that wages should go up, but the owning class does not wish to raise wages, rather they prefer to keep their proportion of the profit for themselves, and when theory conflicts with the will of the powerful, well...

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

#164

Post by expertentipp »

Kurtz79 wrote: post #142
expertentipp wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We (actually you) are talking about "market rate". The Eastern Europe "market rate" is lower than the US because cost of living is. I assure you that people earning USD 40K in Eastern Europe have a quality of life comparable to their "market rate" paid US engineer (as people in the same thread are saying). As quality of life improves (also helped by US companies paying above-average rates, compared to the local ones)…

This sounds like a recruiter/HR person/manager: "in Germany we would have to pay you 60-80k EUR, in the country you are currently in 40k USD is generous... why? look at Numbeo - it cannot lie!"

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

#165

Post by eli_gottlieb »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #134

I've been watching this tension grow for a while (otherwise qualified workers unwilling to work for the pay offered). I keep expecting the system to crack and boost pay, and then we'll see some more severe inflation in the US economy as a cycle of product costs go up rather than down. And yet it is stubbornly hanging in as employers try ever more intricate ways to avoid having that cost bump. It is very much a prison…

>And yet it is stubbornly hanging in as employers try ever more intricate ways to avoid having that cost bump.

Innovation is a thing. If your business model depends on low labor costs, then ultimately, your business model depends on having a perpetual economic recession to suppress wages. Or Pinkertons to just shoot anyone demanding more money.

When the economy is actually growing, don't shoot everyone in the foot to keep your costs down. Just pay more money and innovate.

And if you can't, go bankrupt. Such is life on the free market.

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

#166

Post by dreamcompiler »

Part of this comes from executives being taught to think of employees as expenses rather than assets. "Less money to employees = more money to me." This attitude is part of a larger systemic problem: A great deal of American business is now more about gaming the system than about building products. Take the VC money, build nothing, and cash out. Sell customer data to ad networks and cash out. SEO the hell out of that thing and cash out. Cook the books and cash out. Sell bundles of subprime loans and cash out. Buy your competitor, harvest its assets, kill their product, and cash out. Pump and dump and disappear. "What, you still have seed corn? Eat that shit!"

It's all just bullshit short-term arbitrage. It has nothing to do with adding value, which is what sustainable business is based on. It works well in an environment where such behavior is not punished, and where business executives are rewarded for "maximum profit in minimum time" and penalized for long-term thinking. It's certainly not sustainable, but alas, that's exactly where we are in the U.S.

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

#167

Post by watwut »

damnfine wrote: post #144
ikeyany wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The industry chases away all the talented people with soft skills by telling them those skills aren't "merit-based".

And vice versa, chases out many with the hard skills, because they are socially lacking. They want some weird in between that doesnt seem to exist in nature.

It is possible to have both. There is no contradiction between those those two types of skills.

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

#168

Post by expertentipp »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #158
expertentipp wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Mind you - cars, clothes, petrol, electronics there are more expensive But housing is much cheaper, and that leaves a lot of money left over to buy all those other stuff. In my Eastern European city, I can rent a three-bedroom house with garden for 300€/month. I probably would struggle to do the same with an IT job in Western Europe. Furthermore, it’s strange that you talk about cost of petrol, because IT firms her…

> three-bedroom house with garden for 300€/month

This is not a major eastern European city, certainly not one where IT jobs are available.

> here attract employees with nice private healthcare.

These private health insurances are hoax. The only thing they cover is a consultation and high five with the doctor, for anything serious involving a stay in the hospital one fallbacks into public health insurance.

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

#169

Post by HarryHirsch »

Retric wrote: post #89
toomuchtodo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If employers were required to pay for someone's time for an interview, you would see this fixed right quick. But because an employer can leave an unreasonable job req out there and interview as many candidates as they want, with the only cost being their own time, this continues.

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

In sufficiently large bureaucracies the departmental budget is someone else's money, but meanwhile the departmental middle manager has to prove his need for existence, so why not advertise for a position. You see this often in universities: someone leaves, the duties are distributed amongst those that are still there, a job is advertised and goes unfilled for several terms because none of the applicants are to the taste of the committee.

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

#170

Post by Godel_unicode »

WalterSear wrote: post #128
alexanderstears wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Until the entity with more power starts bending the rules of them game in their favour.

I always find this an interesting argument; while company foo has more power than a random job seeker, they certainly don't have more power than all the other companies seeking that employee. In order for companies to wield their supposed salary-depressing power there would have to be massive collusion. For an example of how (in)effective that is, look how much salaries increased while Apple Google et al were colluding.

I think this is more simple: units of production are less obviously attributable to FTE count or difference in skill in software than in other fields. Therefore, management is less sure how much developer they actually need to purchase.

Post reply on HN