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

Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#21

Post by netcan »

trevelyan wrote: post #6

As far as I'm aware from the economics blogosphere, arguments about "structural unemployment" are popular these days mostly in right wing think tanks. And they only seem popular there because hypothesizing that there are tons of jobs available for the unemployed permits one to reject Keynesian/Monetarist prescriptions for further fiscal/monetary stimulus. I haven't run into any serious economist who believes in the i…

I agree with you that the reason many proponents of structural believe it is that it is consistent with their existing ideas about free markets and such, but that doesn't necessarily discredit it. There were bubbles that popped in finance and construction. This should produce a surplus of labour in these areas that needs to be absorbed.

I'm not an expert, but I don't think that a structural unemployment explanation is necessarily incompatible with with Keynes. Keynes talks about sticky prices disrupting the classical economic reallocation of resources. This would make sense especially for labour. If you need to go from an 80k job in finance to a 40k job in retail, you would probably be very reluctant and meanwhile be unemployed. That's, to the best of my understanding, a structural explanation.

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#22

Post by sayrer »

secret wrote: post #15
trevelyan wrote: post #6

As far as I'm aware from the economics blogosphere, arguments about "structural unemployment" are popular these days mostly in right wing think tanks. And they only seem popular there because hypothesizing that there are tons of jobs available for the unemployed permits one to reject Keynesian/Monetarist prescriptions for further fiscal/monetary stimulus. I haven't run into any serious economist who believes in the i…

"As far as I'm aware from the economics blogosphere, arguments about "structural unemployment" are popular these days mostly in right wing think tanks." Actually, I heard Bill Clinton talking about the same thing on the Daily Show this past week.

All mainstream US politicians are fairly right wing.

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#23

Post by ojbyrne »

There's plenty of training available once you're in a company, because most companies understand that there's a large cost to losing an employee who's proven that they are intelligent, have a good work ethic, and are easy to work with.

There's very little appetite for training new workers until they've proven those same things.

In essence, on the job training might be in short supply, but on the job retraining is not.

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#24

Post by blhack »

sayrer wrote: post #22
secret wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As far as I'm aware from the economics blogosphere, arguments about "structural unemployment" are popular these days mostly in right wing think tanks." Actually, I heard Bill Clinton talking about the same thing on the Daily Show this past week.

All mainstream US politicians are fairly right wing.

This is a bit like saying that every city in the US is fairly warm.

Yes, if you compare them to McMurdo Station in Antarctica, they are. Relative to each other, there are warm cities in the US, and cold cities in the US; Minneapolis, while not nearly as cold as McMurdo Station, is cold by US standards.

Similarly, while US politicians may all be "right wing" in comparison to their European equivalents, there are most certainly politicians who, in the relevant context, are not.

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#25

Post by prodigal_erik »

I think part of it is flatter organizations and cutbacks in middle management. My manager is a VP who reports directly to the CEO; all his reports are individual contributors. He's the sharpest I've worked for, but he only hires a handful of very senior developers (unusually, I think our average age is around forty) because he wears a lot of hats and doesn't have a lot of spare time to mold journeymen to deliver well, in return for savings on salary that isn't going to be that large over time.

In a way I feel bad that we aren't doing our part to ramp up the next generation, but it would be hard to take the hit for doing so and still deliver on our current obligations. The alternative would be have his reports manage apprentices, but none of us is eager to make the compromises needed to get a stable system out of an army that's still developing good taste. If this problem is becoming acute, wages for junior devs will drop enough that someone can probably do that and eat our lunch (like outsourcing but without the language and timezone barriers).

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#26

Post by SkyMarshal »

I find it interesting that firms choose to not hire anyone at all over hiring and training someone. That means it's either a luxury hire uncritical to the business's survival, or they equate hiring and training with a negative ROI. Or both.

To those here who run a business, is that how it is?

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#27

Post by makmanalp »

The form of training has changed. At my old shop, there'd sometimes be a guest expert who did a talk on an interesting subject. If you wanted a tech book, you could buy it on the company's Amazon account and read it as much as you liked. Some companies do a sort of buddy system were you're helped along by a mentor while starting out or learning something new.

I think this change came with the realisation that you're worth more to the company building something than sitting on your ass training for something you may come across with in the future. Therefore, if it's directly relevant you'll get training but otherwise you'll probably have to do it in your own time.

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#28

Post by Kaizyn »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #26

I find it interesting that firms choose to not hire anyone at all over hiring and training someone. That means it's either a luxury hire uncritical to the business's survival, or they equate hiring and training with a negative ROI. Or both. To those here who run a business, is that how it is?

While I don't have a business, your question assumes that those doing the hiring are acting rationally. Whereas most business trends are caused by people uncritically following what others are doing.

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#29

Post by Kaizyn »

kthxbye wrote: post #16
wccrawford wrote: post #3

Well, for programming, employees without experience generally slow down the existing employees and rarely turn into good workers. Let's examine the typical job applicants to see why: 1) Has experience, resume and portfolio. 2) Has no professional experience, but has worked on open source projects and has a nice portfolio. 3) Has no professional experience and hasn't worked on open source. Has a personal portfolio tha…

I don't see how being self-driven, independent and generally more self-reliant makes you more suitable for employment. Why would such a person want to be an employee?

Because such people often have bills to pay and they like to earn money. Especially if they aren't in a situation where starting a company is financially viable at the time, being hired is not such a bad thing.

Re: Ask HN: Why firms don't train workers anymore

#30

Post by frossie »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #25

I think part of it is flatter organizations and cutbacks in middle management. My manager is a VP who reports directly to the CEO; all his reports are individual contributors. He's the sharpest I've worked for, but he only hires a handful of very senior developers (unusually, I think our average age is around forty) because he wears a lot of hats and doesn't have a lot of spare time to mold journeymen to deliver well…

I think part of it is flatter organizations and cutbacks in middle management.

I think you're right - you need excess capacity in your senior/middle management layer that can absorb training. I would also add "cutbacks in general". Taking in green people means hiring somebody a significant amount of time before you really need them. This means that if you are in the "don't spend a dime until you really really have to" mode, you will wait until the crisis hit and then you will want somebody who can start being productive TOMORROW.

It's a shame, because taking in inexperienced people means potentially ending up with a "perfect" person because you don't have to work against any previously acquired bad habits, you can inculcate him with your own ethic and so on.

Post reply on HN