Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job • Hacker News Board

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#11

Post by save_ferris » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #8

The biggest thing from the employer side is that the cost of a single bad hire can be potentially enormous. This is a combination of legal (threat of wrongful termination lawsuits, COBRA) and cultural (nobody likes to feel like a jerk boss, morale problems among the remaining employees). The rule of thumb among managers is don't hire anybody unless you're 90% sure they'll work out for at least a year. That creates a…

> What we need is another category of transitional employment, with both much lighter regulatory barriers to turnover as well as more relaxed cultural expectations about job security. In the olden days we'd call this an "apprentice". Today it might be an "intern", but the general expectation is that only applies to very young workers- not those respelling or making a lateral move.

I agree that this is a good idea, but the market won't accommodate this kind of labor change without government help. Employers have been able to shift responsibility for training off onto other organizations (i.e. coding bootcamps) to get individuals trained and prepared for jobs. Nowadays, workers themselves largely have to bear the financial burden of training in hopes that they land a good-paying job.

What you're suggesting essentially places the financial burden of training and skill development back on companies through apprenticeship programs. That's not going to happen voluntarily.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#12

Post by searine » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #8

The biggest thing from the employer side is that the cost of a single bad hire can be potentially enormous. This is a combination of legal (threat of wrongful termination lawsuits, COBRA) and cultural (nobody likes to feel like a jerk boss, morale problems among the remaining employees). The rule of thumb among managers is don't hire anybody unless you're 90% sure they'll work out for at least a year. That creates a…

Companies need to get over themselves. Employees, particularly new employees, shouldn't be expected to 'hit the ground running' in every circumstance. It is unfair to the employee to have no expectation of on-the-job training.

Morale is an issue. The constant understaffing and overwork of current employment is often much more taxing than a bad hire. Yes, a bad hire can have a spoiler effect but in those circumstances it is worth the paperwork to remove them. I argue that an indecisive manager who refuses to do the work necessary to manage and staff for the need is far more detrimental than one lower level employee.

Employment regulations protect employees, not the company, and for good reason. Removing them is not going to make it easier for job-seekers, it just makes it easier to exploit them.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#13

Post by HarryHirsch » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #9

bilbo0s wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reality, employers report difficulty hiring because the wages they offer don’t match the skills they’re after, she says AND only about 60 to 70% of US computing and engineering graduates land jobs in STEM I don't know man? The implication there is that there exist up to 30-40% of new computing and engineering grads who on the one hand are without jobs in STEM, and on the other are willing to leave the STEM jobs th…

There are good paying jobs outside STEM. Finance, consulting, media, law (especially IP law if you have a bachelors in STEM), etc. If an engineering grad decides to become an actuary or management consultant or investment banker, that doesn't necessarily mean they couldn't find a STEM job.

A good number of lifescience graduates at regional colleges aim for nursing, also because it's about the only paying career that's left. The Department of Education reports a median salary of 54.5 kUSD for a nursing graduate at my regional college, meanwhile a chemical contract manufacturer nearby recently advertised a skilled BSc job for 35 kUSD. It's a mystery how you can make rent and student loan payment on that and have money left over for food.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#14

Post by bluedays » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

ryan-duve wrote: post #2

It seems to me the title would have been better named "Why reskilling will probably not guarantee you a new job". The first two thirds of the article about how and why this doesn't happen, and it sums up with what appears to be the exception. That said, I couldn't agree with the closing more: "You've got to work so hard at it and do all these extra activities and just immerse yourself fully. Without that passion, I c…

Agreed. Transitioning into tech for this very reason has yielding amazing results for me.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#15

Post by chrk33 » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

I think a seasoned developer needs about 3 months to get familiar with a new framework/toolset within the same environment e.g. moving from React to Angular. What can a person without prior in-depth knowledge learn in a Three-month, full-time software-engineering course?

This does not sound to me a programme wherein they genuinely want people to get into software development.

But disprove me please, if you have experience about this.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#16

Post by lytefm » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #8

The biggest thing from the employer side is that the cost of a single bad hire can be potentially enormous. This is a combination of legal (threat of wrongful termination lawsuits, COBRA) and cultural (nobody likes to feel like a jerk boss, morale problems among the remaining employees). The rule of thumb among managers is don't hire anybody unless you're 90% sure they'll work out for at least a year. That creates a…

> What we need is another category of transitional employment, with both much lighter regulatory barriers to turnover as well as more relaxed cultural expectations about job security.

I'd usually call this a „trainee”.

> The biggest thing from the employer side is that the cost of a single bad hire can be potentially enormous.

You haven't mentioned the „lost” time for other developers. Unless the hiring company has a very efficient onboarding process, any new and „bad” hire will cost _a lot_ in terms of productivity. Some people are certainly able to contribute meaningfully after a 3 month bootcamp and continue their self-study on the job. But many just won't cut it in an environment where everyone else had a 3 year acadamic/vocational training or other meaningful experience before even being considered as a hire.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#17

Post by mlamat » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

chrk33 wrote: post #15

I think a seasoned developer needs about 3 months to get familiar with a new framework/toolset within the same environment e.g. moving from React to Angular. What can a person without prior in-depth knowledge learn in a Three-month, full-time software-engineering course? This does not sound to me a programme wherein they genuinely want people to get into software development. But disprove me please, if you have exper…

Of course it is a scam. Learning how to print "Hello World" and counting to 10 is not software engineering.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#18

Post by freetime2 » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

> Why, then, do policymakers and business leaders continue to focus on reskilling? Lafer thinks it gives them an easy way out by laying the blame for workers’ dim employment prospects on their failure to acquire the right skills rather than facing up to deeper structural changes in the economy. He says that a better option might be a push for better pay and conditions in other in demand industries that employ lots of people but are poorly rewarded such as construction, healthcare and education.

I subscribe to the Keynesian philosophy that the government should at the very least hire displaced workers to dig holes in the ground and fill them back up. Even better - use that effort to build roads, clean our cities, provide services, etc.

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#19

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

Reskilling is tough in a world where you have to compete with people with many year degrees for an entry level job. If you imagined people reskilling twice in their careers, that's two extra times through college. Say they can skip the general education reqs the second time through and it's just 3 years. That's still 10+ years of undergrad in a 50 year career.

I think educational specialization is going to be a massive issue going forward. In the past, one industry had to compete with another for labor. As time goes on, it's increasingly only within-industry competition that matters, because workers have sunk too much time and money into simply getting their feet in the door to switch.

If you could spend three months and $20k to switch industries, you're much more likely to move compared to the friction of spending a few years and many tens of thousands (and who knows if that specialty will be flooded a few years later when you finish?).

Re: Why reskilling won’t always guarantee you a new job

#20

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

freetime2 wrote: post #18

> Why, then, do policymakers and business leaders continue to focus on reskilling? Lafer thinks it gives them an easy way out by laying the blame for workers’ dim employment prospects on their failure to acquire the right skills rather than facing up to deeper structural changes in the economy. He says that a better option might be a push for better pay and conditions in other in demand industries that employ lots of…

Installing renewables, as well as installing EV charging stations and upgrading electrical infrastructure is going to be a Herculean effort, lots of good jobs to provide for folks in that domain.

I believe many on Native American lands still don’t have running water, internet, or power. Should be a top priority for such a jobs corps.