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

Skills Don’t Pay the Bills

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 143 posts

Re: Skills Don’t Pay the Bills

#81

Post by yummyfajitas »

moultano wrote: post #50
codewright wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had a lot of encounters with YC founders, most of them negative. This anecdote well encapsulates the impression I had of a lot of them. I'd really like to meet the better of the crop, because I can't imagine PG and Jessica (she's usually the expert on character and personality in YC interviews) are intentionally picking petty people. I'm not the only person in the startup industry who's had this impression eithe…

I can imagine that for a company with a runway measured in months, immediate skills might be more important than for a well established company.

I'm not sure about this.

When I was at my startup, I hired a guy with no Django experience and minimal python. He made his first bug fix within 24 hours of showing up and was productive within a week.

Maybe RoR has a much steeper learning curve, or maybe the people doing the hiring just don't get it.

Re: Skills Don’t Pay the Bills

#82

Post by davidp »

molsongolden wrote: post #15

"The so-called skills gap is really a gap in education, and that affects all of us." That closing line doesn't really sound like the gist of the piece at all. It sounds like manufacturing employers just don't want to or don't feel they can afford to pay works a fair wage.

Here's the thing, though: You have to assume that they are correct. If one believes that they are incorrect, he is effectively stating that he (someone thinking abstractly in the absence of any hard data) is better at pricing the value of the work than the manufacturer (who is directly affected by the outcome and has a wealth of hard data).

Several commenters have basically claimed that the manufacturers are behaving irrationally; a claim like that requires some powerful arguments to credibly support. I haven't seen much of that yet here.

I suspect that the truth is that manufacturers would be willing to pay to train workers if they could be reasonably sure that the investment would have time to pay off. But thanks to Moore's Law and everything that comes with it, manufacturing technology is changing far more rapidly than it used to when everything was more stable.

It seems likely that it's more cost-effective for the manufacturer to lower that risk by training lower-paid labor elsewhere and letting those workers go (or retraining them, if it's cheap to do so) when they're no longer suitable, than it is to do the same thing in first-world countries for much higher cost.

Re: Skills Don’t Pay the Bills

#83

Post by ishbits »

wyclif wrote: post #24
qq66 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen several job ads requiring "5+ years experience with Technology X" where Technology X is not yet 5 years old.

Yes, absolutely. I remember back when Java was only a few years old, it was common to see jobs where the company wanted 5-6 years of experience. Now, it could have been agency recruiters who had no idea what they were talking about, or it could have been coming from HR. But the result is the same: flagged for spam.

Sure wish I had a nickle for every time I've heard/read this.

Re: Skills Don’t Pay the Bills

#84

Post by xyzzy123 »

molsongolden wrote: post #15

"The so-called skills gap is really a gap in education, and that affects all of us." That closing line doesn't really sound like the gist of the piece at all. It sounds like manufacturing employers just don't want to or don't feel they can afford to pay works a fair wage.

I've been hanging out on cnczone (cnc forum) for a while, and I have to say I have a lot of respect for some of these machinists.

I found a long-running thread where they discussed average wages for machinists / cnc operators, and it actually made me sad. It's here:

http://www.cnczone.com/forums/polls/42247-what_average_hourl...

When I compare this to what even mediocre programmers get, I can't help but feel that there's real blue-collar discrimination going on.

One thing though - there's a real variance in the responsibilities (and a abilities) of a "CNC operator"...

Re: Skills Don’t Pay the Bills

#85

Post by TheAmazingIdiot »

enko wrote: post #51
eshvk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the point and flailing at straw men. I don't care about the female ratio (Neither I think does any one who downvoted the OP). I am not going to discuss the utility of the HR department, the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy (which is particularly freaking sexist).

> I am not going to discuss the utility of the HR department, the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy this attitude, to me, is unbelievable. Of course they are human beings. What else would they be? If you're going to make a claim about HR, make it on its merits. I have said they're nothing but a bunch of good looking girls. They have zero understanding…

"Wah Wah Wah horrendous sexual remarks Wah Wah Wah closet feminist Wah"

I think this about sums up the comment. You mentioned cute women in HR as ones who are cute and don't know about the job to properly hire.

The next avenue to attack is "denigrating" booth 'people' because we are not allowed to hilight the obvious sexuality of the (shudder) women.

Re: Skills Don’t Pay the Bills

#86

Post by rpwilcox »

molsongolden wrote: post #15

"The so-called skills gap is really a gap in education, and that affects all of us." That closing line doesn't really sound like the gist of the piece at all. It sounds like manufacturing employers just don't want to or don't feel they can afford to pay works a fair wage.

I also thought that line was unfair. Sure, one can go and get a 4 year degree to run your machines, at their own personal cost of $100,000 to $150,000.

It's not just about "fair wage" at that point - enough to have a place to live, a car, food in your belly... but that "fair rate" also includes being paid enough to afford the $500-1,000/month student loan payment that is the outcome of getting such a degree.

Re: Skills Don’t Pay the Bills

#87

Post by WiseWeasel »

clarkm wrote: post #55
chrismealy wrote: post #28

Economist Dean Baker comments on this: That Shortage of Skilled Manufacturing Workers is Really a Shortage of Employers Willing to Pay the Market Wage News stories have been filled with reports of managers of manufacturing companies insisting that they have jobs open that they can't fill because there are no qualified workers. Adam Davidson at the NYT looked at this more closely and found that the real problem is tha…

I think it is important to note that the fast-food jobs with comparable pay are low level managerial positions , not entry level ones. You can start working for minimum wage at a fast-food job without any previous experience and/or skills. These jobs require very little training, and allow employees to add value almost immediately (and well before promotion to the $15-$20 an hour positions). Contrast this to the skil…

Who wants to enter a one-to-two-year unpaid training program for the privilege of getting a $10-15/hr position that's probably going to be gone in five years?

Re: Skills Don’t Pay the Bills

#88

Post by andrew_wc_brown »

When applying for programmers I'll refuse to hand in a résumé without being able to demonstrate my skills and provide sample work first.

The hiring process that most companies use is backwards, and I think mostly due to people that go to school to learn HR and taught this impractical approach.

Re: Skills Don’t Pay the Bills

#89

Post by jokull »

codewright wrote: post #46
mseebach wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just HR. I did an interview with a YC startup that obsessed over my lack of Rails experience. I have several years of industry relevant professional experience in Java, Python and PHP, but only ever dabbled in Ruby and Rails. Their offer (which did come through, grudgingly, through many repetitions of "so will you commit to teaching yourself rails before starting?" (No, I won't.) was quite a bit on the low e…

I've had a lot of encounters with YC founders, most of them negative. This anecdote well encapsulates the impression I had of a lot of them. I'd really like to meet the better of the crop, because I can't imagine PG and Jessica (she's usually the expert on character and personality in YC interviews) are intentionally picking petty people. I'm not the only person in the startup industry who's had this impression eithe…

But how were they supposed to know you were the kind of programmer that picks up a new language in a matter of days or weeks? Most programmers take years to become competent in a language. I think this hiring practice, although unfortunate, is just the employer securing themselves in case the programmer is only at medium competency. Then at least he or she can use that one language where they have shown at least some competency.

Re: Skills Don’t Pay the Bills

#90

Post by bluesnowmonkey »

eshvk wrote: post #48
pinaceae wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, it is a correct observation that HR (and marketing) departments have the highest female ratio in pretty much any company. let's look at famous examples: Carly Fiorina? Marketing. Brigitte Ederer (Siemens)? HR. Meg Whitman? Marketing (started as a Brand Manager) the cute moniker is unnecessary, I agree. the overall observation is correct. i agree in particular with the fact that once HR takes over hiring from th…

You are missing the point and flailing at straw men. I don't care about the female ratio (Neither I think does any one who downvoted the OP). I am not going to discuss the utility of the HR department, the issue here is that they are human beings whom no one has the right to reduce as being mere eye-candy (which is particularly freaking sexist).

Diverse organizations perform better. Diversity of genders, ages, backgrounds. They are more balanced and have healthier decision-making processes. We've been tribal creatures for thousands of years and we've evolved to work best in mixed groups like that.

So if you're going to send a spaceship to Mars for a couple of years, you'd better mix some women in there, whether you consider it sexist or not. Likewise if you're going to put some people in a high-pressure startup for a couple of years, where they're spending almost all of their time and energy at the office, you'll probably have better and more consistent outcomes with a diverse group. That means both men and women, junior and senior, deep thinkers and fast movers.

Post reply on HN