High-Tech Worker Shortage Claim is a Lie

every year the landscape changes for high technology. today there are very few people here with bio-tech, green tech, genetics, nano-tech experience to staff current startups building key products the world demands.

Many $Billionaires will be created from Green/Nano/Bio/Genetics that's for sure. Also add Genomics.

You can also buy a lotto ticket at the local corner store.A career would be better.

HGP wrote:

every year the landscape changes for high technology. today there are very few people here with bio-tech, green tech, genetics, nano-tech experience to staff current startups building key products the world demands.

Many $Billionaires will be created from Green/Nano/Bio/Genetics that's for sure. Also add Genomics.

no singlet no service wrote:

Yikes. If true, good argument NOT to enroll in such a career. Lottery mentality. Winner take all. No thanks. I'll urge my offspring to go into medicine, law, or dentistry.

[/quote][/quote]

Well, most of the wealth and job growth in the economy--and 21 percent of GDP--springs from high tech startups. If you want to achieve greatly, "make your dreams come true" in the Letsrun idiom, you should not shun the companies that propel most of the growth and opportunity.

But you cannot expect what one poster called "CEO salaries" in these companies, as they do not pay their own CEOs or anyone else so-called "CEO salaries" until the company succeeds. Read Ben Horowitz's new book, The Hard Things. However, people who learn skills in one startup, including as an important factor high tech accounting, often build solid long lasting careers in the sector.

ggilder wrote:

I have served on the boards of many high tech companies. The problem is not a generic "high tech worker" shortage but a shortage of workers with specific skills.

Workers are not fungible. They have particular skills and every company needs a different range of skills. If you need a C++ programmer with knowledge of cryptography and an understanding of chip design, you cannot hire a Java programmer with web page composition experience.

Today China and India graduate hundreds of thousands more people with specific high tech competences than we do. It's just a fact of life. This thread suggests the problem.

1. Ok, yes, they may not have the exact skills but couldn't they easily train them in say 6 months? Answer: Yes.

2. Because of the Chinese and Indian workers, they simply don't want to train them as they want to keep costs down.

IT'S SHAMEFUL what Jobs, google and crew did. They collaborated not to poach workers and to keep salaries down. I still can't believe there isn't more outrage. Just because they are relatively high paid as is doesn't mean this shoulnd't be A BIGGER STORY. Can you imagine if it came out the McDonalds and Burger King agreed not to hire each other's workers. There would be national outrage and justifiable so.

So in conclusion. I'm not buying it.

-Robert

jamin wrote:

The STEM hype is cloaked in half-truths. Wall Street Journal makes it seem like we're still in the dot-com bubble days, when you could hired if you could so much as spell the word "I.T." If you're not from New Dehli and don't have 5-10 yrs experience, then you need a CS degree from MIT, 2 lucrative summer internships, a 3.9 GPA and be able to pass 3 rounds of "programming" interviews that are bizarre hazing rituals. There are plenty of STEM majors working on Bourbon Street:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXpwAOHJsxg

.

I can't take this dude seriously.

There's a solution here that nobody has brought up. Form a union. I'm not saying it'll fix everything, but a little pressure from skilled labor isn't a bad thing.

rojo wrote:

1. Ok, yes, they may not have the exact skills but couldn't they easily train them in say 6 months? Answer: Yes.

2. Because of the Chinese and Indian workers, they simply don't want to train them as they want to keep costs down.

IT'S SHAMEFUL what Jobs, google and crew did. They collaborated not to poach workers and to keep salaries down. I still can't believe there isn't more outrage. Just because they are relatively high paid as is doesn't mean this shoulnd't be A BIGGER STORY. Can you imagine if it came out the McDonalds and Burger King agreed not to hire each other's workers. There would be national outrage and justifiable so.

So in conclusion. I'm not buying it.

-Robert

I wouldn't go so far as to call it shameful, but I do wish that Zuckerberg & Company would be a little more honest. It's dishonest and insulting to say things like "There aren't enough qualified Americans for this" or "We can't find any Americans who want to learn this." Just admit that you're a multinational corporation and don't have any budget set aside for trying to train Americans.

If I was 18-22 and not sure what to do, I'd get a job in the trades. Plumbers, electricians, HVAC guys, they make a LOT of cash. And their jobs aren't being outsourced. Sure, it's hard work, but do a good job and you won't lack for work.

I had a guy out to scrape down some old popcorn ceilings. He's mid-40s, wants $1k for the job -- totally reasonable for the work. I hired him. He can't work for a few days because he's FLYING HIS PLANE down to Florida for Memorial Day weekend. Jeezus.

Patriotic Americans do not hire foreigners.

[quote]rojo wrote:

1. Ok, yes, they may not have the exact skills but couldn't they easily train them in say 6 months? Answer: Yes.

Tech startups are in survival mode, facing competitors, regulators, and fund raising challenges. The basic training they can do is limited. Most of them have to outsource many functions. Their execs, who know the technology well enough to teach it, work 70 hours a week as it is.

2. Because of the Chinese and Indian workers, they simply don't want to train them as they want to keep costs down.

I guess you are talking about the giants, such as Facebook and Google. But many Americans share the attitude on this thread--that they are somehow entitled to high salaries, training, and lifetime security.

You are right about the corrupt fraternal spirit among Silicon Valley stars and their funders. They actually feel righteous in not raiding their rivals for talent. I assume they have been legally chastised for this.

But on the general question, think about Letsrun, which is a tech startup. Do you have the time and resources to train people, who may well leave and compete? Do you do all the software and maintenance yourselves? Or do you farm it out? Can you guarantee long term jobs with full benefits?

Don't you depend heavily on foreign talent? The fact is that we all do. The US has created a hostile environment for high tech manufacturing, including microchip waferfab. As a result, the vast bulk of chips are outsourced to Taiwan and Israel. Silicon valley no longer can process silicon.

The rise of fracking and cheap natural gas, however, is bringing manufacturing back to the US.

But high tech is a global competition and entails hiring the world champion talent. It is like competing with Kenyans and Ethiopians in running.

Agree

ggilder wrote:

Tech startups are in survival mode, facing competitors, regulators, and fund raising challenges. The basic training they can do is limited. Most of them have to outsource many functions. Their execs, who know the technology well enough to teach it, work 70 hours a week as it is.

. . .

But on the general question, think about Letsrun, which is a tech startup. Do you have the time and resources to train people, who may well leave and compete? Do you do all the software and maintenance yourselves? Or do you farm it out? Can you guarantee long term jobs with full benefits?

...

But high tech is a global competition and entails hiring the world champion talent. It is like competing with Kenyans and Ethiopians in running.

Ok, here's what I would propose. You screen candidates in your hiring process that generally impress you with their resume/technical background/ability to understand complex topics, but that don't yet have the specific technical skills you're looking for. You enter into a contract with them that says you will hire them in six months if they can pass a test covering the specific skillset you need, and then point them towards resources that you or your employees have used to teach themselves the concepts. This could include online courses, cheap books, app academy type bootcamps, etc.

Although it may add a few administrative costs, the upside is huge for you because you're getting tailored employees at almost no cost/time.

This also addresses the problem of risk from the student's perspective. It's risky for me to invest time and money in learning an alphabet soup of skills that may or may not be relevant in 6-12 months (Or may not be relevant currently because I don't understand the tech landscape). It would help for me to hear the exact skillset right from the employer's mouth, and also have some guarantee of a job if I invest the time to become an expert. I could also hold a part time job while learning so I don't have to go further into debt.

Is this possible?

Start-ups don't have 6 months to wait for someone to learn the skills. They need people that can contribute immediately. Six months can be an eternity for a start-up.

The big tech companies can wait 6 months and they can afford to take top talent coming out of universities and train them with the necessary skills. And in fact there is tremendous competition amongst these companies for top talent. But they are all going after the same small pool of potential candidates.

morf wrote:

Start-ups don't have 6 months to wait for someone to learn the skills. They need people that can contribute immediately. Six months can be an eternity for a start-up.

The big tech companies can wait 6 months and they can afford to take top talent coming out of universities and train them with the necessary skills. And in fact there is tremendous competition amongst these companies for top talent. But they are all going after the same small pool of potential candidates.

Ok, but this strikes me as incredibly shortsighted. A candidate that went through this process 6 months ago is ready to work. . . now! Also, companies are often hiring student candidates in early spring to begin work when they graduate in May. That is a 5-6 month waiting period, so obviously this wait can be tolerated.

It seems that start-ups exist on a continuum between infancy and Facebook, and that not every start-up is under the lean conditions that you claim. Maybe someone on this continuum could find the process I described useful?

fair enough wrote:

Ok, but this strikes me as incredibly shortsighted. A candidate that went through this process 6 months ago is ready to work. . . now! Also, companies are often hiring student candidates in early spring to begin work when they graduate in May. That is a 5-6 month waiting period, so obviously this wait can be tolerated.

It seems that start-ups exist on a continuum between infancy and Facebook, and that not every start-up is under the lean conditions that you claim. Maybe someone on this continuum could find the process I described useful?

What's so hard to understand? Per your bolded statement, there are job candidates that went through this training. They're ready to go. They don't require the company to spend money training them.

a ht wrkr wrote:

fair enough wrote:

Ok, but this strikes me as incredibly shortsighted. A candidate that went through this process 6 months ago is ready to work. . . now! Also, companies are often hiring student candidates in early spring to begin work when they graduate in May. That is a 5-6 month waiting period, so obviously this wait can be tolerated.

It seems that start-ups exist on a continuum between infancy and Facebook, and that not every start-up is under the lean conditions that you claim. Maybe someone on this continuum could find the process I described useful?

What's so hard to understand? Per your bolded statement, there are job candidates that went through this training. They're ready to go. They don't require the company to spend money training them.

Ok, but you can't have it both ways. According to you, there is a plethora of trained talent ready for hire. Then why propagate the skills gap myth? What I proposed earlier was a way for start-ups to fill their claimed skills gap at little or no cost.

fair enough wrote:

a ht wrkr wrote:

What's so hard to understand? Per your bolded statement, there are job candidates that went through this training. They're ready to go. They don't require the company to spend money training them.

Ok, but you can't have it both ways. According to you, there is a plethora of trained talent ready for hire. Then why propagate the skills gap myth? What I proposed earlier was a way for start-ups to fill their claimed skills gap at little or no cost.

If there wasn't a plethora of talent, then you would see apprenticeship programs like those you describe. However, the talent that is trained and available doesn't live here, hence the H1B visas.

Look, what you're proposing is admirable, but the fact of the matter is that it's a global economy with a global workforce. Skillsets that may have earned a high salary not too long ago are now a dime a dozen.

a ht wrkr wrote:

If there wasn't a plethora of talent, then you would see apprenticeship programs like those you describe. However, the talent that is trained and available doesn't live here, hence the H1B visas.

Look, what you're proposing is admirable, but the fact of the matter is that it's a global economy with a global workforce. Skillsets that may have earned a high salary not too long ago are now a dime a dozen.

This system is self fulfilling in some ways. An influx of talent drives down wages and makes the risk/reward equation look worse for American talent. The risk proposition doesn't make sense to me because I have options that will pay the same salary with less risk involved. A foreigner doesn't have the same options at home, and would likely make 1/10th of the salary, so the risk/reward ratio looks much better.

I get it, but it's an unsettling conclusion that the tech industry may not want to advertise too loudly.