5 ms·

If you're struggling to find qualified workers, simply offer better pay.

by chroem- 10y ago

pc86 10y ago
I don't think it's that simple. If you have a factory in the middle of Iowa you can't offer $110k/yr and expect people from SF or NYC to move out there, despite the huge gains relative to COL. I think a larger point of the article is that apprentice/blue collar jobs have a social stigma around them, particularly among people who already have degrees, and that artificially limits the applicant pool. How many people here would quit writing software to work in a factory if it paid more? I'm guessing not many.
- pmorici 10y ago
  Though no one would admit it here I bet a lot more people would jump at that opportunity than you think. It doesn't exist though so there is no way to show who is right. Not to mention having a job like that would give you so much free time and money that you could write gobs of software outside of work if you cared to.
  - losteverything 10y ago
    This. We used to sit around and say we should have owned a bread truck route. Up at 4 and done by noon. Then the cell phone was invented and we all lost our jobs.
    - pc86 10y ago
      To be fair, changes are that if you work remotely there's nothing stopping you from working 4-12 every day :)
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    > Though no one would admit it here I bet a lot more people would jump at that opportunity than you think. I'd strongly consider it, especially if I were younger. But you're right--it would never happen so no way to test the idea.
  - randcraw 10y ago
    Yes. There are millions of US workers who have been displaced and recognize that all super-subsistence employers have left their area and none are forthcoming. They know they have to move away to find work, but where? If gainful work appeared in the most inhospitable place imaginable but paid a decent wage (the way coal mines in West Virginia used to do), they'd be gone in a shot.
- chroem- 10y ago
  Market forces don't result in an equitable exchange of value if one party in the transaction can exert control over both supply and demand. The NYT article is presenting a narrative that the public needs to fund increasing the labor supply of skilled technicians so that companies can avoid paying salaries that match the expense and effort that went into obtaining those skills. This is how inequality happens.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  You can offer more and still offer a lot less than $110k. Many manufacturing jobs start between $10 and $20 per hour (probably with not much benefits; an option to purchase employer provided insurance but not much of a contribution towards it and so on). Not just at rinky dink places either. UAW had tiered agreements with a junior pay class (not sure what current contracts are): http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/chrysler/2015/10/08/uaw-deal-improves-wages-entry-level-workers-2015/73591642/ http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/chrysler/2015/10/08/ua...
- orangecat 10y ago
  How many people here would quit writing software to work in a factory if it paid more? I'm guessing not many. Not many, probably. More than zero, definitely.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  >If you have a factory in the middle of Iowa you can't offer $110k/yr and expect people from SF or NYC to move out there, despite the huge gains relative to COL. Absolutely wrong. If you offer enough money, people will move there. I have zero desire to move to Iowa personally. But if a company there offered me $400k to take a job there, I'd do it. I can't say that I'd stay there until retirement, but I'd stay a year minimum. That much money makes it worth it. I'm sure many other people would agree. For that much, I could save a lot of money even after just one year, and then go back to one of the coasts where I'm happier and make a big down-payment on a house. It's very simple supply-and-demand. There's a limited amount of qualified talent, so if you really want to hire them, you need to raise your prices. If that means you're paying the engineers much more than their managers or even the executives, then so be it. If you don't want to pay that much, then you don't really need them that badly. And if you think $400k is really that much money, compare that to how much they'll pay for some CNC machine or other specialized equipment.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  I mean, when you're looking where to locate your company/factory, one of the things you have to consider is whether you can attract the type of workers you need. People on this board bag on those who live in NYC, SF, and other high COL areas without being rich all the time. I don't see it any different to bag on those companies that choose to locate in areas where they can't attract people to live.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  While I probably wouldn't want to go from writing code to working at a factory doing non-code jobs, I could see the advantages in programming robots for a factory in Iowa: what a two bedroom appartment cost in SF is probably what you pay for a large house or ranch in Iowa. Plus the ability to have backyard chicken and a couple free roaming dogs.

If you're struggling to find qualified workers, simply offer better pay.

by chroem- 10y ago

If you're struggling to find qualified workers, simply offer better pay.

pc86 10y ago

I don't think it's that simple. If you have a factory in the middle of Iowa you can't offer $110k/yr and expect people from SF or NYC to move out there, despite the huge gains relative to COL. I think a larger point of the article is that apprentice/blue collar jobs have a social stigma around them, particularly among people who already have degrees, and that artificially limits the applicant pool. How many people here would quit writing software to work in a factory if it paid more? I'm guessing not many.

pmorici 10y ago
Though no one would admit it here I bet a lot more people would jump at that opportunity than you think. It doesn't exist though so there is no way to show who is right. Not to mention having a job like that would give you so much free time and money that you could write gobs of software outside of work if you cared to.
- losteverything 10y ago
  This. We used to sit around and say we should have owned a bread truck route. Up at 4 and done by noon. Then the cell phone was invented and we all lost our jobs.
  - pc86 10y ago
    To be fair, changes are that if you work remotely there's nothing stopping you from working 4-12 every day :)
- ryandrake 10y ago
  > Though no one would admit it here I bet a lot more people would jump at that opportunity than you think. I'd strongly consider it, especially if I were younger. But you're right--it would never happen so no way to test the idea.
- randcraw 10y ago
  Yes. There are millions of US workers who have been displaced and recognize that all super-subsistence employers have left their area and none are forthcoming. They know they have to move away to find work, but where? If gainful work appeared in the most inhospitable place imaginable but paid a decent wage (the way coal mines in West Virginia used to do), they'd be gone in a shot.
chroem- 10y ago
Market forces don't result in an equitable exchange of value if one party in the transaction can exert control over both supply and demand. The NYT article is presenting a narrative that the public needs to fund increasing the labor supply of skilled technicians so that companies can avoid paying salaries that match the expense and effort that went into obtaining those skills. This is how inequality happens.
maxerickson 10y ago
You can offer more and still offer a lot less than $110k. Many manufacturing jobs start between $10 and $20 per hour (probably with not much benefits; an option to purchase employer provided insurance but not much of a contribution towards it and so on). Not just at rinky dink places either. UAW had tiered agreements with a junior pay class (not sure what current contracts are): http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/chrysler/2015/10/08/uaw-deal-improves-wages-entry-level-workers-2015/73591642/ http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/chrysler/2015/10/08/ua...
orangecat 10y ago
How many people here would quit writing software to work in a factory if it paid more? I'm guessing not many. Not many, probably. More than zero, definitely.
Arizhel 10y ago
>If you have a factory in the middle of Iowa you can't offer $110k/yr and expect people from SF or NYC to move out there, despite the huge gains relative to COL. Absolutely wrong. If you offer enough money, people will move there. I have zero desire to move to Iowa personally. But if a company there offered me $400k to take a job there, I'd do it. I can't say that I'd stay there until retirement, but I'd stay a year minimum. That much money makes it worth it. I'm sure many other people would agree. For that much, I could save a lot of money even after just one year, and then go back to one of the coasts where I'm happier and make a big down-payment on a house. It's very simple supply-and-demand. There's a limited amount of qualified talent, so if you really want to hire them, you need to raise your prices. If that means you're paying the engineers much more than their managers or even the executives, then so be it. If you don't want to pay that much, then you don't really need them that badly. And if you think $400k is really that much money, compare that to how much they'll pay for some CNC machine or other specialized equipment.
st3v3r 10y ago
I mean, when you're looking where to locate your company/factory, one of the things you have to consider is whether you can attract the type of workers you need. People on this board bag on those who live in NYC, SF, and other high COL areas without being rich all the time. I don't see it any different to bag on those companies that choose to locate in areas where they can't attract people to live.
tomjen3 10y ago
While I probably wouldn't want to go from writing code to working at a factory doing non-code jobs, I could see the advantages in programming robots for a factory in Iowa: what a two bedroom appartment cost in SF is probably what you pay for a large house or ranch in Iowa. Plus the ability to have backyard chicken and a couple free roaming dogs.