10 ms·

> But your own company doesn't capture all of that value. If they paid their employees properly, with adequate salary bumps as their experience grew, then the

> But your own company doesn't capture all of that value. If they paid their employees properly, with adequate salary bumps as their experience grew, then the company would capture all of that value, most of the time. People jumping every 2 years isn't exactly something most employees want to do, it's something companies force upon them.

btilly 9y ago
No, the employers won't capture that value by following your recommendation. What you are recommending is that employers pay for training, and then pay employees exactly the same that they would get for hiring someone with equivalent skills from the market. This leaves employers out by the cost of training from the cost of hiring from the market. So the business is strictly behind where it would have been. But worse yet, a non-trivial fraction of the time when you train someone for a role that they aren't currently in, you find that by ability or inclination they are not actually suited for that role. Which means that you're now just out the cost of training and may well have also lost the employee. By contrast someone that you hire externally who is already in the role is more likely to be a fit. Furthermore businesses tend to run on lean margins. You're hiring because you need those skills now, not in a year. A lot can change in a year. Now against this you have to balance the fact that hiring people is expensive, new hires take time to come up to speed, and not all new hires work out. Furthermore a loyal employee with institutional knowledge has value because of that. It isn't a one-sided deal. Companies do train people. However it is more common for it to be someone that they know already. Such as an internal promotion, or someone who did an internship. Hiring strangers expecting to train them with no particular reason to believe that you will keep them is a losing proposition. Businesses that consistently pay for losing propositions usually wind up going out of business.
- throwaway79475 9y ago
  > What you are recommending is that employers pay for training, and then pay employees exactly the same that they would get for hiring someone with equivalent skills from the market. This leaves employers out by the cost of training from the cost of hiring from the market. So the business is strictly behind where it would have been. This is in the context of businesses complaining about a shortage of developers. If every mid or senior level position was getting filled without much grief or effort, then there wouldn't be any issue. But in a situation where the business can't seem to find anyone that fits the bill, the obvious solution is to look at the talent they CAN train, instead of hoping the exact right candidate walks through the door. Furthermore, in any reasonable organization where things like positive/negative code review, respectful seniors, mentorship, and a general respect of all developers are part of the company culture, the cost of training a junior developer to be useful to the project is largely absorbed. Of course, a company where everyone is isolated and heads-down will consider training to be a huge burden, because it's completely orthogonal to their workflow. > Businesses that consistently pay for losing propositions usually wind up going out of business. Businesses that focus on the short term "we need this now, get the butt in the seat" aren't thinking about the workforce as people, which is just as insidious.
  - btilly 9y ago
    > Furthermore, in any reasonable organization where things like positive/negative code review, respectful seniors, mentorship, and a general respect of all developers are part of the company culture, the cost of training a junior developer to be useful to the project is largely absorbed. I assume that by "absorbed" you mean "becomes less visible"? I prefer this style of organization as well, but even so the cost is still there, it is just not broken out as a line item. >> Businesses that consistently pay for losing propositions usually wind up going out of business. > Businesses that focus on the short term "we need this now, get the butt in the seat" aren't thinking about the workforce as people, which is just as insidious. It really isn't that simple. You can think of people as people and care about them. But once you accept that you need to hire more, you've also got a very concrete need to get a butt in that seat NOW so that they can take a load off of the valued employees who are stretched too thin. That said, here is an exercise that I highly recommend. It is easy to look at businesses through the filter of how we think that they should be run. And every stupid thing that they do becomes confirmation that you are smart, they are stupid, and the world is a bizarre place. People who do this wind up with a lot of strongly held ideas about how the world should be run, and they are mostly not very good ideas. Turn that around. Start with the assumption that people who are acting in bizarre to you ways are actually competent and know something that you don't. Start trying to figure out what it is that they know which you haven't figured out. As you start figuring those things out, suddenly they will look a lot smarter, and YOU will actually be smarter. In my experience, people who indulge in that exercise become more effective at their jobs, and if they are interested in climbing the corporate hierarchy, they are in a much better position to do so.
- arielweisberg 9y ago
  You also need to take into account the cost of not filling positions. Eventually that cost eclipses the cost of training. Also more experienced developers have an easier time jumping ship for their next >20% bump in compensation. Even with senior developers that's more knowledge and training walking out the door. It's also much easier to con a junior developer into staying in one place too long for too little money. You might spend two years skilling them up, but if you pay them well (or even don't) you might get them for 6 years or more. Seen it happen too often.
  - btilly 9y ago
    Yes. It obviously isn't a slam dunk, "Never train." But businesses that don't do a lot of training aren't necessarily being stupid.

btilly 9y ago

No, the employers won't capture that value by following your recommendation. What you are recommending is that employers pay for training, and then pay employees exactly the same that they would get for hiring someone with equivalent skills from the market. This leaves employers out by the cost of training from the cost of hiring from the market. So the business is strictly behind where it would have been. But worse yet, a non-trivial fraction of the time when you train someone for a role that they aren't currently in, you find that by ability or inclination they are not actually suited for that role. Which means that you're now just out the cost of training and may well have also lost the employee. By contrast someone that you hire externally who is already in the role is more likely to be a fit. Furthermore businesses tend to run on lean margins. You're hiring because you need those skills now, not in a year. A lot can change in a year. Now against this you have to balance the fact that hiring people is expensive, new hires take time to come up to speed, and not all new hires work out. Furthermore a loyal employee with institutional knowledge has value because of that. It isn't a one-sided deal. Companies do train people. However it is more common for it to be someone that they know already. Such as an internal promotion, or someone who did an internship. Hiring strangers expecting to train them with no particular reason to believe that you will keep them is a losing proposition. Businesses that consistently pay for losing propositions usually wind up going out of business.

throwaway79475 9y ago
> What you are recommending is that employers pay for training, and then pay employees exactly the same that they would get for hiring someone with equivalent skills from the market. This leaves employers out by the cost of training from the cost of hiring from the market. So the business is strictly behind where it would have been. This is in the context of businesses complaining about a shortage of developers. If every mid or senior level position was getting filled without much grief or effort, then there wouldn't be any issue. But in a situation where the business can't seem to find anyone that fits the bill, the obvious solution is to look at the talent they CAN train, instead of hoping the exact right candidate walks through the door. Furthermore, in any reasonable organization where things like positive/negative code review, respectful seniors, mentorship, and a general respect of all developers are part of the company culture, the cost of training a junior developer to be useful to the project is largely absorbed. Of course, a company where everyone is isolated and heads-down will consider training to be a huge burden, because it's completely orthogonal to their workflow. > Businesses that consistently pay for losing propositions usually wind up going out of business. Businesses that focus on the short term "we need this now, get the butt in the seat" aren't thinking about the workforce as people, which is just as insidious.
- btilly 9y ago
  > Furthermore, in any reasonable organization where things like positive/negative code review, respectful seniors, mentorship, and a general respect of all developers are part of the company culture, the cost of training a junior developer to be useful to the project is largely absorbed. I assume that by "absorbed" you mean "becomes less visible"? I prefer this style of organization as well, but even so the cost is still there, it is just not broken out as a line item. >> Businesses that consistently pay for losing propositions usually wind up going out of business. > Businesses that focus on the short term "we need this now, get the butt in the seat" aren't thinking about the workforce as people, which is just as insidious. It really isn't that simple. You can think of people as people and care about them. But once you accept that you need to hire more, you've also got a very concrete need to get a butt in that seat NOW so that they can take a load off of the valued employees who are stretched too thin. That said, here is an exercise that I highly recommend. It is easy to look at businesses through the filter of how we think that they should be run. And every stupid thing that they do becomes confirmation that you are smart, they are stupid, and the world is a bizarre place. People who do this wind up with a lot of strongly held ideas about how the world should be run, and they are mostly not very good ideas. Turn that around. Start with the assumption that people who are acting in bizarre to you ways are actually competent and know something that you don't. Start trying to figure out what it is that they know which you haven't figured out. As you start figuring those things out, suddenly they will look a lot smarter, and YOU will actually be smarter. In my experience, people who indulge in that exercise become more effective at their jobs, and if they are interested in climbing the corporate hierarchy, they are in a much better position to do so.
arielweisberg 9y ago
You also need to take into account the cost of not filling positions. Eventually that cost eclipses the cost of training. Also more experienced developers have an easier time jumping ship for their next >20% bump in compensation. Even with senior developers that's more knowledge and training walking out the door. It's also much easier to con a junior developer into staying in one place too long for too little money. You might spend two years skilling them up, but if you pay them well (or even don't) you might get them for 6 years or more. Seen it happen too often.
- btilly 9y ago
  Yes. It obviously isn't a slam dunk, "Never train." But businesses that don't do a lot of training aren't necessarily being stupid.