7 ms·

As was commented when this last came up, CalTech had years to find or train a replacement. They were unwilling to spend the money to maintain their human capit

As was commented when this last came up, CalTech had years to find or train a replacement. They were unwilling to spend the money to maintain their human capital. Neither were the nearby universities. They suffer as a result of their hubris. Many companies do too when they don't realize their human assets are actually part of a bus factor of 1 and let them quit or fire them, then wonder why they lost critical tribal knowledge. I'm sure CalTech has hired plenty of non-technical administrative staff and dedicated multiples of the glass blower's salary in the meantime.

daniel-cussen 8y ago
Caltech actually hires very little extra administrative staff, much less than other universities. They actually frame it as, IIRC, "we're resisting the temptation to hire more administrators."
hinkley 8y ago
Despair.com has a poster for this. Mediocrity: it takes a lot less time and most people won’t notice the difference until it’s too late.
- magduf 8y ago
  That site is absolutely brilliant.
  - hinkley 8y ago
    Of all the things that didn’t survive the dotcom bubble bursting, I would have been pretty sad if despair had gone under. Maybe not fuckedcompany level sad but really close.
andrewla 8y ago
I graduated from Caltech in 99, and I worked in Emlyn Hughes's physics lab, doing some programming for his experiments with Rubidium spin coupling with He3. The apparatus for the experiment was custom made by Gerhart, and even then, 20 years ago now, the faculty was trying to find and train a replacement. Their standards were very high, to be sure, but the main problem wasn't so much compensation, but finding a skilled apprentice who was willing to put in years with no guarantees that they would be the successor, or even become master glassblowers in their own right, and master scientfic glassblowers who have gone through their apprenticeship are rare beasts indeed. We see this scarcity in other industries that require traditional master/journeyman/apprentice systems, like master machinists, masons, or plasterers. That there is are no baseline jobs, like light bulb manufacturing in glassblowing, that allow a sufficient pool of talent to acrue so that the very best, the "10x" artisans, can be found. That pool also gives a fallback so that people who are trained but do not possess the talent or dedication to become masters can still be gainfully employed.
- elgenie 8y ago
  On the other hand, there seems to be no shortage of those willing to apprentice, with no guarantees, as "minor league baseball player" without a realistic fallback if they happen to not quite make it into the 750-1000 best baseball players in the world. The compensation at the end in the unlikely case of success sure seems to make a difference there.
  - daveguy 8y ago
    Unfortunately I don't think the compensation at the end for a master glassblower is $42,000 per month, minimum.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - endymi0n 8y ago
      While the 99th percentile is certainly more attractive, the mean and probably even the average are much lower. It's funny how people are willing to bet against the lottery on their whole career. Then again... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority
      - theshadowknows 8y ago
        I sit in a very visible and mission critical seat at my company and I support basically all departments with a technical component, from CRM and marketing to IT and operations. And my compensation is less than half what other organizations pay for similar positions. Hence why I’m shopping around very heavily. It’s not even really about the money for me. My family and I are comfortable. But if the org isn’t willing to invest in its people then to me that is a bad sign.
      - icc97 8y ago
        There's nothing wrong with trying a moon shot or two throughout your career, but yeah there's no point in wasting your entire career on it.
kwhitefoot 8y ago
I and several colleagues retired over the last few years from a major electrical engineering company. One of my colleagues retired exactly at retirement age but no effort had been put into finding a replacement so the management suddenly scrambled to find someone with a fraction of the expertise who he could train over a period of about six months. Of course they failed to find a suitable candidate and six months was too short. My situation was similar, I spent six months trying to transfer half a lifetime of domain and software development expertise to a very keen and competent young engineer, but of course this had to be done in between all his other nearly full time responsibilities. This is what happens when organizations don't believe in the long term future, just next year's balance sheet.
- tomohawk 8y ago
  It's not any different in government or non profit organizations, at least in my experience.
  - class4behavior 8y ago
    Because it's not any different to any other group of people. You can find evidence that we're bad at long-term investment or planning all around.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

daniel-cussen 8y ago

Caltech actually hires very little extra administrative staff, much less than other universities. They actually frame it as, IIRC, "we're resisting the temptation to hire more administrators."

hinkley 8y ago

Despair.com has a poster for this. Mediocrity: it takes a lot less time and most people won’t notice the difference until it’s too late.

magduf 8y ago
That site is absolutely brilliant.
- hinkley 8y ago
  Of all the things that didn’t survive the dotcom bubble bursting, I would have been pretty sad if despair had gone under. Maybe not fuckedcompany level sad but really close.

andrewla 8y ago

I graduated from Caltech in 99, and I worked in Emlyn Hughes's physics lab, doing some programming for his experiments with Rubidium spin coupling with He3. The apparatus for the experiment was custom made by Gerhart, and even then, 20 years ago now, the faculty was trying to find and train a replacement. Their standards were very high, to be sure, but the main problem wasn't so much compensation, but finding a skilled apprentice who was willing to put in years with no guarantees that they would be the successor, or even become master glassblowers in their own right, and master scientfic glassblowers who have gone through their apprenticeship are rare beasts indeed. We see this scarcity in other industries that require traditional master/journeyman/apprentice systems, like master machinists, masons, or plasterers. That there is are no baseline jobs, like light bulb manufacturing in glassblowing, that allow a sufficient pool of talent to acrue so that the very best, the "10x" artisans, can be found. That pool also gives a fallback so that people who are trained but do not possess the talent or dedication to become masters can still be gainfully employed.

elgenie 8y ago
On the other hand, there seems to be no shortage of those willing to apprentice, with no guarantees, as "minor league baseball player" without a realistic fallback if they happen to not quite make it into the 750-1000 best baseball players in the world. The compensation at the end in the unlikely case of success sure seems to make a difference there.
- daveguy 8y ago
  Unfortunately I don't think the compensation at the end for a master glassblower is $42,000 per month, minimum.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - endymi0n 8y ago
    While the 99th percentile is certainly more attractive, the mean and probably even the average are much lower. It's funny how people are willing to bet against the lottery on their whole career. Then again... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority
    - theshadowknows 8y ago
      I sit in a very visible and mission critical seat at my company and I support basically all departments with a technical component, from CRM and marketing to IT and operations. And my compensation is less than half what other organizations pay for similar positions. Hence why I’m shopping around very heavily. It’s not even really about the money for me. My family and I are comfortable. But if the org isn’t willing to invest in its people then to me that is a bad sign.
    - icc97 8y ago
      There's nothing wrong with trying a moon shot or two throughout your career, but yeah there's no point in wasting your entire career on it.

kwhitefoot 8y ago

I and several colleagues retired over the last few years from a major electrical engineering company. One of my colleagues retired exactly at retirement age but no effort had been put into finding a replacement so the management suddenly scrambled to find someone with a fraction of the expertise who he could train over a period of about six months. Of course they failed to find a suitable candidate and six months was too short. My situation was similar, I spent six months trying to transfer half a lifetime of domain and software development expertise to a very keen and competent young engineer, but of course this had to be done in between all his other nearly full time responsibilities. This is what happens when organizations don't believe in the long term future, just next year's balance sheet.

tomohawk 8y ago
It's not any different in government or non profit organizations, at least in my experience.
- class4behavior 8y ago
  Because it's not any different to any other group of people. You can find evidence that we're bad at long-term investment or planning all around.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]