6 ms·

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. Th

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.
  - Iv 8y ago
    Well, I guess future will tell us if America is better off by paying baseball players rather than glassblower these ridiculous amounts.
    - Kevin_S 8y ago
      Come on.... this argument that athletes should make less is ridiculous.
      - Karunamon 8y ago
        Explain please? It seems rather backwards to me, and with some unpleasant societal implications, that a pro sports player (so a subset of entertainment) is more highly compensated than someone who holds an even rarer skill set (in a subset of science).
        kingaillas 8y ago
        It is unfortunate, but that's how the market works. What alternative is there besides the government imposing salary floors and ceilings?
        fao_ 8y ago
        > It is unfortunate, but that's how the market works. And we as humans control "the market". It's not some abstract impossible-to-reason-with force. The better that we understand this, the better our economies will work.
        Karunamon 8y ago
        Markets in whole are irrational and very difficult, if not impossible, to reason with. They also tend to react poorly and in unforseen ways to direct interference.
        intrasight 8y ago
        > that's how the market works I'd say instead "that's how the market DOESN'T work" since clearly there are a lot of market failures - master glass blowers being just an example.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
lotsofpulp 8y ago
All of that indicates lack of compensation sufficient to offset the risk of not becoming a master and opportunity costs of other employment options for those who can qualify. Put compensation at $1m+ cash and see if the position stays vacant.
- bartread 8y ago
  That was my immediate thought: not the $1m, obviously, but: 1) It's a career with extremely limited options for progression, and you might work in the same place your entire life, or perhaps have a small handful of jobs (an increasingly alien concept in today's job market, and one that might make you feel imprisoned if you're not that ambitious). 2) (I suspect) The compensation is not likely to be terribly impressive, particularly early on, as compared with other viable options. Differences in compensation tend to compound over the years, so you'll always feel like you're behind the curve. Factor in cost of living in California and I imagine it starts to look incredibly unappealing.
  - jackvalentine 8y ago
    Yup they are asking the potential apprentices to shoulder all the risk of wasting their time in a dead end errand rather than compensating them.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  I see two options to pull in candidates. One is what you say: Lottery style. Provide huuuuuugae outcomes for some lucky people. The other one is reduce the risk for everyone. The universe does not care which one you choose, so I cannot argue using reason for one or the other, it's a choice. Still, I very much prefer society would adopt the second option. I think we made life choices way riskier than they need to be. Perceived risk still is as high as if we lived in scarcity of long ago times. Okay, contrary to what I just said that I cannot argue with reason because it's the same outcomes, I actually question that the outcomes of the "luck based" system are as good as one where riskiness of some life choices is lowered. I'm not sure though, it can't be an all-or-nothing approach, if it means a lot more people doing ever more useless things that would be something I don't want to see either, on the other hand, we already have plenty of that (see Dilbert or recently discussion of "The rise of the bullshit job"). I think the guidance of resources of the current system leaves something to be desired, too many undesirable outcomes that are then rationalized using the very tool that created them (i.e. explaining them using the existing system while pretending that this system is the (same as the) goal).
sfifs 8y ago
How about if they pay 10X average wage for the position? Sure the the person will make more than professors but would there still be no one willing to train and committee?
golergka 8y ago
I see a lot of discussion about "fairness" of these salairies herez, but I think it doesn't make sense without first finding out: what are the alternatives to training an apprentice? Can universities order custom glassworks from commercial companies? Ship them from China, where labour is much cheaper? 3d print them? Make do without them?
- magduf 8y ago
  Make do without them seems like the obvious answer. Let China make that stuff, and then let China do the scientific work that makes use of it. This should work out just fine for America as it instead concentrates on sports and reality TV...
- fredophile 8y ago
  All of those suggestions have big downsides. I'm friends with the scientific glassblower that works at the university I attended and I'm somewhat familiar with the work he does. A large part of his job is constructing custom equipment for specific tasks. A big part of this is figuring out what the user really needs or is trying to do. The glassblower has more experience than most of the people asking for equipment to be made. He'll often work with them to improve their initial design. You wouldn't get this if you were just sending off an order to a company to have custom glass made. Another important part of his job is repairing equipment when it breaks. If you break an important piece of equipment in your lab are you willing to wait for it to be packed, shipped to China, fixed, and shipped back? Broken equipment may have been used to hold hazardous chemicals and there is often chemical residue on the glass. Most people in a lab wouldn't be able to clean the glass well enough to make it shippable without the equipment in the glassblower's office. I don't think anyone has done any work on 3d printing glass. Even if you could 3d print glass that doesn't address the problems with poor design and repairing broken equipment. It's possible to do without a glassblower but not a good idea for a top tier research university. If you can't get custom glass made then you can't do certain experiments. Not being able to do those experiments could lead to problems recruiting faculty and students that want to do them.

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.
- Iv 8y ago
  Well, I guess future will tell us if America is better off by paying baseball players rather than glassblower these ridiculous amounts.
  - Kevin_S 8y ago
    Come on.... this argument that athletes should make less is ridiculous.
    - Karunamon 8y ago
      Explain please? It seems rather backwards to me, and with some unpleasant societal implications, that a pro sports player (so a subset of entertainment) is more highly compensated than someone who holds an even rarer skill set (in a subset of science).
      - kingaillas 8y ago
        It is unfortunate, but that's how the market works. What alternative is there besides the government imposing salary floors and ceilings?
        fao_ 8y ago
        > It is unfortunate, but that's how the market works. And we as humans control "the market". It's not some abstract impossible-to-reason-with force. The better that we understand this, the better our economies will work.
        Karunamon 8y ago
        Markets in whole are irrational and very difficult, if not impossible, to reason with. They also tend to react poorly and in unforseen ways to direct interference.
        intrasight 8y ago
        > that's how the market works I'd say instead "that's how the market DOESN'T work" since clearly there are a lot of market failures - master glass blowers being just an example.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

lotsofpulp 8y ago

All of that indicates lack of compensation sufficient to offset the risk of not becoming a master and opportunity costs of other employment options for those who can qualify. Put compensation at $1m+ cash and see if the position stays vacant.

bartread 8y ago
That was my immediate thought: not the $1m, obviously, but: 1) It's a career with extremely limited options for progression, and you might work in the same place your entire life, or perhaps have a small handful of jobs (an increasingly alien concept in today's job market, and one that might make you feel imprisoned if you're not that ambitious). 2) (I suspect) The compensation is not likely to be terribly impressive, particularly early on, as compared with other viable options. Differences in compensation tend to compound over the years, so you'll always feel like you're behind the curve. Factor in cost of living in California and I imagine it starts to look incredibly unappealing.
- jackvalentine 8y ago
  Yup they are asking the potential apprentices to shoulder all the risk of wasting their time in a dead end errand rather than compensating them.
ItsMe000001 8y ago
I see two options to pull in candidates. One is what you say: Lottery style. Provide huuuuuugae outcomes for some lucky people. The other one is reduce the risk for everyone. The universe does not care which one you choose, so I cannot argue using reason for one or the other, it's a choice. Still, I very much prefer society would adopt the second option. I think we made life choices way riskier than they need to be. Perceived risk still is as high as if we lived in scarcity of long ago times. Okay, contrary to what I just said that I cannot argue with reason because it's the same outcomes, I actually question that the outcomes of the "luck based" system are as good as one where riskiness of some life choices is lowered. I'm not sure though, it can't be an all-or-nothing approach, if it means a lot more people doing ever more useless things that would be something I don't want to see either, on the other hand, we already have plenty of that (see Dilbert or recently discussion of "The rise of the bullshit job"). I think the guidance of resources of the current system leaves something to be desired, too many undesirable outcomes that are then rationalized using the very tool that created them (i.e. explaining them using the existing system while pretending that this system is the (same as the) goal).

sfifs 8y ago

How about if they pay 10X average wage for the position? Sure the the person will make more than professors but would there still be no one willing to train and committee?

golergka 8y ago

I see a lot of discussion about "fairness" of these salairies herez, but I think it doesn't make sense without first finding out: what are the alternatives to training an apprentice? Can universities order custom glassworks from commercial companies? Ship them from China, where labour is much cheaper? 3d print them? Make do without them?

magduf 8y ago
Make do without them seems like the obvious answer. Let China make that stuff, and then let China do the scientific work that makes use of it. This should work out just fine for America as it instead concentrates on sports and reality TV...
fredophile 8y ago
All of those suggestions have big downsides. I'm friends with the scientific glassblower that works at the university I attended and I'm somewhat familiar with the work he does. A large part of his job is constructing custom equipment for specific tasks. A big part of this is figuring out what the user really needs or is trying to do. The glassblower has more experience than most of the people asking for equipment to be made. He'll often work with them to improve their initial design. You wouldn't get this if you were just sending off an order to a company to have custom glass made. Another important part of his job is repairing equipment when it breaks. If you break an important piece of equipment in your lab are you willing to wait for it to be packed, shipped to China, fixed, and shipped back? Broken equipment may have been used to hold hazardous chemicals and there is often chemical residue on the glass. Most people in a lab wouldn't be able to clean the glass well enough to make it shippable without the equipment in the glassblower's office. I don't think anyone has done any work on 3d printing glass. Even if you could 3d print glass that doesn't address the problems with poor design and repairing broken equipment. It's possible to do without a glassblower but not a good idea for a top tier research university. If you can't get custom glass made then you can't do certain experiments. Not being able to do those experiments could lead to problems recruiting faculty and students that want to do them.