3 ms·
> you should be willing to pay (Y - Z) to the untrained employee. This is logical, but in reality Y - Z is usually negative. Traditionally people hired graduat
by rr808 3y ago
> you should be willing to pay (Y - Z) to the untrained employee.
This is logical, but in reality Y - Z is usually negative. Traditionally people hired graduates and they stuck around and probably did get paid less than they could elsewhere because no one traditionally quit less than 2 years in their first job.
It could be that the last 5 years really were just a crazy boom and people were jumping into pay rises very quickly. People could leave after 12 months work and get a job that used to require 5Y experience because there was such a shortage. Now the job market likely is back to normal so that route likely isn't available any more. In any case I'm kinda done training juniors.
- ElevenLathe 3y agoI get where you're coming from as "just an engineer" but it still seems like the market would clear at some point without needing to berate people for not having enough "loyalty" (which is rational, management are not loyal to us). Maybe the answer is contracts that are like "We train you for one year, then employ you below-market for two years. If you want to leave that's fine, but you (or your new employer) either owe us for the training or have to pay us market-rate for the remainder of your contract." I know similar things happen in MLB contracts, for example. This is one of those things where a sector-wide Hollywood-style (or MLBPA-style) union would make these kinds of negotiations much simpler. It would also help with the obvious employer-side abuses those kinds of contracts would enable. But once we start talking about union power, we're a ways away from just letting the market clear.