3 ms·

A significant issue is that nobody trains employees while compensating them fairly based on their aptitude. So the only option is for employees to bounce around

A significant issue is that nobody trains employees while compensating them fairly based on their aptitude. So the only option is for employees to bounce around to get new skills and better wages. Employers hate this and constantly complain about "employee loyalty", not recognizing that job hopping is the only real defense that an employee has to be fairly compensated. Here is a fictional account that illustrates the point: John Doe currently writes C++ and finds Company A with great benefits and excellent compensation, but they only hire experienced Python programmers. But across the street, Company B will hire C++ programmers and train them on Python. Company B doesn't pay nearly as well, and the benefits are also pretty poor in comparison to Company A. Company B offers John a position, but at a below market salary for Python programmers. John would be taking a pay cut from what he makes as a C++ programmer, but he takes the job anyway. Being a highly capable individual, after 1 year John is one of the top Python programmers in Company B. John meets some engineers from Company A at a local meetup, and they recruit him to come interview with Company A. John passes the interviews with flying colors and is offered 30% more salary at Company A than he currently makes at Company B. This is now more than John ever made as a C++ programmer so he gladly takes the job, after only staying at Company B for a year. Similar events occur with many more employees from Company B as they all start getting poached by Company A. Company B creates a non-compete agreement with Company A to keep its programmers from leaving. Company A now complains to Congress that it can't find enough workers and needs to hire more foreign workers to fill the gap. It gets more foreign workers, which it can then hire at lower salaries without having to poach talent from Company B. Over time, the executives at Company A realize the cost savings and start cutting salaries, raises, and benefits. Engineers at both Company A and B now realize their wages are stagnating and they all start leaving for other opportunities. Executives at Company A and B start lobbying Congress more and complaining to the press about a talent shortage and their inability to find workers.

jt2190 14y ago
You had me with you until you used the phrase "foreign workers." It's not their foreignness that makes them cheaper, it's that (in the U.S. at least) they're not able to easily change jobs and demand fair market wages, because their visa ties them to one employer.
- hkarthik 14y ago
  The foreignness makes them cheaper in that it makes it easier for companies to justify paying them less and forcing their loyalty through the visa regulations. It has nothing to do with their qualifications which are often excellent.
  - jt2190 14y ago
    Maybe it's me, but the suggestion that someone is getting short changed because they're different, and that it's easier to justify short changing someone because they're different, implies that the problem is their difference, not the short-changing.
    - msellout 14y ago
      Are you suggesting we blame the victim?
      - jt2190 14y ago
        Rereading the post you're responding to, out of context, I can see how you might get that impression. In fact, I was trying -- too subtly, it seems -- to point out that the ancestor post was making it seem that foreigners themselves are to blame for employers "cutting salaries, raises, and benefits," rather than the broken U.S. worker visa system. (I don't actually think that's what he actually believes, which is why I was trying to prod him into rephrasing, instead of downvoting him. I find people are too quick to downvote, don't you?)
  - kamaal 14y ago
    Its also that most people perceive US as some sort 'promised land'. There are a lot of people who will do anything just to come to the US, and they would make endless sacrifices if told they would have to permanently settle down there. Such people get easily used up in these scenarios.
excuse-me 14y ago
That's why Company B would never hire a C++ programmer and train them. Instead they would hire people who knew python (and insist of Python2.7rc2 b34 patch level 42 experience) AND pay less and rely on getting people that were either rejected from A or didn't find A. They would then decide the problem was python, fire all the programmers and try again with magic-silver-bullet technology of the day
- hkarthik 14y ago
  yeah, I neglected to mention the toxic company F which does all of what you're saying. Except after they fire all the programmers, they outsource all of their product development overseas.
  - kamaal 14y ago
    Money is not the only motive for outsourcing things. Its one of the many reasons. I am from Bangalore, India. I also worked at a major Indian IT firm for more than 5 years. I can tell you many more parameters apart from money matter regarding outsourcing. I see this with even more clarity as I work for a product company that outsources work. Well executed outsourcing projects make life very easy for clients, that starts with cost savings and ends up going to many levels. I've seen my share of good and bad cases of outsourcing. And I can tell you that in many cases there are healthy relationships between clients and outsourcing firms lead to some amazing benefits for each other. I've known a lot projects that are running for years without any complaints or interventions from clients. They are big massive projects, yet extremely well executed. When you look at it in its entirety the clients save a lot of money and other precious energy which they can focus on solving other problems. Its not just direct billing. But the clients save much on management, HR, infrastructure, IT and nearly every thing required to hire people and run the company. I know there is a lot of negative impression about outsourcing in the US. And its pretty common for people to highlight failed cases or when some outsourced project went wrong. You will be surprised if you actually come here, at ground zero and see those numbers are actually scanty and most of the outsourced projects actually run pretty well.
    - 14y ago
TheCount 14y ago
Are you saying the solution is for Company B to regularly raise employee pay to market levels? Eg, at the conclusion of John Doe's first year, raise his salary 30%. If so, why do you think this doesn't happen? Because employers think the employee will stay without a raise? I don't work in software, but this happens to varying degrees in many industries. I asked why employers don't simply regularly raise salaries to market levels, instead of giving years of meager 3% wages until the employee finally bails. That way, they reduce their turnover costs. Of course, this won't work, if the poaching company can extract more value out of the employee than the incumbent employer can. That aside, one answer I got is that many employees will simply not try to get a market wage, so you'd be throwing away money on raises on employees who wouldn't care. I'm not sure that employees are this ignorant or unconcerned about pay.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

jt2190 14y ago

You had me with you until you used the phrase "foreign workers." It's not their foreignness that makes them cheaper, it's that (in the U.S. at least) they're not able to easily change jobs and demand fair market wages, because their visa ties them to one employer.

hkarthik 14y ago
The foreignness makes them cheaper in that it makes it easier for companies to justify paying them less and forcing their loyalty through the visa regulations. It has nothing to do with their qualifications which are often excellent.
- jt2190 14y ago
  Maybe it's me, but the suggestion that someone is getting short changed because they're different, and that it's easier to justify short changing someone because they're different, implies that the problem is their difference, not the short-changing.
  - msellout 14y ago
    Are you suggesting we blame the victim?
    - jt2190 14y ago
      Rereading the post you're responding to, out of context, I can see how you might get that impression. In fact, I was trying -- too subtly, it seems -- to point out that the ancestor post was making it seem that foreigners themselves are to blame for employers "cutting salaries, raises, and benefits," rather than the broken U.S. worker visa system. (I don't actually think that's what he actually believes, which is why I was trying to prod him into rephrasing, instead of downvoting him. I find people are too quick to downvote, don't you?)
- kamaal 14y ago
  Its also that most people perceive US as some sort 'promised land'. There are a lot of people who will do anything just to come to the US, and they would make endless sacrifices if told they would have to permanently settle down there. Such people get easily used up in these scenarios.

excuse-me 14y ago

That's why Company B would never hire a C++ programmer and train them. Instead they would hire people who knew python (and insist of Python2.7rc2 b34 patch level 42 experience) AND pay less and rely on getting people that were either rejected from A or didn't find A. They would then decide the problem was python, fire all the programmers and try again with magic-silver-bullet technology of the day

hkarthik 14y ago
yeah, I neglected to mention the toxic company F which does all of what you're saying. Except after they fire all the programmers, they outsource all of their product development overseas.
- kamaal 14y ago
  Money is not the only motive for outsourcing things. Its one of the many reasons. I am from Bangalore, India. I also worked at a major Indian IT firm for more than 5 years. I can tell you many more parameters apart from money matter regarding outsourcing. I see this with even more clarity as I work for a product company that outsources work. Well executed outsourcing projects make life very easy for clients, that starts with cost savings and ends up going to many levels. I've seen my share of good and bad cases of outsourcing. And I can tell you that in many cases there are healthy relationships between clients and outsourcing firms lead to some amazing benefits for each other. I've known a lot projects that are running for years without any complaints or interventions from clients. They are big massive projects, yet extremely well executed. When you look at it in its entirety the clients save a lot of money and other precious energy which they can focus on solving other problems. Its not just direct billing. But the clients save much on management, HR, infrastructure, IT and nearly every thing required to hire people and run the company. I know there is a lot of negative impression about outsourcing in the US. And its pretty common for people to highlight failed cases or when some outsourced project went wrong. You will be surprised if you actually come here, at ground zero and see those numbers are actually scanty and most of the outsourced projects actually run pretty well.
  - 14y ago

TheCount 14y ago

Are you saying the solution is for Company B to regularly raise employee pay to market levels? Eg, at the conclusion of John Doe's first year, raise his salary 30%. If so, why do you think this doesn't happen? Because employers think the employee will stay without a raise? I don't work in software, but this happens to varying degrees in many industries. I asked why employers don't simply regularly raise salaries to market levels, instead of giving years of meager 3% wages until the employee finally bails. That way, they reduce their turnover costs. Of course, this won't work, if the poaching company can extract more value out of the employee than the incumbent employer can. That aside, one answer I got is that many employees will simply not try to get a market wage, so you'd be throwing away money on raises on employees who wouldn't care. I'm not sure that employees are this ignorant or unconcerned about pay.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]