4 ms·

What would that achieve? Are Microsoft's wages low, in your opinion? How much higher should they go?

by gms 14y ago

jquery 14y ago
They aren't high enough to make up for working at an unpopular, stagnant, and fumbling company.
- txttran 14y ago
  the issue msft is trying to address is the scarcity of tech people in general. They could certainly pay more and fill their positions, but paying more wouldn't create 10k new engineers (or however many positions they need filled).
  - ciniglio 14y ago
    It likely would, just not immediately. But salary certainly influences career paths for those still in a position to choose a new career.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Yes it would. Someone Goldman, JP Morgan, etc, manage to fill their entering classes just fine each year. You think those companies have a stellar public reputation? No. They just pay enough to attract the kind of people they want. If MSFT paid more, they would attract people away from other companies, they would attract people away from the banks and from the consulting firms, and they would encourage people to go into engineering instead of business or law or any of the other fields with more upside potential. Engineering companies have this bizarre aversion to competing on salaries and competing for workers, as evidenced by all the no-poaching agreements and non-competes that go on. In banking, consulting, law, medicine, etc, salaries get bid up to deal with constrained supply. Blackstone isn't paying fresh grads $300k out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they think it's "fair" but because that's what it takes to get the kind of employees they want.
incongruity 14y ago
Well, if supply is tight at a given price, one might think a rise in price might spur greater supply – basic economics and all.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
geebee 14y ago
This is a tough question, because I would generally prefer to allow the market to set employment and wage levels. The problem here is that employers in high tech are asking for special consideration - granting green cards specifically to STEM degrees. Unfortunately, this puts us in the position of playing favorites through government - we're deciding that there "should" be more engineers than we're getting at current wage levels. It feels a little strange to me, since I don't really think "should" is a useful question. But I can see why/how the government would want to get involved - markets aren't perfect, and engineers are particularly valuable, as they tend to create wealth rather than just shuffle it around. I'm probably not the greatest guy to ask, because I have an MS in engineering and I've seen how brutal the PhD programs are. I see that the nine of the top ten professions ranked by pay are medical specialties, with CEO as the only non-health related one there. I understand that law isn't as great at the middle and low level, but at the elite level, I do think it pays very well with more career stability than engineering - and with a degree program that has a vastly higher completion rate than almost any form of graduate study in STEM fields (and much easier undergraduate preparation as well). So how high should wages be? I guess I'd say that wages should go high enough that getting a grad degree in engineering is a good way to get on that top ten list. But of course I'd say that, that's my degree. You shouldn't be asking me, but you shouldn't be asking the people who want to hire engineers either. Ideally, we'd butt out and try to let the market handle this. I'm not fundamentalist about it - truth is, I would support a general skilled emphasis in our immigration system. But specifically targeting a narrow band of the workforce, under the notion that there is a "shortage"? That smells. And after digging into the evidence, I think the "shortage" is really just a rational response to market signals.
- jsnk 14y ago
  I understand your point, but if you prefer to allow the market to set employment and wage level, you should be for much looser immigration. The government regulating immigration is anything but free market. If the government were to loosen requirement for STEM immigrants, that is having freer market, not less.
  - geebee 14y ago
DenisM 14y ago
Some of my friends moved from Microsoft to Google for both better pay and less bullshit.
rayiner 14y ago
It's a market. The wages are too low if they can't get the number of workers they want, and they should go higher until they can get the number of workers they want.
- canistr 14y ago
  But that's exactly what's already happening. What's missing from the equation is the "skilled" aspect. You can't just hire anybody. A tech firm needs to hire tech people who can do the job. The current problem in the United States is that the supply of people is high but the supply of skilled tech people is low. So the problem you're facing is high-wages for skilled tech workers (even for immigrant tech workers) but no jobs for the high number of non-skilled people. What the US then wants is for lower (not poverty, but lower) paying jobs that pull from the high supply of unemployed, non-skilled people to allow them to gain momentum and skills through training. Throwing money at the skilled people doesn't solve the problem because it's already here.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    MSFT doesn't have to hire just anybody. If they pay more than Google, etc, they'll draw people away from those companies. If they pay more than JP Morgan and Goldman, they'll draw people away from those companies. If they pay more than the law firms that significant numbers of CS people leave engineering for, they'll draw people away from those companies. If the whole industry raises salaries to compete, that will convince more people to go into engineering. Here is MSFT's basic problem. The kind of people they want to hire often have better options. I left software engineering because I didn't like the constant layoff/hire cycle, the compressed salary scales at the top end, the need to get an MBA to go into management tracks, the lack of benefits, etc. In law I'm making more money even after student loans, and have far more headroom. I have an office with a door that closes and a secretary. I don't work exclusively with men. I work in a downtown high-rise, not some god-foresaken suburban office park. Based on my experience, I told my brother to stay out of STEM, and he took his physics degree to an investment bank. If some bright kid asked me to help him choose between CS and banking/consulting/law/medicine, I'd absolutely push him to the latter. Tech companies need to get over their aversion to competing with each other for talent. They need to get over this "no poaching" "non compete" bullshit and stop trying to get the government to train their employees on the taxpayer dime. If they want to hire top-notch people away from other industries, they need to start paying competitive salaries and offering competitive benefits and amenities.

What would that achieve? Are Microsoft's wages low, in your opinion? How much higher should they go?

by gms 14y ago

What would that achieve? Are Microsoft's wages low, in your opinion? How much higher should they go?

jquery 14y ago

They aren't high enough to make up for working at an unpopular, stagnant, and fumbling company.

txttran 14y ago
the issue msft is trying to address is the scarcity of tech people in general. They could certainly pay more and fill their positions, but paying more wouldn't create 10k new engineers (or however many positions they need filled).
- ciniglio 14y ago
  It likely would, just not immediately. But salary certainly influences career paths for those still in a position to choose a new career.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Yes it would. Someone Goldman, JP Morgan, etc, manage to fill their entering classes just fine each year. You think those companies have a stellar public reputation? No. They just pay enough to attract the kind of people they want. If MSFT paid more, they would attract people away from other companies, they would attract people away from the banks and from the consulting firms, and they would encourage people to go into engineering instead of business or law or any of the other fields with more upside potential. Engineering companies have this bizarre aversion to competing on salaries and competing for workers, as evidenced by all the no-poaching agreements and non-competes that go on. In banking, consulting, law, medicine, etc, salaries get bid up to deal with constrained supply. Blackstone isn't paying fresh grads $300k out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they think it's "fair" but because that's what it takes to get the kind of employees they want.

incongruity 14y ago

Well, if supply is tight at a given price, one might think a rise in price might spur greater supply – basic economics and all.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

geebee 14y ago

This is a tough question, because I would generally prefer to allow the market to set employment and wage levels. The problem here is that employers in high tech are asking for special consideration - granting green cards specifically to STEM degrees. Unfortunately, this puts us in the position of playing favorites through government - we're deciding that there "should" be more engineers than we're getting at current wage levels. It feels a little strange to me, since I don't really think "should" is a useful question. But I can see why/how the government would want to get involved - markets aren't perfect, and engineers are particularly valuable, as they tend to create wealth rather than just shuffle it around. I'm probably not the greatest guy to ask, because I have an MS in engineering and I've seen how brutal the PhD programs are. I see that the nine of the top ten professions ranked by pay are medical specialties, with CEO as the only non-health related one there. I understand that law isn't as great at the middle and low level, but at the elite level, I do think it pays very well with more career stability than engineering - and with a degree program that has a vastly higher completion rate than almost any form of graduate study in STEM fields (and much easier undergraduate preparation as well). So how high should wages be? I guess I'd say that wages should go high enough that getting a grad degree in engineering is a good way to get on that top ten list. But of course I'd say that, that's my degree. You shouldn't be asking me, but you shouldn't be asking the people who want to hire engineers either. Ideally, we'd butt out and try to let the market handle this. I'm not fundamentalist about it - truth is, I would support a general skilled emphasis in our immigration system. But specifically targeting a narrow band of the workforce, under the notion that there is a "shortage"? That smells. And after digging into the evidence, I think the "shortage" is really just a rational response to market signals.

jsnk 14y ago
I understand your point, but if you prefer to allow the market to set employment and wage level, you should be for much looser immigration. The government regulating immigration is anything but free market. If the government were to loosen requirement for STEM immigrants, that is having freer market, not less.
- geebee 14y ago

DenisM 14y ago

Some of my friends moved from Microsoft to Google for both better pay and less bullshit.

rayiner 14y ago

It's a market. The wages are too low if they can't get the number of workers they want, and they should go higher until they can get the number of workers they want.

canistr 14y ago
But that's exactly what's already happening. What's missing from the equation is the "skilled" aspect. You can't just hire anybody. A tech firm needs to hire tech people who can do the job. The current problem in the United States is that the supply of people is high but the supply of skilled tech people is low. So the problem you're facing is high-wages for skilled tech workers (even for immigrant tech workers) but no jobs for the high number of non-skilled people. What the US then wants is for lower (not poverty, but lower) paying jobs that pull from the high supply of unemployed, non-skilled people to allow them to gain momentum and skills through training. Throwing money at the skilled people doesn't solve the problem because it's already here.
- rayiner 14y ago
  MSFT doesn't have to hire just anybody. If they pay more than Google, etc, they'll draw people away from those companies. If they pay more than JP Morgan and Goldman, they'll draw people away from those companies. If they pay more than the law firms that significant numbers of CS people leave engineering for, they'll draw people away from those companies. If the whole industry raises salaries to compete, that will convince more people to go into engineering. Here is MSFT's basic problem. The kind of people they want to hire often have better options. I left software engineering because I didn't like the constant layoff/hire cycle, the compressed salary scales at the top end, the need to get an MBA to go into management tracks, the lack of benefits, etc. In law I'm making more money even after student loans, and have far more headroom. I have an office with a door that closes and a secretary. I don't work exclusively with men. I work in a downtown high-rise, not some god-foresaken suburban office park. Based on my experience, I told my brother to stay out of STEM, and he took his physics degree to an investment bank. If some bright kid asked me to help him choose between CS and banking/consulting/law/medicine, I'd absolutely push him to the latter. Tech companies need to get over their aversion to competing with each other for talent. They need to get over this "no poaching" "non compete" bullshit and stop trying to get the government to train their employees on the taxpayer dime. If they want to hire top-notch people away from other industries, they need to start paying competitive salaries and offering competitive benefits and amenities.