5 ms·

I won't go into EPI numbers, any study -- left, right, or center -- there is always a bias. There is a simple fact in the STEM debate, however, there was a per

I won't go into EPI numbers, any study -- left, right, or center -- there is always a bias. There is a simple fact in the STEM debate, however, there was a period in time where companies invested in people, trained them, and established a relationship with the employee based on mutually beneficial growth. Today, that is long gone. There are many STEM individuals that did not adapt with the times that are considered no longer employable. Rather than reaching out to and training these individuals, companies want the quick fix -- thus the H1B path. There are amazing individuals that want to establish or work for businesses in the US that may be victims of the process, at the same time, there are average individuals getting work visas that could just as well be handled by a local (possibly skilled, possibly w/ a bit of training). Companies no longer invest in the average individual, after a certain point it is all about the dollar. I think any immigration policy around STEM in this country needs to include some incentives for training and investment in current citizens.

smackay 14y ago
The mix of interests of governments, companies and individuals are never going to be perfectly aligned. Indeed greater transparency on the motives of companies can only be a good thing - then nobody is disillusioned when they act in ways which are apparently at odds with other groups in society. The problem is how do individuals create institutions which are supportive and sustaining. The two options so far have either been government or unions, both of which, given their track record, are discredited to different degrees. For STEMs some form of professional society (non-political union) along the lines of the American Medical Association would seem to be a good approach. However this carries significant risk of degenerating back into the morass of competing factions and once more the interests of individuals lose out. Perhaps a step up from the current levels of organization, based on technical interests, e.g. The Professional Society of Python Developers or Amalgamated Interests Of Developers in the Finance Industry, similar to the original Friendly Societies, might provide a more robust model that meets the long-term interests of its members.
jlgreco 14y ago
> "There are many STEM individuals that did not adapt with the times that are considered no longer employable. Rather than reaching out to and training these individuals, companies want the quick fix -- thus the H1B path." I think it is very easy for companies to lose their patience with people who have not kept up with technology and need to be retrained when, on the other hand, a large portion of the people that they are hiring are kids with no experience who trained themselves with current technologies and require less handholding with those current technologies. So basically let's say 25% of your new-hires are out of school and ramp up in a few weeks. What do you do with the other 75%? Hire people who have more industry than the young 25% but require more training with recent tech, or look potentially outside the country for some more of those 25% types?
- jmspring 14y ago
  Companies used to hire and invest in training, many don't do that now. On the other end, there are a lot of tech workers that don't try and keep abreast of new technologies and build their skill set. Often life/work may not allow for it, but one should be able to find a few hours a week to explore something new. Unfortunately, the middle of those two circles are the ones hardest hit re: STEM at the moment. I, personally, believe that if we are going to incentivize STEM work visas, there should be a cost associated with the visas that goes into a pool/fund that pays for training for STEM candidates that are out of work. If you are importing labor, despite an existing pool, there should be a cost associated with it.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I think what I am suggesting is that if the younger in-experienced STEM job candidates were not so experienced with modern tech, then companies would be more willing to invest in teaching older experienced STEM job candidates new technology.
    - ArtB 14y ago
      As one of those young people I can tell you that we lack the domain knowledge that the old dinosaurs who produce crap code have. Who is easier to bring up to speed is hard to say but I'd bet against us.

smackay 14y ago

The mix of interests of governments, companies and individuals are never going to be perfectly aligned. Indeed greater transparency on the motives of companies can only be a good thing - then nobody is disillusioned when they act in ways which are apparently at odds with other groups in society. The problem is how do individuals create institutions which are supportive and sustaining. The two options so far have either been government or unions, both of which, given their track record, are discredited to different degrees. For STEMs some form of professional society (non-political union) along the lines of the American Medical Association would seem to be a good approach. However this carries significant risk of degenerating back into the morass of competing factions and once more the interests of individuals lose out. Perhaps a step up from the current levels of organization, based on technical interests, e.g. The Professional Society of Python Developers or Amalgamated Interests Of Developers in the Finance Industry, similar to the original Friendly Societies, might provide a more robust model that meets the long-term interests of its members.

jlgreco 14y ago

> "There are many STEM individuals that did not adapt with the times that are considered no longer employable. Rather than reaching out to and training these individuals, companies want the quick fix -- thus the H1B path." I think it is very easy for companies to lose their patience with people who have not kept up with technology and need to be retrained when, on the other hand, a large portion of the people that they are hiring are kids with no experience who trained themselves with current technologies and require less handholding with those current technologies. So basically let's say 25% of your new-hires are out of school and ramp up in a few weeks. What do you do with the other 75%? Hire people who have more industry than the young 25% but require more training with recent tech, or look potentially outside the country for some more of those 25% types?

jmspring 14y ago
Companies used to hire and invest in training, many don't do that now. On the other end, there are a lot of tech workers that don't try and keep abreast of new technologies and build their skill set. Often life/work may not allow for it, but one should be able to find a few hours a week to explore something new. Unfortunately, the middle of those two circles are the ones hardest hit re: STEM at the moment. I, personally, believe that if we are going to incentivize STEM work visas, there should be a cost associated with the visas that goes into a pool/fund that pays for training for STEM candidates that are out of work. If you are importing labor, despite an existing pool, there should be a cost associated with it.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I think what I am suggesting is that if the younger in-experienced STEM job candidates were not so experienced with modern tech, then companies would be more willing to invest in teaching older experienced STEM job candidates new technology.
  - ArtB 14y ago
    As one of those young people I can tell you that we lack the domain knowledge that the old dinosaurs who produce crap code have. Who is easier to bring up to speed is hard to say but I'd bet against us.