4 ms·

This is not a shortage of people, it's an unwillingness or inability to raise salaries to the point where your group is attracting the people it wants. I appre

This is not a shortage of people, it's an unwillingness or inability to raise salaries to the point where your group is attracting the people it wants. I appreciate that the ability to pay people enough to attract them is a problem that is very difficult for institutions and organizations to solve, but living on a sub-standard salary with no job security and few career prospects (how many tenure-track opportunities are expected to open up in the next five years for the people who would fill those positions?) is a difficult problem for highly skilled post-doctoral candidates to solve, too.

noobiemcfoob 12y ago
I definitely recognize the point of few career prospects making potential applicants hesitant. That's a point I hadn't considered before. As to the price point, I'm not convinced. Raising the potential salaries for these positions would attract people, obviously, but the price point would attract them away from their current jobs, leaving a vacancy at another company. If this is the situation, raising the salary doesn't suddenly generate new engineers with the necessary skills. The problem is the existing engineers with the necessary skills are already hired and fulfilled leaving only the option of headhunting. At a more practical level, yes, if we hired these positions, our capabilities would be extended greatly. Hell, hiring one would be enough. However, there is not enough value in that new hire to justify raising the salary above it's current position. And lastly, no one has been offered the position and then rejected it because of the pay. The last 3 offers given out were immediately accepted. We just haven't found anyone worth giving an offer for these remaining 4.
- mcmancini 12y ago
  > And lastly, no one has been offered the position and then rejected it because of the pay. The last 3 offers given out were immediately accepted. Why would they when there's no meaningful difference in pay between postdoc positions? What would happen if they tried to negotiate for something approaching an industry equivalent salary/benefits?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- irremediable 12y ago
  > As to the price point, I'm not convinced. Raising the potential salaries for these positions would attract people, obviously, but the price point would attract them away from their current jobs, leaving a vacancy at another company. I'm unconvinced by this argument. Sure, it's true on the level of individual labs/companies; but if every lab paid postdocs something closer to industry, then probably more people would be drawn towards that whole vague sector of "technical work". Edit: Or phrase it another way. The shortage of skilled postdocs, you'd presumably agree, is bigger than the shortage of skilled engineers in industry. If you offered higher postdoc salaries, the shortage would be spread more evenly across academia and business.
- noobiemcfoob 12y ago
  To clarify for some of the sub-comments, the open positions are not postdoc positions, they are openings at a private firm. As such, these positions have industry level salaries and benefits.

noobiemcfoob 12y ago

I definitely recognize the point of few career prospects making potential applicants hesitant. That's a point I hadn't considered before. As to the price point, I'm not convinced. Raising the potential salaries for these positions would attract people, obviously, but the price point would attract them away from their current jobs, leaving a vacancy at another company. If this is the situation, raising the salary doesn't suddenly generate new engineers with the necessary skills. The problem is the existing engineers with the necessary skills are already hired and fulfilled leaving only the option of headhunting. At a more practical level, yes, if we hired these positions, our capabilities would be extended greatly. Hell, hiring one would be enough. However, there is not enough value in that new hire to justify raising the salary above it's current position. And lastly, no one has been offered the position and then rejected it because of the pay. The last 3 offers given out were immediately accepted. We just haven't found anyone worth giving an offer for these remaining 4.

mcmancini 12y ago
> And lastly, no one has been offered the position and then rejected it because of the pay. The last 3 offers given out were immediately accepted. Why would they when there's no meaningful difference in pay between postdoc positions? What would happen if they tried to negotiate for something approaching an industry equivalent salary/benefits?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
irremediable 12y ago
> As to the price point, I'm not convinced. Raising the potential salaries for these positions would attract people, obviously, but the price point would attract them away from their current jobs, leaving a vacancy at another company. I'm unconvinced by this argument. Sure, it's true on the level of individual labs/companies; but if every lab paid postdocs something closer to industry, then probably more people would be drawn towards that whole vague sector of "technical work". Edit: Or phrase it another way. The shortage of skilled postdocs, you'd presumably agree, is bigger than the shortage of skilled engineers in industry. If you offered higher postdoc salaries, the shortage would be spread more evenly across academia and business.
noobiemcfoob 12y ago
To clarify for some of the sub-comments, the open positions are not postdoc positions, they are openings at a private firm. As such, these positions have industry level salaries and benefits.