bugleyman wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Edit: Companies are not starved for tech workers. If they were, I'd be making more money. They're starved for cheap tech workers. Possibly ones with exactly the right mix of skills, but then they won't even consider any on-the-job training.

This matches my experience as well.

companies try their best not to invest in training. it's really expensive.

No, companies try not to invest in training employees that get hired away by competition, which happens often in IT. Companies that can be assured to benefit from training their employees DO train them.

Yakman wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Edit: Companies are not starved for tech workers. If they were, I'd be making more money. They're starved for cheap tech workers. Possibly ones with exactly the right mix of skills, but then they won't even consider any on-the-job training.

This matches my experience as well.

companies try their best not to invest in training. it's really expensive.

No, companies try not to invest in training employees that get hired away by competition, which happens often in IT. Companies that can be assured to benefit from training their employees DO train them.

much better phrasing. thanks.

I think the employees should overthrow their bosses and set up a democratically planned collectivized economy so that I will never have to read arguments about government spending again.

Vive le Galt!

much better phrasing. thanks.

No problem, glad to know we were on the same page after all. :)

"Sir, what happens if we invest in our employees and then they leave?"

"What happens if we don't?"

"Sir, what happens if we invest in our employees and then they leave?"

"What happens if we don't?"

"What happens if we contract out the training to colleges?"

Irontruth wrote:

"Sir, what happens if we invest in our employees and then they leave?"

"What happens if we don't?"

"What happens if we contract out the training to colleges?"

Or the military. :O

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

"Sir, what happens if we invest in our employees and then they leave?"

"What happens if we don't?"

"What happens if we contract out the training to colleges?"

Or the military. :O

Or to circle back: Just bring in trained people from other countries. We don't have to pay for the training and they'll work cheap. Especially if we don't actually give them green cards, but just visas dependent on the job offer.

Irontruth wrote:

"Sir, what happens if we invest in our employees and then they leave?"

"What happens if we don't?"

"What happens if we contract out the training to colleges?"

Contract out implies the corporations are helping to pay tuitions. Based on how common unpaid or low paid intern positions are, I'd say they're doing the opposite.

Caineach wrote:

On a slightly different note to the current tangent

Obama & Romney policies on how to grow the tech industry.

I particularly love Romney's assertion that we need to increase the number of tech-related visas we issue. We really need more people competing with our underpaid college grads who can't find jobs.

There is a huge need to make the high-end visa system more open. We bring in thousands of people to come to the world's best universities, train them, and then send them home. Meanwhile, companies are starved for tech workers.

It's insane. Romney's on the right track.

We should brain drain the s$+$ out of the rest of the world, and our visa system should be an engine of growth, not a haphazard jumble of idiocy an mismanagement. Bring me your programmers, your scientists, your engineers!

And right now our US grads can't find jobs that pay for their student loans in the technology sector. Over 10% 2 year unemployment for recent graduate engineers right now.