Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

[St. Clown]

Re: Dead!!!!

Re: Dead!!!!

Maybe we're just too stupid, and that's why incomes aren't rising anymore like they did in the past. To tell the truth, I see it somewhat in the job I do. I work as a business systems analyst and part of my job is informing the end users on how to perform certain tasks with their computers. It's a ral struggle on too many occassions to get them to grasp certain simple concepts and processes, I can tell you.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/10/25/american-skills-gap/?source=cnn_bin

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Dead!!!!

Re: Dead!!!!

Maybe we're just too stupid, and that's why incomes aren't rising anymore like they did in the past. To tell the truth, I see it somewhat in the job I do. I work as a business systems analyst and part of my job is informing the end users on how to perform certain tasks with their computers. It's a ral struggle on too many occassions to get them to grasp certain simple concepts and processes, I can tell you.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/10/25/american-skills-gap/?source=cnn_bin

While it is probably the case that most companies don't provide the same level of on-the-job training they may have in the past, it's also likely the case that any company that does train its workers would have a hard time getting a return on that investment, as it would be cheaper for a competitor to wait for said employee to be trained and then hire him away at a lower cost than it would to train him. A bit of a conundrum: you want to train workers to improve their productivity, but how do you retain them once they are trained, as you invested in them first and then they left you before you could recoup that investment.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Dead!!!!

Re: Dead!!!!

While it is probably the case that most companies don't provide the same level of on-the-job training they may have in the past, it's also likely the case that any company that does train its workers would have a hard time getting a return on that investment, as it would be cheaper for a competitor to wait for said employee to be trained and then hire him away at a lower cost than it would to train him. A bit of a conundrum: you want to train workers to improve their productivity, but how do you retain them once they are trained, as you invested in them first and then they left you before you could recoup that investment.

My employer has a policy that if you're taking college courses, and it's paying for them, that you must complete a full year of service in the company following the final class taken or you have to repay the company the tuition money it gave you. The company limits its payments to $5000/year, prehaps it pays more now than when I last looked into the program.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Dead!!!!

Re: Dead!!!!

While it is probably the case that most companies don't provide the same level of on-the-job training they may have in the past, it's also likely the case that any company that does train its workers would have a hard time getting a return on that investment, as it would be cheaper for a competitor to wait for said employee to be trained and then hire him away at a lower cost than it would to train him. A bit of a conundrum: you want to train workers to improve their productivity, but how do you retain them once they are trained, as you invested in them first and then they left you before you could recoup that investment.

I realize this is anathema to maximizing profits in the short term, but maybe if the company gave the employee a good compensation package to start, the employees wouldn't be so easy for the competition to steal. Nah.

 

[unofan]

Re: Dead!!!!

Re: Dead!!!!

...but how do you retain them once they are trained...

The fact that you are asking this in a non-ironic fashion says so much...

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Dead!!!!

Re: Dead!!!!

Maybe we're just too stupid, and that's why incomes aren't rising anymore like they did in the past. To tell the truth, I see it somewhat in the job I do. I work as a business systems analyst and part of my job is informing the end users on how to perform certain tasks with their computers. It's a ral struggle on too many occassions to get them to grasp certain simple concepts and processes, I can tell you.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/10/25/american-skills-gap/?source=cnn_bin

These days, companies will take a shot at you, and you just have to learn on the job; once the onboarding essentials are covered, it's sink or swim. Coming from a development background, my current company gave me a shot as a contract BA intern after six months being out of work. Six months later, I was brought on full-time, and I've been there 2.5 years last month. I wear a lot of hats and don't always do "BA work" according to the commonly accepted definition of the role. Unsurprisingly, I've learned far more about actual IT operations in 2.5 years of steady employment as a BA, than I learned in 6 years (BS + MS) of schooling intertwined with about a year's worth of total development experience. My company does budget for training and also receives local training grants, but they're largely expended on technical resources, although there is talk of sending me to the PMP classes/exam (I'll believe it when I happens).

 

[pirate]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

So, we have university professors blaming companies that american workers are not as well prepared as workers in other countries? Gee, why would they have any incentive to use the "hey, look over there!" ploy?

"Instead of blaming others, we need a broader workforce training like feeder schools for occupational vocations," he says. "And students need to be exposed to the workplace to see the relevance of such skills."

...Says the college professor right after blaming companies for the problem. The whole article is called "Blame US employers". If the weakest segment of the US labor force is 16-25 year olds...how is it primarily the fault of US employers? Were these well prepared 16-25 year olds that companies somehow managed to turn into unqualified employees? The article says older workers pull up the curve...are we to assume they were even better as younger people but their employers have dumbed them down over the years by refusing to provide them job training?

Then the article jumps to a completely different point, the degree to which technical training should be part of unemployment benefits, and is included after the curious phrase "...also argues...". Also?, it is a completely different point, from a different person, who appears to make no comments supporting the previous assertions. That person's point seems to contradict the good professors' and the author's contention that this problem is the fault of employers.


There are plenty of poorly run companies, and any one strategy could be later proven wrong, but the logic they present makes me ask...are they saying there are tons of qualified people being passed over so the company can instead hire poorly trained workers who they don't train so they can fire them and hire qualified workers from other companies at a later date? Uh, that would appear to be a logical pretzel.

As the saying goes, those who can't do, teach. Asking a college professor about training and hiring of employees in private industry is not going to get you the best answer...unless you started with the premise that you want to blame employers and needed people willing to go along with the flow.


This article isn't written by the same person that wrote the Walmart inventory article, but the similarities are notable.