Slashdot Mirror
President By Day, High-Tech Headhunter By Night
theodp writes "The White House is following up on an offer made by President Barack Obama this week to help find a job for an unemployed semiconductor engineer in Texas. The offer was made during a live online town hall after the ex-TI engineer's wife questioned the government's policy concerning H-1B visa workers. Obama asked for EE Darin Wedel's resume and said he would 'forward it to some of these companies that are telling me they can't find enough engineers in this field.' While grateful, patent-holder Wedel said the president's view on the job prospects for engineers in his field 'is definitely not what's happening in the real world.' Duke adjunct professor Vivek Wadhwa offered his frank take on 40-year-old Wedel's predicament: 'The No. 1 issue in the tech world is as people get older, they generally become more expensive. So if you're an employer who can hire a worker fresh out of college who is making $60,000 versus an older worker who is making $150,000, and the younger worker has skills that are fresher, who would you hire?' Coincidentally, Texas Instruments sought President Obama's help in reducing restrictions on the hiring of younger foreign workers in 2009, the same year it laid off Wedel."
I keep seeing this "older workers are more expensive".
I was so deperate for work that I was willing to take an entry level salary. Unfortunately, I never got a chance to express that because no one even bothered to interview me. Anyway, after several years of trying (and depleting all of my savings), I got the hint and left the profession.
So, as a hiring manager, I would say most media views on this really miss the mark. Reduced wages is not what motivates H1-B support (at least in my experience), because there is typically a legal cost to the company in supporting that hire, especially if they decide they want to get a green card and your want to retain them. The reality is simply this: finding good people in the tech sector is very hard. You see many candidates who claim to have the skills, but when you test the candidate they frequently disappoint. When you finally find a candidate that you feel would be a fit for the position, you don't want anything to stand in the way of hiring them, like their visa status.
The (older == wiser) || (older == expensive) versus (younger == cheaper) debate is kind of misrepresented too. What it frequent turns out to be is (older == set in their ways) versus ( younger == eager to learn). Now I'll be the first to say I've hired older candidates that were eager to learn new things and their prior experience typically makes that process go much faster and smoother than for younger candidates. But (my perception of) reality is that "older and more experienced" candidates typically come to the interview looking to do what they know rather looking to grow. Maybe some employers like that, but tech companies tend to prefer people who will grow with the company.
This problem is not specific to the tech industry, and it isn't caused by any particular government policy. While it is true that the high allowance of H1B visas are adding fuel to the fire, tightening the restrictions won't put the fire out.
The older, more experienced workers who can't find jobs are absolutely worth the salary that they are requesting. However, there aren't very many businesses that actually need that level of experience and quality. The market for their products will bear a lower level of quality, and in fact the customers wouldn't be willing to buy if the price tag was higher even if the quality level more than made up for it. So the businesses don't need and can't justify the cost of top-tier talent.
Also, as everyone is aware, the total number of tech businesses only shrinks over time. This is a natural progression of the free market; the winners buy up the losers and centralize efforts, meaning that a smaller number of engineers is making products that serve a bigger market.
To put it simply: you only need one team of engineers to make the iPhone in order for everyone who could afford one to be able to have one. You also only need one team of developers to make a solid office suite in order for the whole world to be able to use it.
Yes, there is still some competition in the market. We will probably never reach a state of true global monopoly. However, there is a whole lot less competition than there used to be, and that shrinkage (though asymptotic) will continue. That is, in fact, how a free market is expected to work. The winners eliminate the competition and then establish monopolies or cartels, and the need for skilled labor plummets. So we can safely predict a supply of top-tier talent that is much greater than the demand.
In theory you can respond to this problem with government and/or union intervention. In practice the end result is never as good as the theory should be.
If we invent a new wildly disruptive technology we may create some young markets with lots of demand for laborers, but in these mature markets (like software development and computer engineering) it is better to recognize the reality and make plans accordingly. If you are young and looking to enter tech, either:
1) expect to move up to management, and build your skillset and all your career decisions around this expectation. Also, actively push this agenda on your employers.
-or-
2) Find a job with long-term prospects at a company with a reputation for retaining talent, and keep your costs of living nice and low as you invest as much as you can.
I'm sorry if both options are unappealing. I didn't create the world, I am just observing it.