The study by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) says
manufacturers may have openings they can't fill, but it's not because
workers aren't out there. It's because companies are being too selective about who they hire and are unwiwlling to pay a competitive wage.
Agreed, there aren't enough STEM majors and tradesmen. But don't tell me these corporations have been at the forefront of offering training programs, let alone have put forth the effort to actually do real recruiting instead of outsourcing it to a bunch of incompetent HR nitwits.
13 comments:
When South Carolina was wooing BMW to build a vehicle manufacturing facility in that state, they offered all sorts of incentives. Almost free land and tax incentives were the two most talked about and are fairly standard when a state wants a company to build a manufacturing facility.
However, the Palmetto State went one step further. It offered to train the new workers through the state's technical and vocational schools at state expense. In fact, the state established a training facility inside the new factory.
I see this as a reasonable use of public funds.
Yeah, they need a technician, they demand an engineer. Or worse they search for a tech/engineer with XYZ skill set. You know, Bob, the guy who died or left for better wages, they want him. But bob's gone and they won't even contemplate hiring a guy with XY skill set and training into Z, which is trade specific and taught nowhere anyway.
What they really want is someone who can be an engineer but is really a designer that they can pay $14.00 dollars an hour to. I keep looking for engineering positions but no one wants an engineer with my level of experience and skill set. No they want a designer with my level of experience and skill set so they can pay them half of what I get paid, because they don't want to actually hire an actual engineer and actually pay them what an engineer should make. BUT they want them to have the same exact knowledge and skill set I ALREADY have, but they don't want to hire me because I make twice as much as a designer. They claim they want engineers but they don't want to pay what they are worth.
"
However, the Palmetto State went one step further. It offered to train the new workers through the state's technical and vocational schools at state expense. In fact, the state established a training facility inside the new factory.
I see this as a reasonable use of public funds."
Sounds like !!!!!SOCIALISM!!!! Hayek warned us about the evils of the government spending money on helping people, do you want to live in North Korea?
"Sounds like !!!!!SOCIALISM!!!! Hayek warned us about the evils of the government spending money on helping people, do you want to live in North Korea?"
The government will always have its tenta, er, strings attached to any program.
"However, the Palmetto State went one step further. It offered to train the new workers through the state's technical and vocational schools at state expense. In fact, the state established a training facility inside the new factory.
I see this as a reasonable use of public funds."
Careful, while this seems like a good idea, much like sending everyone to college education, using state funds means that these projects end up at the whim of whoever controls the purse strings rather than any market need.
"I see this as a reasonable use of public funds."
I disagree.
What happened to companies pooling together to train the talent they need? Now, maybe I would not object as much if they funded a program at a community college to create the training they need, but I don't feel like taxpayers should pay for this.
I'm also tired of this tax break stuff as well. Yes, taxes and regulations are too high, but why do I the homeowner never get a meaningful property tax decrease and these businesses do?
Let's not forget "Creating a healthy work environment" as opposed to a feminized, PC, NewSpeak hellhole.
Texas spends money wooing businesses out of other states too.
They'll make it back in all the payroll taxes and such if the company relocates, and expand their tax base of productive citizens.
@ Anon 10:20am
Socialism? Perhaps.
But on the grand scale of the bullshit programs that governments waste our money on, technical training to get people into STEM jobs are amongst the least objectionable. Even if it's only for entry level scut work positions, they're still contributing more to the real economy than just about any touchy-feely corporate HR affirmative make-work for liberal arts grads you care to name.
Part of me doesn't give a fuck any more and wants to just enjoy the decline. The other part is still grasping at slim hopes that enough of society will snap out of our collective madness and turn away from the brink. Government-subsidized STEM-related skill training is at least a step in the right direction, and in the face of economic armageddon I'm not overly worried about whether or not it's technically heresy to my free-market soul.
If I can hire a tech at 14 an hour to peform a task at an acceptible level of quality rather than an engineer at 60, then I will do so. If I can hire a skill set out of the labour market rather than invest in training at competitive costs, then I will do so. Whiners who complain about this should spend their time more productively.
The value of a service, to me, is what I am willing to pay for it taking into consideration the alternatives. How much someone else paid to acquire the skill is irrelevant to me. As is their opinion on what they ought to be paid.
William, if an employer hires an overqualified expert at a scutt wage, the expert is more likely to bounce in the short term, than would an unskilled and energetic(naive) 20 year old. This'll happen most often when the experts work results are beginning to build momentum. Money talks and bullshit walks.
Why should they pay twice for training programs. Have you seen their tax bills? Why wouldn't they hire people who have not been indoctrinated that their (corporations) very existence is evil?
Post a Comment