Low Barriers Are A Good Thing(garyharan.com)
garyharan.com
Low Barriers Are A Good Thing
http://garyharan.com/2010/04/23/low-barriers-are-a-good-thing.html
5 comments
This is quite interesting. Thanks for the link. It seems they are at their limit.
Quote from the Economist story: "Moreover, despite enviably low unemployment and labour shortages in industries from construction to health care, the Danes are having difficulties nudging the long-term unemployed into work. The post office complains that it cannot recruit new postmen. Newspaper distributors have started importing delivery boys from Poland. One ferry operator's effort to recruit 365 new workers was stymied by an epidemic of seasickness among the unemployed who applied. Even in Denmark, it seems, would-be workers have their limitations."
Quote from the Economist story: "Moreover, despite enviably low unemployment and labour shortages in industries from construction to health care, the Danes are having difficulties nudging the long-term unemployed into work. The post office complains that it cannot recruit new postmen. Newspaper distributors have started importing delivery boys from Poland. One ferry operator's effort to recruit 365 new workers was stymied by an epidemic of seasickness among the unemployed who applied. Even in Denmark, it seems, would-be workers have their limitations."
> It seems they are at their limit.
Ease of hire/fire isn't the only factor affecting employment. The easier it is for me to make it without working, the less likely I am to work, no matter how much someone might want to hire me.
Ease of hire/fire isn't the only factor affecting employment. The easier it is for me to make it without working, the less likely I am to work, no matter how much someone might want to hire me.
That is pretty interesting. Perhaps this is part of the reason denmark is such a happy place: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1
This only works if there are high unemployment benefits. Otherwise, this kind of system will just turn even the slightest recession into a terrible crash.
When a recession happens, every company lays off people to keep profitability high, but the laid off people will stop spending, and then demand for goods and services will go down and then companies will lay off more people to match demand, but those people will stop spending too, so there will be a feedback cycle that will cause a world wide crash. And this is not just speculation, this is what actually happened in the 50 or so years before the new deal when you had continuous boom and bust cycles.
Again this does not happen in Denmark because of their generous government unemployment benefits, but if you do not have said benefits, it is asking for trouble.
When a recession happens, every company lays off people to keep profitability high, but the laid off people will stop spending, and then demand for goods and services will go down and then companies will lay off more people to match demand, but those people will stop spending too, so there will be a feedback cycle that will cause a world wide crash. And this is not just speculation, this is what actually happened in the 50 or so years before the new deal when you had continuous boom and bust cycles.
Again this does not happen in Denmark because of their generous government unemployment benefits, but if you do not have said benefits, it is asking for trouble.
NPR's Planet Money recently did a couple of podcasts about Denmark which echoes the points you mention. They also point our there's little or no stigma attached to being fired from a job in Denmark.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_the_awesomest...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_tax_me_please...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_the_awesomest...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_tax_me_please...
> unlike in the US where companies have to hang on to contracts while in a downturn
What is your basis for believing that US companies cannot downsize as easily as Danish ones or that their costs in hiring and firing are higher? Were you an employee or hiring manager in both countries?
What is your basis for believing that US companies cannot downsize as easily as Danish ones or that their costs in hiring and firing are higher? Were you an employee or hiring manager in both countries?
read that tweet as free advice not to work for calacanis
here's the full exchange between employer and employee: http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:h1M0xdV67_EJ:pastebin.co...
here's the full exchange between employer and employee: http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:h1M0xdV67_EJ:pastebin.co...
Wow, that's ugly.
I understand Jason's perspective though. Unfortunately his attempt to minimize morale tax backfired
Technically I suppose I might be a "Gen Y" something-or-other, though at 33 I feel too old to be a "trophy kid". But I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you change companies frequently, but also get large, valuable projects done, it all evens out pretty well.
Then again, perhaps that's just me rationalizing looking like a flake. Still, I'm a flake who has put together some good projects, and made some folks decent money. I'm okay with that.
Then again, perhaps that's just me rationalizing looking like a flake. Still, I'm a flake who has put together some good projects, and made some folks decent money. I'm okay with that.
At 33 you're Gen X.
What's gonna happen after Gen Z?
Will counting wrap as in a spreadsheet?
Gen [, maybe? Not that catchy, though.
Gen AA
[deleted]
As someone who is hiring right now, I would look suspiciously at anyone who changed jobs every 12 - 24 months; it doesn't mean that I wouldn't interview you or hire you, but it means that I'm going to be digging pretty hard to understand why you've moved around so much.
There's a lot of good reasons for people moving around, but I have to make absolutely certain that it's not a personality flaw that is in the candidate.
Note that if you've spent time as a contractor and have indicated that you're working on 12 - 24 month contracts, that's entirely different. Moving on wasn't completely your choice.
There's a lot of good reasons for people moving around, but I have to make absolutely certain that it's not a personality flaw that is in the candidate.
Note that if you've spent time as a contractor and have indicated that you're working on 12 - 24 month contracts, that's entirely different. Moving on wasn't completely your choice.
The unfortunate truth for tech people is that moving jobs is the most effective way to get a promotion. If you're hiring for a company that will quickly and effectively "promote" people who perform well, I wouldn't think you'd have any problems.
If employees are going to outgrow their positions with you, though, and don't have a position to grow into, then you should dig. :)
If employees are going to outgrow their positions with you, though, and don't have a position to grow into, then you should dig. :)
>Moving on wasn't completely your choice.
I'd think that a personality "flaw" isn't completely someone's choice, either.
Of course, digging hard also reveals a potential "personality" flaw on the part of the hiring company. As mrkurt suggests, if you're having trouble with retention, examine and improve yourself first.
I'd think that a personality "flaw" isn't completely someone's choice, either.
Of course, digging hard also reveals a potential "personality" flaw on the part of the hiring company. As mrkurt suggests, if you're having trouble with retention, examine and improve yourself first.
Personality flaws aside, would you choose to hire someone if you knew they were going to move on in 12-24 months or is it an automatic no?
I wouldn't be too quick to assume that bouncing around a lot will not have an adverse impact on your future ability to get hired for a good position - while it may not matter in some contexts, it definitely will for many jobs (including the best ones), where an employer will likely want to hire people who will stick and grow with the company.
Repeated hires are a cost and a drain for companies, and employers will definitely consider the intangible of whether you are likely to stay as a non-trivial factor affecting the hiring decision.
At the very least, if you bounce around a lot, you will be limiting your options for many future hires.
This is not to justify the parting shot given to the employee here. But don't lose perspective on this issue either.
Repeated hires are a cost and a drain for companies, and employers will definitely consider the intangible of whether you are likely to stay as a non-trivial factor affecting the hiring decision.
At the very least, if you bounce around a lot, you will be limiting your options for many future hires.
This is not to justify the parting shot given to the employee here. But don't lose perspective on this issue either.
I don't think tech employees who are often accused for job hopping deliberately set out to do so. Most would love to find a place where they can stay 5-10 years while learning and doing rewarding work.
The reason they frequently leave earlier is that they are unable to learn, grow and apply themselves at their present place of work, being in a situation where if they were to stay longer they'd be progressively less useful to employers. The reason younger employees sometimes within a year when they're not adequately mentored and instead keep being used _only_ for maintenance work rather than actual development.
Ultimately each hop, each earlier-than-desired departure does give you a better idea of what to look for in your next position (to avoid more hops). It's true that short stays close some doors, but in serious technology companies, hiring decisions for engineers are made by engineers. The hiring manager or company HR may ask you for an explanation of why you've left last several places (and confirm it by checking your references), but it's foolish to pass on a strong developer who made some career mistakes in favour of a weak, but "reliable" candidate. Companies that do so aren't the ones where I'd like to work in the first place.
The more significant risk to leaving early isn't the messed up resume, it's becoming too anxious and jaded, systematically leaving before being able to apply yourself (e.g., during the training process or when working on a starter project), unable to take advantage of mentoring available. Leaving a company with a steep learning curve within six months is foolish, but sticking around for another year when you haven't learned anything in the two years isn't wise either.
The reason they frequently leave earlier is that they are unable to learn, grow and apply themselves at their present place of work, being in a situation where if they were to stay longer they'd be progressively less useful to employers. The reason younger employees sometimes within a year when they're not adequately mentored and instead keep being used _only_ for maintenance work rather than actual development.
Ultimately each hop, each earlier-than-desired departure does give you a better idea of what to look for in your next position (to avoid more hops). It's true that short stays close some doors, but in serious technology companies, hiring decisions for engineers are made by engineers. The hiring manager or company HR may ask you for an explanation of why you've left last several places (and confirm it by checking your references), but it's foolish to pass on a strong developer who made some career mistakes in favour of a weak, but "reliable" candidate. Companies that do so aren't the ones where I'd like to work in the first place.
The more significant risk to leaving early isn't the messed up resume, it's becoming too anxious and jaded, systematically leaving before being able to apply yourself (e.g., during the training process or when working on a starter project), unable to take advantage of mentoring available. Leaving a company with a steep learning curve within six months is foolish, but sticking around for another year when you haven't learned anything in the two years isn't wise either.
I'm tempted to believe that companies that prefer long term employment are the ones that need to train employees for their specific needs. Companies that make use of transferable skills instead increase their chances of a new hire quickly picking up where the previous employee left. e.g. a web dev, in a FOSS shop that uses well known best practices.
> I'm tempted to believe that companies that prefer long term employment are the ones that need to train employees for their specific needs.
Great point!
Or they—like my company—have complex code bases in complex languages (C++) that mean that you're not going to be an effective developer for anywhere from 3 - 6 months after hiring. It has nothing to do with training you for our specific needs, but everything to do with the fact that in a mature codebase there's lots of moving parts that can easily be broken, and there may be older choices that may not make sense because you weren't around when the choice was made.
Candidates with short-term employment backgrounds aren't a problem, per se. We want you to be a long-term employee because you like it at our company and want to contribute to something meaningfully. We don't want to be a short-term paycheque job.
Candidates with short-term employment backgrounds aren't a problem, per se. We want you to be a long-term employee because you like it at our company and want to contribute to something meaningfully. We don't want to be a short-term paycheque job.
Why not just ask the candidate what makes this job different from the previous ones?
If the answer is something along the lines of "I'll want to gain knowledge of and practical experience with C++, but the previous jobs wouldn't let me work in anything besides Java and scripting languages", it's good indication that are looking for a long-term home and not just a higher salary.
If the answer is something along the lines of "I'll want to gain knowledge of and practical experience with C++, but the previous jobs wouldn't let me work in anything besides Java and scripting languages", it's good indication that are looking for a long-term home and not just a higher salary.
I don't necessarily disagree with the thesis of this post, but this seems a bit of a tangent. Was Calcanis really advocating the French model? More than likely he was just venting over high turnover.
When there's high turn over at a company, it's almost always the fault of management. There's a great Russian proverb: don't blame the mirror if your face is ugly. When your employees are leaving after a few months, the one at fault is you, not professionals in other companies staying a few years on the job.
Yes. Calacanis may have just been an excuse. More than likely Gary was just venting over the French model :)
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story...