TrickzOnU

I'm assuming because country of residence / citizenship of the Principal Investigators is a selection criteria for grants? (Someone can you verify? This is unfortunate...)

>> People who are "priced out" should move to places where rent costs less

It is a huge nation, but one where 70% of the tech jobs are stuck in SF/SV. I can move to Lincoln Nebraska and pay $400/mo in rent, but I sure as heck wont find an employer seeking a python job.

Yes, i'd take a $70k salary while living in North Carolina. But the "shortage" being discussed here is for the Bay Area. I'm here, let me break down my costs: - $17k taxes - $3k health care premiums - $7k college loans - $36k rent - almost nothing left for savings, retirement, down payment, engagement ring, any means to get out of my situation

Yes, that is what many of us do. We either leave the tech industry, or tech positions, or the area. There is no "shortage", it is just that "unfillable" positions dont pay a living wage for the locale+experience.

It is not. The rancher would just hire an illegal immigrant often and it happens all the time on farms and restaurants. It doesn't fly in office environments and in positions where the salary cant just disappear in the books.

Secondly, only the technology industry has a massive pipeline of overseas workers available...so naturally there is constantly a "shortage" as a means to increase the pipeline of overseas workers.

I'm not saying NOT to hire overseas workers. I'm saying to be honest about it. Say -- we refuse to pay market wages and would rather that new graduates not find work than pay them a living wage for the Bay Area, instead we'll hire offshore workers desperate to flee their countries and willing to shack up 3 to a studio apartment.

I'm familiar with these opportunities. They are not entry-level positions, they are highly technical positions which require extensive architectural experience...the sort that individuals often have mid-career (often with children, braces, school tuition, medical co-pays, etc.)

So yes, $300k for a mid-career position is clearly not enough in the Bay Area. Could you raise a family in a 1BR, yes you can! But there is a "shortage" of people who want to raise a family in a 1BR. There is no magic here -- pay would need to be commensurate to experience + cost of living or people simply will not take the job.

I loved this line from the article "With unsolved US VISA problems for STEM workers, IT companies might have to get creative to hire potential employees." -- Yeah, creative...like paying a living wage for the location. Pay salaries that will allow someone to rent their own 1B (not bunking) and the "shortage" will magically disappear.

No, trump has not said that -- but plenty of conservative commentators in the US have said that. It will be interesting whether those videos get banned too.

If they didn't vote because they assumed some result, perhaps they are not as passionate about their position and should not get to vote a second time.

Arent such notices supposed to be handed in person via a process server? How could the person be held liable for a default judgement without being personally handed court documents?

How so? Isnt this just a typical supply and demand issue?

I was given a salary figure, until I got on-site for the final round, at which i got a very hard sell and the reveal -- some of the salary was "in kind" -- free shuttle bus, 401k match, etc (all in policy, not in offer letter.) Policy changed shortly after I joined, and I learned the policy change was being discussed months before I joined -- so the hiring manager extracted these concessions knowing full well they perks may be reduced or removed.

It has been a year now. I moved to a high-cost-of-living area where even owning a car is expensive. There is a cost to moving back as well. A lot of it is psychological - I cannot believe i allowed myself to be fooled so badly, it has really shaken my confidence in HR and hiring managers.

Nice! This comment is spot on!

I've been working for over a decade. There is ONE and ONLY ONE rule i've seen universally followed by HR -- your pay rises with the # of people reporting to you. Regardless of whatever managers say about running a lean shop or budget or whatever -- the more people you hire and manager, the more money you make. If you can do the work in six months, tell them 18 and hire two others. If you can do the work with 4 FTEs, tell them 12 FTEs and get a nice promotion. Increase employment, get great documentation and unit tests, and play to the foolish HR policies HR has cooked up. When people get paid for productivity, then switch to lean. Until then, play to the metric they set.

Let me share my horror story -- I fell for a company that offered me the same salary (no raise despite big promotion.) Then, he (Division CTO of Fortune 500 medical company) started subtracting salary from this baseline for all my "benefits" like free shuttles, 401k matching, etc. I was supposed to take the lower wage in exchange for amazing work, 3 fully paid conferences a year, yada yadda.

Two months into joining, the shuttle went from free to paid. Ouch. Then, the manager expected me to stay late 3x a week, which meant i could not even take the shuttle 3x a week, and instead have to take a taxi. Still not enough salary to buy a car + insurance + parking. Then policy changed and 401k match disappeared. Finally, policy changed and all conference reimbursements ended. Final blow -- my PDP is tied to 3 conference posters a year, so i pay out of pocket for travel/registration/hotel.

By the way, the work is great, but i'm paying so much out of pocket that i'm getting the hell out of there. Sucks for me. Sucks for the manager too -- I spend half the day now doing eLance projects.

""Instead, we run a pay evaluation process internally, including feedback about the value of the role and the person from all the people who interviewed the candidate. We publish all that feedback, as well as the suggestion/reasoning of our pay trustees (a group of people who use that feedback to try to place the candidate on our pay scale)""

Problem with this approach is that inevitably part of the formula is also "level" -- so you just converted one problem (negotiating $) to another (negotiating level.) That is when the real tricky people come in -- those who want a high level and just manage others, often adding no value (good managers add a lot of value, but if you tell people that the only way they can make more money is by being manager or senior managing level, then you force people who should not be managing into managing roles.)