US taxpayer-paid post-secondary education: why is it needed now?

 

     I ran across a message the other day which basically said "I worked very hard to pay for my school costs and my parents worked hard and we all worked hard to pay off student loans and I don't see any reason why current and future students shouldn't have to do the same thing."

     I can empathize -- that's a lot of work that had to be done -- a lot of sacrifice. It should not have been required or necessary but it was.

     But things are different now. For one thing -- as my children love to remind me -- the times are not the same as when I was going to college. In 1975-76 (my first year of college), it cost $540/yr, on average, for tuition and fees at a public university ($2290/yr for private college.) For 2018-2019, that cost for public university was $10,280/yr and private university was $35,830/yr. Now, of course, because of inflation, that $540/yr would be $2521/yr (4.47x inflation factor between 1975 and 2018). But $2,521 is still 1/4 of what it costs per year in 2018. University costs have gone up four times as much as inflation. Or, take minimum wage -- which was $2.10/hr in 1975 and $7.25/hr in 2018 (these are unadjusted dollars -- if you use inflation-adjusted dollars, minimum wage went DOWN). That is, minimum wage went up by a factor of 3.45 in the same period that the cost of college went up by a factor of 19.

      So, tuition and fees within the US have risen extremely over the past 50ish years and growth in wages and the ability to pay has not come even close to catching up.

     This does not include room and board. I haven't found a good analysis of that cost but, for my son, room and board at a public university is about 130% of the tuition and fees. So, a grand total of about $24,000/yr. Because of general increases in costs for private schools, a 220% cost total for private giving about $78,800/yr.

     But, college is still worth it, right? The investment will pay one back in income over the post-graduation years? Well, the answer to that is -- it depends. In spite of words of appreciation, beginning teachers are not paid well -- an average of $39,000/yr just starting out as a secondary school teacher in the US. On the other hand, a computer science bachelor's degree in the US (not true in other countries) may bring in $94,000/yr as a cybersecurity analyst. And students that land a job on Wall Street might get $300,000+/yr.

     Assume that you went to a public school and borrowed to get your degree. It cost you $100,000 ($330,000 for private). At 5% interest (may not stay that low for long), you will pay about $6,441/yr ($21,155/yr for private) to pay it off in 30 years. For a starting secondary school teacher, that would be about 1/6 (or 55% for private) of their GROSS salary -- not even allowing for taxes, medicare tax, social security, local taxes, etc. Maybe possible but very hard to do. Not nearly as hard for the cybersecurity analyst and pocket money for the Wall Street person. But, what about the many who are not able to use their degrees in a directly applicable career area? What about those who are getting minimum wage and working full-time (unusual -- most minimum wage jobs are part-time)? That $15,080/yr means that payback of the student loan is about 43% of their GROSS wages. Not doable -- period.

     And -- say that your family has been saving like mad for your entire life and you were able to pay for college without taking out any loans. The cost is STILL about the same as having taken out a loan because the money you saved and spent on college could not be used in other ways to increase the capital. You save the interest from the college loan but are down the cost of not having been able to use the money in other ways.

     We have now covered both the extreme rise in cost for post-high-school education in the US as well as the lack of adequate increase of income to pay for it. Is it worth it? Well, for the individual, once again, it depends on where their career path takes them. For a lot  -- probably most -- of the students -- no. They will probably pay more for their education that the increase in their wages justifies. That did not used to be the case -- it is now.

     How about being worth it to society? Probably. Our world of work continues to change. Unskilled labor has a much harder time finding jobs (and even harder finding jobs paying a living wage). Opening positions require a higher base level of education. Without that education they are likely to be unemployable and that means a dependency on families or taxpayers. Once again, we are talking about investment -- but this time it is investment by society FOR society.

     So, paying for our own post-secondary education in the US is farther and farther out-of-reach for more and more families and is no longer cost-effective as an investment. BUT, it is cost-effective for the country as a whole to have better educated, skilled, people within the economy.

Weeds: The survival of the inconvenient

 

     Weeds. What in the world are weeds? They always seem to be disliked -- almost a synonym for unwanted. But what are they really? I would propose that weeds are plants/things that prosper better than other plants/things that we WANT to cultivate.

     People can admire, and enjoy, the benefits of dandelions -- dandelion salads, dandelion wine, dandelion vinegar, dandelion soap, ... But, if you want a yard full of Kentucky bluegrass and, instead, you have half of the yard with little yellow flowers turning into floating seed farms then that is when the definition of "weed" comes into play. We are (many of us, anyway) willing to poison ourselves, and the environment, with glyphosates in order to gain a measure of pretended control over our yards to get rid of that persistent survivor.

     There are the tradeoffs of economics. If you can sell tulips for $100/bushel (I'm making up these numbers) and dandelions are only worth $10/bushel -- IF you can find the appropriate market and transfer the dandelions in fresh enough condition -- then you do what you can to focus your resources on raising tulips and denying the dandelions the right to survive.

     But there may also be the affront to our pride. It is OUR yard and we want that Kentucky bluegrass to run from sidewalk to house. So, when dandelions (and possibly crabgrass, and sand burrs, and thistles, ...) decide to invade, we marshal our resources and try to have our own choice win out in the battle of the yard.

     Note also that those "weeds" -- those undesirably successful plants/things -- may have negative aspects too. In such cases, we might be forgiven our dislike of them. I remember not being able to walk barefoot through the lawn because of the proliferation of sand burrs. Designed to attach to feathers and fur in order to spread throughout the universe, they don't feel that good to bare feet.

     When we want to plant a particular crop in a field, the first step is to clear out everything that existed there before -- which was probably a viable ecology built up over time to live the best for the environment -- both weather and varieties of plants and animals that existed in that area. We do our best to eliminate all of the old and that which continues to survive, we call "weeds".

     The same can happen within societal and business cultures. We want to change an aspect of that culture -- eliminate past biases or practices, change orientation of business development, change to a different product line, allow for change in business needs or circumstances, etc. And the old culture will continue to permeate, with old behaviors and attitudes popping back up.

     Within a different, perhaps older, culture those would be acceptable but, within the desired modified culture, they are "weeds". If there is a commitment to the new, then the old must be pruned if they cannot be modified. In their time, they were acceptable and appreciated -- remember that when pruning and modifying.

Simplicity: the benefits of lack of complexity

 

     I have been around computers a long time. Long enough to remember when 64K of memory (in total -- not RAM) was considered a large system. Long enough to have to toggle in a boot program for the paper tape reader to allow the main program to be run. Long enough that, between queuing up for the card punch, waiting for your program to be executed by the mainframe, and then getting the printouts from the run -- you might be only able to run your program three times in an eight hour period.

    (Not as long as the true pioneers like Ada Lovelace, Alan Turing, Kathleen Booth, Wang An, Grace Hopper and such. Please forgive me if I left out your own favorites.)

     Now, I'm not going to say those days were "better". I like getting streaming videos (though I will never be in favor of the many meetings that could have been done with a few memos and emails). I like reliable email networks, transmission, and reception. I like online shopping. I like having much of the transcribable data of the world available with searches and networked museums, libraries, and academies.

     But there were some advantages arising from the lack of options and complex systems.

• With very limited memory, it was necessary to write efficient code.
  
  
• With slow turnaround, it was necessary to try to anticipate every problem, and edge condition, that your program might encounter -- in advance as part of the design.
  
  
• It was relatively easy -- and usually necessary -- to understand the basics of the entire system from the power that entered the hardware to the hardware components to the initial boot program, the peripherals, and the way the operating system works.

     I am a generalist because I WANT to continue to be a generalist. There are rarely paid positions posted for generalists. So, it was necessary to focus on some area. I became a telecom/datacom specialist. As I continued my career, I found that people interactions became more and more interesting and so I started to try to become the best servant leader that I could be -- a goal that I will never reach but which will continue to be out there as a target.

     But, at heart, I am still a generalist -- now extended to include the people (people's actions and interactions, UI, UX, etc.) Being such is conceptually very useful -- but job listings are virtually non-existent. Creation of new types of products usually requires knowledge of multiple areas (and, often, sciences) brought together. Generalists can be of great use in such.

     Nevertheless, the economy continues to move towards complexity and specialization.

     Within a computer app that faces a human user, a goal is to present a simple, intuitive, interface. Complexity of possibilities makes that much harder and, in part because of legal issues, every version of a particular program (word processing, spreadsheets, voice apps, video apps, ...) has to have a different interface (sometimes just a bit of a diversion, sometimes completely different).

     The goal is still to make it simple for the user to use without sacrificing flexibility and functionality. When that is achieved, it is almost definitely a balancing act with extreme complexity "under the hood". One could say the complexity is of the system as a whole. When the user-side becomes simpler, the provider-side becomes more complex. This often applies to mechanical objects, and other systems, as well.

     But what about those advantages of a simple program? They move from necessities to desirabilities. I would say that it is STILL useful to write efficient code. It is DEFINITELY (especially in terms of security in our current world) useful to anticipate problems, edge conditions, and vulnerabilities as part of the design. And, in order to create new types of programs, I am of the opinion that knowledge of the complete system is of considerable usefulness.

     Most examples have been concerning computer systems since that is my field. But such can be applied to civil engineering, mechanical engineering, business structuring, and so forth. There will be advantages with simple systems and complexity will involve trade-offs between various components.

Blowing your own horn: A cultural and personality exercise in group responsibility

 

     "Blow your own horn".  Or "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". Not sure how widespread these sayings are. They are certainly well distributed in the United States and I think the general sentiment pervades business within much of Europe and the rest of the Americas. (No idea about Africa, I'm sorry to say.) However, in Japanese culture, the saying is the opposite ("The nail that sticks up gets pounded down") -- a direct effort to raise one's own recognition over that of the group is considered very negatively.

     No matter what the culture is or how shy, or extroverted, a person is -- there is a need for recognition for effort. In the United States (currently, it may be changing) that is primarily reflected in monetary recompense. The distribution of recognition between money/public recognition/awards/perks and so forth vary from place to place, company to company, and culture to culture. But, whatever the form, I feel quite sure that everyone wants to be recognized for their efforts.

     Everyone is unique in how they want to be recognized, however. A direct "thank you" may be enough for many people. A smile, a clap on the back, or a shake of the hand may be appropriate for someone else. Some will not feel recognized unless they have a plaque on the wall saying "Employee of the Century". I know that, when I received the first departmental recognition award back in the Stone Ages with Bell Labs, I felt both a desire to melt into the walls and at the same time the feeling of wanting to grin until my mouth would split.

     I also felt the desire to attempt to do even more -- until my supervisor at the time brought me back down to earth when she said "don't think this reward is going to help you at merit review". My peers recognized my contributions but management did not.

     And that is a problem -- for many people in many companies. Depending on personality, and business/social culture, people can make their contributions more visible -- but that doesn't mean they do such or do such effectively. Another supervisor (my all time favorite in my career) told me "until your office was moved next to mine, I had no idea just how many people you were helping every day".

     But is it the employee's responsibility to do their own promotion? Personally, I don't think so. Even in countries/cultures where it is approved to do such -- people are able to do it better, or worse, depending on many factors. For me, there was always the naive assumption that my management was aware of my work. But I knew how/what people could do to be better recognized -- my mentees over the decades have gone on to higher positions than I ever did.

     So, is it the responsibility of management? Yes, I think it is always one of the responsibilities of management -- to be aware of the contributions of people around them whether they work for them or are peers. Is it ONLY the responsibility of management? While it is, in my opinion, required of management it certainly should be encouraged for peers to recognize peers as part of the corporate culture.

     In many business cultures, this applies even more greatly to the accomplishments of women and minorities. A woman makes a suggestion and nothing happens. A male colleague makes the very same suggestion and it takes off without any acknowledgement of it being the woman's initial idea. The same can also happen with minorities.

     It is an inherent failing of power hierarchies. And it reduces the effectiveness, productivity, and profitability of companies. In most such power hierarchies, it requires a proactive approach to reduce these effects. That doesn't require different treatment of those who have not been well treated -- it "just" requires process that applies equally to all. (Much more easily said than accomplished.)

     So what happens with that "squeaky wheel" or "horn blower"? They are difficult to not recognize. For some cultures, such as in Japan, that recognition is negative. For many more, it means their name comes to mind. They are not only recognized but they are often taken at their own proclaimed value. (This is very similar to professional politicians.) So, they may advance faster than other, more productive or valuable, peers. And that is just the way it is -- until an atmosphere of peer recognition becomes part of the culture.

     A "squeaky wheel" MAY be highly productive and capable -- and they may not be. But, I will give good odds that their peers know what is real even if their managers do not. They know if someone is doing their own great work or taking credit for what others have done. They know if they are well regarded within the peer workspace and would be someone they would respect and be a leader they would want to follow.

     We can all learn, grow, and improve. But we need to be aware of those aspects to work on to be able to achieve it. Proper recognition of contributions is one such area that needs continued evaluation and improvement.

Taking and Receiving, Giving and Relinquishing: A matter of flow

 

     "It is better to give than receive." Although not universally accepted, a lot of us would agree with that statement. But, if there is no one who is willing to receive, is it possible to give? And if that is the case, isn't receiving just as important as the giving?

     "Don't be a taker." Once again, not universally agreed upon, though most would agree with the sentiment. But, is not a taker another name for a receiver?

     As an eclectic student of languages, I am always struck by the number of synonyms and antonyms for words. If you go to a thesaurus, you will find lists of such. When I look over the lists, I find myself sometimes saying "yes, that is very close" and, at other times, "why did they list that -- that doesn't seem very close to the original word at all." Sometimes, it is a matter of context and specific definition of the word. Words often have multiple meanings listed within a dictionary listing -- and the order of usage/recognition varies with the time in history as well as environment of the user.

     So, let's look at a few of the listed synonyms for "taker". It lists such words as parasite, scrounger, and dependent. It does also list the word "receiver". But if the word "receiver" is researched, it comes up with words such as beneficiary, possessor, or payee. There is definitely a different feeling to the words. So, even though a thesaurus may indicate some overlap between taker and receiver, they are used very differently. The same type of result can be found when researching the words giver and relinquisher.

     What is the difference? I would suggest that it is a matter of flow. Something will move from the giver towards the taker. It will also move from the relinquisher towards the receiver. But, in the case of the taker, the impetus of the movement is from the point of view of the taker. The taker is reaching toward the original possessor and bringing it towards them. The original possessor may, or may not, be willing for this movement.

     In the case of the receiver, it is implied that the receiver is NOT actively trying to obtain the object. The movement is being initiated by the giver.

     To rephrase common phrases -- to give is divine but, in order to give, there must
                                                        be a receiver.

                                                     -- when taking without permission there may be
                                                         relinquishing but not giving.

The USSR and Eastern Europe: A personal historical perspective

 

     I debated writing this blog entry as I prefer to stay away from topics that would be considered political (though I have found that there is nothing that cannot be considered political by someone). My blogs have moved away from the technology explanation motif (primarily because of lack of feedback as to what areas were of interest) but the core reason of a desire to improve communication still exists -- and that is what I am trying to foster with this post.

     There is NO justification for Putin's invasion of Ukraine -- particularly with the focus on the civilian population and infrastructure. But there can be a certain degree of understanding.

     Back in 1987 (35 years ago now), I visited the Soviet Union with particular concentration on the Moscow, Leningrad/St. Petersburg, and Latvia (Riga) areas. This was in the latter days of the Soviet Union when "glasnost" was being heavily promoted by the Soviet government but the citizens still only half-believed it. A certain degree of highly-supervised, and watched, coordination between Soviet groups and external organizations was being encouraged with the hopes of eventual mutually beneficial exchanges. I was part of such an outreach.

     Note that Vladimir Putin was part of the KGB during this period of time.

     Moscow and Leningrad/St. Petersburg had many wonderful aspects -- and a few not quite so wonderful -- but I cannot claim to have any significant insight into what was/was not going on there. Many others in the world certainly have more useful contributions. I will say that the tentative balancing act of believing/not-believing in "glasnost" was definitely present within the citizens of those regions.

     However, visitation of Riga and the Latvian countryside gave much more information and insight. The groups in Latvia were more willing to be open -- probably because they felt they had much more to gain and a little less to lose. The beaches near Riga were not open to human use because of pollution. And the discussions, that we had there, laid bare the reality that Latvia (and Estonia and Lithuania) were used as expendable regions where central authorities in the Russian regions could locate heavy industry which had more severe environmental impact. Although I had no direct experience with other countries in Eastern Europe, it is good to recall that Chernobyl, and its problems, is located in Ukraine.

     It is difficult to understand the mindset between the primary area of Russia and that of the satellite regions of the Soviet Union without discussion of the "fifth line" (pyatny linov). All Soviet citizens had an internal passport and, on the fifth line of that internal passport, was "nationality". Being Jewish was considered a "nationality". There may have been other non-geographic nationalities also used but I have no personal knowledge of that. My Russian language tutor (of Jewish heritage) had been "fifth lined" out of Leningrad. The Soviets eliminated unemployment by making it illegal -- but that didn't mean that there weren't people who did not have jobs. Job or no job, it was still necessary to have income to live within the Soviet Union. Thus my professor's, and her husband's, emigration.

     The "fifth line" was used in various ways within the Soviet Union. One large way was within quota systems for various organizations and academic institutions. Such places had strict quotas based upon how many of each "nationality" would be permitted beyond the Russian fifth-lined citizens (rarely affected by quota). Belarus had a somewhat favored secondary status with larger quotas but all non-Russian "nationalities" were kept lower in proportion to those of official "Russian" nationality. There was a certain tendency for people to try to marry others of "Russian" nationality so that their children could have a "Russian" fifth line.

     Thus, non-Russian citizens were kept in less influential proportions to that of Russian citizens of the Soviet Union. And their geographical origins (in Eastern Europe, as said earlier I have no direct knowledge of behavior in other areas of the Soviet Empire) were used as expendable areas. These "buffer" areas could, and were, used in ways that was not desired in the primary Russian area of the Soviet Union.

     But, an even greater use of this expendable buffer region was as a Russian-controlled buffer between the Soviet Union and the non-Soviet-controlled countries. Russia could use these countries as as a buffer boundary and could locate military and other defenses within them. NATO countries could be directly bordered without direct exposure of Russian soil.

     And that is a large goal of this invasion. A territory to possess and use and provide closer access to NATO regions without direct exposure to the Russian central areas. If the infrastructure or countryside is destroyed in the process, it is not important. That is not the primary goal.

     And, as has been pointed out by some apologists who want to find a justification for the invasion, it is also why Russia does not want any countries bordering it to be part of NATO. It wants that expendable buffer. If guaranteed to not be part of NATO then some of that fear might ease -- but does not provide Ukraine the security they deserve.

Personnel Shifts: Continuous adaptation to the future

 

     If you enter into a grocery store (my son and I do so every Sunday at 6am to beat the crowds), you will have noticed that a growing number of "self-checkout" systems ("SCOs") are available. Sometimes these SCOs are oriented towards a limited number of items ("15 or under"), sometimes they are an alternative to the regular full-service checkout lanes. Occasionally, when I have only a half dozen items, or so, I am led away from the full-service lane (by a store employee) over to an SCO. I almost never voluntarily choose them -- because I know that the number of human cashiers are reduced as a shifting of resources.

     Is this bad? Bank tellers shifting to ATMs and online banking? Grocery store cashiers giving way to SCOs? The general shift from "brick-and-board" physical stores to online shopping or automated inventory and checkout systems? Automated package, and luggage, sorting at parcel and luggage handling locations? And so on and so on.

     There are shifts in the economy and work force taking place. Many of these shifts are due to automation. There are a couple of primary effects of this ongoing shift. First, the lower skill jobs are disappearing -- but higher skill jobs are being created. This is not 1-to-1 (1:1). For every five lower skill jobs that are replaced by automation, one high skill job is created. I am making up this ratio. It will depend on the exact industry and other factors. But it is still the situation that fewer high skill jobs are created than are lost from the lower skill job pool. That's a large part of the reason why there is a shift towards automation -- to save labor costs.

     The second shift can be interpreted from the above but it is rarely openly acknowledged. As more and more lower skill jobs are replaced by automation, the number of jobs that lower skill workers can qualify for -- and, especially, that pay a living wage -- goes down. There are unemployed people who do not qualify for a position in which they can support themselves and that number increases every year.

     Educate them! True, that can make more people, who used to be lower skill, able to join the higher skill work force. But, as the number of people needed for businesses continues to decrease, we end up with more people without positions to occupy. Education, by itself, only gives the possibility of having more higher skilled people without jobs rather than lower skill people without jobs.

     One possibility is to spread existing work around to more people. If each position in the economy occupies a person for fewer hours, then the economy allows for work by more people, If a company needs a labor force of 800 people-hours per week, there can be 20 people working 40 hours/week or there can be 32 people working 25 hours/week or even 40 people working 20 hours/week. Note that these people still need to be making living wages (and, with their education and training, likely will expect more).

     Another possibility is for people to set up businesses for themselves! That is happening and it may all work out. Certainly my crystal ball doesn't have fewer cracks in it than anyone else's. Such a shift requires economies moving away from physical consumerism; factories will continue to have fewer and fewer needed workers and "brick-and-board" businesses will move away from lower skilled personnel. Note that moving away from physical consumerism also has side-benefits for the environment.

     These newly invented businesses will have to deal with non-physical merchandise. Skills, learning, ideas, coaching, artistry, creativity -- a new paradigm for the economy. These new entrepreneurs need different training, and ways of thinking, from that which is presently being presented within the education system. Learning facts becomes less important. Learning how to research, and interpret, facts becomes vital.

          Jobs that are not cost-effective to automate (at least we are not at that economic tipping point as of yet) will still exist for the indefinite future. And there will continue to be people who will not, or cannot, obtain skills that will work within the new economy or the higher skill level traditional positions. But they cannot work 40 to 60 hours and still not be able to afford food, clothing, medical care, and shelter. It is a recipe of desperation. We may not often put people in jail for stealing a loaf of bread, like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, but people who cannot succeed in living legally will find a way to live.

The Passenger Syndrome: Along for the ride

 

     I am not particularly fond of driving -- not because I mind doing it myself but because it is necessary to look five directions at once, at all times, to see what the rest of the traffic (in cars or on foot) are doing. Give me a road without other traffic and I am happy to head off for the hills and beyond. These conditions usually take place at night (or in adverse weather conditions -- in which case there is less traffic but it is necessary to watch those others even more carefully). Less traffic, easier on the eyes, and less likely to trigger my mild narcolepsy.

     But I can't always get my preferences -- so I drive along in the traffic as it is. I attempt to ignore the car behind me that is 10 feet away from my back bumper while driving at 60 mph. I try to anticipate what merging traffic is going to do and attempt to leave them a proper gap so they can merge. I negotiate changing lanes with some cars going 15 miles per hour over the speed limit and those few who go five to ten miles an hour UNDER the limit. And I usually get to my destination. At which point, my wife usually says "that was easy". Spoken like a true passenger.

     This "passenger syndrome" happens in many parts of our lives.  Business, personal, recreational, sport spectator and player, during cooking and cleaning, and wherever one person is doing the active portion while others are there to enjoy the endpoints.

     There are certainly situations where multiple people work on a project and it is quite possible to appreciate what each person has done -- or to consider what others are doing as less important and less difficult. That reaction is based on internal reasons and are, in part, dependent on how much experience the others have in working within the other roles. In the best of situations, each truly understands that while it is easier for one person, with experience and knowledge, to do something than it would be for another person without such -- that does NOT make it "easy". The group is leveraging the skills, talents, and experiences of each to make it a much better joint project.

     But not all work items are joint ones. If the chef comes up with a magnificent meal and they bring it onto the table and flourish it with a bow then most will truly enjoy it. But, if someone is loitering in the kitchen while the chef is doing their measuring, sifting, whisking, blending, preparing, and cooking then the more experienced, and skillful, the chef is -- the "easier" it will appear. Unless the observer has tried that recipe for themselves, watch out that they don't come out with "well, that certainly looked easy". Shoveling snow is always easy for the spectator.

     There have been discussions in LinkedIn, and other business forums, about the concept of paying for the product rather than paying for the time. Within a given time, a wide difference of activity is possible depending on experience, skill, and talent. One person might do the task in three hours and another might do it in ten minutes. Is that ten minutes work worth the same amount of compensation as the other's three hours? If both situations produce the same result with the same quality then why shouldn't they each deserve the same compensation? This might mean that the experienced/skilled/talented individual gets an effective rate of 18 times that of the less experienced person -- but is that not fair?

     In the upcoming era of remote work, and hybrid/blended work this is something to keep solidly in mind. Evaluate according to the work accomplished. But be careful not to treat it as fully equivalent. That one person may have been able to do the work in 1/18 of the time but if you try to give them 18 times the amount of work start sniffing around, and prepare for the fire sprinkler to go off, as you herd them into an early burnout. Time elapsed is not the same as mental (and sometimes physical) energy needed.

I can't find anyone for my posted position: really?

 

     For the past 15 years or more, I have seen various comments "I just can't find anyone for my position". Really? I suspect that you are continuing some long-time inappropriate practices.

     If a position is entry-level, and is posted (and salaried) as entry-level, then THERE ARE NO JOB-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. If there are requirements, then it is NOT "entry-level". Most of you have heard, perhaps even encountered, "how can I get a job without experience when all of the jobs expect experience?" A vicious cycle and perpetuated by many companies. Once again, entry-level means no job-specific requirements.

     Now this does not mean you have to hire anybody that applies. There are some basic skills that anyone graduating from high school should bring to the work arena. The ability to read and write. If the person cannot do that, there are lots of programs available to learn. Basic arithmetic, ditto. Nowadays, the lack of fear of computers is a requirement. Once again, lots of courses in basic computer literacy are available. Local libraries, senior citizen centers, and community colleges all have them available -- often free. Some jobs require the ability to lift certain weights -- and that should be in the job description. There may be requirements for hygiene, especially if the person is expected to interact with the general public. Job-required social skills may be needed but note that, for many positions that do not interact with the public, social skills may be up for negotiation if you want to keep the candidate pool full.

     So, in summary, entry-level can require indications of the basic ability to acquire job-related skills -- but should not require any of those job-related skills. Otherwise, it is NOT entry-level and should not be posted as such or paid as such.

     There are also listings on the other end of the spectrum. A job listing might have a list of 20 very specific skills and experiences often based on what the person leaving that position had (even if they never actually used that skill/experience within the position). Every additional specific skill you add reduces the potential pool of possibilities. IF you really want to increase the number of potential candidates, then you shift the specifics to abilities and you shift items from "required" to "desired" if they aren't needed from day one. If you need experience dealing with project management software -- say that -- don't say a specific project management software package unless being able to immediately launch is really that important -- and recognize you have reduced your candidate pool. Need object-oriented programming experience -- say that -- don't list a specific language unless it is of such importance for immediate launch that reduction in the candidate pool is acceptable.

     I have run across many position descriptions that say "5 years experience needed in specific language ABC" and language ABC has only existed for three years. If I didn't hear "we can't find anyone" so often from those companies, I would laugh. But I usually sniffle a bit out of sadness for both the companies and the great potential candidates not making it over the ridiculous hurdles.

     Another area of HR problematics is having a "hidden list". There is a list of "required" characteristics/abilities (which may, or may not, be appropriate to needs). There is a list of "preferred/desired" characteristics/abilities. Then there is the "hidden list" that are NOT in the job description but which will cause the candidate to be rejected without further examination. We will all hope that sexuality/gender/ethnicity/pigmentation/age/etc. are not on your particular hidden list but if they are then you deserve to not find anyone as you are eliminating potential candidates based on irrelevant characteristics (and also, likely, reducing potential customers and clients).

     But there are also often other items -- not exactly irrelevant (though many can be argued to not be really needed) -- on the hidden list such as specific requirements not listed or the fact that the person must be able to work without sponsorship or that they must live in a specific area. There can be legitimate requirements that are not posted in the job listing BUT if they are required and they are not part of the listing then you are wasting your time, potential candidates' time, AND decreasing your candidate pool. Put legitimate "hidden list" items on the published requirements.

     So, now you have a short list of "required" qualifications -- is your incoming filter set up that way? Or are those "desired" (and "hidden") qualifications kicking resumes, and potential star employees, out and away?

     Once upon a time, when I was hunting for a position, I applied to a LOT (I won't say the exact number because I don't want anyone fainting) of positions over a period of years. For each of the positions to which I applied, I had all of the "required" qualifications (and, yes, I had had my resume worked over by two different theoretically expert resume writers), but I received responses to less than 5% of the applications. Why? I can't say for certain but I certainly didn't feel sorry for those companies when I saw the job posting out there for an additional three to six months. Such still occurs. I feel no sympathy.

In summary:

• Entry-level positions should not require job-specific skills.
  
  
• Search for abilities rather than specifics unless you are explicitly willing to have the tradeoff of a reduced candidacy base.
  
  
• Make double-dare certain that the required skills/abilities/experiences are really needed and, for skills and experiences, that there is really a need for a running start.
  
  
• If you find yourself rejecting candidates because of reasons NOT listed on the job listing, LIST them.

Value: a subjective blend of price, quality, features, culture, and perception

 

     Price is usually easily quantified -- even if it is determined at the end of negotiations and bartering. Value is always a subjective matter. Value is how much something is "worth" as opposed to how much it costs. Beyond price, determination of value will depend on many other subjective matters. I will go into some of these factors individually and then will try to put them all together into a basket.

     Price is determined by local currency exchange. This could be the local money. It could be how many chickens or fish. It could be some portion of electronic valued currency. For many areas of the world, this price is a fixed amount for smaller priced items. Buying larger quantities of the same manufactured item may cost less per item. In other countries, the price can fluctuate between the replacement cost and several multiples of the replacement cost. Some items are "one of a kind" and there are no comparable items upon which to set a price. These require negotiation. Even in countries where most items are of non-varying prices, large cost items such as houses and cars are still negotiated.

     With limited supply, the factors of supply and demand come into play. If there are 100 of an item and 500 people want the item then either the seller fixes the price and the first 100 people who pay get them -- or the seller prices the item high and lowers the price slowly until the people who are willing, and able, to buy them at that price have depleted the inventory. No more items. People that pay more get the added recognition of getting the item earlier. People who don't consider the recognition to be worth more money will try to time it such that they pay the price in demand just upon the edge of depleting the inventory.

     Many may argue that quality can be quantified. But that would be true only if the very same aspects of the item were able to be compared with other items grouped with it and if those aspects had equal weight for all people. For example, take the issue of automobiles. A test organization can take the car through safety tests, acceleration and braking tests, crash tests, mileage tests, and whatever other tests may be imagined. But the cars tested, and the cars purchased, will be part of a much larger group. And, within a group, quality will vary. A car that is not well built, but considered to be part of a brand that is given great ratings, is called a "lemon". A car that is wonderfully built, but considered to be part of a brand that is given poor ratings, might be considered to be a "jewel".

     In addition, the aspects of an item to be tested cannot be infinite. I am personally finding road noise to be of a greater importance as my hearing ages. Sometimes that aspect is hard to find numbers for. But, even if I could find them for all car models that I wanted to consider, it is not a number that exists in isolation. Tires make a difference. Wheel size makes a difference. Suspension makes a difference, Exterior features (like railings on top for carry-racks) make a difference. Quality is subjective.

     Value also depends on features -- and what is wanted, what is required, what is NOT wanted. For one person, having a feature adds to the value but, for another person, it may reduce the value -- it might even outweigh all other aspects of the evaluation. Real estate agents are always urging this upon people selling real estate. Aim for the mode -- the features that most people want, the colors that the fewest people object to, the items that are easily observable. This may make the real estate much LESS appreciated by yourself -- but give the best chance of being considered by the most potential buyers and obtain the highest price.

     From that, it can be determined that what you do to the house will depend on your goal. If you plan to live in the house the rest of your life then you do what you, yourself, most appreciate and desire. If you plan to use the house only as a temporary location in which to store possessions, keep the rain out and the heat in -- then you treat the house as something you are preparing for sale.

     The local culture will provide a lens within which features will be evaluated. In the US, quantity is very often considered more important than quality when evaluating value. "Bigger is better". "Supersize me". Alas, in the area of food, the supersize does not apply only to the food. To "waste" or "waist", that is the question.

     In other areas of the world, quality takes precedence. A small quantity of something prepared especially well or from beloved ingredients will be of greater value than something of indifferent preparation and generic ingredients.

     If you live on a small island and half of the populace lives on the shores of the island, then that ocean view will not add much value.  If you are in a land-locked arid country, then being beside a river, pond, or lake (even if human-made) will be a feature that raises the value. If you have bad memories associated with the water, then being near it or able to see and hear it, will be a feature of reduction in value.

     Finally, there is perception. This is closely related to branding. One of my Aunts and her husband always purchased electronics that had a specific brand name. They wouldn't consider any other brand if they were considering a purchase. (This is every manufacturer's dream.) Even after the brand was sold to another company, they continued their loyalty. In my rural home town, two major US truck brands had (and have) their loyal buyers -- it was (and is) almost like a sports club fan situation. The same situation existed (exists) for farm machinery.

     Formal branding is not needed for value based upon perception. Marketing and sales always have a desire to increase perceived need for, and perceived quality of,  their product line. A real estate agent will aim clients towards the maximum price range areas to optimize their commission (except under "redline" conditions).

     "Perception is king." All of the above factors (and more) come into play when a person is evaluating the value to themselves -- but perception will overwhelm any attempt to quantify, or objectify, any aspect that is being evaluated.

     Value remains subjective.

Haste makes waste: the hazards of speed before preparation

 

     I do a lot of cooking around the house. Although I enjoy the various cooking shows that are currently popular, I cannot often make use of the recipes. They either take too much time or they involve ingredients that fall afoul of the pickiness of one or another of the members of the household. I primarily watch in admiration and awe of the fluidity of the actions of the professional chefs.

     I have often wondered why, in comparison to the published recipes and cooking shows, my preparation time takes about twice as long as that stated on the recipe or what it takes for them to do it on a cooking show (cooking time is usually fairly similar <smile>).

     I have decided that my "slowness" is a combination of lack of practice with a particular recipe and my basic tool skills. Watching a "MasterClass" of cooking techniques, I can watch a chef finely dice a shallot in the time that it would take me to locate it in the pantry or refrigerator. There is a third factor which I am slowly improving upon -- organization and method. When a chef on a cooking show prepares food, they have everything pre-measured, and set out, such that cooking is a matter of assembly and preparation.

     With 45 years of experience as a general, household, cook -- I am faster, and more able, than many. But, in order to get as experienced as the chefs, I would need to cook the same dish 100 times within a week. Repetition, within short time frames, is what grinds in the motor memory needed to do something with lack of conscious thought. I remember watching a show about Julia Child and she needed to practice peeling potatoes. So, she got a huge mound (hundreds) of potatoes and just started peeling. (I would not have liked to pay for her grocery bill that month.)

     This type of experience is also necessary for skills with tools -- in particular, knives. In this area my willingness to attempt increasing speed is greatly tempered by my fear. I know about holding fingers in a certain way, keeping the knife sharp, making sure the food and cutting board are properly secured, and all that -- but I am still afraid of allowing muscle memory to take over. As is true of most cooks (and even chefs), I have a few scars from past burns and cuts (no missing digits, thank goodness). In this respect, I am willing to be slow. I know how to speed up and I know it is somewhat irrational but I am willing to be slow in this area.

     A final area of practice is with some techniques. I would LOVE to be able to take a skillet of hash browns and flip, and fold, them with a toss of the skillet and movement of the wrist. And it's not that awfully dangerous. But, I will wager quite fully, those people on the cooking shows who casually flip their food have also cleaned up a lot of messes in the process. Since I am the one to clean up my messes, I prefer not to make them -- so that is still on my cooking "bucket list".

     Some of you who are reading this from a more formal business viewpoint may (even are likely to) be wondering "what has this got to do with business"? Quite a lot. We are talking about the basic aspects of preparation, practice, experience, tools, procedure, and logistics.

     There is often an excellent correspondence between household needs and business needs. Probably that isn't an accident as the processes (and "product management") needed in household tasks existed prior to taking them into the business environment.

     So, in respect to business, "let's get cooking".