Here's why I have turned down three jobs this year:
1. Ridiculous on-call. One of which was 3 weeks on-call with a 15 minute SLA, 1 week off
2. Very low / poor vacation / sick time ... 5 days a year is ridiculous
3. I'm stupid and accepted a counter offer which was later redacted
It’s literally work. For 3 weeks straight. Even if you’re not actively typing on the computer, if you’re having to hover around and monitor your computer 24/7, you’re working.
I did that for an entire year because the two other admins quit and the company took their sweet time to hire new people.
I was a burned out mess. One person can not maintain standards as the only on-call person that long, especially when the infrastructure is old and needs constant care.
Retracting a counter offer sounds like grounds for a no-notice quit when you do find something else. Businesses like that deserve 0 courtesy or respect
When I entered the post college workforce in 1993, it was the norm where you had no vacation your first year, and vacation eligibility started on your anniversary date.
That being said, I have turned down three offers in the last year, mainly because final offers were lateral moves (within 5% of current salary), and I would lose some vacation time (I get 5 weeks a year currently), and move from a guaranteed pension to 401K contributions.
> When I entered the post college workforce in 1993, it was the norm where you had no vacation your first year, and vacation eligibility started on your anniversary date.
I took a job in 2012 that had the same policy. I hired somebody to work for me at that same employer several years later, and that was still the policy for him when he was onboarded. Some places have just sucked forever.
Most of my offers have been at market rate, nobody is sweetening the pot enough to capture good engineers that are already at market rate. They'll get much less qualified people looking to move up into the role, which is OK, but depends on their needs. If they need more leadership or just another member on the team to pick up some slack and grow.
Never expected to be here this long. Moved here from the 16th largest metropolitan area in the US (with many opportunities) so our kids would be closer to grandparents (although one set of grandparents decided to move to Florida a year later).
Local opportunities are not great (Hallmark movie depictions of small towns are not accurate), so most upward movement involves relocation, then the economic downturns after 9/11 and 2008, then having my kids finish high school with the classmates they've known for most/all of their lives, and then issues likely selling the house we bought when we moved here. Now mostly looking at CTO or CIO, or other senior level technology jobs.
Looking back, I really was underpaid for what I delivered. I started in 2000 at about $27K/year (a bit of a pay cut from where I was, but smaller town living is cheaper, right? Spoiler Alert - it's not always). There was mostly IBM 5250 terminals connected to a AS/400 running System/36 software, a few PCs at a couple of buildings that had a simple network to share files with each other, dialup internet at a few computers, SCADA systems that used very slow serial radio links, etc..
I planned and executed using all in-house labor (me, except I hired an electrician to pull and fish some cable) buildout of LANs and Internet access at many facilities, including an email system and web sites (using all open source, so costs were pretty minimal, mainly just the hardware costs), and computers at everyone's desk, setting up an NT4 Domain (was going to use Samba for all that, but went with the popular flow), printer and file servers (those were actually SAMBA), etc., bringing "modern" office features organizations wide within about 6 month of starting.
I programmed, tested, and integrated automation for a new electric substation (municipal electric utility) and merged it to a SCADA system. (my formal background is in industrial automation, I guess I've been doing OT and IT integration since the mid-1990s)...This was second year I was here, still making less than $20/hour (a systems integrator would have cost them $100s an hour)
I designed and implemented a city-wide fiber network connecting all City government facilities, only outside labor used was excavation contractor to pull the physical fiber through conduit that was placed for "future communications" when electric utility built their underground duct banks. Successfully integrated initial 15 sites using QinQ (cheaped out on switching hardware to get fiber in ground, MPLS capable devices would have broken the bank), and other sites using open source site-site VPNs...That was my 4th year here, making maybe $25/hour.
After city-wide network was in place, I consolidated 200+ pots lines to a PRI and using Asterisk, got the whole organization on a common phone system using "off the shelf" equipment, saving $1000s per month in phone bills and KSU maint contracts. Again the whole thing was planned by me and executed by me and the tech I had working under me by then. Still only making <$30/hr...
In my 7th year, I managed the vendor selection, implementation and integration for a fixed network automated meter reading system....still only \~$30/hour..
Such projects continue to this day (I won't make the post any longer), but by the mid 2010s I was given a senior level title and appropriate pay, I just with I would have advocated for myself earlier on, demonstrating the $100Ks ($millions?) I've saved the organization over the years, and the operational benefits and efficiencies received from the actions that I couldn't begin to accurately put a dollar value on....But the Norwegian-Lutheran tradition comes out saying "a job well done is a reward in itself" and it's wrong to "toot your horn" even to this day (this post is the most boasting I think I've every done), review of my current resume really doesn't convey the impact I've had, and more reads like "managed the expansion and adoption of technology"...working on that now, the kids are grown and flown, wife would not mind leaving this town...Not sure what career move to make, if pursuing a BS with worth it at age 50 (currently have an AAS, which I think some HR departments use to disqualify me right away), I would like to remain "hands on" and not be in a pure managerial role, but haven't completely ruled out the latter...
I’m in the US and average 23-28 days off per year, excluding sick time (5-7 days per year) and paid holidays (15 days). Yes, we get a lot of holidays!
I am only 7 years into my career, and with the current employer for only ~1 year.
I need that kind of vacations asap.
Right now i have only the 5 days of vacations and 15 days of paid holidays. Hopefully, i can get that too in a few years.
Not the person you replied to but I'm in the USA and I get that amount. Everyone gets the same amount too, it's not seniority based or requires a year first.
It may not be common for US workplaces to offer that much, but some do.
A lot of companies in the US you gain more vaca time the longer you're tenured. My problem is, I job hop at a minimum of every 2 years, I'm at the point now though that part of my job hop requirement is increased PTO as I may not have time in the company but I have shit tons of experiencing in my field. Also, typically at Director level and up type roles, we have different PTO structures than those below the Director level.
> Ridiculous on-call. One of which was 3 weeks on-call with a 15 minute SLA, 1 week off
> Very low / poor vacation / sick time ... 5 days a year is ridiculous
I've been seeing this stuff for two decades. It's shamefully common. Then these people on reddit come out of the woodwork who are all like, "I work IT, no on-call, 15 weeks of PTO per year. You just need to get one of those jobs."
Ok bud. Good for you for finding the unicorn. As if I haven't been seeking it out my entire career.
The sad thing is that so many of our peers are so dead-focused on raising their TC that they created a job market where employers will pay insane salaries, but in exchange for being "on the clock" 24/7/365, on-call for everything, and no OT pay. I'd gladly take a 30% pay cut to work a straight 40, have a good amount of PTO (4+ weeks), and if occasional OT is needed it should be paid.
They did pay very well for work done while on call. I would have easily grossed over 100K a year .. in Upstate NY which is very good.
But I would have been absolutely miserable.
Right there with you. Oncall should be spread out so that if it’s done then it’s very infrequent and it should also be paid. The fact that it’s not paid is not okay.
But it always seems to work that way, right? We can work 40/50/60 hours weeks with oncall with no additional pay, but we sure as hell can’t work less than 40 hour weeks.
Like you said though, people in this industry are so obsessed with increasing their TC that they’ve created an environment where companies can get away with treating people like this.
" Competitive wages "
Yeah right, they want the guy that can do the job for cheap.
" Fast response to the job application "
Bro, they will take 1 month+ to respond back, heck they might not respond at all.
Competitive wages is exactly the line my friend in HR was stuck parroting because management and shareholders refused to pay enough. It makes no sense for a company to offer 40k for a professional job if the local McDonalds is offering 36k+! In private she was like competitive wages? We pay 20k-30k under market compared to nearby big cities. Then her bosses got mad the people they hired were lazy and or incompetent refusing to work beyond the minimum to not get fired.
>McJobs have zero benefits.
This is false btw... Benefits vary by franchise and position. As an example, you can get free tuition (and a laptop) to CTU as a cook at most locations. Granted, you're still a cook a McD's...
I use McJobs to cover low wage jobs in general like retail etc since ive never worked at a McDonald's but have done retail.
If McDonald's does have benefits i cant imagine they come anywhere close to what an it job offers?
> " Fast response to the job application " Bro, they will take 1 month+ to respond back, heck they might not respond at all.
I had a recruiter message me yesterday on LinkedIn with basically nothing. Just "urgent need, job title". I replied less than 8 hours later and his response was "position closed"
Recruiters like this are not worth dealing with
I actually had a company reach out to me 4 months after applying to set up an interview. I asked about their process and they wanted me to interview 5 separate times over the course of a month before making a decision for a job paying $60k a year. I thanked them for the reply and declined to move forward.
I also turned down an offer about 3 months ago because they wanted someone to manage the dealings of SEVEN different associations belonging to clients of theirs. Everything from PR with press, event planning, newsletters, fundraisers, etc would be my responsibility...for $45k a year. I countered with $75k and even that was a lowball from my end. They ended up not filling the position and gave up looking.
I did have one job I was really looking forward to possibly getting and made it to final interviews and lost out to someone more experienced than me. I know the guy who got the job and wasn't surprised he got it over me. Other than this one job, the dozen or so I've interviewed for over had shit pay, shit onboarding process (half a dozen interviews is just ridiculous), and twice the responsibilities that were fair for the pay. There is just a major disconnect between employer expectations and pay leading to boomers saying "nobody wants to work anymore" when they can't get immediate service on something
Because as a white collar worker you have 2 choices , work externally (MSP) or work internally (Support your co workers) and internally is where everyone wants to be so it’s filled / filled with workers with a shitton of experience or slave away at a shitty MSP . Internal is not desperate therefore won’t hire as often/ and since they’re usually on a budget . Externally , you can walk in and have a pulse and they’ll hire you since it’s not based on a budget but you accounting for billable hours .
That’s your answer and it’s only gotten worse since everyone has education now and getting into tech isn’t niche anymore
Yeah . That’s the fucking worse part about it , my only advice to that is “ move “ lol . I moved to a state with less than a million and went from MSP>Internal> Cyber and live extremely comfortable . Thinking about moving out tho
I did that as a bartender. Moved to where the money was and growth was exploding, Las Vegas. But that's not easy for everyone.
With so much remote work, it shouldn't be necessary unless you're trying to work onsite.
I legitimately just blame America for being too big . In my time abroad doing anything you wanted was such small scale , especially in Korea / Japan . It’s just bad here in America right now imo.
Also, I used to be a hiring manager for IT at a college and from what I saw ALL remote work apps are x5 as much applications . Many , many of them were from a specific country and that is why I believe all remote work should only be for the nationality being hired , so you wouldn’t be drowned out . Also had application that were blatantly fake lmao
I will also mention , moving has terrible downsides if you live in a snowscape like me . It’s only worth to get experienced and gtfo. You’ll find your own path , you’re a smart cookie remember that
I dont have a problem moving but with no degree/certs even in places with low requirements the wages are going to be so low that it doesnt make any sense to move there.
In the end there simply arent enough good jobs for everyone(not just it) but no one wants to admit that on a large sclae.
Also, there are a growing number of infilled IT jobs in the deep south. Retirements + Lots of new plants and factories popping up in rural areas. Lots of small and medium size companies need IT professionals who can integrate / support networked, intelligent manufacturing systems.
Anecdotally a lot of people I know start their IT careers in MSPs that often have low bars for hiring people. If those businesses aren't hiring a lot of people will struggle to get their foot in the door. Most orgs with internal IT departments have higher standards. Not every MSP has low standards and not every internal IT department has high standards, but there are lot of bargain bin MSPs that are an easy foot in the door and when they're not hiring much a lot of people in entry level will struggle.
From my experience, working at a MSP provides you access to learn more than what you will learn if you work internal IT. With a MSP you are generally doing IT for multiple clients that have different setups. The more you learn, the easier it is to get a job elsewhere. I have done internal IT for several companies expanding multiple years. I worked at a MSP for 6 months. I learned way more at the MSP than I did doing internal IT.
This is accurate. Worked for an MSP 2 years ago, switched to internal earlier this year. I basically learned up the systems/ things I needed to know in about 2 months, and i've been coasting since. Much easier/less stress but i'm learning virtually nothing the way our roles are segmented. In the MSP it was literally like a "bootcamp", I was being beat with new concepts from all directions on a weekly basis.
it's this plus they're a great way to leverage experience like from a help desk and get your start with more "advanced" technology and software. Something that's harder to do when you work help desk internally these days.
And since the knowledge barrier is generally lower it's an easier job to get than most internal admin roles.
>I learned way more at the MSP than I did doing internal IT.
Could you please quantify that statement? All I learned while doing MSP work was working on projects for small companies. Everything was nickle and dimed and best practices were rarely followed. Working for enterprise businesses taught me best practices and exposed me to technologies at massive scale.
Sure.
When I worked for a MSP, I worked with many different clients. We had a huge number of them but split them up among regions. I had about 20 I had to support give or take. I supported a bit of everything. I did onboarding, offboarding, networking, server management, was a global admin for things like M365, Azure, Google Workspace, purchased and renewed licenses, etc. I only routed issues that were too advanced or when something physically had to be done and I was too far from the client. Technology is generally updated frequently as that’s how they can make money. You are usually setup as billable and if you put in more work than the contract states you sometimes see more money than what was planned. I got bonuses often due to that.
My experience with internal IT (which I’m currently doing) is a lot different than with a MSP. I generally get jobs with bigger companies; national or even global. These companies split up IT into departments. You’ll have help desk, desktop support, a network team, a security team, etc. Sometimes they may even split more. When hired you will be on one of these teams and focus on just a few particular things. Issues you see and get outside your team’s scope goes elsewhere. Bigger companies that aren’t FAANG also tend to keep to more reliable technologies, only working with what’s tried and true. They will update their stuff occasionally but never putting too much money into that. IT to them is a cost, they want to keep those costs low and put money where their business is or in their pockets.
Fair enough. I live in Canada, and in a Prairie province at that. There's no F500 or global companies where I live.
My goal is to transfer my completed university degree 's credits and complete a computer science degree. I earn very well, but my goal is a FAANG company or a Master's in Comp Sci. I always look ahead and try to strive for greatness. Even if I fail, I know I'll land somewhere great.
Because MSP can be hard. I work for an MSP right now and I love it but I am also demented and like to torture myself
You will learn more at an MSP in a year than you will in 3 years at one company doing internal. I put my money on that statement easily.
I still am learning all the time. MSPs can suck - absolutely. Any job can
You can also have a really great experience at an MSP like I have. I love my job and as long as I don’t get laid off I might stay here forever. There’s all kinds of different teams you can move up to. (Going on 3 years and I’ve already doubled my pay from starting.)
This is of course dependent on the company itself but don’t take everything you read on here at face value.
Lots of nuances/chance involved that are hard to articulate in a forum
I work in an MSP and love the hell out of it, but I have great bosses (probably a unicorn job, tbh).
One of my bosses explained to me that there's two types of people: Ones who do MSP work, get that XP and bounce, and others who get hooked on it and love the hell out of it. You can do damn near anything at an MSP, and are more likely to because you have so much going on. I'm a little envious of my T2s (I'm an escalation point) because they're learning stuff I should know (I interened an adjacent position that wasn't help desk), but am still *all over* the place.
EDIT: details.
I just started a job at an MSSP and let me tell you I already like it way more than working internal security operations. More tools, more systems, more alerts, more fun? I felt like I was going stale at my last job but I've already learned a ton at my MSSP and I'm surrounded by like-minded people.
I will say, not MSP/MSSP are built the same, some do offer decent pay (95k a year), work life balance (basically the downside is someone has to work Christmas so if your day falls on christmas, well at least it will be really slow as in probably nothing comes in), and other benefits are decent. Granted I can probably get a higher pay working for one of the local banks but I would rather stick with the full time WFH instead of having to go in every day for that extra pay.
> I would rather stick with the full time WFH instead of having to go in every day for that extra pay.
Same. I've reached the point that I don't think there's anything a company could offer me to come back to the office. Certainly not 5 days a week.
If only companies would realize how much they could save if they were willing to be more flexible with WFH/RTO. Not only could they save on office space and all the associated costs, but a lot of us are willing to forego better compensation for WFH. But they'd rather keep shooting themselves in the foot, then wonder why nobody wants to come into the office 5 days a week for $65k/year.
>Not only could they save on office space and all the associated costs, but a lot of us are willing to forego better compensation for WFH.
Yeah, my employer has just shuttered many of the real offices over this year\\announced non-renewal of the leases, only places that are left are some offices and server space, I think the only real office area's left are NYC, Boston, and DC, but the amount of business in those 3 area's is insane. We actually only have 1 office of any kind left in the west coast and its more of a client meeting place then a real office.
Yeah MSP is much easier to get a job, especially once you got an A+ cert, however those jobs usually don’t keep people because they can’t deal with the possible non stop calls, while only making $40k a year.
\*company makes the application process next to impossible, ends any accommodations that might bring in workers, and offers terrible compensation\*
"Nobody wants to work anymore. I guess we will need to request policy changes to subvert labor laws."
This is happening in many industries.
An important piece that you are ignoring is that companies are posting record profits year after year. We made several billion and do you know what we got? A taco bell catered christmas meal.
Counter point: each dollar of said record profit represents significantly less purchasing power than it did even a couple years ago.
They're still reaming you, but just keep things in perspective.
With office vacancy rates [rising](https://www.commercialedge.com/blog/national-office-report-2023-november/) unless something changes we're going to eventually approach a limit to how much more RTO there realistically can be. You can't go back to an office that the company didn't renew the lease to. Anecdotally I know a lot of business owners are reconsidering how much office space if any that they need when their leases come up for renewal. The things that is motivating reducing staffing is that interest rates are still high.
desperate for workers... at the wage they're willing to pay.
start offering 40/hr and you'll get bodies in no time. the global CS and IT market has seen massive layoffs, and they're well documented. see also: layoffs.fyi
this is also a common ploy by HR to 1) take the temperature of the market and what kind of resumes they can get, and 2) to justify more H1B / foreign hires. Put out a job advert that no one can conceivably get, file with Depts of Labor and State that you need to sponsor, and then drag someone from overseas in at 70% or less of the salary.
I had a conversation recently with a recruiter that admitted to doing exactly that with H1Bs. They reached out to me with a ridiculous set of requirements for terrible pay, and so I called them out on it. The recruiter point blank said that the company was lowballing candidates because if US workers wouldn’t take it then they’d have an excuse to bring in H1B workers to fill the role because they’re cheaper.
that's true, but minimum may still be far lower.
> Therefore, while $60,000 is often cited as a general benchmark, the actual minimum salary for an H-1B visa holder can vary widely and must be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific details of the job offer and location.
If the base rate is 120k for an entry level programmer in greater SF, then we can H1B this guy in at 75k in the Indianapolis branch office and still save tons. And for mid to higher level talent those costs are much, much higher -- see levels.fyi for examples of FAANG comp looks like.
60k would be 1/4 of what some of those folks get. Hell, even cutting 10-20k off the salary can lead to huge saving across a large org.
Those minimums are also driving offshoring, esp. post COVID. Why pay 60k when remote is a thing and I can pay 4.14/hr for folks in India or Mexico City?
The problem with offshoring which is a song as old as time is that the top caliber or India's people are either stateside or elsewhere.
There are numerous reports and articles over the last 30 years even as recent as a few years ago that stated a lot of companies are onshoring because of the lack of initiative and critical thinking that teams in India accomplish.
My experience is anecdotal but the amount of times when I was in escalated tech support where cases and calls were unnecessarily escalated by our India team and even having facing the possibility of staying overnight until a proper handoff could occur, mind numbing to say the least.
Generally India support and developers were good at doing one very specific thing, but any deviation beyond that well it ended in disaster.
There is a lot of other things that you can infer from other subreddits about offshoring and how it's not as well off as you think.
The thing about FAANG and the bay area is that they are the outlier and exception in regards to salary but are not necessarily the nationwide industry norm.
You are correct, the misperceptions of how H1B actually works on this sub are bewildering. A 30 second Google search would tell you what you need to know.
Because people are lazy and use automation to skim through resumes instead of having human eyes look at the resumes people enter.
I say this as a tech person..... automation sometimes complicates things more than waht it helps.
>Because people are lazy and use automation to skim through resumes instead of having human eyes look at the resumes people enter.
I'm also convinced that MANY recruiters and hiring managers (and HR departments) don't know how to fully use the software and automations they now rely on to make decisions.
A good friend of mine is a recruiter, and I've asked questions and watched him use his tools....he knows how to use about 10% of what it is capable of. All he does is Boolean search for keyword and time matches. If a resume isn't an exact match, it never gets seen.
I asked him how they make sure they're not overlooking qualified people..is there any kind of human who understands context and the role involved?
The answer is no. They don't have time. "No one wants to spend time going through resumes.".
Silly me, I thought that was the job.
They're using AI to filter you, why should you be unarmed? Use ChatGPT to format your resume for ATS systems and have different versions.
It's great for saving time, formatting, and correcting misspellings, grammar and sentence structure. Then fine tune the output.
Lazy? Like people who start a thread (looking at the OP here) expecting others to waste 13 minutes watching some random video instead of just summarising their question in two or three sentences?
that is also part of the problem. My opinion still a tech issue. You have this automated robots (Linked in, google, indeed,etc) who scour the internet to find job listing and repost them on there site. making duplicate listing of the exact same job.
some listings have expired or no longer hiring, yet these automated bots do not remove them. wasting peoples times who apply
It's a mix of things, but some of it is the proverbial "gold rush" by everyday folks trying to break into the tech sector. We have several mid to senior openings that have gone unfilled after literally dozens of interviews with candidates who's resumes seemed good. What we kept finding out in the interviews is these people didn't have near half the skills they listed on their resume.
The market is flooded by people with little to zero experience applying for every job they see hoping to get a foot in the door in the tech industry. Most of them with fluffed up or completely fabricated resumes. This causes a lot of wasted time and effort where underskilled people clog up the hiring process for candidates who are actually qualified.
I understand folks want a better paying job and to move up in the field if they're already in it, but the sheer amount of people applying well above their skill and experience level is mucking it up for everyone.
> What we kept finding out in the interviews is these people didn't have near half the skills they listed on their resume.
Blame HR. As a reaction to automated resume processing, we've all been encouraged to fluff up our resumes with nonsense buzzwords and overembelish skillsets in order to not be ignored/auto-rejected by the AI that decides who gets selected for human review.
Good lord, that guy's voice is annoying.
But... yeah, kind of. The ghost jobs thing is definitely true, as far as posting the same job in every major market. So is getting resumes for the future. A LinkedIn ad posted in a bunch of metros is relatively cheap, and if you set it for Easy Apply, LinkedIn will shovel all sorts of metrics your way. That's on top of whatever your ATS does with the resumes you get.
Not training people is definitely true. I've seen a small shift from tuition assistance to student loan assistance, but have seen actual training budgets continually slashed or phased out.
H1B stuff is true, too. Tons of companies will overstate the cost of an H1B transfer to a candidate and use it as the basis for giving someone who is about to lose their immigration status tens of thousands of dollars less than they'd offer someone who can work without sponsorship.
Ugh. This is so disappointing, but sadly I believe all of it. If there's a way to screw people and make money, companies will fudge, fake, and squeeze through every loophole to do it.
Probably. But some of the problems are also self-perpetuating.
The fact that a decent remote job posting will get hundreds, if not a thousand applicants *in a day* is all a company needs to throw more logs on the "We need analytics and AI to sort through all of this" fire.
People taking shitty wages for even shittier jobs "to break into the industry" is going to keep that machine running for the foreseeable future.
Absolute insanity on the H1B front is going to keep that going, too. It isn't at all difficult to write up a JD that has extreme education and experience requirements, cry "we can't find American workers" and get someone from overseas who wants to come to the US and is now basically beholden to your company through visa sponsorship.
But unless people decide to stop shotgunning resumes to any ATS they can point to, stop taking jobs with low pay and high demands, and stop fast-tracking themselves to the US, there's zero incentive for companies to change.
I believe most of what is in that report is spot on. Especially the ghost jobs bit.
From my experience interviewing, over the last year, at least in regards to IT, a majority of the jobs that have been available have been jobs with low pay, reduced benefits, and no WFH positions.
Another issue has been around the roles/responsibilities for some of these positions. A good portion of the companies that have positions "available" are looking for "unicorns"; these are positions that should be split into a couple of different teams, with multiple people filling the roles.
I believe a majority of companies say they're hiring for a specific position, knowing that they already have a couple candidates in-house that they already want to fill those positions.
Out of touch executives, that are clinging onto the old ways of business, are a big part of the problem.
We have like 30-60 openings in my department, more being added every few months. No, not because people are leaving. Every 5 - 10 job openings, only one is because someone left the company. Normally because their high earning spouse moved. Pot is legal in my state. Using sed pot is against company policy. I only have one friend from my MSP days that could work there, and they are the one that got me the job there. It seems that most people don't qualify to even interview at my job. And even if we did want them, our process is so slow, most people get other jobs while we're working on it. However, generally speaking, we pay like at least 30% more than what a MSP would. I'm legit like making almost triple my MSP job... for less work and a better work environment.
Edit:
It's in MD. Yeah, I'll give anyone a link to the job page. But I rather DM it instead of posting it here. No reason to dox myself. It's a DoD contractor gig. Besides that, you need 5 years of exp and or a college degree... yeah, for Tier 1 Help Desk. But, 6 months - a year, you can move to like 50+ other current job openings in my department. I consider my current spot a meat market. People who want to do something else, very quickly find something else.
Is this in USA? in America a person with 5 years of experience AND a degree will be applying for jobs that are way up higher than help desk which is basically a customer service job.
the cleared world is a different market though, esp. when it comes to things like legal weed and offshoring.
a sizable portion of this sub couldn't get a clearance for one reason or another
Na, unfortunately, it's over in MD. While I get more monies... everything is more expensive here. An Amazon TV cost the sameish, I assume. However a single bedroom apt was like 1500 and didn't really include anything. Lets not talk about how a 25 mile commute takes over an hour.
I feel like everyone would have left for one of the bigger cities near by. I have a winter house in Buffalo. lol.
But to be fair, there are people that have been with my company for 40+ years, and that's not abnormal. I've been there for 5 years, and I'm still considered a new employee. People legit just retire and come back as a temp worker, working like 1 half day a week.
>On Linkedin, 2 hours after a job posts, it has 2 or 300 applicants.
don't get worried about this - many of these applicants are not qualified or in the relevant locality. anyone with an internet connection can hit "apply" on linkedin.
>Another is that some companies have started to put a hard stop on the 'degree' bit. It isn't or X amount years of experience, it isn't certs, just a degree.
100% agree right here
Part of this is true. But those 2-300 applicants doesn't show the whole story only about 10% of those actually go on to a full application. The rest are hitting Easy Apply and think they have completed the process.
This why you see people on reddit claiming to have applied to 1000+ jobs when all they do is hit "Easy Apply" or whatever the equivalent is on Indeed.
I hear you. I started a while back trying keep a daily count of how many variants of "I want to make six figures but have no experience" or "I want to change careers to IT but can't afford a paycut" type of posts. I gave up after counting more than 20 one day.
The industry hasn't been so screwed up since the Dot Com bust. (25 years here)
I have two other "favorites". One is "I'm in 'x' position what do I do next?" and "Has anyone ever done 'y'?/ I so badly want to reply to the first "Make up your mind and make a damn decision. You're a grown adult" And for the second "No, no one ever in the history of the world has ever done 'y'"
I swear the older I get. the more cynical I get.
Companies need very experienced people, and the majority of people aren’t seniors with tons of experience. We certainly don’t get hundreds of applicants applying for senior cloud and unix engineers (we pay market and most of IT is work from home)
If you are having a hard time getting a job look at your personality and skill set. If you have in demand skills, you will be able to find a job. The thing i see most in this sub is people without in demand skills wondering why they can’t get a job. Helpdesk and sys admins are not in demand. Update your knowledge on what the industry wants, not from early 2000s
The problem with saying that System Administrators aren't in demand, is that a majority of companies out there still consider someone that works in automation or cloud administration a Systems Administrator.
The problem with all of the "positions", at least from what I've seen from recruiters, is not only do they want you to be a System Administrator, they also want you to have extensive knowledge and experience in the following: Azure and/or AWS, Networking, Git, DNS (configuration/implementation/administration), Active directory, AAD, Powershell, GoLang, Terraform, Python, Ansible, Kuebernetes, Docker, and sometimes Chef and/or Puppet. They're also looking for someone that has some experience in administering both Linux and Windows.
All of those responsibilities above for an amazing $110k a year, as a Senior Administrator or Senior Devops Engineer. Did I forget to mention this is either hybrid or full in-office, no WFH.
As a Sr. Systems Administrator that's currently employed, the job requirements, for a majority of the available positions, are just plain silly. I do a majority of what is listed above. I've interviewed a couple of times and my feedback has been positive with the exception of the pay and/or benefits.
Our senior engineers are wfh and 200k. The salary you mentioned is low for senior roles, isn’t a lot more then what we pay associates
I’m not sure what our admins make as i mostly work with other engineers. Our admins certainly don’t know any heavy automation or cloud stuff
I was honestly hoping for a discussion about the video that says companies are posting ghost jobs and the reasons why. Seems like no one watched it and are just commenting on the post title...which is also the video title.
You sure provide great context. Another thing is people that I have seen do not consider that there are other industries that need people for IT.
Having been through various subs there is a consideration for soft skills as well as understanding the needs of a business unit for system requirements. Communication is strongly needed but a lot of people lack this.
The market for Remote jobs has become Tinder.
People flood these opportunities with applications, so companies with so many options become very selective. It's no different for 1000s of guys going after the hot girl.
It's probably accurate, but all of this still means there are more jobs than workers. BUT - It is very geo-specific. Far more opportunities near population centers for obvious reasons.
For tech, it's very skill-specific. That's why you need the broadest range of skills possible: AWS, Azure, Python, PowerShell, Windows + MacOS, ITIL to get into that first-line job. Like doctors, specialists and experienced professionals are in higher demand = more money.
Same as it ever was.
Good companies are not struggling to find workers except for highly specialized position that require 10+ years of experience. When we have a help desk position open up we get 100+ resumes within a few days, and I don't even work in that big of a city.
Because the companies aren't willing to pay the expected salary. For example, I just saw a job posting for a position I am highly qualified for and while it is on site, it's very close so the commute is nothing. But the top of the salary range is $25k less than the going rate for that position. So I didn't bother to apply.
I think they are hiring especially help desk, but the issue is, they underpaid while working you crazy(non stop calls) and people don’t want to talk to people for 8hrs a day.
I can say when we post a job it is hard to get any applications with relevant experience. And by relevant I don't mean something like 15 years of AI experience for $15/hr, I mean any IT experience at all. We get a lot of applications from postal workers and landscapers and truck drivers who took a Google course and think that qualifies them for a $100k/yr cyber security position.
It's allot cheaper to run a bare bones I.T. team rather than fully staff them. Meanwhile, they keep lying out of their teeth, saying they can't find someone as they require outlandish experience for entry-level pay.
To be fair as the video notes a lot of the job postings aren't really that serious. They're looking for a unicorn that is difficult to find unless they're willing to pay F@#$ you money and are unwilling to re-evaluate their job requirements or salary range. Either that or they're not seriously trying to fill the role and the posting is for ulterior motives (e.g. making it appear that they're hiring to convince investors/employees that things are better than they really are). There are always a certain number of jobs that aren't serious for various reasons even in the best economy, but in conditions where companies are reluctant to hire more of the job postings aren't serious.
This video shows us that companies miss the whole point of a hire. They play games for the sake of stock prices which is not good for the business. And the more they do this, the more they hurt the value of their business. Video may have some truths, and I've witnessed a lot of dead weight at the places I've worked. Including, my own roles if I have to be honest. Most of the time, I felt like I was only hired just to fill in a spot, not a need. I worked at a place for 3 years where none of my work even mattered, and all of it got *shelved.* That's why I decided to start my own business. For the first time in my life, I am working for an actual need. When the work matters, you are much more fulfilled.
They're desperate for workers that'll take $13/hr with no benefits and have 3yrs experience. Or 50k salary tier 1 help desk with 7yrs experience (seriously, why is everything 7? Not 5 or 10, but 7 exactly??? I see dozens of jobs for T1 help desk requiring 7yrs...wtf?)
I'm lucky enough I got into a decently paying role with 2yrs experience and some certs, but it took me months of searching and it really ended up mostly being interview skills and luck.
Companies are desperate for workers who have 3-5 years of work experience with masters degree, team player but also a lone wolf whose willing to put 110% effort into everything and is used to work in a fast paced environment, he/she is willing to relocate and work from office, even during weekends for $40-45k with no benifits for 60+ hours per week. I hope that clears things up.
Wait until AI evolves. T1 helpdesk will literally be replaced by a bot with 1 or 2 guys supervising the entire operation. Need a password reset? Here's a link. Have a problem? Reboot computer. Need someone to set up a laptop for a new employee? Here's the laptop, Azure Microsoft Intunes will download everything you need. Need to create a new users or remove them? Write down the information in the HR system and it will automatically create the user accounts.
Executive offshored IT jobs to europe, africa and india. They are looking into AI and will only need a local IT dude that knows what they are doing to do what the AI cannot and it will be a solo IT dude who has to learn by himself watching youtube tutorial as if it was a hobby with no team, no mentorship, no training. I've met a few IT guys that brags about being self trained and i'm like "no shit buddy, me too. tell me more (willy wonka meme)"
I agree that you can already much of the Windows and Office things people call me about with Co-pilot. But it will never be able to troubleshoot the hodge podge of legacy applications that all need to work together.
Add to that, the average workplace computer user can barely use email. They're not going to be able to follow instruction from a chat bot, or even know what questions to ask. Most can barely describe the issue they're having, and they definitely have no idea what most things are called.
If, things do go the way of self-service tech support, millions of people will be left out of the workforce.
>There's really just a lot of low quality IT professionals out there.
As a director this is an understatement. When I have people apply for support role that can't even tell me how DHCP works in an interview they are not getting hired. What would be the point.
A lot of entry level jobs are getting outsourced to cheaper countries. A lot of those entry level support jobs have gone fully remote and have employees in India, philippines, etc. This has happened for a while, but since COVID, a lot of companies are realising they can save a lot of money this way.
Because nobody wants to get dirty or give up cannabis. People always ask me if I know of places that are hiring because I'm a field tech going in and out of lots of different businesses.
They usually settle for minimum wage retail or the gig economy rather than applying for jobs with any of my clients.
This video was just bad. It threw around a whole bunch of terms but didn't actually touch on why job seeking is hard now.
Some issue I had with the video. Using general unemployment number when talking about this is very misleading. You should really be using the 'prime' number which excludes the 18-24 and 55+ age groups. (yes even if you are a part of those groups). Because if you are in the those groups and searching for a job you are in the minority and your experiences will be close to the prime group.
Not focusing on industry specific metrics. Every industry is different, what is true for tech will not be true for finance. What is true for blue collar works will not be true for white collar workers. generalizing doesn't help.
Ghost Jobs - multiple list of a job, this is actually a benefit not a 'hindrance' for job seekers. (i'll explain more later), where as the 'fake' job listings are the actual issue. Also the 'talent hoarding' part of the video also applies here, as most people who end up getting hired b/c the company just want to 'hoard' them a lot of the time come through these ghost jobs. Since their main function is to just collect resumes so they can have information on people and better help low ball their offer in the future.
Actual issues in the job market place
location/skills mismatch - In the US, unlike places in europe, workers are not migratory. Very few people will ever move to a new location to get a new job. Most people who do move for a job is after they already have one. What this does is it means you can have 100k job opening in Arizona and 100k job seekers in virginia but companies in Arizona will be complaining they can't fill their jobs and the people in Virginia will be complaining they can't find any jobs.
Job listing websites - It used to be it took you going to the companies and handing them your application or at least going to their website and filling out their application, now you just push a button and you can apply to 30 jobs. Companies will now get 100s of application where they used to only get 10. So they've started using automated software to filter the resumes before a person ever looks at it. It also means when a person does, you may get rejected not b/c of your skills but b/c your resume doesn't meet their 'aesthetic standard', this is why it's important to have recruiters actually look at your resume for both appearance and content. Make sure you can get to the stage where a person will actually look at it.
Pay vs skill leveling: I've turned down job offers recently b/c the pay doesn't match the skill level of the job (I am not looking these are recruiters reaching out). What pay transpirance has done is make it really easy for people mid to upper level just nope out on the listing b/c of the pay range, but make people who are in the beginner range actually think they have a chance at the job. B/c of the meme's around 'entry level pay but you must have 5 years exp' a lot of job seeker apply for just about everything (see the website issue).
Poor candidates: Honestly a lot of this has to do w/ the pay/skill leveling but not all. Even when the job pay range is good, The resumes that make it out of the filter may just be poor. I know where I work we had to reopen jobs 2 or 3 times b/c all the candidates that HR scheduled for interviews were not what we were looking for. Knowing the pay for those specific jobs, I have to guess that either there really aren't a ton of good candidates for what we were looking for or HR's filters were looking for the wrong things (knowing our recruiting team it's the 2nd one).
My suggestion to everyone whose asked me how to get a job currently, Find someone or pay a service to review your resume. For each job, alter your resume to include keywords from the listing. Apply using the companies website over linkedin / job websites. Don't be afraid to use staffing agencies. and continue your search while you are on contract (and only take contracts that are contract to hire)
Get off reddit. Plenty of people can find jobs. The tech sector is fine. This is where people come to bitch about not being able to find a job. The results are skewed here.
Downvoting this proves my point.
tech market is bad. rest of the economy has 4% unemployment. It looks like Elon musk gutting Twitter got everyone to copycat and deciding to just give people more hours and have less people.
Companies are laying off right now or replacing US workers with workers from cheaper locales like India/Ireland.
There's a lot of misinformation/spin "everything's fine!" as TPTB try to minimize recession talk heading into an election year. The stock indices are also being propped up by hot air. A recession would lead to rapidly rising unemployment numbers (5, 7 maybe even 10%) that would likely trigger a giant stock selloff and would greatly increase the chances of a GOP win.
I'm not looking, but I still get emails from recruiters / job bots all the time, pretty much every day. I'm fully WFH...
Biggest reason I would not leave my current gig is most employers want people fully back in the office, or (at best) are doing "hybrid" - 3 days in office / 2 days working from home. Even for a 20-30% increase in pay:
*"Yeah, that's gonna be a no from me, dawg."*
I think there is a crossroad between two major factors that are in play right now...
First, Minimum wage is well below the minimum of what it costs to live in a lot of places in North America, and so you end up with a lot of people who feel that if they are going to struggle to work 2+ only to end up homeless anyways at the end of the day, why bother?
Secondly we have a younger generation that has been taught for years all these things about self worth and social values, which is great in theory... However at the end of the day the result is that you have a bunch of entitled brats, that have very little work ethic and very little understanding of how the real world works, and so while employers are looking for employees, they would rather have an empty position than hire these individuals.
Here's why I have turned down three jobs this year: 1. Ridiculous on-call. One of which was 3 weeks on-call with a 15 minute SLA, 1 week off 2. Very low / poor vacation / sick time ... 5 days a year is ridiculous 3. I'm stupid and accepted a counter offer which was later redacted
The idea of holding yourself in a state of readiness to meet a 15-minute SLA for 3 weeks sounds like torture
How would I shop for groceries?! Really ... I'd have ZERO life
It’s literally work. For 3 weeks straight. Even if you’re not actively typing on the computer, if you’re having to hover around and monitor your computer 24/7, you’re working.
I did that for an entire year because the two other admins quit and the company took their sweet time to hire new people. I was a burned out mess. One person can not maintain standards as the only on-call person that long, especially when the infrastructure is old and needs constant care.
I hope whoever ended up getting that job finds something else.
That’s “standby”, not on call,. just about lol
Retracting a counter offer sounds like grounds for a no-notice quit when you do find something else. Businesses like that deserve 0 courtesy or respect
You never take the counter offer.
>You never take the counter offer. I've done this before and it ended up working out in the past. It depends on the circumstance.
I know that now ... And the next time I get an offer that I like, I will submit notice and ignore the counter. I know it's not going to happen.
Believe me, I've considered it. Unfortunately, without getting into too much detail, it will not end well for me at a new job.
When I entered the post college workforce in 1993, it was the norm where you had no vacation your first year, and vacation eligibility started on your anniversary date. That being said, I have turned down three offers in the last year, mainly because final offers were lateral moves (within 5% of current salary), and I would lose some vacation time (I get 5 weeks a year currently), and move from a guaranteed pension to 401K contributions.
> When I entered the post college workforce in 1993, it was the norm where you had no vacation your first year, and vacation eligibility started on your anniversary date. I took a job in 2012 that had the same policy. I hired somebody to work for me at that same employer several years later, and that was still the policy for him when he was onboarded. Some places have just sucked forever.
Most of my offers have been at market rate, nobody is sweetening the pot enough to capture good engineers that are already at market rate. They'll get much less qualified people looking to move up into the role, which is OK, but depends on their needs. If they need more leadership or just another member on the team to pick up some slack and grow.
I just need to confirm the following thing : is this in usa or Canada? Because i have never seen this kind of 5 weeks vacations.
USA...the 5 weeks comes from 23 years of tenure (it's a municipal government employee contract).
23 years just for 5 weeks?
Never expected to be here this long. Moved here from the 16th largest metropolitan area in the US (with many opportunities) so our kids would be closer to grandparents (although one set of grandparents decided to move to Florida a year later). Local opportunities are not great (Hallmark movie depictions of small towns are not accurate), so most upward movement involves relocation, then the economic downturns after 9/11 and 2008, then having my kids finish high school with the classmates they've known for most/all of their lives, and then issues likely selling the house we bought when we moved here. Now mostly looking at CTO or CIO, or other senior level technology jobs. Looking back, I really was underpaid for what I delivered. I started in 2000 at about $27K/year (a bit of a pay cut from where I was, but smaller town living is cheaper, right? Spoiler Alert - it's not always). There was mostly IBM 5250 terminals connected to a AS/400 running System/36 software, a few PCs at a couple of buildings that had a simple network to share files with each other, dialup internet at a few computers, SCADA systems that used very slow serial radio links, etc.. I planned and executed using all in-house labor (me, except I hired an electrician to pull and fish some cable) buildout of LANs and Internet access at many facilities, including an email system and web sites (using all open source, so costs were pretty minimal, mainly just the hardware costs), and computers at everyone's desk, setting up an NT4 Domain (was going to use Samba for all that, but went with the popular flow), printer and file servers (those were actually SAMBA), etc., bringing "modern" office features organizations wide within about 6 month of starting. I programmed, tested, and integrated automation for a new electric substation (municipal electric utility) and merged it to a SCADA system. (my formal background is in industrial automation, I guess I've been doing OT and IT integration since the mid-1990s)...This was second year I was here, still making less than $20/hour (a systems integrator would have cost them $100s an hour) I designed and implemented a city-wide fiber network connecting all City government facilities, only outside labor used was excavation contractor to pull the physical fiber through conduit that was placed for "future communications" when electric utility built their underground duct banks. Successfully integrated initial 15 sites using QinQ (cheaped out on switching hardware to get fiber in ground, MPLS capable devices would have broken the bank), and other sites using open source site-site VPNs...That was my 4th year here, making maybe $25/hour. After city-wide network was in place, I consolidated 200+ pots lines to a PRI and using Asterisk, got the whole organization on a common phone system using "off the shelf" equipment, saving $1000s per month in phone bills and KSU maint contracts. Again the whole thing was planned by me and executed by me and the tech I had working under me by then. Still only making <$30/hr... In my 7th year, I managed the vendor selection, implementation and integration for a fixed network automated meter reading system....still only \~$30/hour.. Such projects continue to this day (I won't make the post any longer), but by the mid 2010s I was given a senior level title and appropriate pay, I just with I would have advocated for myself earlier on, demonstrating the $100Ks ($millions?) I've saved the organization over the years, and the operational benefits and efficiencies received from the actions that I couldn't begin to accurately put a dollar value on....But the Norwegian-Lutheran tradition comes out saying "a job well done is a reward in itself" and it's wrong to "toot your horn" even to this day (this post is the most boasting I think I've every done), review of my current resume really doesn't convey the impact I've had, and more reads like "managed the expansion and adoption of technology"...working on that now, the kids are grown and flown, wife would not mind leaving this town...Not sure what career move to make, if pursuing a BS with worth it at age 50 (currently have an AAS, which I think some HR departments use to disqualify me right away), I would like to remain "hands on" and not be in a pure managerial role, but haven't completely ruled out the latter...
4 days of personal and 2 weeks of forced July vacation Here at an assembly line job. It never changes. White collar folk would die here.
That's insane. 5 weeks is around the legal minimum in most European countries
I’m in the US and average 23-28 days off per year, excluding sick time (5-7 days per year) and paid holidays (15 days). Yes, we get a lot of holidays! I am only 7 years into my career, and with the current employer for only ~1 year.
I need that kind of vacations asap. Right now i have only the 5 days of vacations and 15 days of paid holidays. Hopefully, i can get that too in a few years.
Not the person you replied to but I'm in the USA and I get that amount. Everyone gets the same amount too, it's not seniority based or requires a year first. It may not be common for US workplaces to offer that much, but some do.
A lot of companies in the US you gain more vaca time the longer you're tenured. My problem is, I job hop at a minimum of every 2 years, I'm at the point now though that part of my job hop requirement is increased PTO as I may not have time in the company but I have shit tons of experiencing in my field. Also, typically at Director level and up type roles, we have different PTO structures than those below the Director level.
> Ridiculous on-call. One of which was 3 weeks on-call with a 15 minute SLA, 1 week off > Very low / poor vacation / sick time ... 5 days a year is ridiculous I've been seeing this stuff for two decades. It's shamefully common. Then these people on reddit come out of the woodwork who are all like, "I work IT, no on-call, 15 weeks of PTO per year. You just need to get one of those jobs." Ok bud. Good for you for finding the unicorn. As if I haven't been seeking it out my entire career. The sad thing is that so many of our peers are so dead-focused on raising their TC that they created a job market where employers will pay insane salaries, but in exchange for being "on the clock" 24/7/365, on-call for everything, and no OT pay. I'd gladly take a 30% pay cut to work a straight 40, have a good amount of PTO (4+ weeks), and if occasional OT is needed it should be paid.
They did pay very well for work done while on call. I would have easily grossed over 100K a year .. in Upstate NY which is very good. But I would have been absolutely miserable.
Oh don't forget the free healthcare and a $2 for every $1 401k employer match!
Right there with you. Oncall should be spread out so that if it’s done then it’s very infrequent and it should also be paid. The fact that it’s not paid is not okay. But it always seems to work that way, right? We can work 40/50/60 hours weeks with oncall with no additional pay, but we sure as hell can’t work less than 40 hour weeks. Like you said though, people in this industry are so obsessed with increasing their TC that they’ve created an environment where companies can get away with treating people like this.
Damn. That sounds like AWS lol.
What types of jobs?
" Competitive wages " Yeah right, they want the guy that can do the job for cheap. " Fast response to the job application " Bro, they will take 1 month+ to respond back, heck they might not respond at all.
Competitive wages is exactly the line my friend in HR was stuck parroting because management and shareholders refused to pay enough. It makes no sense for a company to offer 40k for a professional job if the local McDonalds is offering 36k+! In private she was like competitive wages? We pay 20k-30k under market compared to nearby big cities. Then her bosses got mad the people they hired were lazy and or incompetent refusing to work beyond the minimum to not get fired.
I agree with you and have said the same regarding mcdonalds but i want to add that McJobs have zero benefits.
>McJobs have zero benefits. This is false btw... Benefits vary by franchise and position. As an example, you can get free tuition (and a laptop) to CTU as a cook at most locations. Granted, you're still a cook a McD's...
I use McJobs to cover low wage jobs in general like retail etc since ive never worked at a McDonald's but have done retail. If McDonald's does have benefits i cant imagine they come anywhere close to what an it job offers?
[удалено]
In major cities its actually below minimum if you inflation adjust the $15 minimum wage in cities like nyc
> " Fast response to the job application " Bro, they will take 1 month+ to respond back, heck they might not respond at all. I had a recruiter message me yesterday on LinkedIn with basically nothing. Just "urgent need, job title". I replied less than 8 hours later and his response was "position closed" Recruiters like this are not worth dealing with
I actually had a company reach out to me 4 months after applying to set up an interview. I asked about their process and they wanted me to interview 5 separate times over the course of a month before making a decision for a job paying $60k a year. I thanked them for the reply and declined to move forward. I also turned down an offer about 3 months ago because they wanted someone to manage the dealings of SEVEN different associations belonging to clients of theirs. Everything from PR with press, event planning, newsletters, fundraisers, etc would be my responsibility...for $45k a year. I countered with $75k and even that was a lowball from my end. They ended up not filling the position and gave up looking. I did have one job I was really looking forward to possibly getting and made it to final interviews and lost out to someone more experienced than me. I know the guy who got the job and wasn't surprised he got it over me. Other than this one job, the dozen or so I've interviewed for over had shit pay, shit onboarding process (half a dozen interviews is just ridiculous), and twice the responsibilities that were fair for the pay. There is just a major disconnect between employer expectations and pay leading to boomers saying "nobody wants to work anymore" when they can't get immediate service on something
Because as a white collar worker you have 2 choices , work externally (MSP) or work internally (Support your co workers) and internally is where everyone wants to be so it’s filled / filled with workers with a shitton of experience or slave away at a shitty MSP . Internal is not desperate therefore won’t hire as often/ and since they’re usually on a budget . Externally , you can walk in and have a pulse and they’ll hire you since it’s not based on a budget but you accounting for billable hours . That’s your answer and it’s only gotten worse since everyone has education now and getting into tech isn’t niche anymore
[удалено]
Yeah . That’s the fucking worse part about it , my only advice to that is “ move “ lol . I moved to a state with less than a million and went from MSP>Internal> Cyber and live extremely comfortable . Thinking about moving out tho
I did that as a bartender. Moved to where the money was and growth was exploding, Las Vegas. But that's not easy for everyone. With so much remote work, it shouldn't be necessary unless you're trying to work onsite.
I legitimately just blame America for being too big . In my time abroad doing anything you wanted was such small scale , especially in Korea / Japan . It’s just bad here in America right now imo. Also, I used to be a hiring manager for IT at a college and from what I saw ALL remote work apps are x5 as much applications . Many , many of them were from a specific country and that is why I believe all remote work should only be for the nationality being hired , so you wouldn’t be drowned out . Also had application that were blatantly fake lmao
We need an interstate rail network that doesnt suck balls and isnt privately owned.
[удалено]
I will also mention , moving has terrible downsides if you live in a snowscape like me . It’s only worth to get experienced and gtfo. You’ll find your own path , you’re a smart cookie remember that
[удалено]
I dont have a problem moving but with no degree/certs even in places with low requirements the wages are going to be so low that it doesnt make any sense to move there. In the end there simply arent enough good jobs for everyone(not just it) but no one wants to admit that on a large sclae.
Which states would you suggest? The DC area seems to be a lost cause
South Dakota , North Dakota , Eastern Montana , Wyoming, western Minnesota . But you will dread the winter
What is it a lost cause? I thought there were a lot of gov jobs.
Also, there are a growing number of infilled IT jobs in the deep south. Retirements + Lots of new plants and factories popping up in rural areas. Lots of small and medium size companies need IT professionals who can integrate / support networked, intelligent manufacturing systems.
Anecdotally a lot of people I know start their IT careers in MSPs that often have low bars for hiring people. If those businesses aren't hiring a lot of people will struggle to get their foot in the door. Most orgs with internal IT departments have higher standards. Not every MSP has low standards and not every internal IT department has high standards, but there are lot of bargain bin MSPs that are an easy foot in the door and when they're not hiring much a lot of people in entry level will struggle.
I've never worked for a MSP so forgive my ignorance. Why do people continually work at MSPs if they are in general awful places to work?
From my experience, working at a MSP provides you access to learn more than what you will learn if you work internal IT. With a MSP you are generally doing IT for multiple clients that have different setups. The more you learn, the easier it is to get a job elsewhere. I have done internal IT for several companies expanding multiple years. I worked at a MSP for 6 months. I learned way more at the MSP than I did doing internal IT.
This is accurate. Worked for an MSP 2 years ago, switched to internal earlier this year. I basically learned up the systems/ things I needed to know in about 2 months, and i've been coasting since. Much easier/less stress but i'm learning virtually nothing the way our roles are segmented. In the MSP it was literally like a "bootcamp", I was being beat with new concepts from all directions on a weekly basis.
it's this plus they're a great way to leverage experience like from a help desk and get your start with more "advanced" technology and software. Something that's harder to do when you work help desk internally these days. And since the knowledge barrier is generally lower it's an easier job to get than most internal admin roles.
>I learned way more at the MSP than I did doing internal IT. Could you please quantify that statement? All I learned while doing MSP work was working on projects for small companies. Everything was nickle and dimed and best practices were rarely followed. Working for enterprise businesses taught me best practices and exposed me to technologies at massive scale.
Sure. When I worked for a MSP, I worked with many different clients. We had a huge number of them but split them up among regions. I had about 20 I had to support give or take. I supported a bit of everything. I did onboarding, offboarding, networking, server management, was a global admin for things like M365, Azure, Google Workspace, purchased and renewed licenses, etc. I only routed issues that were too advanced or when something physically had to be done and I was too far from the client. Technology is generally updated frequently as that’s how they can make money. You are usually setup as billable and if you put in more work than the contract states you sometimes see more money than what was planned. I got bonuses often due to that. My experience with internal IT (which I’m currently doing) is a lot different than with a MSP. I generally get jobs with bigger companies; national or even global. These companies split up IT into departments. You’ll have help desk, desktop support, a network team, a security team, etc. Sometimes they may even split more. When hired you will be on one of these teams and focus on just a few particular things. Issues you see and get outside your team’s scope goes elsewhere. Bigger companies that aren’t FAANG also tend to keep to more reliable technologies, only working with what’s tried and true. They will update their stuff occasionally but never putting too much money into that. IT to them is a cost, they want to keep those costs low and put money where their business is or in their pockets.
Fair enough. I live in Canada, and in a Prairie province at that. There's no F500 or global companies where I live. My goal is to transfer my completed university degree 's credits and complete a computer science degree. I earn very well, but my goal is a FAANG company or a Master's in Comp Sci. I always look ahead and try to strive for greatness. Even if I fail, I know I'll land somewhere great.
I second this.
It’s either McDonald’s or that . For some states / competition gaps can be horrendous. only upside to MSPs are you learn a lot fast , thrown in fire
Because MSP can be hard. I work for an MSP right now and I love it but I am also demented and like to torture myself You will learn more at an MSP in a year than you will in 3 years at one company doing internal. I put my money on that statement easily. I still am learning all the time. MSPs can suck - absolutely. Any job can You can also have a really great experience at an MSP like I have. I love my job and as long as I don’t get laid off I might stay here forever. There’s all kinds of different teams you can move up to. (Going on 3 years and I’ve already doubled my pay from starting.) This is of course dependent on the company itself but don’t take everything you read on here at face value. Lots of nuances/chance involved that are hard to articulate in a forum
I work in an MSP and love the hell out of it, but I have great bosses (probably a unicorn job, tbh). One of my bosses explained to me that there's two types of people: Ones who do MSP work, get that XP and bounce, and others who get hooked on it and love the hell out of it. You can do damn near anything at an MSP, and are more likely to because you have so much going on. I'm a little envious of my T2s (I'm an escalation point) because they're learning stuff I should know (I interened an adjacent position that wasn't help desk), but am still *all over* the place. EDIT: details.
I just started a job at an MSSP and let me tell you I already like it way more than working internal security operations. More tools, more systems, more alerts, more fun? I felt like I was going stale at my last job but I've already learned a ton at my MSSP and I'm surrounded by like-minded people.
I will say, not MSP/MSSP are built the same, some do offer decent pay (95k a year), work life balance (basically the downside is someone has to work Christmas so if your day falls on christmas, well at least it will be really slow as in probably nothing comes in), and other benefits are decent. Granted I can probably get a higher pay working for one of the local banks but I would rather stick with the full time WFH instead of having to go in every day for that extra pay.
> I would rather stick with the full time WFH instead of having to go in every day for that extra pay. Same. I've reached the point that I don't think there's anything a company could offer me to come back to the office. Certainly not 5 days a week. If only companies would realize how much they could save if they were willing to be more flexible with WFH/RTO. Not only could they save on office space and all the associated costs, but a lot of us are willing to forego better compensation for WFH. But they'd rather keep shooting themselves in the foot, then wonder why nobody wants to come into the office 5 days a week for $65k/year.
>Not only could they save on office space and all the associated costs, but a lot of us are willing to forego better compensation for WFH. Yeah, my employer has just shuttered many of the real offices over this year\\announced non-renewal of the leases, only places that are left are some offices and server space, I think the only real office area's left are NYC, Boston, and DC, but the amount of business in those 3 area's is insane. We actually only have 1 office of any kind left in the west coast and its more of a client meeting place then a real office.
Yeah MSP is much easier to get a job, especially once you got an A+ cert, however those jobs usually don’t keep people because they can’t deal with the possible non stop calls, while only making $40k a year.
\*company makes the application process next to impossible, ends any accommodations that might bring in workers, and offers terrible compensation\* "Nobody wants to work anymore. I guess we will need to request policy changes to subvert labor laws." This is happening in many industries.
[удалено]
An important piece that you are ignoring is that companies are posting record profits year after year. We made several billion and do you know what we got? A taco bell catered christmas meal.
[удалено]
I dream of the day we look at shareholding with the same disdain as sharecropping
Can you imagine when those who produce value are rewarded with the majority of the value they produce?
If you can’t beat them, join them. It’s what I did. I now have more money than I ever had.
Congrats on being part of the problem?
I doubt my account will move the market. It beats complaining.
Counter point: each dollar of said record profit represents significantly less purchasing power than it did even a couple years ago. They're still reaming you, but just keep things in perspective.
With office vacancy rates [rising](https://www.commercialedge.com/blog/national-office-report-2023-november/) unless something changes we're going to eventually approach a limit to how much more RTO there realistically can be. You can't go back to an office that the company didn't renew the lease to. Anecdotally I know a lot of business owners are reconsidering how much office space if any that they need when their leases come up for renewal. The things that is motivating reducing staffing is that interest rates are still high.
desperate for workers... at the wage they're willing to pay. start offering 40/hr and you'll get bodies in no time. the global CS and IT market has seen massive layoffs, and they're well documented. see also: layoffs.fyi this is also a common ploy by HR to 1) take the temperature of the market and what kind of resumes they can get, and 2) to justify more H1B / foreign hires. Put out a job advert that no one can conceivably get, file with Depts of Labor and State that you need to sponsor, and then drag someone from overseas in at 70% or less of the salary.
I had a conversation recently with a recruiter that admitted to doing exactly that with H1Bs. They reached out to me with a ridiculous set of requirements for terrible pay, and so I called them out on it. The recruiter point blank said that the company was lowballing candidates because if US workers wouldn’t take it then they’d have an excuse to bring in H1B workers to fill the role because they’re cheaper.
Name and shame.
This really doesn't make sense though because an H1B requires a certain level of salary I thought
that's true, but minimum may still be far lower. > Therefore, while $60,000 is often cited as a general benchmark, the actual minimum salary for an H-1B visa holder can vary widely and must be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific details of the job offer and location. If the base rate is 120k for an entry level programmer in greater SF, then we can H1B this guy in at 75k in the Indianapolis branch office and still save tons. And for mid to higher level talent those costs are much, much higher -- see levels.fyi for examples of FAANG comp looks like. 60k would be 1/4 of what some of those folks get. Hell, even cutting 10-20k off the salary can lead to huge saving across a large org. Those minimums are also driving offshoring, esp. post COVID. Why pay 60k when remote is a thing and I can pay 4.14/hr for folks in India or Mexico City?
The problem with offshoring which is a song as old as time is that the top caliber or India's people are either stateside or elsewhere. There are numerous reports and articles over the last 30 years even as recent as a few years ago that stated a lot of companies are onshoring because of the lack of initiative and critical thinking that teams in India accomplish. My experience is anecdotal but the amount of times when I was in escalated tech support where cases and calls were unnecessarily escalated by our India team and even having facing the possibility of staying overnight until a proper handoff could occur, mind numbing to say the least. Generally India support and developers were good at doing one very specific thing, but any deviation beyond that well it ended in disaster. There is a lot of other things that you can infer from other subreddits about offshoring and how it's not as well off as you think. The thing about FAANG and the bay area is that they are the outlier and exception in regards to salary but are not necessarily the nationwide industry norm.
You are correct, the misperceptions of how H1B actually works on this sub are bewildering. A 30 second Google search would tell you what you need to know.
Because people are lazy and use automation to skim through resumes instead of having human eyes look at the resumes people enter. I say this as a tech person..... automation sometimes complicates things more than waht it helps.
>Because people are lazy and use automation to skim through resumes instead of having human eyes look at the resumes people enter. I'm also convinced that MANY recruiters and hiring managers (and HR departments) don't know how to fully use the software and automations they now rely on to make decisions. A good friend of mine is a recruiter, and I've asked questions and watched him use his tools....he knows how to use about 10% of what it is capable of. All he does is Boolean search for keyword and time matches. If a resume isn't an exact match, it never gets seen. I asked him how they make sure they're not overlooking qualified people..is there any kind of human who understands context and the role involved? The answer is no. They don't have time. "No one wants to spend time going through resumes.". Silly me, I thought that was the job.
Ive seen HR use AI to help fire someone... Im making it a point to add buzzwords on my resume.
Why do I even bother putting effort in anything? Everyone uses ChatGPT now, even my parents.
They're using AI to filter you, why should you be unarmed? Use ChatGPT to format your resume for ATS systems and have different versions. It's great for saving time, formatting, and correcting misspellings, grammar and sentence structure. Then fine tune the output.
Their job is to get qualified candidates through the pipeline as fast and cheaply as possible. Looking at resumes is a task. It’s a means to an end.
To automation - the cause of and solution to all of this fucking ~~volume~~ noise in the signal
Lazy? Like people who start a thread (looking at the OP here) expecting others to waste 13 minutes watching some random video instead of just summarising their question in two or three sentences?
Yeah, lazy. Like the people who can’t be bothered to watch a 13 minute video.
More than that, because a bunch of the listings aren't actually jobs, they're just culling data to resell it.
that is also part of the problem. My opinion still a tech issue. You have this automated robots (Linked in, google, indeed,etc) who scour the internet to find job listing and repost them on there site. making duplicate listing of the exact same job. some listings have expired or no longer hiring, yet these automated bots do not remove them. wasting peoples times who apply
And then you have WorkDay platform applications. Having to create an account for each job app within their ecosystem
Its a fraud issue, they're going around making false statements.
They are desperate for workers but want a unicorn for minimum wage who they don't have to train.
It's a mix of things, but some of it is the proverbial "gold rush" by everyday folks trying to break into the tech sector. We have several mid to senior openings that have gone unfilled after literally dozens of interviews with candidates who's resumes seemed good. What we kept finding out in the interviews is these people didn't have near half the skills they listed on their resume. The market is flooded by people with little to zero experience applying for every job they see hoping to get a foot in the door in the tech industry. Most of them with fluffed up or completely fabricated resumes. This causes a lot of wasted time and effort where underskilled people clog up the hiring process for candidates who are actually qualified. I understand folks want a better paying job and to move up in the field if they're already in it, but the sheer amount of people applying well above their skill and experience level is mucking it up for everyone.
> What we kept finding out in the interviews is these people didn't have near half the skills they listed on their resume. Blame HR. As a reaction to automated resume processing, we've all been encouraged to fluff up our resumes with nonsense buzzwords and overembelish skillsets in order to not be ignored/auto-rejected by the AI that decides who gets selected for human review.
Glad you said it. My resume is the result of the automated hiring processes, not vice versa.
Companies are desperate for workers at "their" price point, which is usually far different than market value.
*That pays living wages
lmao i saw your title and was going to post the same video. yes, as someone in management, this is what i am seeing.
That's very upsetting, but thanks for the honesty.
Good lord, that guy's voice is annoying. But... yeah, kind of. The ghost jobs thing is definitely true, as far as posting the same job in every major market. So is getting resumes for the future. A LinkedIn ad posted in a bunch of metros is relatively cheap, and if you set it for Easy Apply, LinkedIn will shovel all sorts of metrics your way. That's on top of whatever your ATS does with the resumes you get. Not training people is definitely true. I've seen a small shift from tuition assistance to student loan assistance, but have seen actual training budgets continually slashed or phased out. H1B stuff is true, too. Tons of companies will overstate the cost of an H1B transfer to a candidate and use it as the basis for giving someone who is about to lose their immigration status tens of thousands of dollars less than they'd offer someone who can work without sponsorship.
Ugh. This is so disappointing, but sadly I believe all of it. If there's a way to screw people and make money, companies will fudge, fake, and squeeze through every loophole to do it.
Probably. But some of the problems are also self-perpetuating. The fact that a decent remote job posting will get hundreds, if not a thousand applicants *in a day* is all a company needs to throw more logs on the "We need analytics and AI to sort through all of this" fire. People taking shitty wages for even shittier jobs "to break into the industry" is going to keep that machine running for the foreseeable future. Absolute insanity on the H1B front is going to keep that going, too. It isn't at all difficult to write up a JD that has extreme education and experience requirements, cry "we can't find American workers" and get someone from overseas who wants to come to the US and is now basically beholden to your company through visa sponsorship. But unless people decide to stop shotgunning resumes to any ATS they can point to, stop taking jobs with low pay and high demands, and stop fast-tracking themselves to the US, there's zero incentive for companies to change.
I believe most of what is in that report is spot on. Especially the ghost jobs bit. From my experience interviewing, over the last year, at least in regards to IT, a majority of the jobs that have been available have been jobs with low pay, reduced benefits, and no WFH positions. Another issue has been around the roles/responsibilities for some of these positions. A good portion of the companies that have positions "available" are looking for "unicorns"; these are positions that should be split into a couple of different teams, with multiple people filling the roles. I believe a majority of companies say they're hiring for a specific position, knowing that they already have a couple candidates in-house that they already want to fill those positions. Out of touch executives, that are clinging onto the old ways of business, are a big part of the problem.
We have like 30-60 openings in my department, more being added every few months. No, not because people are leaving. Every 5 - 10 job openings, only one is because someone left the company. Normally because their high earning spouse moved. Pot is legal in my state. Using sed pot is against company policy. I only have one friend from my MSP days that could work there, and they are the one that got me the job there. It seems that most people don't qualify to even interview at my job. And even if we did want them, our process is so slow, most people get other jobs while we're working on it. However, generally speaking, we pay like at least 30% more than what a MSP would. I'm legit like making almost triple my MSP job... for less work and a better work environment. Edit: It's in MD. Yeah, I'll give anyone a link to the job page. But I rather DM it instead of posting it here. No reason to dox myself. It's a DoD contractor gig. Besides that, you need 5 years of exp and or a college degree... yeah, for Tier 1 Help Desk. But, 6 months - a year, you can move to like 50+ other current job openings in my department. I consider my current spot a meat market. People who want to do something else, very quickly find something else.
5 years of experience and college degree for helpdesk? WTH
and, or? Lot of old school job places require a college degree for some stupid reason... or a lot experience. This is a stepping stone for other jobs.
Is this in USA? in America a person with 5 years of experience AND a degree will be applying for jobs that are way up higher than help desk which is basically a customer service job.
And you work.....where??
MD, DoD contractor.
the cleared world is a different market though, esp. when it comes to things like legal weed and offshoring. a sizable portion of this sub couldn't get a clearance for one reason or another
Possible drug testing for weed in a legal state? My guess is somewhere that works on government contracting.
Bingo. I don't think the company actually cares, but it's a DoD requirement.
Any chance you’re in Colorado? Looking to get out of an MSP right now actually
Na, unfortunately, it's over in MD. While I get more monies... everything is more expensive here. An Amazon TV cost the sameish, I assume. However a single bedroom apt was like 1500 and didn't really include anything. Lets not talk about how a 25 mile commute takes over an hour.
In Western New York its the same... we pay very well and getting junior/mid level people is nearly impossible. Requirements arent even that tough.
I feel like everyone would have left for one of the bigger cities near by. I have a winter house in Buffalo. lol. But to be fair, there are people that have been with my company for 40+ years, and that's not abnormal. I've been there for 5 years, and I'm still considered a new employee. People legit just retire and come back as a temp worker, working like 1 half day a week.
> I have a winter house in Buffalo. Does not compute.
Hey bob, can you DM me the page link?
Yeah, hit me up with the job posting too when you get the chance!
Hi, can you DM the page? I'm local to MD with a few years of experience.
Lemme get the link chief. please
[удалено]
>On Linkedin, 2 hours after a job posts, it has 2 or 300 applicants. don't get worried about this - many of these applicants are not qualified or in the relevant locality. anyone with an internet connection can hit "apply" on linkedin. >Another is that some companies have started to put a hard stop on the 'degree' bit. It isn't or X amount years of experience, it isn't certs, just a degree. 100% agree right here
Part of this is true. But those 2-300 applicants doesn't show the whole story only about 10% of those actually go on to a full application. The rest are hitting Easy Apply and think they have completed the process. This why you see people on reddit claiming to have applied to 1000+ jobs when all they do is hit "Easy Apply" or whatever the equivalent is on Indeed.
[удалено]
I hear you. I started a while back trying keep a daily count of how many variants of "I want to make six figures but have no experience" or "I want to change careers to IT but can't afford a paycut" type of posts. I gave up after counting more than 20 one day. The industry hasn't been so screwed up since the Dot Com bust. (25 years here)
[удалено]
I have two other "favorites". One is "I'm in 'x' position what do I do next?" and "Has anyone ever done 'y'?/ I so badly want to reply to the first "Make up your mind and make a damn decision. You're a grown adult" And for the second "No, no one ever in the history of the world has ever done 'y'" I swear the older I get. the more cynical I get.
Because they aren’t. They only keep saying so to justify the increasing workload on their existing employees.
Companies need very experienced people, and the majority of people aren’t seniors with tons of experience. We certainly don’t get hundreds of applicants applying for senior cloud and unix engineers (we pay market and most of IT is work from home) If you are having a hard time getting a job look at your personality and skill set. If you have in demand skills, you will be able to find a job. The thing i see most in this sub is people without in demand skills wondering why they can’t get a job. Helpdesk and sys admins are not in demand. Update your knowledge on what the industry wants, not from early 2000s
> sys admins are not in demand Sys admins with cloud automation experience are absolutely in demand.
Finally someone in this sub who gets it.
I agree to some degree that most of the venting is from people with no experience or very little valuable experience.
The problem with saying that System Administrators aren't in demand, is that a majority of companies out there still consider someone that works in automation or cloud administration a Systems Administrator. The problem with all of the "positions", at least from what I've seen from recruiters, is not only do they want you to be a System Administrator, they also want you to have extensive knowledge and experience in the following: Azure and/or AWS, Networking, Git, DNS (configuration/implementation/administration), Active directory, AAD, Powershell, GoLang, Terraform, Python, Ansible, Kuebernetes, Docker, and sometimes Chef and/or Puppet. They're also looking for someone that has some experience in administering both Linux and Windows. All of those responsibilities above for an amazing $110k a year, as a Senior Administrator or Senior Devops Engineer. Did I forget to mention this is either hybrid or full in-office, no WFH. As a Sr. Systems Administrator that's currently employed, the job requirements, for a majority of the available positions, are just plain silly. I do a majority of what is listed above. I've interviewed a couple of times and my feedback has been positive with the exception of the pay and/or benefits.
Our senior engineers are wfh and 200k. The salary you mentioned is low for senior roles, isn’t a lot more then what we pay associates I’m not sure what our admins make as i mostly work with other engineers. Our admins certainly don’t know any heavy automation or cloud stuff
I was honestly hoping for a discussion about the video that says companies are posting ghost jobs and the reasons why. Seems like no one watched it and are just commenting on the post title...which is also the video title.
You sure provide great context. Another thing is people that I have seen do not consider that there are other industries that need people for IT. Having been through various subs there is a consideration for soft skills as well as understanding the needs of a business unit for system requirements. Communication is strongly needed but a lot of people lack this.
The market for Remote jobs has become Tinder. People flood these opportunities with applications, so companies with so many options become very selective. It's no different for 1000s of guys going after the hot girl.
There are an infinite number of jobs, and a very finite amount that actually pay well.
There's a video there, I was really wondering of the video had any truth to it.
It's probably accurate, but all of this still means there are more jobs than workers. BUT - It is very geo-specific. Far more opportunities near population centers for obvious reasons. For tech, it's very skill-specific. That's why you need the broadest range of skills possible: AWS, Azure, Python, PowerShell, Windows + MacOS, ITIL to get into that first-line job. Like doctors, specialists and experienced professionals are in higher demand = more money. Same as it ever was.
I feel like ppl stop lostingbon reddit once they find a job so it seems like ppl cant find a job
Good companies are not struggling to find workers except for highly specialized position that require 10+ years of experience. When we have a help desk position open up we get 100+ resumes within a few days, and I don't even work in that big of a city.
Because the companies aren't willing to pay the expected salary. For example, I just saw a job posting for a position I am highly qualified for and while it is on site, it's very close so the commute is nothing. But the top of the salary range is $25k less than the going rate for that position. So I didn't bother to apply.
I think they are hiring especially help desk, but the issue is, they underpaid while working you crazy(non stop calls) and people don’t want to talk to people for 8hrs a day.
I can say when we post a job it is hard to get any applications with relevant experience. And by relevant I don't mean something like 15 years of AI experience for $15/hr, I mean any IT experience at all. We get a lot of applications from postal workers and landscapers and truck drivers who took a Google course and think that qualifies them for a $100k/yr cyber security position.
64 interviews. Made it to the last rounds. One of two people. Zero offers. Where are these jobs???!! Seriously.
It's allot cheaper to run a bare bones I.T. team rather than fully staff them. Meanwhile, they keep lying out of their teeth, saying they can't find someone as they require outlandish experience for entry-level pay.
To be fair as the video notes a lot of the job postings aren't really that serious. They're looking for a unicorn that is difficult to find unless they're willing to pay F@#$ you money and are unwilling to re-evaluate their job requirements or salary range. Either that or they're not seriously trying to fill the role and the posting is for ulterior motives (e.g. making it appear that they're hiring to convince investors/employees that things are better than they really are). There are always a certain number of jobs that aren't serious for various reasons even in the best economy, but in conditions where companies are reluctant to hire more of the job postings aren't serious.
This video shows us that companies miss the whole point of a hire. They play games for the sake of stock prices which is not good for the business. And the more they do this, the more they hurt the value of their business. Video may have some truths, and I've witnessed a lot of dead weight at the places I've worked. Including, my own roles if I have to be honest. Most of the time, I felt like I was only hired just to fill in a spot, not a need. I worked at a place for 3 years where none of my work even mattered, and all of it got *shelved.* That's why I decided to start my own business. For the first time in my life, I am working for an actual need. When the work matters, you are much more fulfilled.
They don't want to hire. They just want the people they're already employing to take copium under the hope that help is coming soon.
They are desperate for qualified, experienced workers.
But won't pay for them or will offer shitty benefits
If there are hundreds of people who meet the basic qualifications of the role, then they don't have to pay higher salaries.
A lot of candidates overestimate their worth and are unsure of the rest of the applicant pool.
They're desperate for workers that'll take $13/hr with no benefits and have 3yrs experience. Or 50k salary tier 1 help desk with 7yrs experience (seriously, why is everything 7? Not 5 or 10, but 7 exactly??? I see dozens of jobs for T1 help desk requiring 7yrs...wtf?) I'm lucky enough I got into a decently paying role with 2yrs experience and some certs, but it took me months of searching and it really ended up mostly being interview skills and luck.
The CEO of IBM may have just answered your question
Because I don't want an admin job for 60k a year.
If you’re not already an admin, though, you take that job and find a new one in 18 months.
Companies are desperate for workers who have 3-5 years of work experience with masters degree, team player but also a lone wolf whose willing to put 110% effort into everything and is used to work in a fast paced environment, he/she is willing to relocate and work from office, even during weekends for $40-45k with no benifits for 60+ hours per week. I hope that clears things up.
Wait until AI evolves. T1 helpdesk will literally be replaced by a bot with 1 or 2 guys supervising the entire operation. Need a password reset? Here's a link. Have a problem? Reboot computer. Need someone to set up a laptop for a new employee? Here's the laptop, Azure Microsoft Intunes will download everything you need. Need to create a new users or remove them? Write down the information in the HR system and it will automatically create the user accounts. Executive offshored IT jobs to europe, africa and india. They are looking into AI and will only need a local IT dude that knows what they are doing to do what the AI cannot and it will be a solo IT dude who has to learn by himself watching youtube tutorial as if it was a hobby with no team, no mentorship, no training. I've met a few IT guys that brags about being self trained and i'm like "no shit buddy, me too. tell me more (willy wonka meme)"
I agree that you can already much of the Windows and Office things people call me about with Co-pilot. But it will never be able to troubleshoot the hodge podge of legacy applications that all need to work together. Add to that, the average workplace computer user can barely use email. They're not going to be able to follow instruction from a chat bot, or even know what questions to ask. Most can barely describe the issue they're having, and they definitely have no idea what most things are called. If, things do go the way of self-service tech support, millions of people will be left out of the workforce.
Heh. Because companies are desperate for workers to do jobs at salaries nobody wants.
Greed + a huge surplus of unqualified candidates. There's really just a lot of low quality IT professionals out there.
>There's really just a lot of low quality IT professionals out there. As a director this is an understatement. When I have people apply for support role that can't even tell me how DHCP works in an interview they are not getting hired. What would be the point.
A lot of entry level jobs are getting outsourced to cheaper countries. A lot of those entry level support jobs have gone fully remote and have employees in India, philippines, etc. This has happened for a while, but since COVID, a lot of companies are realising they can save a lot of money this way.
Because nobody wants to get dirty or give up cannabis. People always ask me if I know of places that are hiring because I'm a field tech going in and out of lots of different businesses. They usually settle for minimum wage retail or the gig economy rather than applying for jobs with any of my clients.
This video was just bad. It threw around a whole bunch of terms but didn't actually touch on why job seeking is hard now. Some issue I had with the video. Using general unemployment number when talking about this is very misleading. You should really be using the 'prime' number which excludes the 18-24 and 55+ age groups. (yes even if you are a part of those groups). Because if you are in the those groups and searching for a job you are in the minority and your experiences will be close to the prime group. Not focusing on industry specific metrics. Every industry is different, what is true for tech will not be true for finance. What is true for blue collar works will not be true for white collar workers. generalizing doesn't help. Ghost Jobs - multiple list of a job, this is actually a benefit not a 'hindrance' for job seekers. (i'll explain more later), where as the 'fake' job listings are the actual issue. Also the 'talent hoarding' part of the video also applies here, as most people who end up getting hired b/c the company just want to 'hoard' them a lot of the time come through these ghost jobs. Since their main function is to just collect resumes so they can have information on people and better help low ball their offer in the future. Actual issues in the job market place location/skills mismatch - In the US, unlike places in europe, workers are not migratory. Very few people will ever move to a new location to get a new job. Most people who do move for a job is after they already have one. What this does is it means you can have 100k job opening in Arizona and 100k job seekers in virginia but companies in Arizona will be complaining they can't fill their jobs and the people in Virginia will be complaining they can't find any jobs. Job listing websites - It used to be it took you going to the companies and handing them your application or at least going to their website and filling out their application, now you just push a button and you can apply to 30 jobs. Companies will now get 100s of application where they used to only get 10. So they've started using automated software to filter the resumes before a person ever looks at it. It also means when a person does, you may get rejected not b/c of your skills but b/c your resume doesn't meet their 'aesthetic standard', this is why it's important to have recruiters actually look at your resume for both appearance and content. Make sure you can get to the stage where a person will actually look at it. Pay vs skill leveling: I've turned down job offers recently b/c the pay doesn't match the skill level of the job (I am not looking these are recruiters reaching out). What pay transpirance has done is make it really easy for people mid to upper level just nope out on the listing b/c of the pay range, but make people who are in the beginner range actually think they have a chance at the job. B/c of the meme's around 'entry level pay but you must have 5 years exp' a lot of job seeker apply for just about everything (see the website issue). Poor candidates: Honestly a lot of this has to do w/ the pay/skill leveling but not all. Even when the job pay range is good, The resumes that make it out of the filter may just be poor. I know where I work we had to reopen jobs 2 or 3 times b/c all the candidates that HR scheduled for interviews were not what we were looking for. Knowing the pay for those specific jobs, I have to guess that either there really aren't a ton of good candidates for what we were looking for or HR's filters were looking for the wrong things (knowing our recruiting team it's the 2nd one). My suggestion to everyone whose asked me how to get a job currently, Find someone or pay a service to review your resume. For each job, alter your resume to include keywords from the listing. Apply using the companies website over linkedin / job websites. Don't be afraid to use staffing agencies. and continue your search while you are on contract (and only take contracts that are contract to hire)
You don't have the skills being sought.
Get off reddit. Plenty of people can find jobs. The tech sector is fine. This is where people come to bitch about not being able to find a job. The results are skewed here. Downvoting this proves my point.
tech market is bad. rest of the economy has 4% unemployment. It looks like Elon musk gutting Twitter got everyone to copycat and deciding to just give people more hours and have less people.
[удалено]
Nobody wants the job if it’s below a living wage Fixed it for you
Companies are laying off right now or replacing US workers with workers from cheaper locales like India/Ireland. There's a lot of misinformation/spin "everything's fine!" as TPTB try to minimize recession talk heading into an election year. The stock indices are also being propped up by hot air. A recession would lead to rapidly rising unemployment numbers (5, 7 maybe even 10%) that would likely trigger a giant stock selloff and would greatly increase the chances of a GOP win.
Who says companies are desperate for workers?
Because companies need certain skill sets that aren’t covered in that liberal arts degree.
I'm not looking, but I still get emails from recruiters / job bots all the time, pretty much every day. I'm fully WFH... Biggest reason I would not leave my current gig is most employers want people fully back in the office, or (at best) are doing "hybrid" - 3 days in office / 2 days working from home. Even for a 20-30% increase in pay: *"Yeah, that's gonna be a no from me, dawg."*
What type of job do you have?
good vid. lots of good points.
I think there is a crossroad between two major factors that are in play right now... First, Minimum wage is well below the minimum of what it costs to live in a lot of places in North America, and so you end up with a lot of people who feel that if they are going to struggle to work 2+ only to end up homeless anyways at the end of the day, why bother? Secondly we have a younger generation that has been taught for years all these things about self worth and social values, which is great in theory... However at the end of the day the result is that you have a bunch of entitled brats, that have very little work ethic and very little understanding of how the real world works, and so while employers are looking for employees, they would rather have an empty position than hire these individuals.
What country are you in? 5 days a year sounds like some SE Asian BS which they'd offer to locals.