Shortage of qualified workers vs. not paying enough to attract workers

[Momof3littles]

DH gets C&E, which is geared mostly toward chemists.  There have been regular pieces in there about the glut of post docs and the abuse of post docs in labs.  With the # of layoffs and difficulty in getting faculty positions, there is a pretty large glut of post doc students.  Funding issues are an issue for even experienced, connected faculty in many cases. 

 

DH has a friend from graduate school who was up for a tenure track position. Essentially he was given enough $ (not a lot by any means) by his employer to get his lab up and running over 5 years.  By the end of 5 years, you need to be essentially self funded through grants.  You have to remember that this means not only getting set up to teach courses and deal with students, but coming up with projects, buying equipment for your lab, software/computers, figuring out if you can afford to hire a post doc to get things moving more quickly.  And of course, the every challenging demands that come with seeking out funding through grant writing.  That's a lot to take on, and honestly, it doesn't seem to me that most PhD and post doc programs set students up *well* for all of the administrative, personnel, management, etc. juggling that needs to happen in addition to research and teaching.  There's a lot more to it than just science.   In any case, our friend's 5 years are up, he's not self funded, and that will be that and he won't have a tenured position.  It is incredibly difficult to get funding these days for professors.

 

My DH was a bachelor's chemist who worked in private industry with a great job right out of school.  He was a top performer in the work place at a very desirable employer in his field.  He was encouraged by his colleagues to go back for his PhD, which he was originally not sure he wanted to do.  In any case, I think his years in industry served him well in terms of helping him with management and other issues in the workplace when he graduated.  That's experience that many new graduates really just don't have enough of IME.  After finishing his PhD he went back into private industry, in a different field.  He was offered a prestigious post doc position in a government lab, but honestly, we were both tired of moving, and didn't want to live in DC on a post doc salary.  He also would have been an amazing professor, but he just wasn't sure his heart was ever in teaching.  He jokes he would have loved teaching those students who cared, but would have struggled with the less than motivated or not-that-into it students.  So he went back into industry with no regrets.

 

In any case, C&E has had many stories about the glut of post doc students, polls on why they are doing their post doc, etc.  There have been many articles about post docs being hired essentially for "production" purposes in lab, rather than there being the same level of mentorship and advisement that were historically there.  The professors are trying to keep or get their funding. There's ever more pressure to produce and do it quickly.  And now you have post docs in quite a few cases it seems getting short changed on the depth of their experience.

I misunderstood. I was thinking of state funding for colleges and all the local bond measures for community colleges.

 

Who funds the non-science research if you happen to know?

 

My understanding is that there is a lot less funding for non-science, tempered by the fact that scholarship of that nature is generally less expensive than that which requires expensive lab equipment, etc.  These funding sources include the National Endowment for the Humanities at the federal level, and a whole slew of smaller sources, both government, and private endowments.

[Momof3littles]

Here are some pieces on the challenges, pay, etc. for post docs:

http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i20/Postdoc-Pains-Gains.html

http://cenblog.org/just-another-electron-pusher/2013/03/a-troubling-shift-in-tradition

http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i37/Finding-Chemistry-Postdoc-Position-Industry.html

http://cenblog.org/terra-sigillata/2012/07/07/wapo-not-enough-jobs-for-science-phds/

 

A blog, and not saying I agree with all points, but it raises some interesting issues:

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2014/04/17/changing_a_broken_science_system.php

 

 

[dirty ethel rackham]

Oh, you guys are scaring me. It's not like I haven't heard it before, though.  I have two kids likely heading into the pure sciences (Biology and Physics.)  My oldest has two summers of research under his belt (plus his freshman year bio lab was a genomics research project.)  One thing I am glad to hear for him is that his summer research programs have lots of required seminars on the "business" of academic research - funding, running a lab, presenting the research, etc.  He will travel with his professor this fall to present preliminary findings to the funding organization.  I do send them articles about the "gloom and doom" news of STEM academia and encourage my kids to talk to professors and advisers about their futures. 

 

But, to tell you the truth, I have a hard time imagining them in anything else.  They are driven by the pursuit of knowledge and not much else.

[Momof3littles]

Ellen, I think STEM is still a wonderful choice for many kids.  Like any field, I think you just have to go into it with eyes wide open.  Take great care in choosing advisers in graduate school.  My DH was fortunate that when he was working in pharma with his bachelor's, many people he worked with came out of one particular lab under one particular adviser.  Since he was going into graduate school in his late 20s with a child (and we had additional kids while he was in school), it was comforting to know this adviser also looked for results, etc. vs. expecting 12+ hr days in lab.  So my Dh was able to work traditional hrs for the most part during his research assistantship.  His first year or two when he had classes and TA'd and had weekend tests on various cumulative topics were very grueling, but after that he had pretty normalish hours.  This was aided by some maturity and previous work experience vs. the majority of students who were fresh out of undergrad and sometimes dawdled their days away a bit.

 

That also brings up the point that we both feel very strongly about the importance of networking.  I expect my kids to join professional organizations, engage in student/faculty research as undergrads, intern, observe, network, you name it.  We both feel those were crucial in our professional trajectories.  My husband snagged his first job with his undergrad degree because one of his professors was married to someone at the pharma company he ended up being hired at. They are flooded with thousands of resumes per year, obviously.  My husband went to a state school, but was a hard worker, built great relationships with faulty, engaged in some pretty solid undergrad research, and those all made an enormous difference IMO.  That first job was a catalyst to connecting to the people that encouraged him to return for his doctoral degree, and they were instrumental in writing letters of recommendation and so forth that carried far more weight than his GRE scores (excellent quantitative but verbal was not stellar.  He didn't study that far out for the verbal, and was swamped with work and an infant at home as well. The school admittedly didn't care other than meeting the minimum level required by the entire graduate school).  In any case, those letters of reference carried an enormous amount of weight.  In graduate school, he was approached by someone in the area who worked for his adviser many years prior.  They built up a relationship and a friendship, and that guy asked DH to do technical writing for him while he was still in graduate school.  He also helped DH network into his first job with his PhD.  The post doc position he was offered in a govt lab was also aided by the fact the selections were largely made by someone who had also worked for his adviser in graduate school, and it was someone he had met and spent time talking with at conferences and so forth.  He didn't take that position, but in his current (non post doc job) he still has close professional ties to that person and could easily seek employment there if he wanted to.  His current private sector employer works closely with that government lab.

 

I think things are increasingly more competitive, but his work experience and personal connections (forged on his own, not through any privileged connections via parents) made an enormous difference.

 

I have no plans to discourage my kids from STEM if they go that route.  My oldest is only 10, but leans that way at the moment.  I do think it is important to be realistic about what it takes to stand out, particularly as things get increasingly competitive.  Understanding funding and the implications it has in academia, for example, are important to know beforehand.  I do think many people have this notion that STEM pays more and has more well-paying jobs available than actually exist.  I have had this discussion with friends and family in the past when we talk about what kids are going to be able to do with a bachelor's in the future.  I see few well-paying options, personally.  People toss out STEM (with a bachelor's) and I think are surprised at how many biologists for example work 2nd and 3rd shift jobs for a fairly modest salary.  It isn't as if it is a bad choice, but I think non science people don't necessarily have a realistic view of what employment prospects are really like for a large section of STEM graduates. 

 

My husband also happened to have some luck and good sense in falling in love with an area of chemistry that could have been applied to his previous industry (pharma), but opened a lot of doors to other areas of industry that are doing rather well even in a down economy.  The company he works for continues to grow and is doing well overall, and his field of science should continue to really have good growth and employment.  Some of that was intentional choice to switch into something that would give him versatility, but some of that was luck, to be honest.  The economy when he started graduate school was very different than when he finished graduate school, so he was fortunate to have chosen something that could be applied to an area of science that is still doing well.

[Guest both2feet]

I'd like to first point out, this post may contain offensive material to certain people. It's not intended for such a purpose but rather information gathered over 20+ years in the tech market.

 

Now, H1Bs pertaining to other markets, I have no input but for the tech market I can say with certainity and without doubt the reason companies such as Microsoft, Oracle, etc are pushing for more visas is solely for cheap labor. Throughout this thread, information as to the US Labor codes state the H1B worker cannot be paid less and this is true but as we all know, laws have loop holes and that is one aspect these companies gain from. I will focus more on one specific country Indian for the remainder of this post since I have extensive knowledge of this relationship within American tech companies.

 

First, by increasing out-of-country labor in the US, these American companies gain (for better word) 'favors' from the hosting countries. India is by far the #1 benefiting country with agreements in place with these major US tech companies and rightfully so with a vast labor pool, cast system and 3rd world country profit roads internally. Since a non-Indian entity cannot own outright 100% of an Indian company (something we here in America allow) these American companies have hidden handshakes...you profit this way, I profit that way.

 

One way of profiting is the second point I'll make. Indian contracting companies, not all but the majority, are unethical entities that not only oppress and surpress their own citizens when it comes to pay and conditions but when able, will take advantage of other countries (including American) citizens. The more these contracting companies 'place' workers, the more the US tech companies with agreements in place profit.

 

Indian contractors, higher than average are notoriously unqualified. Since until recently when companies standardized uniform global educational standards (e.g. a CS degree from X non-American university = a Stanford degree in CS) Indian constantly and consistently offered employees/contractors with educational backgrounds from 'accreddited' colleges...which turned out to be nothing more than certification mills, in most cases even less than say a technical college like DeVry Institute. Once they couldn't get away with that, they continued with the 'loaded' resumes stating all sorts of skills they had little to no knowledge and interviewed by their own placed employees/contractors, with the secret nod from these US tech companies I speak of. As for the pay scam...these contracting companies hold h1b holders hostage and while they are paid the same rate as US workers (for argument sake say $50 an hour) the holders are lucky to see 30% (on a good contract) of that pay...the rest goes to the unethical Indian contracting company and kickbacks/favors to the US companies.

 

SO to answer this question...there is not nor ever was a shortage of qualified workers here in the US. After the dotcom fallout, these tech companies realized the trend of tech workers pay would ever increase above levels of other positions. To subugate and artifically keep these salaries down, they created this whole illusion and scam of 'not enough workers in the US to fill X'. It's blatant lies and is killing the US economy.

 

As for these workers...I've worked most of my career in Fortune 10 companies and start-ups and can safely say, the majority of these Indian contractors could not perform even half of the job description they hold...but the companies 'need' more bodies and the lack of expertise and skill is offset by that AND protected by the Indian culture of 'pass the buck'. They protect themselves by massing and hiding within the company...enough yes or nos will eventually exhaust enquiriers to just accept their finally analysis of a problem.

 

A recent WSJ article pointed out this exact point I'm making with the studies and numbers to prove the 'not enough highly skilled tech workers are available' lie. They make the sound argument, if this were the case, if there were NOT enough highly skilled tech workers in the US for the past 10 years then tech worker salaries would not remain flat, close to stagnant which it has been.

 

 

[Serenade]

I'd like to first point out, this post may contain offensive material to certain people. It's not intended for such a purpose but rather information gathered over 20+ years in the tech market.

 

Now, H1Bs pertaining to other markets, I have no input but for the tech market I can say with certainity and without doubt the reason companies such as Microsoft, Oracle, etc are pushing for more visas is solely for cheap labor. Throughout this thread, information as to the US Labor codes state the H1B worker cannot be paid less and this is true but as we all know, laws have loop holes and that is one aspect these companies gain from. I will focus more on one specific country Indian for the remainder of this post since I have extensive knowledge of this relationship within American tech companies.

 

First, by increasing out-of-country labor in the US, these American companies gain (for better word) 'favors' from the hosting countries. India is by far the #1 benefiting country with agreements in place with these major US tech companies and rightfully so with a vast labor pool, cast system and 3rd world country profit roads internally. Since a non-Indian entity cannot own outright 100% of an Indian company (something we here in America allow) these American companies have hidden handshakes...you profit this way, I profit that way.

 

One way of profiting is the second point I'll make. Indian contracting companies, not all but the majority, are unethical entities that not only oppress and surpress their own citizens when it comes to pay and conditions but when able, will take advantage of other countries (including American) citizens. The more these contracting companies 'place' workers, the more the US tech companies with agreements in place profit.

 

Indian contractors, higher than average are notoriously unqualified. Since until recently when companies standardized uniform global educational standards (e.g. a CS degree from X non-American university = a Stanford degree in CS) Indian constantly and consistently offered employees/contractors with educational backgrounds from 'accreddited' colleges...which turned out to be nothing more than certification mills, in most cases even less than say a technical college like DeVry Institute. Once they couldn't get away with that, they continued with the 'loaded' resumes stating all sorts of skills they had little to no knowledge and interviewed by their own placed employees/contractors, with the secret nod from these US tech companies I speak of. As for the pay scam...these contracting companies hold h1b holders hostage and while they are paid the same rate as US workers (for argument sake say $50 an hour) the holders are lucky to see 30% (on a good contract) of that pay...the rest goes to the unethical Indian contracting company and kickbacks/favors to the US companies.

 

SO to answer this question...there is not nor ever was a shortage of qualified workers here in the US. After the dotcom fallout, these tech companies realized the trend of tech workers pay would ever increase above levels of other positions. To subugate and artifically keep these salaries down, they created this whole illusion and scam of 'not enough workers in the US to fill X'. It's blatant lies and is killing the US economy.

 

As for these workers...I've worked most of my career in Fortune 10 companies and start-ups and can safely say, the majority of these Indian contractors could not perform even half of the job description they hold...but the companies 'need' more bodies and the lack of expertise and skill is offset by that AND protected by the Indian culture of 'pass the buck'. They protect themselves by massing and hiding within the company...enough yes or nos will eventually exhaust enquiriers to just accept their finally analysis of a problem.

 

A recent WSJ article pointed out this exact point I'm making with the studies and numbers to prove the 'not enough highly skilled tech workers are available' lie. They make the sound argument, if this were the case, if there were NOT enough highly skilled tech workers in the US for the past 10 years then tech worker salaries would not remain flat, close to stagnant which it has been.

Thanks for sharing this. Based on what I've heard from my husband and my own research, I very much believe all of this is true.

[LucyStoner]

Microsoft just laid off 18,000 people, not including contract workers. There are plenty of trained adults who could use nice paychecks, not all of them are kids.

To say nothing of the fact that Microsoft fires good, talented people all the time. The work culture can be very difficult. They also rely on contractors who are required to take 3 months off each year but then come back after their mandatory layoff so. Microsoft doesn't owe them the benefits they give regular employees for the same work.

 

Ageism is also a huge issue. Employers often overlook skilled people in their 50s and 60s. It's a real problem.

[LucyStoner]

As long as people with aptitude in math can make 6 figures working for the government with mere masters degrees, academia will have trouble winning these people over. It will continue to be a problem as long as teaching is neither lucrative nor prestigious in this country. I'm not saying it should make you wealthy, but it would help if you could support a family on it.

Academia is offering up fewer and fewer tenure track positions. Most people under the age of 40 I know who have tried to get into academia have had to find other jobs in order to feed their family. I don't think academia is having much trouble finding people when they offer decent jobs. Relying on PT adjuncts consistently though has probably driven a lot of people to run away from their academia dreams.

[mommymilkies]

Academia is offering up fewer and fewer tenure track positions. Most people under the age of 40 I know who have tried to get into academia have had to find other jobs in order to feed their family. I don't think academia is having much trouble finding people when they offer decent jobs. Relying on PT adjuncts consistently thought has probably driven a lot of people to run away from their academia dreams.

This is our current problem.  Dh has a tenured teaching job.  However, the pay is lousy, the benefits are non-existant, and the area we live in is not conducive to a happy life for us.  We have been trying to move, but tenure-track or full time jobs are extremely hard to find.  We've been looking for a few years and several decided during or after interviews that they would just hire adjuncts and not actually hire anyone.  We did turn down one job offer this year (very reluctantly) because it was a huge pay cut with twice the work.  It is not that there is a lack of qualified and interested applicants-they get TONS when the jobs open, but they are increasingly hiring adjuncts to fill full time positions.  The pay is awful, no benefits, and it's almost impossible for anyone except local new grads or retirees to take those jobs. 

[Frances]

We have several friends who work for one of the giant tech companies that uses lots of H1-B visas. According to them, the company needs there to be a "shortage" of qualified of US workers because they want to be able to hire whoever they want. They create the shortage in different ways. As someone mentioned up thread, sometimes they already know who they want and they write the job qualifications so specifically for them that no one else could possibly qualify. At other times, their hiring policies result in a lack of qualified citizens, although that might not be the direct intent. For example, one of the jobs a good friend first had with the company required a PhD and a two-year post-doc in a specific STEM field and some other technical requirements. Those were the stated requirements. Behind the scenes, our friend found out later that the unstated requirements were that that you could not have any previous related industry experience (not counting internships) and your PhD had to be from a very short list of universities (leaving out some of the top universities in the country in this field and also many schools equivalent to those on the list). So the result was that the list of people who met both the stated and unstated qualifications was very small and included both US citizens and non-citizens. He found out that the reason for no previous industry experience was that the position included being on-call basically 24/7 and that if people had worked elsewhere previously, they left very quickly. Those that didn't have anything to compare it to tended to stay longer. Most people usually either left the company or more commonly, moved to a different position in the company within a couple of years.

 

But, he and many others who asked were never able to get a good reason for the short list of PhD universities. He said he had no idea when he chose his grad school that it was one of those on the list. And all of his colleagues agreed that many other PhD programs produced as good or better grads in the field. Besides necessitating hiring non-citizens, he said the small pool of qualified workers pretty much meant that whoever applied and met the requirements was hired. And many of those hired were not very good, even after the company spent lots of time and money training them.

 

On a positive note, a co-worker of mine had a son who barely managed a 3.0 in his undergrad EE program due to early time management issues and having to work lots of hours to pay for school. He started out working for one of the contractors of this tech company, but within a year was hired by the tech company and two years later has already been promoted twice. So at least his experience with this tech company was better than some related on other STEM threads where engineers fresh out of undergrad needed both internships and a very high GPA to be hired.

 

 

[Serenade]

To say nothing of the fact that Microsoft fires good, talented people all the time. The work culture can be very difficult. They also rely on contractors who are required to take 3 months off each year but then come back after their mandatory layoff so. Microsoft doesn't owe them the benefits they give regular employees for the same work.

My husband's company operates like this with "temporary" workers. They hired them through an agency for just under 2 years, and then when they reach that point where they would be required to make the job permanent (two years, I think), they terminate them.

 

Ageism is also a huge issue. Employers often overlook skilled people in their 50s and 60s. It's a real problem.

Yeah, my husband is now in this category, and he felt his company made it very clear at his last review that he is not wanted anymore. Luckily he was not terminated, but he sees the writing on the wall and is looking to get out as they are making his life miserable -- you know, work him to death and eek out every last little bit of productivity before they ax him. We are preparing for a significant pay cut and possibly a career change because good engineering jobs are getting harder and harder to find.

[FaithManor]

Also of note for the tech industry, when NAFTA was signed, IBM, Microsoft, EDS, HP, and other IT companies bribed our congress - both parties pretty equally - to include a provision in the treaty that both US and H1B tech workers would be exemot from Fair Labor Laws. Therefore, unpaid, mandatory overtime abounds for both the overseas and American IT worker and there is no legal recourse. There is literally no legal maximum on the numbers of hours the employer can require you to work, nor any regulation of the working conditions. In some cases, even OSCHA cannot be enforced for IT work environments.

 

So one way this makes the labor cheaper is to require 80 hours work weeks and pay salary for 40. They do this all the time to my husband. From Aug. 4th - 27th, his employer demanded an extra 191 hours or be fired. We were recovering from our car accident and for certain could not afford to be losing our medical insurance. So he worked it. Our lawyer says it is perfectly legal because the Fair Labor Laws were entirely exempted for IT workers, and the law is written in such a way that it supercedes state labor laws as well. When he needed to take 4 hrs. off for ds's checkup with the surgeon, his vacation pay was docked and he was told not to take anymore time for medical ( they still owe him two weeks of vacation before the end of the year) between now and Thanksgiving or he could be fired. They also said he will not receive comp time off at the end of the year for the to date accumulated extra hours of 423 hrs. mandatory overtime.

 

So, he recently brought up the fact that while the law states they do not have to pay him or give him comp time, they cannot hold him against his will in the building nor force him to answer his phone at home. So, he will go in at 8, leave a 5, and if they attempt to stop him, he will file criminal and civil charges. They are freaking out because he is the tech lead of the single most successful software group in the company and he is looking for a new job with a smaller firm who does not think like IBM and Microsoft. They should have thought of that before they abused the crap out of him.

 

Most of this is his direct manager's fault. The guy is positively without ethics and morals. Previous to this, he worked for a very kind, reasonable person. When he worked extra, he was always allowed flex time, and he received regularnpay raises and bonuses. This manager, he is wicked! But, it should be noted that this kind of thing is getting more and more common in IT. As the years go by and the laws favor treating IT workers like serfs and politicians are not inclined to do anything about it, the attitude in management has become more and more brazen because they tend to get rather large executive bonuses for heaping massive amounts of work on a small number of workers in order to keep payroll down. We've been watching the trend and are relieved that ds, though a brilliant, talented coder for one so young, has decided to major in something else.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Good for your husband for standing up to this nonsense. I hope he can eventually persuade his coworkers to refuse to put up with it as well.

[fairfarmhand]

 

One problem with many people from India is that although they can “speak†English, the English they speak cannot be understood by most people who were born in the USA and that does create communications barriers.

 

 

 

Might I also add that communicating on a crackling, poor phone line with non-native English skills is much more difficult than communicating face to face or on a phone line that actually sounds good.

 

I have certain companies that I despise calling because I can barely hear the poor person on the other end.

[SwallowTail]

Of course. Faculty positions are advertised both online and in the journals read by  the community. This is required. Everybody looking for a job knows where to look. The 60-100 people who apply for each position obviously found out. Only a small minority of the applicants are Americans. Btw, a grad student would not be looking for a faculty position at a research university; to be qualified would require at least 2-4 years of postdoctoral research experience.

The first criterion is the number of publications in well respected journals. Your research interests and expertise must fit the field for which the position is intended (in other words, if it's a job as a condensed matter experimentalist, an atomic theorist will not be considered - no matter how well published). Where you received your graduate degree matters a little, and at what institution you are currently working matters as well.

Each of the top 5-6 candidates is invited for a two day interview during which they give two presentations and talk to a dozen people.

After that, the offer goes to the one the search committee considered best. There is absolutely no incentive to specifically pick foreigners - they pick the best, because nothing else would be in the department's interest. The people who make the decision are the people who will be working with the new person for the next few decades.

(Btw, the search committee is actually required by HR to list for each applicant the reason he/she was not chosen.)

 

Or are you referring to graduate school admission? There, the most important feature is a good GRE score in the subject GRE, plus undergraduate research experience if possible, and then of course, grades.

 

Physics may be particularly difficult in this matter, because most of the scientific focuses that appeal to American students are currently in areas with "bio" relevance - biopolymers, biomedical engineering, biomaterials, biochemistry/pharmaceuticals, medical fields, etc..  I hesitate to say that Americans are stupid or are lacking in mathematical or science ability.

 

However, I will share some personal insights that  might  be interesting to you and your department, although it has probably been on your radar prior to this.  In my experiences, the foreign students from Asia and India certainly had higher test scores on the subject tests in chemistry, physics, or math.  They certainly did well in their course work both before and during grad school.  However, their written communication was abysmal.  Their ability to  be creative in research was often lacking.  Their ability to work effectively on teams, especially with Americans was nearly non-existent.  In short, we are preparing reams of Asian grad students to take our best information and training elsewhere or we are training them to be very poor coworkers in industry.  (Trust me, I have had that experience as well).  Managing Asian workers as post-docs in academia or in the industrial lab was very difficult.

 

Some very good schools give preference to American grad students, even if their scores are somewhat lower to they are less impressive in their academic portfolio.  Where I went for my polymer science and engineering  grad work is one like that, and the students with whom I attended are now leaders in their fields at some of the best companies in this nation - GE, DuPont, Down, Exxon - vie presidents, presidents, directors of research, etc..  These are the students who will make a long term economic and scientific difference in the future of our nation, and I wish more schools would attend to that fact. 

 

The school I went to for materials science and engineering was very concerned with maintaining and boosting their top 5 rating, and the method for achieving that was invariably by boosting numbers - which meat allowing in tons, and tons of unfunded Asian students.  This, in my opinion, after being in another environment and being in industry for 7+ years, was a distinctly inferior place than the smaller, predominantly American one. Most of the foreign students were barely literate in English and almost all planned to depart for their home countries upon completion of their degrees.  The ones I worked with were very, very sweet people - please do not mistake my opinion of them as one of a personal nature.

 

[SwallowTail]

A friend of mine who was a director of research in the UK for a very large chemical/consumer goods company disclosed to me that the company  built a laboratory facility in China, where they provided dormitory rooms and all meals for no charge, and they worked around the clock for $12,000/year.  These were chemists with PhD's.  Americans and Bristish citizens cannot compete with that. 

[Serenade]

A friend of mine who was a director of research in the UK for a very large chemical/consumer goods company disclosed to me that the company  built a laboratory facility in China, where they provided dormitory rooms and all meals for no charge, and they worked around the clock for $12,000/year.  These were chemists with PhD's.  Americans and Bristish citizens cannot compete with that.

This is so disturbing.

[FaithManor]

This is one reason we have looked extensively at ways to get our family - including married daughter and son in law - out of the US and into a culture not dominated by corporate politics. We are rapidly going back to a feudal state in which a small class of wealthy elite control the government and societal structure while the masses work to death for a pittance on behalf of their lords.

 

If you look at the legislative agenda of the past 20 years, it is pretty startling how many back door deals have been made that further erode workers' rights and to shrink the middle class. Calling this "The United Corporations of America" would not be an overstatement. We can talk all we want about post high school education being preparative or not for future employment, but it doesn't address the problem of employers being willing to pay  for highly qualified individuals.

 

 

[Momof3littles]

A friend of mine who was a director of research in the UK for a very large chemical/consumer goods company disclosed to me that the company  built a laboratory facility in China, where they provided dormitory rooms and all meals for no charge, and they worked around the clock for $12,000/year.  These were chemists with PhD's.  Americans and Bristish citizens cannot compete with that. 

 

And in certain instances, similar things are happening where various phases of development, etc. are outsourced to contracted companies, thereby reducing some of the larger company's liability and obligations to employees. 

 

Pharma sales is another big area where the push to contracted employees is happening, at a lower salary and with a reduction or elimination of long term obligations like pension, 401 match, etc. edited to add: and again, it reduces liability for the major pharma company to contract out sales staff.