Plenty of NYC Jobs Await Tech Workers

Good for tech workers, I suppose.

But not all tech workers, apparently. If my unemployed tech friends are any indication, these tech jobs "aplenty" are only for the young, cheap, and inexperienced. If you have more than 10 years of experience, you need not apply.

I assume the technology sector supports banking and finance mostly. Banks are hiring and expanding. If people are digging ditches, there's money in selling shovels.

Or, of course, digging those ditches.

But chances are, unfortunately, that you're overqualified and won't get either job.

These are good jobs for technically oriented recent college grads. The digging ditches was a poor analogy. What I intended to say, was that this is an industry that supports banking and finance.

This is good news. Let's hope the jobs go to Americans and not H1B Visa people.

They should go to the best person qualified. This way the business grows, succeeds and pays taxes. Workers hired will spend money in the local economy, invest in real estate and maybe even support the arts.

"They should go to the best person qualified."

But not OVERqualified, of course.

Riversider, agreed. If the best qualified happens to be someone with an H1B Visa, that person will likely become an American citizen in the future as well. If we are willing to import oil, electronics, clothes, etc... from foreign countries, why not import brains/skills that can actually help the country in the long run.

NYCMatt, I have never heard of a truly over qualified person not being able to find a job. It's like someone telling you that an over qualified buyer was rejected by your board!

HIB Visa workers will send a lot of their money back home. The economy will benefit far more if US citizens are hired.

Also, a lot of tech workers, mainly those who work for the govt. and govt. contractors, must be US citizens since they have access to classified stuff.

How to succeed in business.

Don't hire the best workers.

Pres, it's true that money will be sent back to their home country, but it's better than sending the jobs there. Basing the hiring criteria on 'citizenship' instead of 'best qualified' will benefit the country more in the short-term, but not the long term.

As an H1B visa holder for many years I paid US taxes, bought US real estate, invested in US equities, bought cars, boats, etc etc. Believe me the companies for whom I worked would have far rather paid a US citizen than me. But in the interests of being competitive they are left with little choice. I didn't send a dollar back to Canada -I think illegal immigrant workers do that.

Sunday, very good point again. And another reason we should not punish American businesses from opening up subsidiaries in other countries. In the end we are better off. Jobs are apportioned out in a way that makes sense. The foreign worker actually protects American jobs.

Spinaker good point there too. It really is easier to hire an American citizen. It's really about hiring the best person for the job.

RS, it's a tricky balance.

Yes, but it's not something we should politicize. What the government can and should do is promote a good business climate and help make sure we have the best educated work force there is.

spinnaker1: "I think illegal immigrant workers do that."

Are you serious? I'm not saying they don't, but based on the context of the rest of your comments, it sounded more like, 'I think [ONLY] illegal immigrant workers do that.'

I apologize in advance if that's not what you meant.

Its the nature of the beast Sunday; man crosses border illegally leaving wife and family behind, lives in poor conditions, pays little tax and sends every penny back south of the border. Most of these guys are hardworking, reliable, and only here to secure a better life for their families. A legal visa worker may bring his/her family with them, therefore little need to export the earnings and in many cases their quality of life is no different here than where they left. This is generally not the case for the illegal worker.

It was not intended to be derogatory, just a fact of life.

I see no problem with making derogatory remarks about illegal aliens -- they're criminals, regardless of whether they're nice or hardworking.

Their motivations, and thus behaviors, are not the same as legal immigrants or visa-holders (historically or currently), and nobody should pretend they are.

Nobody should jump at the opportunity to canonize them for their law-breaking.

It's really that simple.

This week we are seeing the leaks in alan's hart.

Illegal immigrants

Smokers

what next?

There is long list of people I would trash before I would the type of illegal immigrant whose only motivation is for survival for himself and his family. Given similar circumstances I'm not so sure I wouldn't be right there beside him. But I'm not, I'm here, sitting on my terrace in a city and country of saints.

Sunday, I dispute your assertion that overqualified people can never not find jobs. The fact is that employers will not hire a $200k person for a $75K job for a variety of reasons including:
-Hiring managers are not comfortable managing people who may know more than they do. This is less likely to be an issue more senior/higher up you are. Its not strictly a matter of age but a 45 year old is more likely to see the value in a 55 yo's experience and potential guidance than a 30 yo is.

-Unless someone is deliberately choosing a less stressful or socially positive (teacher, nurse, non-profit, etc) role, people are not likely to be happy about going from $200k to $75K. They might be

happy at first to just have the job but as soon as the job market becomes more positive they are likely to start looking for something more commensurate with their experience and earning history. Employers know this and would rather hire someone who is used to making $75K (or $65K or maybe $80K) even if they are less qualified initially, employers think they are more likely to stick around.

-Given that technology has completely changed the world and the world was created in 1999 there is no value to any work experience prior to 2000. What possible benefit could come from hiring an overqualified fossil versus someone with much less experience but who is a "digital native".

Overqualified people have problems finding jobs even when they are willing to take significant cuts in title and salary..Also in this buyers market for talent transitioning careers or even industries is very difficult for those who want to try something new: employers are less willing to hire a square peg for a round hole, regardless of how interesting, passionate and obviously brilliant as that square peg may be, when they know they will be able to find exactly the round peg, with the precise grooves, they are looking for.

-

Liz always true no matter what the market.

Lizyank, I agree that over qualified applicants can have trouble finding jobs. However, they always do when they accept what their "relevant" skills are truly worth in the "current" market place or find the right employer who values "all" the skills they have.

"What possible benefit could come from hiring an overqualified fossil versus someone with much less experience but who is a "digital native"."

The reason I directed my comment to NYCMatt was because, if I used the same logic he used for approving buyers at his co-op, I would reply: that 'fossil' is not overqualified for "My" Company's job. The candidate can go find another company who thinks the corners are worth the extra money...

spinnaker1, most of the illegal aliens in the US are from Mexico, an upper-middle-income nation that markets itself as poor.

Most of the people who defend the illegal aliens are upper-middle and lower-rich Americans who value the cutrate services that illegal aliens offer, and have often bonded with nannies and housekeepers ("practically a member of the family") who provide those services.

And understandably so -- who wants to clean his own bathtub or deal with his own meltdown-child?

"And understandably so -- who wants to clean his own bathtub or deal with his own meltdown-child?"

aboutready, your child had a hissy fit recently, care to comment?

spinnaker1, I could be wrong but I think most H1B visa workers probably do not have their family here for awhile. I just thought it was strange to compare H1B visa with illegal immigrants in regards to 'the pennies' they send back vs. the thousands that an average H1B visa workers send back to their home country, which doesn't bother me at all. In any case, I still think H1B visas are better than off-shoring the jobs to another country, though sometimes it is necessary for certain jobs.

As for illegal immigrants, I don't have an issue with people's opinion if it's really based on law as oppose to racism. I think we should spend money on securing our borders instead of wasting resources in identifying and deporting the ones who are already here. If they were caught performing other illegal activities, sure, deport them. As for people who argue that they are stealing jobs from Americans, well, those Americans should really get better trained to do something that pays better so that we will need to issue less H1B visas...

Every h1b I knew -many Canadians btw, had their families here. It is made so painless that in many respects it's not much different than changing cities for work within Canada. Again, the whole idea of sending money home seems odd when when the vast majority of h1b's I ever knew had an intention to transition to permanent residency, and while busy doing so they are consuming goods and paying taxes in the U.S.

alanhart, are you suggesting I am an employer of illegals? Do you eat strawberries?

Canada is not an American state? :) Funny, but I don't know any Canadian h1b visa holders. We both should probably expand our circle of friends...
spinnaker1, I doubt ThePres was referring to Canadian h1b visa holders when he first made the comment above.

Eh, too lazy to read the whole thread.

Funny, I know lots of Canadian H1B holders (must be that self-selection thing). We H1B holders tend to stick together. Don't forget the Canadian TN Visa holders.

Alan: agree that illegals should be treated differently from legal immigrants, and should not be afforded the same legal protections as citizens, permanent residents and workers/students on visas.

I think the feelings people have towards illegals are more complex than mere happiness at saving a few bucks. A lot of it stems from "But for the grace of XXX... " I can't say that my forefathers were all too observant of immigration laws. Nor did they expect very much in terms of legal protection or status in their various host countries. But of course, their children did. Long story.

I am not consistent in my views towards illegal immigrants + what rights they and their children should have:
1) Education - yes, up to 12th grade.
2) Citizenship - U.S. should abolish the right of citizenship by virtue of birth alone - all the other Western countries have long abolished this, including Canada
3) Actual enforcement of employment laws

nyc10023, so you believe children should pay for the crimes of their parents? You also believe this country should behave like all other Western countries in regards to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?"

Again, I believe in spending money in tightening our borders for safety reasons. I see it as part of defense spending. I also understand that the illegal immigrants committed a crime by being here. However, I do not believe in punishing the children for their parents' crime. This country is better than that or at least should strive to be better than that.

Sunday, it's complicated. No, I don't think kids should pay for crimes of parents. But
should kids of illegal immigrants have the same rights (which cost good $) as those of
legal immigrants and citizens.

As I've said, free education up to 12th grade (and maybe beyond). Right to citizenship
based on birth - I don't know what the real statistics are on anchor babies, but I lean
towards not granting automatic citizenship. Other Western countries with large immigrant
populations, both legal and illegal, have done away with this, and I don't see a negative
impact.

Sunday, it's not complicated.

The parents of those children are simply working the system. The children are almost always citizens of the parents' country (that's certainly true of Mexico), and maintain deep cultural ties and full linguistic abilities for the "old country". They are not stateless people if they're denied residency in the US.

I believe citizenship should be an automatic right only for the children of citizens and legal residents. Unfortunately, a Constitutional change would be required to end automatic citizenship upon birth on this land, and that's not going to happen.

We are no longer a frontier nation (the original reason for citizenship upon birth), and don't need to settle our land. There's simply no reason for us as a nation, or need for non-amnesty cases, to make citizenship an automatic thing upon birth. And we're better than THAT -- we can have higher standards.

Illegaql immigrants are not "criminals". Yes they break the law by illegally enter the country, but they are looking for work, not rob the 7-11, or blow up the George Washington Bridge, so a little perspective please. A country needs to control its borders, and legal immigration is better than illegal immigration, but lets not disparaging these people, we should just deal with the issue, instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

We can always round up the 12 mil or so, send them back to where they came from, then create a new visa classification to get them all back and rebuild the industries that crumbled when they left.

Sound good AH? How 'bout peaches, do you like peaches?

I assume some of the hiring would be from banks who now have a lot more regulations they need to manage... and software is often part of that.

"Illegaql immigrants are not "criminals". Yes they break the law..."

Law-breaking non-criminals?

let's not tar all criminals with the same brush. Some buys rob banks, some people drive too fast. I guess they are all criminals.

> some people drive too fast

Have we suddenly lost the ability to separate infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies?

The definition of crime is "gross" violation of law...

spinnaker1, I don't like California export produce -- the strawberries taste like cottonballs, the peaches like baseballs.

But I also don't see the need for subsidies on exotic out-of-season produce. Strawberries used to be a treat, and any outside of June a luxury item. We can live with a return to that. We can live with a return to spending a much higher percentage of our budget on food, and much less on transportation and entertainment.

As for deportation, an earnest effort at deporting a tiny percentage of the 12 million will result in the overwhelming majority of the remainder to pack up and re-emigrate. It's preposterous to argue the "12 million" thing, as Boston Bloomberg and the Carlos Slim's NYT are fond of doing.

Riversider, this really sums up your ethos: "Illegaql immigrants are not "criminals". Yes they break the law"

NYCMatt: I work for a tech company with a bunch of openings that we have a hard time filling. We love to find folks with significant, relevant experience. Often, when it comes time to interview people, it's remarkable how low their skill level actually is and we often come away wondering how they remained employed previously. Obviously, this doesn't describe everyone looking for a job and may not apply to your friends, but it's simply not the case that just because you've been in the industry for a long time that you're necessarily overqualified, or even qualified at all.

"NYCMatt, I have never heard of a truly over qualified person not being able to find a job."

You must not get out much.

But I also don't see the need for subsidies on exotic out-of-season produce. Strawberries used to be a treat, and any outside of June a luxury item. We can live with a return to that. We can live with a return to spending a much higher percentage of our budget on food, and much less on transportation and entertainment.

Who appointed you Food Czar. I think year round produces is a good thing.

"Illegaql immigrants are not "criminals

My comment was not taken as intended. Yes by definition criminals, I just would not tar these guys all with the same brush. They're not ax-murderers. At least not most of them.

alanhart- do you really consider funky fruit to be the fault of illegal immigrants?

If the immigration situation is that offensive to you, why not get busy flushing them out of your own community; all the known fruit merchants, all the purse and hat vendors you pretend to smile at every morning? Report back on your success and we shall have a giant rah-rah session for the greatness of alanhart.

Moving to Arizona?

"In the end we are better off. Jobs are apportioned out in a way that makes sense. The foreign worker actually protects American jobs."

You are the biggest f-ing moron I have ever met. Are you for real? Or are yu just a 12 year old goofing off on dad's computer?

"Illegaql immigrants are not "criminals". Yes they break the law..."

Would you like to make this argument before a judge? I am sure they will be quite fascinated by it! Comedy hour at the courthouse...

Hey pres, your table is ready, sir.

The only way I support giving amnesty (or what you PC people call "pathway to citizenship") is by requiring illegals to serve in the military for 3 years. After the 3 years, you get citizenship right there on the spot.

Hmm. Up it to FIVE years in the military with a lifetime callback commitment and I'm on board with the idea.

"You are the biggest f-ing moron I have ever met."

From a genius like alpo, thats a compliment.

True Dat!

Alan: where do you stand on K-12 for children of illegal immigrants (non-citizens/PRs)?

For noncitizen K-12 children of illegal aliens, highly opposed. School is very very very expensive, budgets get cut, other children suffer.

It's another "working the system" situation.

And the high "fertility" rate of immigrants (historically and now) must be taken into account ... if they're legal, fine, we can't and shouldn't tell people how many children to have, and we need to plan around it and deal with it; if illegal, why should we? Because the "innocent children" suffer? Please, they suffer at the hands of their parents -- that's the totality of that situation.

See, this is where I have developed an inconsistent view. Out of "compassion", I s'pose and also the horrible specter of millions of undoc. illegal child immigrants not getting basics, I would allow free ed. But bcs of the nature of educational funding in this country, it's a burden that's shifted to local gov't which lacks the power to enforce immig. laws.

A friend who lived in one of the wine counties in Cali said that workers would stick their children in the school system -- free babysitting, no support for education at home -- during the season, then yank them out a month before the fall semester was over for a couple of months back in Mexico, then back after the spring semester began, then out again before the semester was over.

Besides the costs of staffing to the full level, it wreaked havoc on educational continuity for all the school's students, and wreaked further havoc on the school budget in that funding is provided by the state and/or Federal government to the school on a student/day ACTUAL attendance basis.

Yeah, the burden is shifted to local gov't. That's evil. Some boards of education in Canada are allowed to charge foreign students who are not legal immigrants or asylum claimants tuition (K-12).

When I get done being patronizingly nice to the illegal aliens who I refer to as "immigrants", I like to get cozy with the underlying statistics. Ahhhh, here are a couple now:

US unemployment rate, June 2010: 9.5%
Mexico unemployment rate, April 2010: 5.5%

US outperforms Mexico!!! Woohoooo!!!

(And by the way, Mexico has consistently had much lower unemployment, throughout the boom years too.)

RS, you don't even need to get that complicated. An illegal immigrant is not a criminal just for his or her immigration status.

Despite the lack of intellectual ability of somewhereelse or alanhart to understand, overstaying a visa is not a crime. It may violate an immigration law, but that is not a criminal statute.

This isn't really that hard to understand.

"overstaying a visa is not a crime. It may violate an immigration law"

Oh, good lord. Thank goodness nobody here is a lawyer. Would you like to go before an immigration judge and explain that overstaying a visa is not a crime even thought it violates an immigration law?

LICcomm, tell that to my Danish cousin, who was held at arrival in JFK, in handcuffs and anklecuffs, LICcomm, for four hours before being put directly on the next flight back home, expressly because she had overstayed her US visa on her previous visit, LICcomm. Her dad regretted not being able to spend Christmas with her, LICcomm, that year and for the next several years when she was not permitted back in the US because of her crime, LICcomm.

And no, she's not a breakfast pastry.

Interesting family you have alanhart

So alan's cousin was not put on trial, convicted or put in prison. She was dealt with as the law provides- sent out of the country.

NYCMatt: "You must not get out much."

No, I suppose I don't go out much. However, I have been trying to fill a couple of positions that pays 100+/hr for the past couple of months. They all look qualified or overqualified on paper. The result is what jordyn wrote above.

nyc10023, it is not complicated to me. I see it as charity. Why should it matter to me who their parents are. When they grow up, they will pay taxes. The correct solution is to tighten our borders. It's the same reason I don't believe putting drug users in jail is a solution. If they steal or run someone over because they were high, then yes, put them in jail. Put the drug dealers in jail. The drug users need real help.

"No, I suppose I don't go out much. However, I have been trying to fill a couple of positions that pays 100+/hr for the past couple of months. They all look qualified or overqualified on paper. The result is what jordyn wrote above."

Sunday, I've got some qualified candidates for you. I assure you they're overqualified, but you decide.

Email me the details at DRigg85@gmail.com and I'll forward resumes.

Sunday - are you full-way or part-way on the children of illegal immigrants? As in, educate them to 12th and maybe later for "free" and GC or just free school? That's the complication. I have no qualms about the free education, though of course, since immigration is a fed issue, they should fund schools that have a heavy load. But I don't quite see the way to an easy GC of non-U.S. born children of illegal immigrants.

I generally find that the "overqualified" people are ones who have advanced degrees or high level experience in a field that has nothing to do with the one I'm hiring for. The "overqualified" expect to be paid for their qualifications, not the job specs (and the actual value delivered).

Or even in their own field.

I have many such "overqualified" friends who can't find ANY jobs in their fields because, despite having proven themselves at lower-level jobs years ago on their way up the ladder, no one is willing to hire someone with upper-level experience for lower-level positions, regardless of whether they're willing to take whatever pay cut is necessary.

I have found that a lot of the people who described themselves as "overqualified" in my field, when I look at their resumes, they weren't... they just had a different mix of skills.

Just because you've been working in one field for a while doesn't mean you can handle the specs of a junior position now.

Advertising, for one. Tons of folks who think they're overqualified, but aren't actually qualified. Damn Internet.

"Just because you've been working in one field for a while doesn't mean you can handle the specs of a junior position now."

Generally, those "specs" are easily picked up after just a few weeks on the job.

Hence, they're really "overqualified".

> Generally, those "specs" are easily picked up after just a few weeks on the job.

Not even close.

Old dogs... new tricks.

And even if they get it after months or years, it often comes with a frustration or attitude.

Thats *under*qualified.

Interesting. The people most against illegal immigration are liberals and democrats? Never would have guessed.

Anyone with any sense is against illegal immigration. The debate is about what to do about it.

RSer: liberals don't support illegal immigration, the disagreement is how to stem the tide.

Some would argue that the U.S. as the most powerful nation in the Americas should have the will & ability to stop the flow at source. Others say that U.S. employers to stop hiring illegal immigrants. For those lucky enough to already be here, even the most liberal of liberals would have trouble with a no-questions-ask, unconditional amnesty.

The feds can go on and on, but the border states bear the brunt of integration and providing amenities for illegals. It's not cut and dried. If you don't allow, for example, illegals to obtain DLs and insurance, then you confront one set of issues, if you do, then you are legitimizing their presence.

Riversider does not like thinking about problems that involve thought.

nyc10023: "are you full-way or part-way on the children of illegal immigrants?"

I see them as just children, period. I don't care who their parents are.

columbiacounty, that's all fine and good, we can be republican, democrat, birther, welfare queen, neo nazi, etc.

but can you and I agree that w67 and his support for the mother who killed her 4 kids, plus his nudity around children, is inappropriate?

my nudity killed 4 children... oh my...

NYCMatt, we see "overqualified" resumes everyday, so the problem for us isn't getting resumes.

The reality is, good help is very hard to find because the good ones are already employed by managers who are willing to pay a premium to keep them. The ones who are not paid that premium are the ones who do not understand why some people are paid 10X, 100X, or even 1000X more than them.

So you want to hire people below the prevailing market rate. That's the problem, not that "good help is very hard to find", and not because managers "are willing to pay a premium to keep them." There's no premium, and (you've discovered) there's no discount either.

Please tell me you work at a not-for-profit.

alanhart, Good help is hard to find because they are not looking for a job since they are already well paid. The pay package we are offerring are very competitive. We get resumes, good resumes, overqualified resumes, but they are in fact not qualified, far from it.

So then, similarly, your own employees don't leave -- your unfillable positions are all new positions?

Yes.

alan doesn't understand things like hiring people and, you know, working for your pay. You have to keep things simple for him.

Sunday you don't just go out on the street and find outstanding people, or wait for them to fall into your lap, you grow them. It takes time, investment, and accepting the risk that they will someday leave. Resumes tell you nothing about true talent. Your complaints sound more than a little whiney, they make you sound incompetent.

"Sunday you don't just go out on the street and find outstanding people, or wait for them to fall into your lap, you grow them. It takes time, investment, and accepting the risk that they will someday leave. Resumes tell you nothing about true talent. Your complaints sound more than a little whiney, they make you sound incompetent."

Thank you, Spinnaker.

Employers today want "qualified", CHEAP "talent" who can hit the ground running, won't complain when they're asked to work 14-hour days, never get sick, and will never retire.

They don't see employees truly as "human resources" that need to be trained and cultivated; they see them as appliances that are as interchangeable as light bulbs.

Up the revolution, I always say.

"Sunday you don't just go out on the street and find outstanding people, or wait for them to fall into your lap, you grow them. It takes time, investment, and accepting the risk that they will someday leave. Resumes tell you nothing about true talent. Your complaints sound more than a little whiney, they make you sound incompetent."

But NYCMatt is saying that there's all these really awesome people just sitting around waiting to be plucked off the streets, but that employers simply refuse to pay them a fair wage.

I can't speak for Sunday, but at my company we end up hiring a mix of more junior and experienced folks. In general, we'd prefer people with more experience but it's hard to find people whose capabilities live up to their resumes. As several people have pointed out, no one wants to pay for experience that's not helpful for the job, so it turns out you're exactly right that you often need to grow talent rather than hiring it. I think this proves the point that Sunday's making rather than conflicting with it, though.

> Employers today want "qualified", CHEAP "talent" who can hit the ground running, won't complain when they're asked
> to work 14-hour days, never get sick, and will never retire.
> They don't see employees truly as "human resources" that need to be trained and cultivated; they see them as
> appliances that are as interchangeable as light bulbs.

Thats certainly not true of me, or any of the other employers I know. They're not interchangeable, as it takes a lot to find good employees, and many of the others are idiots.

I think its actually the employees who have actually gotten delusional in many cases.

They've read too many articles on "your brand" that they want to be CEO 3 months out of school, and aren't willing to actually put in the work to learn the trade and become valuable to companies. Can't tell you how many recent grads who say "I want to do something more strategic". Because apparently they took half a class on corporate strategy in college.

Showing up on time is often beneath them. Basic writing skills are so basic they apparently don't need them.
And they'll complain that they know someone who had an extra vacation day at a different company (leaving out that they were laid off last week).

Huge numbers are looking to work for you for 2 years so they can learn something and then go to law school or something else. Completely missing the fact that THEY ARE GETTING PAID. If they want a graduate education, they can go to grad school and pay for it. Or the ones who want a "break" before grad school. Yes, thats what full time jobs are... BREAKS. Its all about what you can do for them, forgetting that they get paid to bring value. This isn't an internship.

Success, like education, is earned. Its not something you simply show up for (although just showing up would be an improvement for many).

And, if you don't like what you're getting, DON'T TAKE THE JOB. Taking the job is committing to it. But don't make the choice and then complain its not fair.

Somewhereelse, you just accurately described recent grads.

I'm talking about people with 20+ years of experience looking for work.

spinnaker1, I was not whining. I was stating a fact that hiring good people is not easy even if you're willing to pay a competitive salary. jordyn clearly understands this because we are in similar situations. More specifically, I was trying to tell NYCMatt that his friends might not be as overqualified as he/they claim to be, because if they truly were, they would be employed by now, especially in the tech field.

Yes, we also grow talent within our group, but sometimes the business grow faster than we expect. Like many firms, we also cut too deep a couple of years ago.

"I was stating a fact that hiring good people is not easy even if you're willing to pay a competitive salary."

Perhaps the perfect candidate your looking for does not exist. Plenty of employers have unrealistic expectations and that is why their jobs go unfilled.