UBER can't find good help locally. (Pittsburgh, Washington: student loans, how much, tech jobs)

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by fleetiebelle

You'd think they'd want to snag some of the recent graduate developers here before they go back to Bangalore, though.

They get a developer with more experince for the same price from Bangalore.

[MountainDewGuy]

First, let this be proof that Pittsburgh is not as desireable as our promotion leads many to believe. For example, from the article "...recruits want more bike paths, cleaner air and better public transit." Unfortunately, our air is not clean and the public transportation is hideous compared to many other cities. People probably see that there is no rail line extending to/from/between these work locations and they think "WTF?". When a new bike lane is proposed, many native yinzers seem take extreme personal offense, "OMG more bikers how will I ever get to work on time". The young transplants notice that. With other transportation solutions likely a decade or more away, we aren't going to be able to meet the living demands warranted by the local Universities output in tech grads and the potential growth will be severely stunted (it already is).

With that being said, Uber is also very picky. Remember when they hired a bunch of people away from CMU last year? Well, they also chose NOT to hire many from there as well. Very qualified individuals. They are going to have to, gasp, go at it the old fashion way and bring trainable people in a teach them some of the skills needed. I fear they probably have that Facebook mentality of "LETS DO IT NOW HURRY", which doesn't work here.

[MountainDewGuy]

Originally Posted by _Buster

My guess is they are lowballing the salaries because they know of the lower cost of living compared to the west coast, and trying to advertise that as a selling point to potential recruits. People with highly sought after specialized skills are going to want high salaries no matter where they are - just because COL happens to be lower does not mean they are going to accept a lower salary to go there. They may only plan on staying a few years, and they are not going to want a lower salary range on their job history when they go to find their next one.

Right, and keep in mind many people figure out their retirement savings and when you factor in say 10% savings for a $70k job in Pittsburgh vs 10% for a $150k job somewhere like SF or DC, then that's more than twice the amount saved over a 10 year period, plus compounding increases over that time. It is a big difference unless you want to retire in Pittsburgh, which most young to middle aged folks aren't thinking.

[Paul2421]

Originally Posted by MountainDewGuy

Right, and keep in mind many people figure out their retirement savings and when you factor in say 10% savings for a $70k job in Pittsburgh vs 10% for a $150k job somewhere like SF or DC, then that's more than twice the amount saved over a 10 year period, plus compounding increases over that time. It is a big difference unless you want to retire in Pittsburgh, which most young to middle aged folks aren't thinking.

yep. discretionary income and spending also doesn't scale with cost of living.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by gladhands

Did you make up the part where Uber isn't paying enough?

No, it's how the economics of labour supply & demand works

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by UKyank

No, it's how the economics of labour supply & demand works

If only human beings were that simple. I can tell you for certain that Harvard's pay is absolute garbage, yet they have no problem attracting talent, even with Boston's cost of living.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by gladhands

If only human beings were that simple. I can tell you for certain that Harvard's pay is absolute garbage, yet they have no problem attracting talent, even with Boston's cost of living.

But if they had trouble filling those positions, as uber is in this case, they would have to increase the pay, as it stands Harvard pparently has the luxery of people willing to work there on lower pay with the qualifications they want.

[_Buster]

Originally Posted by gladhands

If only human beings were that simple. I can tell you for certain that Harvard's pay is absolute garbage, yet they have no problem attracting talent, even with Boston's cost of living.

Teaching, especially at college level, offers a level of flexibility and lifestyle that is very hard if not impossible to get working at a regular job. Many who take those positions want something between fulltime work and retirement, with great benefits and some prestige. It is low-stress work as well. Therefore the supply of people with that knowledge who want that lifestyle is rather high - they don't need to pay a lot in salary in most cases.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by _Buster

Teaching, especially at college level, offers a level of flexibility and lifestyle that is very hard if not impossible to get working at a regular job. Many who take those positions want something between fulltime work and retirement, with great benefits and some prestige. It is low-stress work as well. Therefore the supply of people with that knowledge who want that lifestyle is rather high - they don't need to pay a lot in salary in most cases.

What? Are you still talking about Harvard? That's not low stress or less work than a full-time job. I agree that Harvard isn't competing with other employers on straight salary alone. People do it for status and delayed rewards. If you are young and good, you put in a few years at Harvard and you are close to guaranteed a great job at a very good school somewhere else. Harvard is not going to give you tenure, if that's what you are thinking. If you are old and great and have a big portfolio of research (i.e. nothing that is even remotely possible without working much more than a full-time job), you might get hired with tenure. By that point, most of these people aren't even capable of relaxing without filling out a grant application.

The idea that teaching in college is less stressful and less work than other types of work is in general ridiculous, but especially if you are thinking of the higher end universities.

[_Buster]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

What? Are you still talking about Harvard? That's not low stress or less work than a full-time job. I agree that Harvard isn't competing with other employers on straight salary alone. People do it for status and delayed rewards. If you are young and good, you put in a few years at Harvard and you are close to guaranteed a great job at a very good school somewhere else. Harvard is not going to give you tenure, if that's what you are thinking. If you are old and great and have a big portfolio of research (i.e. nothing that is even remotely possible without working much more than a full-time job), you might get hired with tenure. By that point, most of these people aren't even capable of relaxing without filling out a grant application.

The idea that teaching in college is less stressful and less work than other types of work is in general ridiculous, but especially if you are thinking of the higher end universities.

No, it's far from ridiculous. Researchers might have stressful jobs. those who are only Profs not so much. and yes- it is definitley less work than your avg full time private sector job based on hours alone. No one in the private sector gets summers off and large block of vacations at other times of year. Stress levels depend on your field, but if the Profs were working at applied jobs in their field instead of teaching, most fields (especially hard sciences and econ, IT, finance, law, medicine) they would be more stressful jobs without a doubt.