| >It's like employers don't even attempt to think about anything from the employee's perspective -- even after they've struggled to fill their own positions. "Cheap business owners" couldn't be a more accurate byline. Or maybe the job their trying to fill isn't worth that much to them (the employers, that is)? As an example, let's take a speech-writer for a presidential candidate. Company X (let's say it has 100 billion in the bank) wants a website, so it looks for an SEO firm, but it's cheap and not interested in investing in the website. X doesn't get skilled SEO consultants. X now has three choices - get minimum quality workers, drop the website project or pay more for better workers. Obviously, workers would prefer if X choses 3, but there are times when it just doesn't make sense to do so (or the company doesn't _think_ it needs to do so, and goes out of business): What if a company has a small audience comprised of people who don't find things online. Let's say the company runs a program only senators would use. That's a hundred person market which practically requires personal connection to their staff to make a deal. Hiring someone for $250,000 website is just not worth it. Practically, in a capitalist environment, workers are "contractors" selling themselves. The same way I would not pay for a big-iron computer when all I need is a laptop, companies don't want to pay $200,000 when they can find someone for less. |
Just imagine the businesses that suddenly become profitable if employers could provide nothing beyond room and board and employees weren't allowed to quit!