Would be much healthier for humanity overall if these poorly managed companies, you know, just died from their poor management.
By giving companies money.
Reminds me of a back and forth I had with an NYT staff writer who claimed it was "inhumane" to expect people to totally relearn a set of skills every ten years.
People seem to forget that how they "feeeeeeeel" doesn't matter. The job market dictates what you do and don't have to do, and we live in a time when you must consistently learn new skills to be competitive.
It is inhumane to expect people to relearn their skillset every decade on their own dime and time.
It's rare enough that companies pay for small-scale training - a full retraining is pretty much unheard of.
The board & management may have that plan but until they can sell electric cars that a) exist and b) dont spontaneously combust they wont get significant subsidies.
IMO what will really light a fire under their ass at this point, even if you forget about saving the planet, is that an EV is a lot more fun to drive than an equivalently price ICE (post rebates). Whenever I go back to an ICE vehicle for a rental situation, I tend to curse often at how sluggish it feels. Feels like an iPhone/Android vs Nokia situation, manufacturers will get with the program or they will get pounced out of the game by competitors.
I asked how they liked the software and how the office was working out. The response: "Oh, we don't do it for the software. We can hire 100 people out of Ohio State or Michigan and pay them midwest wages and get the same quality. The SV office is for the connections and investors we get."
It's entirely possible that they know exactly what they are doing ;)
No they can't... or they would.
Deeds. Not words.
They also tend to not be aware of the salary ranges out there and I think these traditional companies are exploiting them because most of the engineers really respect the companies and what they stand (or at least stood) for.
In a way I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the boardroom when this is discussed.
Because really, it's sad. I would have taken a significant salary drop to go work on something like this because the Ford office was local to me and the work sounded interesting and potentially more impactful than what I was doing at the time.
Except it's so far below a reasonable rate... and you pretty much know the place would be a crappy workplace producing a substandard product...
20 years ago I worked in the US branch of a Canadian company - we weren’t paid richly but they were paid much less. As a new grad I made 20% more than a 5 year SWE as a Unix SA.
Companies don't seem to get that even though software devs tend to make more than most, the reality is that in the GTA or GVA it literally costs between $600k and $2m for a modest home. Even a renter would be stupid to not factor in the likelihood their rent will dramatically increase during the time they'll be employed.
Ya, great that I can afford a tiny studio basement suite while splitting rent, but I can't yet whether any significant emergencies or really think about eventually renting a place with a bedroom in it.
Everyone in lower income brackets is just really scraping by more than they'd care to admit.
Hiring managers should really read [1], posted previously here in HN. TL;DR: It is not where you or the candidate are located. It is whom you're competing against for hiring talent.
[1] https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engineering-sala...
You get what you pay for.
This is what happens when HR drones are allowed to do naive "compensation range surveys" for regions. They do not understand the subtleties of the market and try to lump people with specialized skills, lots of experience, etc. in with people fresh off the boat from overseas, pumping out bug fixes for boring internal legacy J2EE systems at ancient insurance companies.
Companies like this will be in real trouble if remote work continues to be a thing. They better hope it doesn't.