Your numbers are so far off that I can see where it is effecting your conclusions.

Let's look at the training costs. It does not take $60k (six months of lost productivity plus $20k in training) to train someone on a new technology. More like $5-10K plus 1 month productivity loss to be up to speed on said technology. It could be 1 month at 100% or 2 months at 50% if that employee is still doing is old job. If it takes longer, you should fire them for being a dumb-ass. I have learned new technology in a week at a conference for only $1K so is possible that is may cost less. There is also an opportunity cost for that first month while that employee is becoming proficient.

On the other side, you have to find the new hire with this hot technology skill while every other company is looking for him too. This is not going to be easy or fast. It can take 3 or more months to find someone like that maybe longer. You also have to train him on the company, systems, environment, team, duties, adminstrative proceedures. This also takes time, usually much longer than training on hot new technology takes. This can be as much as 1-3 months depending on the complexity of your organization. All of this searching for, hiring and training of new employee comes in the form of lost productivity and lost opportunity costs.

Let's run the balance sheet for both scenerios.

Current employee, training - $5-10K, lost productivity - $100/12 = $8.3K, opportunity cost - $50K/12 = $4.2K. Total = $17.5K - 22.5K

New employee, training - $0K, lost productivity - $100/12 = $8.3K (for 1 month, could be as high as $25K), opportunity cost = $50/12 * 4months = $16.7K (3 months candidate search + 1 month productivity, could be as high as $25K). Total = $25K - $50K.

That fallacy of your argument is that some new hire with the hot new technology skills can be instantly found hired and brought up to speed. This is never, never the case. Also, the training costs and lost productivity with the current employee is not $60K. If your employees, are that bad, you would be better off firing them all and starting over.

This is just wrong thinking on so many levels and it is what drives executives to make bad decisions. Let me give you an example to make it clear.

Let say you are earning a salary of $80K and your company needs someone to come up to speed on "hot new technology". They could hire someone for $100K, if they could find them, but that would take months and you would have to take time to teach them all the company internals, lost productivity etc. Instead of trying to hire said new guy, they could send you to training and up your pay to $100K which is fair market value for "hot new technology". Now in the next year, you use "hot new technology" to create an extra $50K of value for the business. The business, over the next year, come out ahead $30K ($50K value - $20K extra salary).

Win for the business, win for the employee. The problem is that businesses are too stupid to see past the next quarter. They are all chasing lowest cost option even if it does not create long term value for the business.

Dear Fluke,

I use your multimeters and love them. Please allow SparkFun to have a one-time, royalty-free license to use your trademark for this batch of multimeters.

No one is going to confuse these multimeters with those of Fluke. And it will be a good-will gesture that those of us in the EE community would appreciate.

byteherder

Twitter is headquartered on Market St. in San Francisco. So they are located in the expensive area of a really expensive city. Hardly what you would call the poster child for urban blight.

'...locate themselves in existing urban communities. Ideally, in blighted ones,'

You mean you want Google to locate its campuses in urban blighted areas (slums). No modern tech company will do that, no one would work for them. It is all about attracting the best and brightest minds. I have a suggestion, why don't you clean up your cities and get rid of the blighted areas and maybe companies will want to locate there.

Whoosh....The whole concept went over your head and you focused on the most insignificant part.

As a practical matter, an agent would need to focus on those individuals that would be worth their time and effort. A reasonable cut off would be $100k+. Some agents would work just with elite programmers ($250k+) and some would cover a broader range. There is no reason that someone making $100K+ should not have an agent.

By the way, I have over 20 years experience in the industry and am well in the elite range so the Dunning-Kruger effect does not apply. Dubious comments by AC posters do not further the dialog.

I read about 30 magazines a month. My top picks are:

Scientific American
New Scientist
IEEE Spectrum
Circuit Cellar
Elektor
Nuts and Volts
Servo
Runner's World
Running Times
Inc.
Entrepreneur
Wired
Technical Analysis of Stocks and Commodities
Linux Format
Linux User and Developer
Racecar Engineering
RaceTech
Some Trade magazines
Some Fitness magazines
Some History magazines

I had this same idea back in 1999. Why shouldn't top software programmer/developer/engineers have agents similar to sports agents or hollywood agents. They would be constantly looking out for a better position or your next position if you are coming off of a contract. They would also negotiate the best contract for you. They would know the market rates for your skills and would tell you how to be more marketable. They work for you and that they get 10% of you salary. Companies would love them because they don't have to pay the placement agency the finder's fee or the higher bill rate for contract positions. Programmers would love them because they get better jobs at better salaries or a higher percentage of the bill rate. Agents could have many programmer clients so they could earn a decent living too.. A win, win, win situation.

You are probably thinking that is what recruiters today do. WRONG. Recruiters act as the middlemen and only get paid if you take the position they have available. They don't work for you. I am talking mostly about contract positions here. Consider what a recruiter will say, if you desire a higher rate then what the company is offering. They will try and talk down your rate. If you don't take the position, they make nothing, if you take a reduced rate, they at least make something. Also, consider if you want a higher rate after being on contract a while. A recruiter will never tell you to leave the job and find another position. They don't work for you.

Top programmers (100K+) should have agents. The 10% you paid the agent would be worth it just to negotiate better starting contracts and raises. This does not count the value of their services of always being on the lookout for that ideal job. How many of us spent time looking for a better jobs when we are employed?

Gestapo.....The grammar Nazis are going to get me for that one.

I am sure the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestpo too, would have loved this but it just didn't exist at that time.

Who thinks this will stop at just helping "the FBI identify and catch criminals"?
 
This is a bigger threat to privacy than anything in history.

When I went to university we didn't even have 77 fields of study.

Now, you kids get off my lawn.

Justin Bieber

I used to live in Phoenix for a long time. Like any big city it has its good points and its bad points. As a hub for high tech, it has a ways to go.
Intel has a huge presence there, so does, American Express, Honeywell, Paypal, Freeport-McMoran. Freescale used to. Phoenix is more high tech than most people know.

The good:
- Good weather 9 months out of they year. That is opposed to most places that have maybe 6-7 marginally passable months.
- Reasonably priced housing.
- Talented technical subculture
- Salaries in the midrange.


The bad
- There are those 3 months out of the year.
- Talent pool is good but not huge like Silicon Valley


The ugly
- Almost no venture funding. If you want funding, you have to look out of state.

I'll take mine with a Minigun and Hydra 70 rocket launcher.

Wait until my neighbor's dog sees me coming.