Anyone read the NYT article on foreign workers and the tech industry?

[andryd9]

Wonder what some of you with experience think of this article, as much of it contradicts what I've been told: is the job market for engineers hard or soft?

 

[ModusPwnd]

Is this the article you are talking about?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/t...more-foreign-workers-stirs-a-tech-debate.html

I just read it. It doesn't seem to be making too bold of claims. As an "underemployed" physics grad, I guess that I oppose importing more people that will compete with me for a career. But I know that I don't really have any marketable skills and that is what companies need. If they can't get skilled labor from me and my fellow grads, they will get it elsewhere.

 

[Aero51]

This makes me feel like I should have just quit school and became a janitor or a mechanic...or a garbage man! I still can't find a job after 6 months of searching.

 

[SteamKing]

This makes me feel like I should have just quit school and became a janitor or a mechanic...or a garbage man! I still can't find a job after 6 months of searching.

Don't worry. Once the current immigration (read amnesty) bill is passed and signed into law, you'll have plenty of competition for the janitor and garbage man jobs, too! Nothing cures high unemployment like bringing in a lot of extra people to find jobs for.

 

[andryd9]

Thanks for your responses, and yes ModusPwnd, that is the article I was referring to. I suppose the part that concerned me wasn't so much the desire of tech companies to solve what they perceive as their labor issues (or more cynically, to drive down costs.) The part that perked up my ears was the part about many older engineers being unable to find a job in the current market, combined with salaries that haven't risen to reflect a shortage of skills. How specific do your skills have to be before an employer takes a chance with you (that with the plus of a proven track record?) And if the current skills aren't desirable enough to pay for in terms of salaries that reward the existing labor for keeping skills current, or in terms of compensation for retraining, how can they be truly in demand? Those two realities don't mesh well together.

 

[ModusPwnd]

How specific do your skills have to be before an employer takes a chance with you (that with the plus of a proven track record?)

In my experience, they need to be very specific.

And if the current skills aren't desirable enough to pay for in terms of salaries that reward the existing labor for keeping skills current, or in terms of compensation for retraining, how can they be truly in demand? Those two realities don't mesh well together.

In many cases this means the workers aren't nearly as skilled and in demand as they think they are. This is where long term unemployment comes from. I don't think I am seeing the discrepancy here...

What companies need (what I have gleaned they need from job postings) is very specific skills and low expectation of pay. US grads often have broad academic knowledge and high expectations of pay. This is why they need/want foreign workers. There will never be any reason for them to say stop importing potential employees or stop pushing for more graduates; the bigger the pool of applicants for them the better.

 

[symbolipoint]

In my experience, they need to be very specific.




In many cases this means the workers aren't nearly as skilled and in demand as they think they are. This is where long term unemployment comes from. I don't think I am seeing the discrepancy here...

What companies need (what I have gleaned they need from job postings) is very specific skills and low expectation of pay. US grads often have broad academic knowledge and high expectations of pay. This is why they need/want foreign workers. There will never be any reason for them to say stop importing potential employees or stop pushing for more graduates; the bigger the pool of applicants for them the better.

The companies are greedy and lazy. Plenty of nonforeign workers ARE willing to both accept training or retraining on-the-job and also take lower wages, just to return to being employed again.

 

[StatGuy2000]

This makes me feel like I should have just quit school and became a janitor or a mechanic...or a garbage man! I still can't find a job after 6 months of searching.

Have you thought of leaving the US and seeking work elsewhere? Say, to Canada, Australia, or even to Asian countries like Singapore.

 

[Aero51]

I don't have the money to move and I only speak English. So I don't think I could, though I've thought about it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I don't have the money to move and I only speak English. So I don't think I could, though I've thought about it.

The countries I have listed above (Canada, Australia, Singapore) are all English-speaking countries, so the fact that you only speak English won't be a barrier. Of course, you can also spend the time looking for work by trying to acquire other skills, such as language skills (through online material and courses such as Coursera).

As for not having the money, that could be a problem, but not insurmountable. If you apply to firms based there and they express an interest in potentially hiring you, the employers will more than likely provide the funds for you to relocate (if they do not, then those are companies that are not worth working for).

Another option that may be worth considering is joining the Peace Corps. Some advantages of joining include deferment of student loans, free medical and dental care, and 2 years of international work experience.

http://www.peacecorps.gov/apply/

 

[Aero51]

I know this is going to sound bad, but I am thinking about just going to graduate school and toughing out the student loans. I was going originally, but I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder after being hospitalized and it through me through a major loop: lost a funding opportunity, a years worth of graduate school, $10000, and the opportunity to be recruited for a job (I have to explain this gap in my history some how).

The prof I was originally going to work for will allow me to start in his lab again, but I would have to wait until he gets funding again (he hired a student to replace me as the timing of my hospitalization was just before I accepted his offer).

I've never even considered the peace corps. I don't think they'd let a bipolar person in anyway :)

 

[Astronuc]

But I know that I don't really have any marketable skills and that is what companies need. If they can't get skilled labor from me and my fellow grads, they will get it elsewhere.

and

Silicon Valley companies, warning of an acute labor shortage, say it is too costly to retrain older workers like Mr. Doernberg, and that the country is not producing enough younger Americans with the precise skills the industry needs.

There is something fundamentally wrong here!

How is it that an undergraduate can graduate without marketable skills?!

Personally, I've had experience with undergraduates who cannot write properly (I've experienced college graduates barely writing, in some cases unable to write, at a 10th grade level), and I know companies have programs to help new hires (graduates from US universities) learn to write in proper English. To me that inidcates a profound and fundamental failure in US education, and I consider it alarming that the eduction system has been allowed to deteriorate to such a level of dysfunction.

But Americans like Mr. Doernberg and the powerful labor lobby say that what the tech industry really wants is to depress wages and bring in more pliant, less costly temporary workers from overseas.

It that is what the 'tech' industry is doing, then that is immoral and unethical in my opinion.

It is not appropriate to import 'temporary' workers while avoiding addressing the underlying problem of deficiencies in the education system. How is it that foreign workers are receiving the appropriate training and developing the requisite skills, while domesitic workers are not?! That cannot be a mere coincidence.

 

[kinkmode]

Personally, I've had experience with undergraduates who cannot write properly (I've experienced college graduates barely writing, in some cases unable to write, at a 10th grade level)...

Personally, I've had experience with professional engineers who cannot write properly, do math, use Excel, etc.

It's not just the education system in the US that is the problem.

 

[ModusPwnd]

How is it that an undergraduate can graduate without marketable skills?!

Quite easily. Performing well in classes is not a marketable skill. I think most college grads come out educated, but unskilled. That's the nature of a liberal arts education.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Have you thought of leaving the US and seeking work elsewhere? Say, to Canada, Australia, or even to Asian countries like Singapore.

I've looked into Canada. I concluded its not much of an option. They really only want people who are rich, oppressed/refugees or skilled. A college grad is usually none of these things. They will not take an unemployed college grad as a skilled labor immigrant.

I always assumed that moving to a developing country, like somewhere in Latin America, would be easier. But that is not something I have looked into.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I've looked into Canada. I concluded its not much of an option. They really only want people who are rich, oppressed/refugees or skilled. A college grad is usually none of these things. They will not take an unemployed college grad as a skilled labor immigrant.

I always assumed that moving to a developing country, like somewhere in Latin America, would be easier. But that is not something I have looked into.

Right now, you are college/university grad without any marketable skills. Last time you mentioned you are (or were) working as a pizza deliveryman -- have you thought about acquiring those marketable skills? If you can't afford to pursue a second degree at a college/university, why not seek further training through a community college in areas something employable e.g. mechanic, plumber, electrician, tool-and-dye-maker, etc.

In Canada there is a shortage of workers in the areas I just described (in fact, I have read reports that up to 40% of all new jobs being generated fall into the skilled workers category). There is an especially critical shortage of skilled workers in the province of Alberta, due largely to the booming oil industry.

Another option is to do what ParticleGrl had done and spend some time retraining yourself in statistics/data mining or programming (maybe contribute to open source projects). Those skills you develop yourself can be considered "marketable" skills, and with networking it would give you at least a shot at something different. After all, if you have time posting here at PhysicsForums, you have time to retrain yourself.

Now if you are open to moving to a non-English speaking country, you should probably consider becoming an English language speaker. I know several people who have worked as English teachers in countries like Japan, Taiwan, and China -- the only thing required is a college/university education. I have also suggested the Peace Corps as well.

 

[ModusPwnd]

If you can't afford to get a second degree, why not seek further training through a community college in areas something employable e.g. mechanic, plumber, electrician, tool-and-dye-maker, etc.

In Canada there is a shortage of workers in the areas I just described (in fact, I have read reports that up to 40% of all new jobs being generated fall into the skilled workers category). There is an especially critical shortage of skilled workers in the province of Alberta, due largely to the booming oil industry.

I don't see them on the eligible occupations list though. This list, http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-who-instructions.asp#jobs

Its pretty specific stuff, and it requires that you have been employed in the field already. If I could manage to get a career style job like one on that list, I wouldn't need to consider Canada. :tongue:

 

[Lavabug]

Another option is to do what ParticleGrl had done and spend some time retraining yourself in statistics/data mining or programming (maybe contribute to open source projects). Those skills you develop yourself can be considered "marketable" skills, and with networking it would give you at least a shot at something different. After all, if you have time posting here at PhysicsForums, you have time to retrain yourself.

I think this is a little hard to sell. How can you convince a potential employer that you actually know as much/can do the same job as a statistician or programmer without the proper degree or even relevant coursework? Just saying: I studied these introductory books and programmed such and such, cross my heart? We still have to get through the HR filters to get called into an interview to prove yourself, not having the degree they ask for already puts one at a major disadvantage.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The list of eligible occupations are a very specific list identified by the Canadian federal government as being high in demand (actually, the mechanic/electrician/tool-and-dye maker would fall under category 2243). You could also have apply for positions in Canada and they could arrange for you to come there, under the "Arranged employment" category.

There is also the Skilled Trades category here which I talked about earlier:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/trades/apply-who.asp

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think this is a little hard to sell. How can you convince a potential employer that you actually know as much/can do the same job as a statistician or programmer without the proper degree or even relevant coursework? Just saying: I studied these introductory books and programmed such and such, cross my heart? We still have to get through the HR filters to get called into an interview to prove yourself, not having the degree they ask for already puts one at a major disadvantage.

The key is NOT to go through the HR filter (or go solely through the recruiter), and the way to do this is to network. Attend career fairs or conferences, set up an account on LinkedIn, find people on LinkedIn who work in those fields and make connections, etc. It takes time and effort, but it can be done. For example, I did not apply for my most recent job -- I had a recruiter come to me through LinkedIn.

 

[D H]

I think this is a little hard to sell. How can you convince a potential employer that you actually know as much/can do the same job as a statistician or programmer without the proper degree or even relevant coursework?

Yes, it's tough for a physics major is going to compete with a computer science major for a programming job where the product is a compiler or a database. So don't pursue those jobs. There are *lots* of jobs where programming is a required but nonetheless secondary skill. Of greater importance are the skills you learned as a physics major.

It's tough for a physics major to compete with a liberal arts major for a general writing job with some news outlet. So don't pursue those jobs, either. There are lots of technical writing jobs where writing is required but nonetheless secondary skill. Once again it's those technical skills that are paramount.

There are lots of other kinds of jobs where those technical skills are important. Some of them are technical sales, technical management, intellectual property law. Yes, you'll need additional education for the last two, quite a bit of it for the last.

The common feature of these other jobs is that they meld some other skill with the technical skills one learned while obtaining that degree in physics.

Suppose that some physics major used as many of liberal arts electives as possible studying classical languages, as many technical electives as possible studying number theory. Why do people do this to themselves? There's not one marketable skill here. The "real world" does not owe people a job.

 

[Lavabug]

Suppose that some physics major used as many of liberal arts electives as possible studying classical languages, as many technical electives as possible studying number theory. Why do people do this to themselves? There's not one marketable skill here. The "real world" does not owe people a job.

I've never heard of a physics major taking electives even remotely similar to those.

I had no option of taking humanities electives. The only choices I had to make in my 3rd year were fluid dynamics and atmospheric physics (took both), some new course on renewable energies and something along the lines of medical imaging (also new). Fourth year electives boiled down to experimental spectroscopy, programming/instrument-based astrophysics, condensed matter theory or follow up elective courses in solid state or molecular physics. I took different courses as I went as an exchange student somewhere else (London), but my options were not really any more "applied" or "real-world"-ish.

It's pretty sinister to assume physics students have some entitlement issues with getting a job. Most of us were good little nerds and did what our superiors told us we had to do to succeed, in many cases even without their support (I didn't have any from my family, I got all my motivation on my own). When we get turned down for phd's, summer research positions or internships and the like and have to go into the labor market with an esoteric skill set, often going back to the same entry level jobs some of us had as a high school student (I did), statements like your last paragraph (which was mild in comparison to some other comments I've read here) comes across as fairly disdainful and condescending...

 

[ParticleGrl]

How can you convince a potential employer that you actually know as much/can do the same job as a statistician or programmer without the proper degree or even relevant coursework?

Thats the nice thing about data science/data mining right now- statistics training often leaves people a bit weaker on the programming side, and CS training leaves people a bit weaker on the statistics side. There isn't a proper degree yet, so its a bit easier to find a way in.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Suppose that some physics major used as many of liberal arts electives as possible studying classical languages, as many technical electives as possible studying number theory. Why do people do this to themselves? There's not one marketable skill here. The "real world" does not owe people a job.

I believe you are betraying your American origins here. In many other countries (including the UK, if I'm not mistaken), science majors including physics majors have very little in the way of elective options available -- they pretty much only take physics and other related courses.

 

[kinkmode]

I've never heard of a physics major taking electives even remotely similar to those.

I was a physics major. I was also a philosophy minor, so guilty as charged :) (It might be a US thing though). However, I also took a lot of math and some programming, and have developed plenty of technical skills on the side in the last decade and a half.

Regardless, I get sick of the attitude that 'physics majors expect a job to be handed to them'. That description doesn't remotely describe my situation. B.A. in Physics, Ph.D. in Physics, 5 years of experience running a research lab, writing proposals, training workers, programming, performing data analysis, given presentations, reviewing DOE proposals and scientific articles, etc. Yet that attitude is the default one that is applied anytime I meet someone in industry.

It gets REAL tiring hearing some engineer tell me that I have no real world skills when they can't add a macro in Excel or figure out that they tripped a breaker in the lunch room because the overloaded the circuit with 6 kW of appliances. It gets REAL tiring when the nice little HR ladies tell you their company can't hire you because you "don't have a degree in science; you have a Bachelor of ARTS".

I'm not trying to compete with a mechanical engineer who wants to calculate stresses on a girder or a programmer who wants to write apps for an iPhone. There are plenty of interdisciplinary roles which I have a lot of real world experience excelling at, but am not given a chance because of the attitude of "you have no real world skills."

 

[carlgrace]

There is some truth to a skills shortage, but the companies are largely being disingenuous. Certain narrow subfields are very hot and salaries are increasing, but even then, there is rampant age-bias and an unwillingness to train your workforce. If you can "hit the ground running" in a needed skills area, you can write your own ticket, provided you're under 50. If you're over 50 and you're looking for a technical job, you have an uphill battle ahead of you.

I have a friend who graduated from the same lab I did (he was my TA and an older student at the time) who was laid off six months ago and hasn't found work. He's in his late 50s and we are both trained in what is currently a sizzling technical area. I get recruiting calls and email from the likes of Intel and Apple a few times a month, and he can't get an interview. It's wrong. I think we should address this age bias problem before we start bringing in more foreign workers. There is also this bizarre bias out there in favor of people who already have jobs, but that might be another issue entirely.

 

[StatGuy2000]

There is some truth to a skills shortage, but the companies are largely being disingenuous. Certain narrow subfields are very hot and salaries are increasing, but even then, there is rampant age-bias and an unwillingness to train your workforce. If you can "hit the ground running" in a needed skills area, you can write your own ticket, provided you're under 50. If you're over 50 and you're looking for a technical job, you have an uphill battle ahead of you.

I have a friend who graduated from the same lab I did (he was my TA and an older student at the time) who was laid off six months ago and hasn't found work. He's in his late 50s and we are both trained in what is currently a sizzling technical area. I get recruiting calls and email from the likes of Intel and Apple a few times a month, and he can't get an interview. It's wrong. I think we should address this age bias problem before we start bringing in more foreign workers. There is also this bizarre bias out there in favor of people who already have jobs, but that might be another issue entirely.

The age bias is real, and there is a certain logic in why employers may be biased against older workers. I can think of several reasons why employers may be unwilling to hire older workers:

(1) Older workers may expect to receive higher salaries than what many companies are willing to pay.

(2) Older workers may, on average, be more likely to utilize health care than younger workers, and therefore health insurance may be more costly for employers who hire older workers.

(3) There may be a perception that older workers may not have the latest skills available, or may be be "slower" at picking up new skills than younger skills.

(4) Particularly in technical fields, many of the hiring managers may themselves be relatively young, and so they may feel discomfort in hiring older workers.

(5) There may be a perception that since older workers will likely be retiring in a short period of time, it may not be worth it for companies to invest in them.

I'm not justifying age discrimination -- I'm just stating the facts. Therefore older workers will have to put that much more effort in overcoming these barriers.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I was a physics major. I was also a philosophy minor, so guilty as charged :) (It might be a US thing though). However, I also took a lot of math and some programming, and have developed plenty of technical skills on the side in the last decade and a half.

Regardless, I get sick of the attitude that 'physics majors expect a job to be handed to them'. That description doesn't remotely describe my situation. B.A. in Physics, Ph.D. in Physics, 5 years of experience running a research lab, writing proposals, training workers, programming, performing data analysis, given presentations, reviewing DOE proposals and scientific articles, etc. Yet that attitude is the default one that is applied anytime I meet someone in industry.

It gets REAL tiring hearing some engineer tell me that I have no real world skills when they can't add a macro in Excel or figure out that they tripped a breaker in the lunch room because the overloaded the circuit with 6 kW of appliances. It gets REAL tiring when the nice little HR ladies tell you their company can't hire you because you "don't have a degree in science; you have a Bachelor of ARTS".

I'm not trying to compete with a mechanical engineer who wants to calculate stresses on a girder or a programmer who wants to write apps for an iPhone. There are plenty of interdisciplinary roles which I have a lot of real world experience excelling at, but am not given a chance because of the attitude of "you have no real world skills."

My question to you is the following: why do you state in your resume that you have a BA in physics? Here, in this situation, simply stretching the truth and stating that you have a BS in physics (or even simply dropping all reference about having a BA, and just state you have a PhD in physics) should help you overcome the HR problem of being "filtered" out of science jobs.

Also, perhaps you are taking the wrong approach in applying for jobs or drafting your resume. If you have real world experiences and skills that you have gained, stating those up front (in a statement of purpose) along with a summary of skills will likely get your resume noticed more.

In addition, have you thought about setting up a profile on LinkedIn if you haven't done so already? Perhaps in this way, employers or recruiters interested in your skill set may more likely be able to contact you directly. Or you can contact recruiters for technical positions of interest to you. LinkedIn also provides networking opportunities that will be of value to you.

 

[Lavabug]

(4) Particularly in technical fields, many of the hiring managers may themselves be relatively young, and so they may feel discomfort in hiring older workers.

I can throw an anecdote here. My brother is in sales at a big telecom corp in the US and has been in charge of hiring people. He told me he discriminates against older workers but the best argument I managed to coax out of him in support of that was that they're more "set in their ways", and that "younger people are more willing to learn new things", but I'm sure those ideas are not his own, since our father made a huge career change in his 50's before he died and managed to support a family with 4, even after having recently having emigrated to another country. He knows the kind of poor work ethic and entitlement issues some fresh engineering grads he's come across have, so I doubt he really believes the 2nd argument either.

The idea is probably unfounded, but still very contagious.

 

[kinkmode]

My question to you is the following: why do you state in your resume that you have a BA in physics? Here, in this situation, simply stretching the truth and stating that you have a BS in physics (or even simply dropping all reference about having a BA, and just state you have a PhD in physics) should help you overcome the HR problem of being "filtered" out of science jobs.

A) it would be lying. Besides, I've got a Ph.D., you think that would qualify for a degree in science. And more importantly, B) it was basically the HR lady's ignorant parsing the company wide rule of "We only hire engineering degrees."

You might think that the managers might care more than the HR people, but in that situation, it wasn't true. The above example of the 'not having a science degree' conversation occurred two months into a contract job. It's not as if my resume wasn't making it through the HR filter. What WAS going on was that the situation was misrepresented to me in the interview (you could always get hired here permanently) when the reality of it was that was not an option. The managers of that project were either on vacation, or literally sat around all day doing nothing. Some days they'd say they were coming onsite, and they just wouldn't show. One retired halfway through the project. These are not the kind of people who recognize talent and motivation and are willing to buck the system to get you in. They were the kind of people who do as little work as possible while they rake in their $150-200k salaries.

As to resume drafting and LinkedIn: I do and I do. I'm not just randomly firing resumes out into the void. I'm networking, setting up informational interviews, etc. I'm even getting my foot in the door, as above, however little good that is doing.

I know my worth. I know I can do many jobs. Companies are simply not willing to take a chance on someone without 5 years of INDUSTRY experience where I live. They'd much rather hire someone who has 'experience' and does a mediocre job than someone like me. Any larger technical company would rather hire an engineer from a crappy school, who will do nothing but sit in a cubicle being mediocre, than 'take a chance' on someone who has proven their worth in difficult fields for years. No matter how you recast your experience, at some point in the process, they turn their noses up at you because you don't have INDUSTRY experience.

 

[kinkmode]

Or you can contact recruiters for technical positions of interest to you. LinkedIn also provides networking opportunities that will be of value to you.

Oh, also, 'technical' recruiters in the area where I live really only deal with IT. A few deal with non-IT stuff, but the ones I've contacted are essentially worthless; they don't know how to sell anything other than a basic engineering degree.

The most common advice I hear from recruiters, informational interviews, etc. is, "Have you thought about being a professor?"

 

[carlgrace]

The age bias is real, and there is a certain logic in why employers may be biased against older workers. I can think of several reasons why employers may be unwilling to hire older workers:

(1) Older workers may expect to receive higher salaries than what many companies are willing to pay.

(2) Older workers may, on average, be more likely to utilize health care than younger workers, and therefore health insurance may be more costly for employers who hire older workers.

(3) There may be a perception that older workers may not have the latest skills available, or may be be "slower" at picking up new skills than younger skills.

(4) Particularly in technical fields, many of the hiring managers may themselves be relatively young, and so they may feel discomfort in hiring older workers.

(5) There may be a perception that since older workers will likely be retiring in a short period of time, it may not be worth it for companies to invest in them.

I'm not justifying age discrimination -- I'm just stating the facts. Therefore older workers will have to put that much more effort in overcoming these barriers.

I think you've hit the nail on the head as to why there is a bias. The problem is that it's a bias and all of them are untrue in general. A lot of these (particularly 2 and 5) also can applied to women. Personally I think the tech companies are making a big collective mistake and leaving a lot of capability on the table. Its similar to the 70s and 80s (and to some extent today) where there was pervasive bias against women. It's counterproductive. The fear they are going to retire is ridiculous in particular (I've heard that from multiple hiring managers). First, most people only stay with a company for a few years anyway, so they are probably going to leave whether they are in their 20s or their 50s, no difference. Second, the tech companies I'm familiar with do VERY little investment in their employees, so what's the problem?

This subject frustrates me. As a society we claim we want to encourage young people to pursue STEM careers, but our actions speak louder than words.

Not to nitpick, but I was involved in buying health insurance when I was in a startup. When you buy it for employees via an aggregator you get a pooled rate, so there is no incremental cost difference in health insurance between a younger or an older worker as that risk is pooled. If there is additional risk it is borne by the aggregator (or the insurance provider) not the company providing the benefit. Sorry if that was off topic.

 

[kinkmode]

This subject frustrates me. As a society we claim we want to encourage young people to pursue STEM careers, but our actions speak louder than words.

I think this is where the lie is. Society doesn't want STEM people. Society wants cheap IT.

 

[StatGuy2000]

A) it would be lying. Besides, I've got a Ph.D., you think that would qualify for a degree in science. And more importantly, B) it was basically the HR lady's ignorant parsing the company wide rule of "We only hire engineering degrees."

You might think that the managers might care more than the HR people, but in that situation, it wasn't true. The above example of the 'not having a science degree' conversation occurred two months into a contract job. It's not as if my resume wasn't making it through the HR filter. What WAS going on was that the situation was misrepresented to me in the interview (you could always get hired here permanently) when the reality of it was that was not an option. The managers of that project were either on vacation, or literally sat around all day doing nothing. Some days they'd say they were coming onsite, and they just wouldn't show. One retired halfway through the project. These are not the kind of people who recognize talent and motivation and are willing to buck the system to get you in. They were the kind of people who do as little work as possible while they rake in their $150-200k salaries.

As to resume drafting and LinkedIn: I do and I do. I'm not just randomly firing resumes out into the void. I'm networking, setting up informational interviews, etc. I'm even getting my foot in the door, as above, however little good that is doing.

I know my worth. I know I can do many jobs. Companies are simply not willing to take a chance on someone without 5 years of INDUSTRY experience where I live. They'd much rather hire someone who has 'experience' and does a mediocre job than someone like me. Any larger technical company would rather hire an engineer from a crappy school, who will do nothing but sit in a cubicle being mediocre, than 'take a chance' on someone who has proven their worth in difficult fields for years. No matter how you recast your experience, at some point in the process, they turn their noses up at you because you don't have INDUSTRY experience.

I have bolded the above statement -- you have stated that companies are not willing to take a chance on someone with a science background (without 5 years of industry experience) where you live.

If that's the case, then the logical conclusion is for you to expand your search outside of your area, including overseas (all over the world). People should go where the jobs are, wherever that may be, whether it is the US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Singapore, or wherever else. If you have the skills, then SOMEONE ultimately will want to take you -- just not someone who happens to be in your current location.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think this is where the lie is. Society doesn't want STEM people. Society wants cheap IT.

Every private sector firm wants to maximize their profits to effectively compete. One of the easiest ways to do so is to cut down costs, and what cost is easier to control than wages & benefits? So of course every private sector firm wants cheap workers!

If you look at the history of large scale migrations from the 19th century onwards, you will find that a significant proportion involve the importation of cheap labour. For example, the migration of Indian labourers in the British colonies of East Africa (now Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda); the Chinese migration to Malaysia & Singapore; large scale immigration from southern and eastern Europe to the US during the late 19th and early 20th century; the Irish migration to Canada, US, the UK and Australia during the 19th century during the potato famine, etc.