>The truth, however, is quite different. For example, Clemson’s engineering enrollment has reached almost 5,300 students – an 80 percent increase since 2008!
Enrollment numbers for engineering students are not really relevant. It is the graduation numbers. Engineering programs are notorious for "weeding out" large numbers of students. His salary statistics are scary though.
How much of those salary statistics are just reflections of general trends? An 0.4% increase per year over 12 years compounds to roughly a 5% increase. Given the stats at http://proximityone.com/statetrendsmhi_20002012.htm , we see that only two states had an increase in median income higher than that (and one, ND, is surely due to an oil boom).
What I find more sobering is that the real US median income decreased 6.6% from 2000-2012.
Part of the problem is this whole thing of use "STEM" as though it identifies a cohesive / unified group of employment positions. It's too much of a catch-all and there's room for TONS of variance within the overall "STEM" rubric. For example, you could have raging demand for software engineers at the same time you're having massive layoffs among, say, chemical engineers. So what can you say about "STEM" as a whole in that case? Very little.
IOW, precision matters and we should be leery of over-generalizing.
Yeah. There seems to be a paradox embedded in the national conversation about STEM and the job market.
On one hand, various thought-leaders insist that people in the US should get training in STEM fields. Education is the answer, your answer, to employability. It doesn't matter who you are; you can get STEM training and become competitive in the job market.
On the other hand, some of these same thought-leaders insist that the US absolutely must import lots more people from foreign countries. There's no way to train existing people in the US to do the necessary work. It doesn't matter who you are; you can't do it. Step aside. We're replacing you.
A lot of times the people making these arguments are lawyers.
Does it really matter how many H1-Bs you allow every year? Look at how many big companies are opening offices in other cities especially in Vancouver or London just because of visa issues. Limiting H1-Bs is just going to force Facebooks and Googles to open up overseas dev centers. At least a high paid H1-B worker helps the American Economy in some ways.. He/She pays a ton of taxes, buys real estate and hopefully employs other Americans..
Does it matter? Of course, otherwise this wouldn't be the contentious issue that it is. If you are the Disney programmer telling your wife and kids that you are unemployed, I assure you, it matters.
To say it doesn't matter if there are 0 H1-Bs or 250,000 H1-Bs is ...
Your "high paid H1-B worker" most likely isn't (see data contained in the referenced article). Outside of a small percentage of very rare individuals or specialists every H1-B is taking a job from a US citizen, who would pay the same taxes or more, is far more likely to buy real estate than rent a nearby apartment for a couple of years, and will almost assuredly un-employ some American than hopefully employ one.
And to be honest, if the choice is between accepting a whole bunch of highly paid Google/Facebook engineers into the country who will pay lots of money in taxes, and accepting a bunch of "economic immigrants" who will cost more money than they contribute, I would accepted the Google engineers in a heartbeat.
My solution? Let anyone into the country as long as they can prove that they are receiving a salary of > 125,000$ /year. Or perhaps just create a fast lane immigration track for companies, where if they really really want someone to be let into the country, then they send the US government a $50k check, to skip everything, and get their VISA automatically approved.
I feel like the immigration issue has been made about five hundred times more complicated than is really necessary. We need some high-paid engineers to redesign our laws from the ground up, in my opinion.
Quantity and quality are not the same thing. The economy needs various quantities of engineers at various skill levels. Within the same field of study there could be a shortage of talent at one skill level and a surplus at another skill level.
Based on my own experience and the experiences of my friends (people who work as engineers for AWS, Google, Apple, Facebook, SpaceX, etc.), there is a big shortage in 'high quality' engineers.
Assuming there is "a big shortage in 'high quality' engineers" can anyone provide links to any AWS, Google, Apple, Facebook, SpaceX, position postings which typifies this big shortage? e.g. Postings which are an exemplar, of requiring 'high quality engineers' but remain open for weeks or months due to the massive STEM shortage? Based on the I-squared Act's proposed increase to a 1/4 million (250,000) H1-Bs there should be 10s and 10s of 10,000s such postings.
This massive STEM shortage debate has been happening for years. The referenced article links studies, presents supporting data (aka actual statistics) and provides direct anecdotal evidence (he is involved in the production of STEM resources). Bluntly I have seen many similar fact based articles and studies on the "there is no STEM shortage" side and can't recall a single peer reviewed study on the massive shortage side. Links welcome.
He gets cause and effect wrong. The reason why enrollments are so high is BECAUSE of the shortage. An increase in demand for X causes wages for X to increase. This increase in wages causes more people to want to supply X, by joining that field.
Also, the common argument of "There is no shortage for X, people just want to pay less money, than the current, extremely high price of X", is completely nonsensical.
The DEFINITION of a shortage is "I believe the price is too high". Thats how supply and demand works.
Example: Imagine if bread costed 100$ a loaf. Is there a shortage of food, or is it just people complaining that the price of bread is too high?
How else would you even define a shortage other than "the price is too high"?
But, see, in a supply-and-demand market, the price is always too high for somebody, and always not too high for somebody else. So "I believe the price is too high" is a completely meaningless metric.
And, in fact, the same thing applies in reverse from the sell side. They never complain that the price is too high, but some of them think the price is too low - and others don't.
I'd expect that everyone who thinks there's a shortage of engineers is on the employer side. And most of those on the employee side think that there quite clearly is not a shortage.
The actual definition of a shortage is "a deficiency in quantity" (per dictionary.com). Well, that's not very helpful. Deficiency compared to what? Or, deficient by what measure? You can have a shortage personally, compared to what you desire; but for a market as a whole to have a shortage, you have to have something to compare it to. That usually is the state of the market at a time when [it is generally agreed that] there wasn't a shortage.
So if you say, "STEM salaries are twice as high as they were in 1990, even after adjusting for inflation", then you might be able to make a case that there is a shortage. If you say, "we can't find people at the price we're willing to pay, but that price is less than the market rate in 1990", well, my heart fails to bleed for you.
How else would you even define a shortage other than "the price is too high"?
More people want to buy product or service X than there is currently available in the marketplace.
So, let's say that during the next growing season, some new fungus appears and decimates the US grain crop. That will result in bread shortages. Even at $100 per loaf, there won't be as much bread available as there are people looking to buy it.
> Also, the common argument of "There is no shortage for X, people just want to pay less money, than the current, extremely high price of X", is completely nonsensical.
Your definition of shortage is nonsensical, and it's easy to prove it:
From MY point of view, there is a shortage of supermodels willing to have sex with me. Everybody would laugh at that being a "shortage".
The same applies in that there is a shortage of engineers willing to work for me for free. Everybody would also laugh at that shortage.
The reason why enrollment is so high is because of the shortage Or because they hear politicians on TV without the slightest clue telling people there is a shortage. Or because they enjoy building things. Not so black and white, is it?
This seems like a political hit piece with no real substance.
Salaries aren't going up because employers are conspiring to push down wages[0] and non executive wages in general are stagnating or going down[1]. Furthermore as already stated elsewhere in this thread, STEM degrees have huge wash out percentages so "freshmen enrolled" is just as good a statistic as "college freshman who plan on changing the world". The real problem, which has been repeated ad nauseam here, is that there's a shortage of STEM workers at the wages employers are willing to pay.
"there are no worker protections to prevent companies from firing American workers, replacing them with H-1B’s, and even forcing them to train their replacements"
Another name for "worker shortage" is "high wages". You can't fix one without fixing the other at the same time.
If high priced workers are replaced with cheaper ones then all else being equal, it means the company is operating more efficiently. Isn't that a good thing? Good for the economy, good for consumers and only bad for the overpaid workers. What does he expect? That workers who demand more than the market rate should have their jobs protected so they don't feel bad about the economy changing around them? Even at the expense of everyone else?
The referenced article presents a case that there is no STEM worker shortage and supports it with referenced statistics and studies. You may dispute his data, but he did provide it. Stating a position on the assumption that there is a serious problem with excessive or high wages, i.e. overpaid workers which requires immediate fixing is an odd leap.
What workers are demanding more that the market rate? There is a market rate with a 1/4 million H1-Bs and there is a market rate without a 1/4 million H1-Bs. Any worker which demands more than the market rate will not get it.
And what is the expense of everyone else referring too? It is substantially a zero sum game. Who are the else?
> That workers who demand more than the market rate should have their jobs protected so they don't feel bad about the economy changing around them? Even at the expense of everyone else?
I demand a market rate of zero. Now do you see the problem?
Everybody loves capitalism--until they're on the receiving end.
"Jobs continued to press the engineering angle at the dinner, saying that at the time Apple employed 700,000 factory workers in China, plus 30,000 engineers to support those workers."
We need the best talent of the world to be a technological leader nation. nonetheless, there is a big amount of jobs that need a good engineer but not a bright mind as Wozniak.
This is how globalization works and we need to keep up or be defeated by a better player at accepting STEM immigration. Let the fear aside, confront the global arena and struggle to keep being leaders of the world.
It's interesting that the two options Steve Jobs mentioned were:
1. Put the factory and the jobs in China
2. Put the factory and the jobs in the US, using workers who are imported (from China/India/et al)
Why doesn't Jobs mention an option to, oh, I don't know, _make a commitment to the millions of people who are already in the US_ looking for work?
And, who better than Apple itself to train up some _existing_ members of the US labor pool in how to do what Apple does?
To the extent that "American" corporations are shells that import manufactured goods from foreign factories and import engineers from foreign societies, I have to wonder whether I give a crap if the US is a "technological leader."
Maybe if some Chinese investors bought Apple and moved the whole mess to Shenzhen, the world would finally get reasonable prices on (and customization of) Apple hardware.
"87 percent of current H-1B holders are paid wages in the bottom third"
I'm going to call bogus on this. The law requires H1B holders to be paid the prevailing market wage, or more, for their profession/experience level. The fact that he's referencing Trump's election platform, and doesn't offer any other evidence of this, doesn't give me any confidence whatsoever.
I'd also like to issue a challenge to anyone who claims that the H1B system we currently have is bad: Please propose an alternate form of immigration system. Please also specify details regarding
1) How many immigrants should be allowed into the country every year
2) How the above number of immigrants should be selected, amongst all potential applicants.
Interested readers can see for themselves what the salaries are using the H1-B data: https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/performancedata.cfm (select Disclosure Data section, download PERM spreadsheet - haven't checked the latest set but when I looked last year it was pretty easy to understand)
I really hate the H1B issue. It should be open to "high skilled, essential/lacking labor". We have many universities in the US that will grant an MS or similar degree without much substance for a nominal (but not negligible fee).
A simple revamp to the program would be simple:
- Absolutely zero visas (or very few) to any of the outsourcing / bodyshop companies - Tata, etc.
- A company found bringing workers in on a Visa to be trained and then lay people off, the company should face a significant fine.
- Companys have to show if there is on one side a significant downsizing and then sudden rehiring that includes H1Bs, that they didn't offer training and mentorship before laying some of the original people off. IBM and Disney come to mind.
- Keep or impose caps by region. Sorry, we are a melting pot, but certain countries have significantly higher numbers trying to come in than others. The best companies and groups I worked with were diverse rather than monoculture work places.
Personally, I do like the score based system that Canada and Australia generally have.
EDIT/Addition:
- The original mentality of cost being the overarching factor has become less en vogue. Many companies started insourcing again. That said, it's still not wholly reversed most of the outsourcing going on.
I know outsourcing does not equate with H1B wholly, but there are companies that abuse the visas to hire cheaper, have locals train, and fire the locals.
Caps by employment region would be "interesting" since it seems H1B is clamored for uniquely in Silicon Valley, where (as an American engineer) there are really few Americans, which contrasts entirely with other regions of the United States. It seems that is because Americans are averse to the unaffordability of SV, and recognize that unaffordability is a trap for foreigners.
As a former H1B the whole system is unfair and a scam.
It is unfair to US workers: Right after I was hired at the very next downturn coworker's were let go but I stayed. I didn't know it at the time but my salary was low.
It is unfair to the H1B worker - you can't switch jobs easily. If you are fired you have to leave the country, it is very stressful. You can't plan your future - why invest for retirement ?
There is a path to a green card but only if employer sponsors at considerable cost.
It only benefits the employers.
If there is a true shortage of tech workers make the system better by allowing full mobility and allowing the workers to directly apply for green card without sponsorship. It could start by demanding employer's pay prevailing wage plus a 25k deposit/bond towards future unemployment or immigration costs of employee + family, and employee is able to switch jobs after 6 months with h1b sponsor
It's almost as if the tech industry was seeded early on with a reflexive, self-destructive libertarianism that prevents them from thinking of themselves as part of a group. If you were trying to inoculate an entire industry from unionizing early on, you couldn't have done a better job.
A lot of specialist workers need to get together and rebuild their labor cartels. The pendulum has swung very far from center, and it needs to be pushed back a bit.
As it is now, very few specialists have enough clout to arrest the current momentum, and software professionals, hardware professionals, healthcare workers, and engineers are likely the only ones that wouldn't be scoffed out of the room if they threatened a general strike.
The good times should last quite a few years before the new unions become too corrupt to be worth keeping. But after that, we still might be able to keep the 6-hour workday and obligatory foos-pong tables.
[+] [-] myNXTact|10 years ago|reply
Enrollment numbers for engineering students are not really relevant. It is the graduation numbers. Engineering programs are notorious for "weeding out" large numbers of students. His salary statistics are scary though.
[+] [-] pmiller2|10 years ago|reply
What I find more sobering is that the real US median income decreased 6.6% from 2000-2012.
[+] [-] fweespeech|10 years ago|reply
If you see something on par [or even worse, less than] inflation, there isn't a shortage of any kind.
[+] [-] mindcrime|10 years ago|reply
IOW, precision matters and we should be leery of over-generalizing.
[+] [-] HillaryBriss|10 years ago|reply
On one hand, various thought-leaders insist that people in the US should get training in STEM fields. Education is the answer, your answer, to employability. It doesn't matter who you are; you can get STEM training and become competitive in the job market.
On the other hand, some of these same thought-leaders insist that the US absolutely must import lots more people from foreign countries. There's no way to train existing people in the US to do the necessary work. It doesn't matter who you are; you can't do it. Step aside. We're replacing you.
A lot of times the people making these arguments are lawyers.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gorkemyurt|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CoryAmber|10 years ago|reply
To say it doesn't matter if there are 0 H1-Bs or 250,000 H1-Bs is ...
Your "high paid H1-B worker" most likely isn't (see data contained in the referenced article). Outside of a small percentage of very rare individuals or specialists every H1-B is taking a job from a US citizen, who would pay the same taxes or more, is far more likely to buy real estate than rent a nearby apartment for a couple of years, and will almost assuredly un-employ some American than hopefully employ one.
[+] [-] stale2002|10 years ago|reply
My solution? Let anyone into the country as long as they can prove that they are receiving a salary of > 125,000$ /year. Or perhaps just create a fast lane immigration track for companies, where if they really really want someone to be let into the country, then they send the US government a $50k check, to skip everything, and get their VISA automatically approved.
[+] [-] dawnbreez|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dominotw|10 years ago|reply
Thats what my friend at MS told me, not sure how common it is though.
[+] [-] briantmaurer|10 years ago|reply
Based on my own experience and the experiences of my friends (people who work as engineers for AWS, Google, Apple, Facebook, SpaceX, etc.), there is a big shortage in 'high quality' engineers.
[+] [-] RachelF|10 years ago|reply
Google and Apple have also been convicted of colluding not to poach each other's "high quality" engineers, lest it drive the price up.
[+] [-] CoryAmber|10 years ago|reply
Assuming there is "a big shortage in 'high quality' engineers" can anyone provide links to any AWS, Google, Apple, Facebook, SpaceX, position postings which typifies this big shortage? e.g. Postings which are an exemplar, of requiring 'high quality engineers' but remain open for weeks or months due to the massive STEM shortage? Based on the I-squared Act's proposed increase to a 1/4 million (250,000) H1-Bs there should be 10s and 10s of 10,000s such postings.
This massive STEM shortage debate has been happening for years. The referenced article links studies, presents supporting data (aka actual statistics) and provides direct anecdotal evidence (he is involved in the production of STEM resources). Bluntly I have seen many similar fact based articles and studies on the "there is no STEM shortage" side and can't recall a single peer reviewed study on the massive shortage side. Links welcome.
[+] [-] mr_tyzic|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dclowd9901|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stale2002|10 years ago|reply
Also, the common argument of "There is no shortage for X, people just want to pay less money, than the current, extremely high price of X", is completely nonsensical.
The DEFINITION of a shortage is "I believe the price is too high". Thats how supply and demand works.
Example: Imagine if bread costed 100$ a loaf. Is there a shortage of food, or is it just people complaining that the price of bread is too high?
How else would you even define a shortage other than "the price is too high"?
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|10 years ago|reply
And, in fact, the same thing applies in reverse from the sell side. They never complain that the price is too high, but some of them think the price is too low - and others don't.
I'd expect that everyone who thinks there's a shortage of engineers is on the employer side. And most of those on the employee side think that there quite clearly is not a shortage.
The actual definition of a shortage is "a deficiency in quantity" (per dictionary.com). Well, that's not very helpful. Deficiency compared to what? Or, deficient by what measure? You can have a shortage personally, compared to what you desire; but for a market as a whole to have a shortage, you have to have something to compare it to. That usually is the state of the market at a time when [it is generally agreed that] there wasn't a shortage.
So if you say, "STEM salaries are twice as high as they were in 1990, even after adjusting for inflation", then you might be able to make a case that there is a shortage. If you say, "we can't find people at the price we're willing to pay, but that price is less than the market rate in 1990", well, my heart fails to bleed for you.
[+] [-] LordKano|10 years ago|reply
More people want to buy product or service X than there is currently available in the marketplace.
So, let's say that during the next growing season, some new fungus appears and decimates the US grain crop. That will result in bread shortages. Even at $100 per loaf, there won't be as much bread available as there are people looking to buy it.
[+] [-] bsder|10 years ago|reply
As do you have the cause wrong.
The reason why enrollments in STEM are high is because it is one of the last remaining degrees which actually pays back the money spent to get it.
Until they start feeding a quarter million H1-B's into the system a year.
[+] [-] bsder|10 years ago|reply
Your definition of shortage is nonsensical, and it's easy to prove it:
From MY point of view, there is a shortage of supermodels willing to have sex with me. Everybody would laugh at that being a "shortage".
The same applies in that there is a shortage of engineers willing to work for me for free. Everybody would also laugh at that shortage.
[+] [-] aswanson|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdeuchler|10 years ago|reply
Salaries aren't going up because employers are conspiring to push down wages[0] and non executive wages in general are stagnating or going down[1]. Furthermore as already stated elsewhere in this thread, STEM degrees have huge wash out percentages so "freshmen enrolled" is just as good a statistic as "college freshman who plan on changing the world". The real problem, which has been repeated ad nauseam here, is that there's a shortage of STEM workers at the wages employers are willing to pay.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... [1] https://rwer.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/percent-change-in-u-s-...
[+] [-] forgottenpass|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nutmog|10 years ago|reply
"there are no worker protections to prevent companies from firing American workers, replacing them with H-1B’s, and even forcing them to train their replacements"
Another name for "worker shortage" is "high wages". You can't fix one without fixing the other at the same time.
If high priced workers are replaced with cheaper ones then all else being equal, it means the company is operating more efficiently. Isn't that a good thing? Good for the economy, good for consumers and only bad for the overpaid workers. What does he expect? That workers who demand more than the market rate should have their jobs protected so they don't feel bad about the economy changing around them? Even at the expense of everyone else?
[+] [-] CoryAmber|10 years ago|reply
What workers are demanding more that the market rate? There is a market rate with a 1/4 million H1-Bs and there is a market rate without a 1/4 million H1-Bs. Any worker which demands more than the market rate will not get it.
And what is the expense of everyone else referring too? It is substantially a zero sum game. Who are the else?
[+] [-] bsder|10 years ago|reply
I demand a market rate of zero. Now do you see the problem?
Everybody loves capitalism--until they're on the receiving end.
[+] [-] thecourier|10 years ago|reply
http://www.businessinsider.com/when-steves-jobs-and-barack-o...
"Jobs continued to press the engineering angle at the dinner, saying that at the time Apple employed 700,000 factory workers in China, plus 30,000 engineers to support those workers."
We need the best talent of the world to be a technological leader nation. nonetheless, there is a big amount of jobs that need a good engineer but not a bright mind as Wozniak.
This is how globalization works and we need to keep up or be defeated by a better player at accepting STEM immigration. Let the fear aside, confront the global arena and struggle to keep being leaders of the world.
[+] [-] HillaryBriss|10 years ago|reply
1. Put the factory and the jobs in China
2. Put the factory and the jobs in the US, using workers who are imported (from China/India/et al)
Why doesn't Jobs mention an option to, oh, I don't know, _make a commitment to the millions of people who are already in the US_ looking for work?
And, who better than Apple itself to train up some _existing_ members of the US labor pool in how to do what Apple does?
To the extent that "American" corporations are shells that import manufactured goods from foreign factories and import engineers from foreign societies, I have to wonder whether I give a crap if the US is a "technological leader."
Maybe if some Chinese investors bought Apple and moved the whole mess to Shenzhen, the world would finally get reasonable prices on (and customization of) Apple hardware.
[+] [-] DrScump|10 years ago|reply
Read that again. That means that for every domestic engineer job (even assuming all were in the USA), Apple created 23 offshore jobs in China alone.
[+] [-] whack|10 years ago|reply
I'm going to call bogus on this. The law requires H1B holders to be paid the prevailing market wage, or more, for their profession/experience level. The fact that he's referencing Trump's election platform, and doesn't offer any other evidence of this, doesn't give me any confidence whatsoever.
I'd also like to issue a challenge to anyone who claims that the H1B system we currently have is bad: Please propose an alternate form of immigration system. Please also specify details regarding
1) How many immigrants should be allowed into the country every year
2) How the above number of immigrants should be selected, amongst all potential applicants.
[+] [-] to3m|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whybroke|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmspring|10 years ago|reply
A simple revamp to the program would be simple: - Absolutely zero visas (or very few) to any of the outsourcing / bodyshop companies - Tata, etc.
- A company found bringing workers in on a Visa to be trained and then lay people off, the company should face a significant fine.
- Companys have to show if there is on one side a significant downsizing and then sudden rehiring that includes H1Bs, that they didn't offer training and mentorship before laying some of the original people off. IBM and Disney come to mind.
- Keep or impose caps by region. Sorry, we are a melting pot, but certain countries have significantly higher numbers trying to come in than others. The best companies and groups I worked with were diverse rather than monoculture work places.
Personally, I do like the score based system that Canada and Australia generally have.
EDIT/Addition:
- The original mentality of cost being the overarching factor has become less en vogue. Many companies started insourcing again. That said, it's still not wholly reversed most of the outsourcing going on.
I know outsourcing does not equate with H1B wholly, but there are companies that abuse the visas to hire cheaper, have locals train, and fire the locals.
[+] [-] jjtheblunt|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ap3|10 years ago|reply
It is unfair to US workers: Right after I was hired at the very next downturn coworker's were let go but I stayed. I didn't know it at the time but my salary was low.
It is unfair to the H1B worker - you can't switch jobs easily. If you are fired you have to leave the country, it is very stressful. You can't plan your future - why invest for retirement ?
There is a path to a green card but only if employer sponsors at considerable cost.
It only benefits the employers.
If there is a true shortage of tech workers make the system better by allowing full mobility and allowing the workers to directly apply for green card without sponsorship. It could start by demanding employer's pay prevailing wage plus a 25k deposit/bond towards future unemployment or immigration costs of employee + family, and employee is able to switch jobs after 6 months with h1b sponsor
[+] [-] cbryan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beatpanda|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logfromblammo|10 years ago|reply
A lot of specialist workers need to get together and rebuild their labor cartels. The pendulum has swung very far from center, and it needs to be pushed back a bit.
As it is now, very few specialists have enough clout to arrest the current momentum, and software professionals, hardware professionals, healthcare workers, and engineers are likely the only ones that wouldn't be scoffed out of the room if they threatened a general strike.
The good times should last quite a few years before the new unions become too corrupt to be worth keeping. But after that, we still might be able to keep the 6-hour workday and obligatory foos-pong tables.
[+] [-] retbull|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gozur88|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nursie|10 years ago|reply
There's no shortage of available workers, there's a shortage of companies willing to pay well.
[+] [-] planetjones|10 years ago|reply
- intrusive overlay (tick) - prompting to use my location (tick) - huge ugly advert mixed into content (tick)
[+] [-] carsongross|10 years ago|reply
Hmmm.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]