So-called tech talent shortage...

jdancer

Interesting read at Stan Sorscher: Conjuring a High-Tech Labor Shortage

In summary[FONT=Georgia, Century, Times, serif], "...[/FONT]as a result, they have a "problem" with labor shortage, it's a problem of their own making [sic companies themselves]."

sratakhin

That's the best comment:


If we believe in the Free Market, and If there was truly a shortage of qualified applicants, then we would see Business ratcheting up compensation numbers to Woo those who are qualified.
If there is no upward movement on Compensation, there is no shortage of qualified applicants.

networker050184

Would paying more magically make more qualified people appear?

sratakhin

In the long run, yes.
In the short run - Founder's Blog - Jitbit: What If Drivers Were Hired Like Programmers?

ptilsen

Immediately Networker, no. But it would increase the chances of more people entering the field over time. If engineers made doctor's salaries or closer to them, you better bet it would quickly become a more popular career choice.

That being said, scarcity does not magically yield fast order-of-magnitude gains in salary. I think the article is wrong to dismiss what the graph shows as modest gains. To me, it's showing that engineers of the same skill and career level earn 5-10% more in inflation-adjusted dollars than they would have in the late 90s. That's not a trivial gain, and when you consider tax rates compared to the 90s, it's actually a pretty big gain.

However, regardless of what salaries do, I would expect unemployment among engineers to be less than 1%, as it is in other fields facing extreme shortages. Here's a fairly recent chart which shows some professions actually facing extreme shortages:
Jobs with the lowest (and highest) unemployment rates - Jan. 4, 2013

I think there are a lot of factors leading to the seemingly paradoxical states of relatively high "engineer" unemployment and scarcity of qualified applicants. True skill mismatch (not the straw man in the article's opening) is definitely part of it, but I do think that standard hiring practices are at least as big of a factor. What the article said ultimately rings true with everything I've seen in software engineering and IT infrastructure. Companies are trying to hire people already doing the exact job they want filled -- not all companies, but too many. I cannot say I know if this applies well to other disciplines, but if it applies to IT and software I can't see why it wouldn't apply elsewhere.

networker050184

ptilsen wrote: »

Immediately Networker, no. But it would increase the chances of more people entering the field over time. If engineers made doctor's salaries or closer to them, you better bet it would quickly become a more popular career choice.

But the issue is not the amount of people in the field. Its the amount of actual skilled people. We can find hundreds of networking 'professionals' to interview for our jobs. We just can't find highly qualified ones that take the time to turn themselves into experts.

ptilsen

And you could find more if the pay were even better. Think about the effort that goes into being that highly skilled. Do you think there are no easier or otherwise "better" (better being completely subjective) options for people that pay comparably or better?

For example, objectively, if medicine is no better or worse a career for me in networking in any way except input and output (education/training/etc. and job prospects/salary), I'd choose medicine every time. Doctors make so much more money, have better employment prospects, and the amount of effort that goes into becoming one is not actually that much higher than into becoming, say, a CCIE, and it certainly pays off.

That being said, your attitude is exactly what the article is describing. People would be far more likely to become highly skilled network engineers if companies hired them at the entry level and trained them up over time. Now I know and you know that people can get skilled on their own time to move up faster. A motivated, high-aptitude individual can self-study all the way to CCIE. But most CCIEs, continuing with that example, get on-the-job training, don't they? And wouldn't there be more if companies made a big effort to take promising CCNAs or even just college grads and train them into CCIEs?

The issue is partially that if you need someone of a certain skill level, you need them now, not in several years after they've had on the job training. But at the same time, if companies were actually providing opportunities to entry-level workers to improve skills and move up in the company, that problem wouldn't be so bad. Can you deny that this an issue? I've yet to see a company that really provided the upward mobility to IT staff that it should if it wants to grow them into high-skill. Those of us with more motivation train ourselves and move ourselves up, usually by switching jobs, but that just isn't everyone.

The high number of people that stay on the helpdesk for years demonstrates the problem. I think plenty (well, at least some ) of those people are smart enough that with the right push, they could be the server and network admins of tomorrow. Without that push, which few employers are giving, we'll just have a surplus of helpdesk and a shortage of admins. That spirals and makes the issue worse, as entry-level jobs become harder, making even really smart, motivated people have trouble getting the work experience needed to move up.

networker050184

Well, easy high paying jobs don't just pop up on trees. Engineers are paid VERY well compared to many fields out there.

I don't think the doctor to engineer (in IT/technology) is a good example. You don't need a formal education at all to be a successful engineer. The pay that we get it is extraordinary already in that manner IMO.

I think the issue is that this is a field that takes a lot of self motivation and direction to get to a high level. The over all lack of motivation in people to push their careers is what causes the shortage of qualified professionals. Workers coming in from other countries are highly motivated to learn and push themselves.

nkillgore

ptilsen wrote: »

The high number of people that stay on the helpdesk for years demonstrates the problem. I think plenty (well, at least some ) of those people are smart enough that with the right push, they could be the server and network admins of tomorrow. Without that push, which few employers are giving, we'll just have a surplus of helpdesk and a shortage of admins. That spirals and makes the issue worse, as entry-level jobs become harder, making even really smart, motivated people have trouble getting the work experience needed to move up.

I agree with the point made here. The company that I used to work for recently posted both a help desk and a server admin job. They got 350 applicants for the help desk position (of which about 30% were qualified) and 10 applicants for the server admin job (of which 2 were qualified).

networker050184

Why is it the companies responsability to give them a push? Shouldn't they be pushing themselves?

nkillgore

networker050184 wrote: »

Why is it the companies responsability to give them a push? Shouldn't they be pushing themselves?

But that would require work outside of work! People should be paid 100k a year for sitting on their @** all day.

QHalo

networker050184 wrote: »

B We just can't find highly qualified ones that take the time to turn themselves into experts.

This is the part that I don't see much of. Present forum members excluded of course.

undomiel

networker050184 wrote: »

But the issue is not the amount of people in the field. Its the amount of actual skilled people. We can find hundreds of networking 'professionals' to interview for our jobs. We just can't find highly qualified ones that take the time to turn themselves into experts.

I would agree with this. My experience with interviewing folks out there is that there are very few that are looking to actually improve or grow their skills. They're more interested in dialing it in 9-5 and pick up the increased paycheck. Not too interested in improving themselves and moving up the ladder. If anything after they're hired they seem more interested in avoiding as much work as possible. Increasing the amount of money offered does not seem to have increased the quality of applicants. It just increases the number of applicants.

ptilsen

networker050184 wrote: »

Why is it the companies responsability to give them a push? Shouldn't they be pushing themselves?

Employers want the job filled. If there's a shortage of qualified workers, it is more rational to train workers than to wait around with unfilled positions and expect them to train themselves.

It's no one's responsibility. It's about responding rationally to a business needs. Lots of high tech positions go unfilled because firms irrationally expect to find candidates already perfectly qualified and in fact doing the same job who will do it for the same amount of money.

I'm not advocating prospective professionals sit around and twiddle their thumbs. However, job candidates cannot conjur up job experience in a position they can't get hired for because they don't already have that job experience. Grads have no experience, and firms only want people with experience. IT works as well as it does because there is at least a somewhat logical progression path in most areas. Fewer and fewer companies offer internships or positions to new grads. In IT, we can usually at least start at helpdesk.

Rational employers should seek every method possible to get needed positions filled. I don't believe they're doing that. I think this article oversimplifies it and exaggerates the specifics, but it's not fundamentally wrong. Hiring more foreign workers is one avenue and it happens to be attractive because they are generally less expensive, but there are other ways that are clearly not being explored to the extent they could and probably should.

networker050184

undomiel wrote: »

Increasing the amount of money offered does not seem to have increased the quality of applicants. It just increases the number of applicants.

My thoughts exactly!

ptilsen wrote: »

It's no one's responsibility.

I couldn't disagree more.

ptilsen

undomiel wrote: »

I would agree with this. My experience with interviewing folks out there is that there are very few that are looking to actually improve or grow their skills. They're more interested in dialing it in 9-5 and pick up the increased paycheck. Not too interested in improving themselves and moving up the ladder. If anything after they're hired they seem more interested in avoiding as much work as possible. Increasing the amount of money offered does not seem to have increased the quality of applicants. It just increases the number of applicants.

Here I disagree. The quality of candidates you get is very much reflective of how low you pay them. IT work pays and hires like a semi-skilled profession. People who pick it for the paycheck of the entry-level work are the same people who would just as soon be plumbers or truck drivers. There is no shame in those professions, but IT is not a semi-skill profession beyond the entry level. The problem is that organizations and people alike treat the entry-level positions as ends in and of themselves, rather than as a stepping stone. If the field as a whole were more lucrative and had higher standards, you would see smarter, more motivated people applying at every level.

networker050184

If you don't publicly list the salary for the position how does that influence the people who apply?

bdub

networker050184 wrote: »

Well, easy high paying jobs don't just pop up on trees. Engineers are paid VERY well compared to many fields out there.

I don't think the doctor to engineer (in IT/technology) is a good example. You don't need a formal education at all to be a successful engineer. The pay that we get it is extraordinary already in that manner IMO.

I think the issue is that this is a field that takes a lot of self motivation and direction to get to a high level. The over all lack of motivation in people to push their careers is what causes the shortage of qualified professionals. Workers coming in from other countries are highly motivated to learn and push themselves.

Engineers may be paid very well compared to other fields but I think there is a point at which the amount of effort required to reach that "expert" level becomes higher than the ROI. I think that is what ptilsen was getting at an I agree. There are a lot of people who will reach that mid level pay and it will not make sense to them to push themselves to reach that next level, not seeing as much benefit in that extra 10k for the amount of effort involved in getting there.

Workers coming in from other countries may very well be highly motivated, but one thing to note is that is also where a large proportion of people use **** are. I have stumbled upon **** sites on more than one occasion, browsing those sites and looking at the comments, they were over 90% people not in the US.

I will say though that on this topic you rarely see it mentioned that during the early 2000's the H1B cap was much higher than it is now, so I do think there is some validity to the "tech shortage" or at least, the shortage of foreign workers willing to work for far less than their American counterparts.

networker050184

I think the ROI in this field is one of the greatest out there. I can read some books on my own time and get myself up to a six figure salary in about 5 years or so? That's pretty easy and the return on that is astronomical.

jibbajabba

networker050184 wrote: »

If you don't publicly list the salary for the position how does that influence the people who apply?

It does .. it does influence me anyway .. Based on my own experience, most jobs without a salary listed turned out to be too low paid and a waste of time. Same for adverts advertising a wide range.

As for the amount of available people - some companies simply have silly expectation. Which sometimes makes me wonder if that role even exists.

I can't find it right now - but I received an email from a recruiter once telling me about a massive opportunity. Requirements : MCITP / VCP / CCNA / CCA. He did not want to reveal the salary and after I agreed for my CV to be submitted I heard that the salary is less than £25k here in Central London .. that is less than $40k in a city where the average rent is £400 or $600 PER WEEK.

So yea - unless I hear the "true" offered salary, I don't bother.

JustFred

Agree with this

bdub

networker050184 wrote: »

I think the ROI in this field is one of the greatest out there. I can read some books on my own time and get myself up to a six figure salary in about 5 years or so? That's pretty easy and the return on that is astronomical.

And yet there is a huge shortage? If it were so easy for everyone to reach 100k in 5 years just from reading some books, do you honestly think there would be a shortage? Do you honestly think its that easy?

I am not saying the ROI in the field it self is bad, I am talking about getting to that expert level that many organizations are looking for now, in which they are offering only slightly higher salaries. You say its easy, yet I see all around me people who have reach a certain level, and they level off, not because they are bad employees or not good at pushing themselves, so there must be some other explanation right?

networker050184

The shortage is because people DON'T do it. People do not take the time to invest in theirself.

bdub

networker050184 wrote: »

The shortage is because people DON'T do it. People do not take the time to invest in theirself.

Yeah, so whats the reason? Thats my point, obviously people are not doing that for a reason. Likely the reason is they do not see the value in it as people do in other high level fields where there is no shortage.

QHalo

I think its mostly because they're lazy. For more than anyone will care to admit it's the truth.

networker050184

Laziness is the first thing that comes to mind.

The hard working self motivators on these forums are not the norm in our profession unfortunately. Most people really do not care about improving themselves on their own time. Most people slack off even when getting training provided on the company dime.

ptilsen

networker050184 wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more.

Why would someone have a "responsibility" to push themselves? Motivation is a good thing and people should have it, but it's not a responsibility, and the point is that whose responsibility it is doesn't matter in the context of job scarcity. Employers want jobs filled because they view them as providing value. Not filling them means lost value. A rational employer doesn't say "well, these candidates don't exist, so I guess we just won't hire anyone." It says "what can we do to fill this position?" One answer is hire foreign workers. Another answer is hire interns or entry-level people and train them into the needed candidates. Another might be to give out scholarships at universities and show up to job fairs to help promote the field. Employers do all of this and more, but what I'm saying is that in my experience, many, probably most are not doing as much as they could to fill high tech positions.

bdub

QHalo wrote: »

I think its mostly because they're lazy. Down rank me, but for more than anyone will care to admit it's the truth.

So you think then that it is an issue specific to tech fields? I don't disagree that there are lazy people out there, but why is it that engineers are lazy but other high level jobs where there is no shortage, people who enter those fields must not be as lazy?

networker050184

I don't understand your reasoning at all. Why wouldn't it be someones responsibility to push themselves?

QHalo

Suppose the company did hire then and did train them. If the person doesn't have the ability or drive to self-motivate, it doesn't matter how much money you throw at them in training. You can't train someone who doesn't care enough to actually learn it. Sure you may help some people, but there's quite a few that won't see the opportunity that's right in front of them.

networker050184

bdub wrote: »

So you think then that it is an issue specific to tech fields? I don't disagree that there are lazy people out there, but why is it that engineers are lazy but other high level jobs where there is no shortage, people who enter those fields must not be as lazy?

To use ptilsen's doctor comparison, they have to go through years of schooling and invest a lot of time and money to make it high up in their field. This process weeds out a lot of the lazy people. Our field on the other hand you can get started with nothing more than being computer savy from playing online games.