So-called tech talent shortage...

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]."

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

undomiel

I agree that the field could use higher standards. But I also agree with the article in that it needs more correct standards. There are positions out there that want the kitchen along with the sink and cross off prospective employees because some ridiculous requirement is not matched exactly.

But I also disagree that those just looking for just a paycheck will stay in the entry level. They want the big paycheck and they want the cushy job that has them sitting around doing as little as possible all day instead of answering phones and working under desks. I've worked with a number of those. There was a guy who was padding his hours a bunch and doing as little possible. He would procrastinate on as much as possible and eventually escalate it because the problem was something he wasn't "comfortable" with. He eventually got fired but had managed to stay on for several months. I had to pull a lot of clean-up work on that one. In interviews as well I'm encountering lots of people with a long list of industry experience but their actual skill and knowledge seems closer to junior or mid level.

SteveO86

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.

I agree with this. As long as you have the drive to motivate yourself it's simple enough to thrive in IT.

I did it. I've more then double my salary in the last 4 years.

I keep telling some of my friends to do this, and they tell me "I can't motivate myself" .. Once they leave works it all drinks and/or video games and they will complain at the spot they are at now... Last time I flat out and said dude if your not going to do anything for yourself stop complaining... plain and simple. They don't complain anymore.

undomiel

networker050184 wrote: »

Most people slack off even when getting training provided on the company dime.

I've found this to be very true. I'm appalled at how much money goes into training at my current employer yet I still find simple issues being escalated and nobody can pass a Microsoft exam to save their life.

olaHalo

Interesting thread! The posts here are much more enlightening then the article.
I have to agree with ptilsen and bdub.

ptilsen

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.

Yes, but be realistic about your own capabilities. Those of us smart enough to get that far on that level of effort are largely smart enough to be doctors, lawyers or other high-skill professionals that pay even more than the upper echelons of IT. Being a doctor requires more up front effort, but the payoff is easily worth it several times over. I'm not saying I'd rather be a doctor because money and time aren't the only factors, but if I cared only about the money, that would have been a better choice. Regardless of whether upping salaries really means more people enter a profession, scarcity definitely does mean more competition, which definitely does drive up salaries as companies compete for a limited pool of workers. It's a basic principle of labor economics. Scarcity is one of the driving factors of pay in any given profession, and if there is scarcity in a profession, you would expect to see upward pressure on salaries. I've already partially disputed the article itself, since there has been upward pressure, but I think to the extent it's right. There would be even more salary gains in engineering fields if scarcity were truly as bad as they say.

Also, we are getting a little off-topic by focusing on the realm of IT infrastructure, which I'll admit is not such a bad field at the end of the day, since there are lots of IT shops that do hire candidates based more on demonstrated motivation and aptitude rather than on meeting an exact list of needed, hyper-specific skills. What we see in IT is relatable to us, but the article is ultimately about engineering and high tech, not just IT. And the problem I see in IT infrastructure seems to be much worse in other high-tech professions. You can't read a few books, take a test, and go be an electrical engineer for whichever company will pay the most. Formal education holds a lot more weight in most engineering professions, yet companies aren't hiring new grads to the extent that they should if there is really such a scarcity of workers. What the article is pointing out is that, for example, the industry claims there is a shortage of millions of software engineers, yet software engineers have unemployment way above any other field facing that kind of scarcity.

I agree that people shouldn't expect to just put in the minimum and get some great job. But at the same time, it makes no sense that a company won't hire just-out-of-college engineers and grow them into specialized roles. What the article boils down to is that companies would rather cry "shortage!" to get immigrants in to work for less than just pay domestic workers what they want or train them up. Now, immigration policy in and of itself is way outside the scope of this site and I really don't think we should get into it. I'm simply saying that I agree with the article's premise, to an extent -- motivated, intelligent, self-trained foreign workers are an attractive solution to a labor shortage, and so much so that many employers are focused on that rather than on other ways to fill the positions they need.

ptilsen

networker050184 wrote: »

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.

I agree with this completely. IT has been made accessible to more or less anyone to the point that you get very mixed results in terms of candidate quality. I don't know that there's an easy solution, but this in and of itself is definitely a problem. I actually think we would all be paid even more at every level of IT if the standards weren't set so low for the lower levels. Any idiot who can figure out basic Office problems can earn $15 an hour, so the smart kid who gets technology and can figure out almost any workstation problem is still only worth $15 an hour until he (or she) has the experience to move up.

undomiel wrote: »

I've found this to be very true. I'm appalled at how much money goes into training at my current employer yet I still find simple issues being escalated and nobody can pass a Microsoft exam to save their life.

No disagreements here. The "lifers" will always just escalate if they don't already know how to fix an exact problem. Forget Microsoft exams; they can't even solve a simple problem that has already been solved with a Google search.

SteveO86

ptilsen wrote: »

Yes, but be realistic about your own capabilities. Those of us smart enough to get that far on that level of effort are largely smart enough to be doctors, lawyers or other high-skill professionals that pay even more than the upper echelons of IT.

I never understand that, I believe everyone has the same opportunities. I truly don't believe it's a matter of just 'being smart' and it boils down to one's motivation and focus. There were times I struggled in going through school, I mean really struggled.. Made it out of school hit the IT field and took off.

ptilsen wrote: »

But at the same time, it makes no sense that a company won't hire just-out-of-college engineers and grow them into specialized roles.

That's just not the way it is. I have not seen a company like that yet.

ptilsen

networker050184 wrote: »

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

I think we're just disagreeing on the definition. I'm thinking of responsibility in terms of synonymy with "obligation." I view it as a rational choice for both employer and employee (or prospective employee) to improve skills, but no one's responsibility. If the employee and employer are happy with that person doing that job and not changing, that's fine. Both will lose out for it, in my opinion, but that is acceptable. I don't view it as obligatory on the part of any party.

I get what you're saying, regardless of that word. We're not entitled to have employers push us to be better, and those of us who are self-motivated will do better than those who aren't.

Iristheangel

I'll just use my own example on this and you can take this with a grain of salt:

I don't consider myself an expert yet I'm paid 6-figures. I can continue on at this job and level at make decent money without picking up another book.
I can also go the CCNP, CCIE, etc route, spend tens of thousands of my own dollars, hundreds of hours of studying and labbing, etc for a ROI of anywhere from $10K-50K more a year depending on the area and position.
For some people that ROI might be worth it but I would barter to say that most would say no. Plus a lot of people have dependents And families so the extra hours and money spent for training may not work for their financial situation. Its intimidating to say "Im going to spend $4000 on CCIE materials, $6000 on a bootcamp and $2000 on the lab exam plus flight, room amd board." That's not laziness there if you're a single parent or have tons of kids - that's a future year of college funds for your kids so I can understand being hesitant to spend it.
The reasons I'm going the way of studying more and learning as much as I can is because I'm neurotic and that I think it provides more open doors and job security in the future for wherever I end up moving (San Jose!!!)

Personally, I like CDW's approach to how to groom experts: they offer to pay tuition, certifications, etc for an agreement if the employee agrees to stay on for two years or pay everything back within 60 days of quitting. Those certifications also influence their bonuses and raises. That gives the employer some guaranteed ROI on what they give their employee, gives the employee some motivation for some free training, experts are groomed, and everyone walks away happy. Sadly, the majority of companies are not like this

ptilsen

SteveO86 wrote: »

I never understand that, I believe everyone has the same opportunities. I truly don't believe it's a matter of just 'being smart' and it boils down to one's motivation and focus. There were times I struggled in going through school, I mean really struggled.. Made it out of school hit the IT field and took off.

There are different types of intelligence and aptitude, and school performance isn't necessarily the best measure or even a good one. However, you're not giving yourself enough credit if you think everyone has the same opportunities. No amount of good life circumstances, motivation, and training can make some truly unintelligent capable of doing someone else's job. Not everyone can be an astronaut, doctor, or CCIE. Some people just plain aren't smart enough.

SteveO86 wrote: »

That's just not the way it is. I have not seen a company like that yet.

Clearly it's happening. Graduates go unemployed, yet employers claim they can't find enough engineers.

Just go look at job postings for software or electrical engineers. You'll find few that doesn't want existing professional experience or specifically seeking recent grads. You'll find some, but not many. I, for one, have worked for companies that would never hire engineers (of various kinds) with no work experience.

Iristheangel wrote: »

Personally, I like CDW's approach to how to groom experts: they offer to pay tuition, certifications, etc for an agreement if the employee agrees to stay on for two years or pay everything back within 60 days of quitting. Those certifications also influence their bonuses and raises. That gives the employer some guaranteed ROI on what they give their employee, gives the employee some motivation for some free training, experts are groomed, and everyone walks away happy.

I think this is the best approach, especially with the training option. My employer does this with tuition reimbursement, and I think it's brilliant. I'll probably stay here are least four years -- a relative eternity in IT -- just because they make a point of offering mutually beneficial growth opportunities. Without this, I would still grow, but I'd do it on my own and take my improved skills somewhere that pays more.

Trifidw

Am I alone in thinking it is not just limited to paper qualifications? I'm finding that many people in the field are unable to 'join the dots' of a problem to find the solution and also take charge of a situation.

Iristheangel

SteveO86 wrote: »

That's just not the way it is. I have not seen a company like that yet.

Most companies aren't but there are some [smart] companies that provide "associate" positions to fresh college graduates to groom them to full fledged specialized engineers. Check out Cisco, CDW and other VARs. They hire associates fresh out of college. In fact, Cisco won't hire you as an associate if you aren't a recent college graduate

ptilsen

Trifidw wrote: »

Am I alone in thinking it is not just limited to paper qualifications? I'm finding that many people in the field are unable to 'join the dots' of a problem to find the solution and also take charge of a situation.

I don't think you're alone there at all. You need a certain aptitude, a certain type of critical thinking skills. However, I actually think most certifications do an okay job of weeding out those who can't. We all complain about how easy some cert tests can be, but a lot of them do actually ask thought-provoking questions that are only easy if you both know the material and have the right mindset to analyze the situation.

NetworkVeteran

Iristheangel wrote: »

I don't consider myself an expert yet I'm paid 6-figures. I can continue on at this job and level at make decent money without picking up another book. I can also go the CCNP, CCIE, etc route, spend tens of thousands of my own dollars, hundreds of hours of studying and labbing, etc for a ROI of anywhere from $10K-50K more a year depending on the area and position.

There seems to be a ceiling for networking engineers of around $150,000--barring hazard pay, travel, or short-term work. To go much beyond that, you need a foot in a related field such as management or sales. I found my CCNA important in landing my first job and my CCNP very lucrative. However, the bump for the long CCIE road would for me be at most $10,000.

Medical doctors have more potential, granted their effort is up-front and mandatory.

Then again, we certainly get to have more fun.

SteveO86

Iristheangel wrote: »

Most companies aren't but there are some [smart] companies that provide "associate" positions to fresh college graduates to groom them to full fledged specialized engineers. Check out Cisco, CDW and other VARs. They hire associates fresh out of college. In fact, Cisco won't hire you as an associate if you aren't a recent college graduate

Ok, well that is actually a nice find.

Problem with that though is those companies are around every corner.

When I made my statement about companies not doing this, I was referring a company hiring anyone and training them to be that high end Sr Network Engineer/Architect, I was not referring to people being hired fresh out of school. I thought this thread was geared towards to the job market in general and companies, not new people fresh out of school looking for a job.

Iristheangel

NetworkVeteran wrote: »

There seems to be a ceiling for networking engineers of around $150,000--barring hazard pay, travel, or short-term work. To go much beyond that, you need a foot in a related field such as management or sales. I found my CCNA important in landing my first job and my CCNP very lucrative. However, the bump for the long CCIE road would for me be at most $10,000.

Medical doctors have more potential, granted their effort is up-front and mandatory.

Then again, we certainly get to have more fun.

Agreed on the pay cap. Unless we consult or go into technical sales, we're pretty much stopped there. But I love networking and I want to know as much as I can so I keep learning and keep going. If I get a CCIE and my company pays for it, it would probably motivate me to pick up two instead of just one and therefore be even more versatile as an employee.

it_consultant

This is an interesting thread, it certainly raises hackles among people when we start talking about jobs and pay. I will relate an experience from last week. We have a development company of about 8 programmers who work under the owner of the company who is also a software engineer. It will shock no one here when I say that he is Indian and his staff is primarily Indian. We were a little surprised that he hired a good ol' American white guy about a month ago. He lasted about a month. His coding was fine, he was nice to people, he was basically professional. He quit because he was being "worked to hard".

At any rate, during a meeting that was conducted with other departments someone made a comment about white programmers which visibly upset the people in the room who were not in IT and generally unfamiliar with the industry. I explained to them afterwards that there are a lot of great American born programmers, but not nearly as many as foreign born, and the American born programmers who are very good work for Google, Facebook, etc. We simply aren't producing enough programmers who are American born to have enough good ones that they will be available to small and medium sized businesses.

It is a not so secret secret that American born engineers exhibit lazy and self-entitled tendencies that aren't seen as much in foreign born engineers. We are in a tech talent shortage if you are really only counting 'good' engineers as opposed to un-hireable people who call themselves (they may or may not be) engineers and then complain that there isn't really a tech shortage because no one is hiring them. This isn't just an IT problem, it is a cultural problem for Americans. My wife is an underwriter, they outsourced half of one department to India. They get consistently better work product (aside from questionable English grammar) from the half of the department in India. That is anecdotal, but finding examples like that is not hard.

Iristheangel

@SteveO, I know what you meant but that's sort of what CDW, Cisco, etc are trying to do. You start out as an associate. You do well and become an engineer or move to one of their other positions. You then are given the opportunity to have your certifications, education, training, etc paid for as well as provided labs to study with. From there, you are given opportunities to be promoted, raises that are partly based on your improvements, etc. One of my good buddies started out at Cisco fresh out of grad school as an associate with zero certifications. Fast forward 12 years later, they've paid for his CISSP, CCIE: Security, etc and he's still working there as a Senior Consulting Engineer. He didn't have to jump around jobs because he had actual opportunities from within and didn't have to suffer years of being underpaid

I wish more companies offered benefits and encouraged education from within. It creates solid senior level engineers and promotes hard work. You don't want to improve with the benefits they practically hand you? No problem. There's 10 people lining up at the door for the same opportunities.

N2IT

Two great quotes:

"Employers get plenty of applications, but they can't find "qualified workers." Peter Cappelli, at the Wharton School studied this situation. He finds that employers are hiring more selectively, looking for the ideal match. It's not enough to be able to do the job. Employers want someone already doing that exact job".

"Microsoft and countless other employers are making a conscious business decision to commoditize work, and turn to the labor market to satisfy their precise demand, . just-in-time".

You are starting to see more and more (IMO) improper use of methodologies in business. Mayo Clinic just recently ran a study on their administrators (executives) on how much actual time they spend in an office. Most of them spent less than 20% of their day in their office. So now they are actually merging office space to save on money, these are high dollar executives we are talking about. They just don't spend enough time there. I think that is crazy and this is where data doesn't outweight the ability of the human mind to make a REAL decision.

JIT is a manufacturing strategy being leveraged in the Human Resource world? That to me seems like someone is applying a the wrong methodology. Using a methology or a set of best practices only provides solid ROI if applied to the right industry, etc.

This reminds me of company I used to work for who tried applying Six Sigma service management. It ended up costing more money in the long run and didn't provide any better service.

Trifidw

it_consultant wrote: »

Indian.

We (the west) strike a much more healthy work-life balance, our home life will not last long if we worked like they do in India. I am expected to be innovative with my solutions and if I was working solidly (on intense tasks) throughout the day without even a moment to reflect on my work then I don't see this being possible.

ptilsen

SteveO86 wrote: »

When I made my statement about companies not doing this, I was referring a company hiring anyone and training them to be that high end Sr Network Engineer/Architect, I was not referring to people being hired fresh out of school. I thought this thread was geared towards to the job market in general and companies, not new people fresh out of school looking for a job.

It got that way for comparison purposes, but the thread is about the article, which is about high-tech jobs and in particular educated engineers who can't get work, not IT infrastructure in particular.

JustFred

QHalo wrote: »

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

Well i quit a desktop support job to get an entry level networking job, one of the best decisions I've made, though i took a huge pay cut, the stuff i have learned will help me in the future.

it_consultant

We are lazier. We might have an ideal about "work-life-balance" but we are in a global economy and our competition doesn't understand this. This particular programmer was not asked to work nights or weekends (as I am sometimes called to do) he was complaining that he was worked to hard while AT work. We weren't always this way, we led the industrial and technological revolution. Somehow I doubt that people working at Fairchild Semiconductors in the 60s complained they were being "worked to hard" while they were busy inventing the modern world. Facebook, Google, and Apple are famous for squeezing every bit of productivity out of people while they are in the building. I have yet to hear of someone who regrets working for one of those companies.

badrottie

I think that the regular members of TechExams are not representative of standard run-of-the-mill IT professionals.

I find that if I want a new position, I do not face significant challenges in obtaining one. Part of this is due to the shortage of information security specialists and experts. There are some published figures that there is zero unemployment in information security, but I honestly do not believe that figure (The sample size is just too small to be statistically valid). The fact that the demand for IS workers will continue to outstrip supply will help keep unemployment low for the near future.

If you want talent, you have to either hire it or develop it, and too many companies are only focused on short-term quarterly results to invest in developing it in house.

I realized quite awhile ago, if I wanted to work in my field, I had to obtain specific credentials and elected to go with what I felt were the some of the hardest, best recognized ones. Companies do not usually want to pay for education, as they fear that the employee will take their skills elsewhere. This meant studying on my own time, and taking exams at my own expense.

And companies wonder why there is so little loyalty shown by talent these days? I like this quote from the article by Stan Sorscher at Huffingtonpost.com:

"A retired general told me that the military also needs experienced specialists. He was often asked if he could get enough eight-year Master Sergeants? He said he could get all he wanted! It takes eight years."

Iristheangel

I definitely wouldn't use Facebook and Google as models for "squeezing every bit of productivity out of people" in comparison to India. From my understanding of Google, they insist you work on your projects 4 days out of the week and for the 5th day, they give you creative license to develop new product and ideas. From my understanding of Facebook and Google, they both have large perks, arcades, educational opportunities, laundry, transportation, happy hour (at least at FB corp headquarters), and have a laid back approach to creativity that keeps their staff happy to keep working hard - Something that isn't often seen in the global industry and would be considered crazy by most countries standards. Their high productivity has more to do with the employee being happy and feeling like part of the culture than squeezing them into working 12 hour days like they do in many places in India or China. So yeah... people work hard for Google and Facebook because they're paid well, given opportunities to advance, and treated like humans who have fun. (Can't comment extensively on Apple but from the people I know in Cupertino, they are a bit like Google and Facebook in culture but I can't give details I don't have)

People in other countries are given slightly-above-average for their region and told to work 12 hours a day without any other considerations or benefits because it's the norm there. Companies in those countries have no care whether their employees are happy or have time with their family. If someone dies or doesn't do well, they simply replace them quickly without recourse which certainly strikes some fear into their workers. I think a lot of those countries see us as "lazy" or "spoiled" because we demand higher pay, benefits, sick time, and comply with legal requirements to not work over X amount of time in a week or day. Sure... we can move to be more like them to "compete" but you wouldn't get a ton of tech talent jumping into tech majors if that's what they had to look forward to in this country. I don't mind working hard or even working long hours but if you start taking away my benefits or pay so you can "compete," I'll be heading back to school to jump into another career if that became the norm.

bdub

it_consultant wrote: »

We are lazier. We might have an ideal about "work-life-balance" but we are in a global economy and our competition doesn't understand this. This particular programmer was not asked to work nights or weekends (as I am sometimes called to do) he was complaining that he was worked to hard while AT work. We weren't always this way, we led the industrial and technological revolution. Somehow I doubt that people working at Fairchild Semiconductors in the 60s complained they were being "worked to hard" while they were busy inventing the modern world. Facebook, Google, and Apple are famous for squeezing every bit of productivity out of people while they are in the building. I have yet to hear of someone who regrets working for one of those companies.

Thats a bit of a broad and sweeping generalization which I think is a bit unfounded considering India can barely provide basic amenities to much of their own population. If as a people they were so hard working you'd think that would not be the case. But that is a bit off subject.

More on subject I am always reminded of something one of my martial arts instructors told me about his European students that I think is a good analogy and seems to apply to more than just martial arts, and that is that on average his European students are more capable, well rounded, and hard working martial artists but they have fewer superstars. America is good at producing "superstars" and unfortunately we also seems to produce a lot of people that are on the other end of the spectrum.

But I think one point to consider when discussing foreign workers is that, generally those that come over to the US are not the norm in their country either. Its the people that are highly motivated and work hard that seek out a better life in general no matter where they are or where they are from.

cmitchell_00

This is a really good thread today. However, in today's job market companies don't really want to pay employees what they are worth. I know of people who received raises after they left the company but, the same company paid that new person what they were worth based off of market value. Now those two people had the same education and certifications; go figure. Then, the other folk who received their correct salary or what they were worth might had to threaten to leave the company. I don't care CCNA'/CCNP's and MCITP's etc. with 5 years plus of experience shouldn't be only making 45k-50k in the U.S. so; pay now or more on. The funny part of this all is that it's a employee market now not the employer.

N2IT

Neat website to look up labor force statistics. Average annual hours actually worked per worker

Average annual hours actually worked by workers the USA comes in at 11. ~1800 hours annual. Mexico 2250

ptilsen

bdub wrote: »

Thats a bit of a broad and sweeping generalization which I think is a bit unfounded considering India can barely provide basic amenities to much of their own population. If as a people they were so hard working you'd think that would not be the case. But that is a bit off subject.

No kidding, and exactly what I, for one (and probably the mods) was hoping this would not devolve into.

Bottom line, foreign workers (yes, mainly Indians) will do the same or more work for the same or more money, for whatever reason or reasons. Companies would rather just hire them than pay extra to train and educate domestic employees and then employ them. That is the entire point of the article. The scarcity of applicants is exaggerated to justify bringing in more workers. Whether we think that is a good thing is another conversation.

I do believe there is a real scarcity, both in IT specifically and high tech in general, and this ultimately works in our favor, but it's not to the extent employers are claiming. They don't need to hand out visas to find it workers. It's just perceived as a better, more cost-effective solution than training and hiring average domestic grads.

Wilson502

cmitchell_00 wrote: »

This is a really good thread today. However, in today's job market companies don't really want to pay employees what they are worth. I know of people who received raises after they left the company but, the same company paid that new person what they were worth based off of market value. Now those two people had the same education and certifications; go figure. Then, the other folk who received their correct salary or what they were worth might had to threaten to leave the company. I don't care CCNA'/CCNP's and MCITP's etc. with 5 years plus of experience shouldn't be only making 45k-50k in the U.S. so; pay now or more on. The funny part of this all is that it's a employee market now not the employer.

Upper management/CEO pay has outpaced inflation for a number of years while non-managerial positions have remained flat or seen slight declines..... It is what it is.