In
this article on the "PhD glut" in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) fields, the author comments on the commonly-held belief that there is a lack of skilled technology workers in the US (which both pumps up the visa system for bringing in cheaper overseas workers and encourages the idea that we need more people to get graduate degrees in these fields/paints an inappropriately rosy picture of post-degree job prospects for those who go through with it):
"When high tech companies and their lobbyists claim there is a
shortage of skilled high technology workers, they usually use general
language such as “there is a shortage of engineers,” “there is a
shortage of programmers,” or “there is a shortage of technology talent.”
However, when pressed about seemingly qualified, often older workers who cannot find jobs, they refer to both extensive and very narrowly
defined specific skills that they claim they must have. Older often
means over forty or even over thirty-five. As in the case of the forty
year old husband of Jennifer Wedel, who confronted President Obama about
the shortage claims, these older workers who encounter problems finding
work despite seemingly strong qualifications are often not very old.
One can always assert a shortage of workers by narrowly specifying
the skills required. Consider digging a ditch. Suppose I demand that
prospective ditch diggers must: have at least three years paid
professional experience digging ditches using the Big Box Mart Super
Squabo 2.0 shovel which my company uses. A Black and Decker shovel
won’t do. Not just any ditch digging, it must be three years paid
professional experience digging ditches for gas pipelines in a medium
sized city with a population from 50-200,000 people. Ditches for sewage
lines won’t do. Digging ditches for gas pipelines in New York City
won’t do because New York has a population over 200,000. And so on.
Even though ditch diggers are surely not in short supply, I can find a
shortage by narrowing my standards for ditch diggers. This sort of
narrowing of standards is surely a symptom of either gross irrationality
or an actual surplus of qualified applicants that makes it possible to
impose such narrow requirements.
Of course, most people know or believe they know enough about ditch
digging and other low status, frequently manual jobs that this sort of
argument would provoke only laughter and disbelief. Hence similar
worker shortage claims about low status, generally lower paying jobs in
the United States usually involve claims that spoiled Americans are
unwilling to do such hard manual labor. It is harder to evaluate the
plausibility of such ultra-narrow job specifications where technical
jobs such as software engineering are concerned."
That article links to
this one, about the mythical nature of the worker shortage problem:
"With an abundance of workers to choose from, employers are demanding
more of job candidates than ever before. They want prospective workers
to be able to fill a role right away, without any training or ramp-up
time....In other words, to
get a job, you have to have that job
already. It's a Catch-22 situation for workers—and it's hurting companies and the economy....
The perceptions about a lack of skilled workers are pervasive. The
staffing company ManpowerGroup, for instance, reports that 52% of U.S.
employers surveyed say they have difficulty filling positions because of
talent shortages.
But the problem is an illusion.
Some of
the complaints about skill shortages boil down to the fact that
employers can't get candidates to accept jobs at the wages offered.
That's an affordability problem, not a skill shortage. A
real shortage
means not being able to find appropriate candidates at market-clearing
wages. We wouldn't say there is a shortage of diamonds when they are
incredibly expensive; we can buy all we want at the prevailing prices.
The real problem, then, is more appropriately an inflexibility
problem. Finding candidates to fit jobs is not like finding pistons to
fit engines, where the requirements are precise and can't be varied.
Jobs can be organized in many different ways so that candidates who have
very different credentials can do them successfully."
I read this stuff several days ago, but these articles -- particularly these passages -- really stuck with me.
As a job seeker, I think the Specific Ditch Experience thing is spot-on. And I love how the diamond analogy points out the ludicrousness of calling the "
Want something and don't want to pay for it" problem that employers have a worker shortage.
One thing I've noticed looking at job listings is how often jobs that are labeled as "Entry Level" often require a year or two of experience, and not just general work experience or experience through classwork, etc., with particular software, but full-time, professional Specific Ditch Experience. The "how do I get a job without experience or experience without a job" conundrum is an old one, but my sense is that this situation has gotten worse. I've also been seeing a fair number of listing for interns this past week, and it's shocking to what the requirements/job responsibilities are for those. They look like what you'd expect an actual entry level position to be (or maybe more) -- and I'm not just talking about ones targeted at MBA grads, but for people with or soon to have BAs.
I guess the takeaway is that the entry level job is the new junior but not inexperienced job, the internship is the new entry level job, the master's degree is the new bachelor's degree, the bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma, and...blah, the job search sucks, people.
