Shortage of Workers

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.