The skills gap myth: Survey reveals why companies can’t find "good people"

[shortylickens]

If every IT person went on strike you would suddenly find ALL of it done by Indians and Koreans.

 

[Nebor]

Totally missed this, but it sure is honorable for him to be more concerned about CEO's extracting more and more wealth out of their companies as they destroy more jobs (including his). Yup, that sure is honorable. This is why this country is fucked.

Sometimes the old lady opens the door for the young man for whatever reason. I just think it's funny that you're damning people for going against their self-interests, when doing so is usually an admirable quality.

 

[razor2025]

Race to the bottom? You mean race to the lowest price for the same good?

An easy answer is because Americans want to pay the lowest price for those goods. If they don't, they don't have to. But given the choice between two identical goods of different prices, would you choose the cheaper or more expensive version?

Except they're not "identical". There's no such thing as "identical" goods in a real world market. THere's always a variation of price/utility on goods and services, however minute. The whole concept of "identical goods" is ridiculous outside of academic world.

Overall, I think this is just symptoms of short-sightedness by leaders and managers (along with the market). They're rewarded for making decisions that maximizes their local / short term return that heavily sacrifices the global / long term growth. Training budget is really easy to cut during hard-times, and by the time the labor-skill shortage pinch occurs few years down the road, these guys will be long gone with their million-dollar bonus for "turning the company around".

To put it simply, we, society in general, has lost trust and loyalty toward each other. The absurdity in job market is simply another reflection of this fact.

 

[razor2025]

If every IT person went on strike you would suddenly find ALL of it done by Indians and Koreans.

Enjoy describing your computer problem over the phone with really crappy English then.

 

[razor2025]

Actually we filled the job last time we searched outside the company, and it was at $34k. And they are still here 2 1/2 years later.

So you can be baffled all you want. I'm baffled too. We asked him his salary requirements (before telling him our price) and he asked for $30k... We gave him more than he asked for but well under our minimum offer we had planned. But I've remedied that already and he is making more than our min now.

Consider your company lucky then. Obviously, this guy has a reason to stick around, either through externality (family, location, friends) or he's ill-informed of his market-rate. These are factors your company can't control, and can easily get this guy looking for "higher-paying" job. Pay him a comfortable rate, so even if he gets an outside offer, it's "not worth" the cost of moving.

 

[shortylickens]

Enjoy describing your computer problem over the phone with really crappy English then.

I dont need to, I fix my own system.
As for everyone else, they would bitch and moan about it but would refuse to pay higher prices.

 

[ShawnD1]

Enjoy describing your computer problem over the phone with really crappy English then.

Isn't that already the case?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmD_8cBqhW0

 

[glenn1]

There is a skill gap because we never list the prices on our job postings. Reading the job postings you would gather real quick like that it's not entry level, but is not complicated and does not warrant a 6 figure salary. It's just simple reports. Importing/exporting data files in and out of a system. This is something that anybody with a year or two of experience can master.

The skill gap comes in because we are not finding the right people to fit the requirements. Either they have no experience (can't even tell me what a compiler is), or they are over qualified, and are asking too much for the job requirements.

I don't care if you say you are a 10+ year experienced C# programmer who knows the ins and outs of .Net Framework, if the job isn't going to require your skills, it isn't going to pay you what you're worth. It's going to pay what is necessary for the job.

However, it might be perfect for someone with a year or two of experience. But more than likely what is happening is those with experience overstate their experience and ask for more money, bringing the job out of their range. I'm not finding any middle ground in the applicants.

There was one applicant who did mediocre on my programming test. Said he started his previous job at $40k, and was making $80k a year later when he left. Asked why he left when it was such a promising job and he said he wanted to spend time with his Girlfriend and moved here. He said they broke up before even getting an apartment here. This makes me wonder? Why didn't he go back to his old job if he wasn't commited to the area? How many jobs double someones wage in a year? Only if they are really really good. So they'd want this guy back in a heartbeat, so why was he applying here? The answer should be obvious. He was a noob, got hired at $40k, got some experience over the year, thought he could job jump, lied about his $80k, hoping to do our easy sounding job for double the wage he was making.

I don't know if its my company thats greedy, or the applicants. Or both? But whatever the case is, I can't find someone who is happily in the middle. I have no say in the prices or amounts. I just interview them to see if they have the experience required for the job, and give them the programming test.

Let me describe more accurately what you're doing. You have a position posted which is appropriate for someone with 1-2 years experience at a certain salary, but you neglect to mention either in the posting hoping that your lie by omission will allow you find someone more experience willing to work for peanuts. And then you are surprised when those experienced people ask you for market rates for your "not complicated" job they're overqualified for. Or get upset when someone counters your lie with one of their own, saying they have 1-2 years experience when really they're a n00b hoping to work for more than market rate for their skills.

Wish I knew the name of your company so I could remind myself to never submit an application to you.

 

[her209]

If every IT person went on strike you would suddenly find ALL of it done by Indians and Koreans.

How are you going to tell the Indian or Korean what to fix when your telephone and e-mail don't work?

 

[Retro Rob]

I was just thinking about something that I though might be interesting:

All the time, I hear about companies cutting jobs because the executives want to "save" the company money and cut costs. "Save" the company, or themselves:

Theoretically, you have a CEO with a problem on his hands: He is tasked with saving his world-wide company 50 Million Dollars over the next 5 years. He "cares" about the company, and wants to keep it afloat, but sacrifices MUST be made.

He has a couple options:

1) He can go ahead and cut 33,000 jobs and be done with it. He will save the company the said money, but tons of people will be out of work.

Pro: Company saves money, survives.
Con: A lot of upset people are out of work

2) He can pro-rate his own salary, along with his team of execs, and as well as ALL hourly/salaried workers over the course of the next 5 years to reach the goal. A little across the board from everyone won't be too bad. After all, they still keep their bonus packages, but they are pro-rated too. When/if the market rebounds, pay can be increased.

Pro: Company survives, and everyone keeps their jobs.
Con: CEO and execs don't get that fat bonus for firing a good deal of it's workforce, however, morale stays high, jobs are kept, employees probably aren't happy, but they keep working and are good with that.

Crummy scenario, probably, and unrealistic, but it was something I was thinking about.

 

[alzan]

I was just thinking about something that I though might be interesting:

All the time, I hear about companies cutting jobs because the executives want to "save" the company money and cut costs. "Save" the company, or themselves:

Theoretically, you have a CEO with a problem on his hands: He is tasked with saving his world-wide company 50 Million Dollars over the next 5 years. He "cares" about the company, and wants to keep it afloat, but sacrifices MUST be made.

He has a couple options:

1) He can go ahead and cut 33,000 jobs and be done with it. He will save the company the said money, but tons of people will be out of work.

Pro: Company saves money, survives.
Con: A lot of upset people are out of work

2) He can pro-rate his own salary, along with his team of execs, and as well as ALL hourly/salaried workers over the course of the next 5 years to reach the goal. A little across the board from everyone won't be too bad. After all, they still keep their bonus packages, but they are pro-rated too. When/if the market rebounds, pay can be increased.

Pro: Company survives, and everyone keeps their jobs.
Con: CEO and execs don't get that fat bonus for firing a good deal of it's workforce, however, morale stays high, jobs are kept, employees probably aren't happy, but they keep working and are good with that.

Crummy scenario, probably, and unrealistic, but it was something I was thinking about.

At least with the second option everyone would still be employed and contributing to our consumer-based economy. They'd be a hampered a little on purchasing power for a five year period but that's better then potentially taking them all "off the grid" per Option 1. Employees wouldn't be happy about less pay or no raises for five years but if they knew that exec's and CEO were taking the hit as well it could actually be a net positive for morale.

 

[Retro Rob]

At least with the second option everyone would still be employed and contributing to our consumer-based economy. They'd be a hampered a little on purchasing power for a five year period but that's better then potentially taking them all "off the grid" per Option 1. Employees wouldn't be happy about less pay or no raises for five years but if they knew that exec's and CEO were taking the hit as well it could actually be a net positive for morale.

I would be happy with less pay and a job than risking losing my job by not wanting to take a pay cut.

I can't understand how a company saves money by reducing the workforce and having a huge bonus for the CEO.

I read about the Home Depot CEO earlier in the 2000's after nearly destroying the retail side of the company (laying off much of the experienced workers) while taking a large severance. How was he saving them money? Seems like he was lining his pockets.

Don't know how cutting jobs "saves" money when it only seems to be a transfer of funds. If they call it reducing operating costs, then that's more understandable.

You know the system is broken when one man's job loss contributes to another man's wealth. Totally acceptable in today's society.

 

[alzan]

I would be happy with less pay and a job than risking losing my job by not wanting to take a pay cut.

I can't understand how a company saves money by reducing the workforce and having a huge bonus for the CEO.

I read about the Home Depot CEO earlier in the 2000's after nearly destroying the retail side of the company (laying off much of the experienced workers) while taking a large severance. How was he saving them money? Seems like he was lining his pockets.

Don't know how cutting jobs "saves" money when it only seems to be a transfer of funds. If they call it reducing operating costs, then that's more understandable.

You know the system is broken when one man's job loss contributes to another man's wealth. Totally acceptable in today's society.

Yeah that's sometimes a problem with publicly owned companies; ultimately the exec's answer to the shareholders. When shareholders see reduced operating expenses on the balance sheet they cheer. And as long as they're still getting their quarterly dividend per share owned they really don't care if 100 employees got laid off to facilitate the reduction of expenses.

Were I ever a direct shareholder in a company I would do what I could to make sure that my return on my investment wasn't gained via laying off 1,000's or tens of 1,000's of employees.

I think that it would be beneficial to businesses in consumer-based economy such as the US that they operate in a "mutually beneficial interest"; more people in the workforce and contributing to the economy equals greater potential/actual sales of products and services provided by businesses.

Maybe that's because we use an inferior definition of "wealth". When we decide to use a superior definition we may actually see less of the "I Me Mine" behavior

Yes, that really is a secular humanist saying something spiritual.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yeah that's sometimes a problem with publicly owned companies; ultimately the exec's answer to the shareholders. When shareholders see reduced operating expenses on the balance sheet they cheer. And as long as they're still getting their quarterly dividend per share owned they really don't care if 100 employees got laid off to facilitate the reduction of expenses.

Were I ever a direct shareholder in a company I would do what I could to make sure that my return on my investment wasn't gained via laying off 1,000's or tens of 1,000's of employees.

I think that it would be beneficial to businesses in consumer-based economy such as the US that they operate in a "mutually beneficial interest"; more people in the workforce and contributing to the economy equals greater potential/actual sales of products and services provided by businesses.

Maybe that's because we use an inferior definition of "wealth". When we decide to use a superior definition we may actually see less of the "I Me Mine" behavior

Yes, that really is a secular humanist saying something spiritual.

You basically took the words from my mouth there, "Greedy"! It all goes back to how people are spending money and the lifestyle they live.

Some shareholders and many CEO's have a lot to pay for and a lot to buy. So, they need the money, or be dammed if they have to live like "regular" people...a house, car, a dog.

Just ask Dennis Kozlowski.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kozlowski

 

[alzan]

You basically took the words from my mouth there, "Greedy"! It all goes back to how people are spending money and the lifestyle they live.

Some shareholders and many CEO's have a lot to pay for and a lot to buy. So, they need the money, or be dammed if they have to live like "regular" people...a house, car, a dog.

Just ask Dennis Kozlowski.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kozlowski

Greed is part of it; I think attitude, ego and low self esteem are factors as well. Material wealth and possessions are sometimes outward expressions of the emptiness of one's self or soul. Sometimes they are ego boosts, showing society the status symbols one has acquired.

In another thread the discussion came up that just as some white people view themselves as superior to other races based solely upon skin color, some rich and ultra-rich people view themselves superior to the masses because of the amount of material wealth they've acquired.

A lot would have to change to reign in the pay scales of CEO's; some would be at the shareholder level of publicly-held companies; most would have to be a cultural or societal change.

Mr. Kozlowski could've had a few people on Tyco's board of directors that helped set his compensation levels; and were willing to "look the other way" as far as authorization for monies paid out by Tyco on Kozlowski's behalf. Hopefully after gets out of prison he won't be able to rise again to CEO of a large corporation and start wreaking havoc all over again.

 

[yottabit]

I pretty much ignore experience requirements on engineering jobs

Usually it's not only 5-10 yrs of engineering experience, it's in the SPECIFIC field they are looking for

"Looking for an engineer with 10 years experience in designing [our brand] widget #12"

 

[brandonb]

Wish I knew the name of your company so I could remind myself to never submit an application to you.

I'll be on the lookout for a Glenn who submits a resume at anytime in the future, and I'll send you a PM to see if its you before continuing with any interview.

 

[Throckmorton]

Actually we filled the job last time we searched outside the company, and it was at $34k. And they are still here 2 1/2 years later.

So you can be baffled all you want. I'm baffled too. We asked him his salary requirements (before telling him our price) and he asked for $30k... We gave him more than he asked for but well under our minimum offer we had planned. But I've remedied that already and he is making more than our min now.

A developer for $34k? Wow, times really are tough.