Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion More on STEM labor

A survey of employers results in a top 5 worker shortages by trade, and STEM accounts for 4 of the 5: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/help-most-wanted-5-biggest-100000155.html

What's interesting to me is the lack of understanding these employers seem to be displaying regarding supply and demand, because a common complaint in the article is that employers are being turned down because the candidates want more money. If a skill is harder to find, you can expect to pay more for it.

I see this on a regular basis, Dude. I work in IT and have headhunters/recruiters contact me all the time, seeing if I want a job, or know someone who can fill a position. They are nearly always senior positions that require someone highly skilled with lots of experience, but they are offering anywhere from 20-50K less than they should! They are never going to find a Sr. Oracle DBA for 80k, or a Sr Network Admin who's got their CCIE for 100k. I have no idea what these companies are thinking.

But it doesn't make good business sense to pay anyone more than what their contribution to the company is worth.

But it's hard to quantify what someone's contribution to the company is worth. If you have to have someone to do Job X, it's either worth whatever you have to pay them, or you need to redefine either who's competent to do Job X or what Job X entails.

For example, "intelligent, mathy, detail-oriented person; no degree or prior industry experience needed" is much easier to find, and for much less money, than "CDOA with 5 years of experience using the specific software we use; bachelor's degree required" - and the odds of getting someone who will work out are about the same either way. But the second is easier to advertise and mechanically screen for.

When the company gets desperate enough, they'll be willing to pay the wage that the applicants are asking, if they're not desperate, they'll make due with the personnel they have. That's how a free market works

HR departments seem to have no awareness of the value of autodidacts. They make a laundry list of experiences that aren't core relevant.

Of course you are having trouble finding someone with 5 years experience in cloud computing, 2 years in the insurance industry, 2 years managing a team, and 3 years of Oracle 11G release 2 development experience. Good luck matching those and having the character trait of honesty.

If they ask for a shorter list, they can offer less money.

Same problem is repeated across many professional technical fields.

Many companies also put IT and engineering folks on the same raise structure good years and bad of maybe 2-5%. The market value of each of the first 8 years of experience is closer to 10-20%. In IT the actual business value of a great developer over a beginning or mediocre developer is closer to 10 times (Steve Jobs was quoted as saying 40 times.)

Zen Scanner: Keep in mind, most HR types have absolutely no idea what it is that a tech or an engineer does, much less what it takes to do it.

Sometimes the listed requirements are just brutally stupid, though. I remember reading job ads that required 5+ years experience in Windows '98. This was in 1999.

I'm pretty sure that many companies chose the "fade into obscurity and go bankrupt" instead.

These are my favorite! I've seen a request for someone to have 15+ years of experience in RedHat Enterprise Linux... the initial release was in 2003.