Businesses say they can't find qualified workers. Are they right?

[Bronzeage]

And besides the market, how do we determine who is over or underpaid?

Then you can't make the argument that people are over or underpaid. They are paid what they are.

Really? If 1000 laundresses make $35/hr ea and you hire one at $335/hr, would that one be overpaid?

Sometimes an absurd example helps an argument, but this one does not.

If there were only one laundress and this one could do the work of 1000, why wouldn't the pay be $335/hr? Does the value of clean clothes drop simply because labor becomes more efficient?

If you're an MBA idiot you think it does. Or how else would you describe the delinkage between productivity and wages?

Is there something in the nature of washing clothes which puts a natural cap on how much a person could earn by doing the job? I understand it is manual labor, but why would a laundress who had a monopoly in the market wash a 1000 pairs of underwear for less than what it would cost to have 1000 laundresses wash 1000 pairs? The cost to the customer is the same, so where is the problem?

 

[Under the Rose]

An increasing percentage of the available part-time, experienced work force is now reaching the age of retirement. We have increasingly better educated younger workers who in some cases are not interested in physical work and we also have a significant number of young workers who just plain are not interested in any work that is not related to on-line gaming and social media. I make that comment because I personally know and am also related by marriage to a few who fit that description.

Wait just a second there cowgirl...I have it on good word from a few dimwitted, redneck, evangelical, lazy ass nephews, that they would be doing much better in this brave new world for young people, if the govt. would just stop helping those lazy welfare cheats and throw all all the illegal immigrants. Between them and socialist Obama, its just messing up our great country.

I can only speak for Canada but there is indeed a problem when people on social assistance can receive more money than a person earning minimum wage. Several businesses have also been in the news for abusing the programs that allow the hire of foreign workers and also pay part of the cost of teaching them English and job skills so your nephews may have some valid points.

Still, when WalMart lets you go for attendance issues because you can't make your shift repeatedly due to staying up all night gaming, we can't fling all of the dung at government or corporations. (One of my nephews...)

Recently our government has been starting to conduct itself like a corporation instead of a governing agency. They are cutting costs by letting their more experienced people go and then replacing them with new hires at half the cost in slightly different job descriptions so as to avoid litigation. Then they are importing foreign technical skills to oversee the mess. I have a BIL who lost his job through the down-sizing. They called him for a long time afterward, expecting him to share his expertise while not on the payroll. Apparently they retained quite a number of useless people who were very good at making chat around the water cooler. BIL was always too busy and too humble to 'sell' himself, a circumstance where nice (and very competent) guys have finished last in this example.

Personally, I have only ever put together one resume and never needed to submit it. There is always plenty of non-glamorous work around these parts and I have never lacked for a job. I have worked for as little as $6.00/hr back in 1978 and held a public board position that paid $300.00/day plus expenses back in the early 1990's which I walked away from because of the politics. I am a tad idealistic. My good fortune is to live in a region where there is a small population base, much of it transient, and I am a reliable entity. I have two part-time jobs at present, by choice, and an excellent possibility that I will retain them until I choose to retire in 7-10 years.

 

[Under the Rose]

One of our corporate stores was so short of staff last October, that they had to raise their starting wage by 25 cents to $10.75 from $10.50.

This rather offended those who were earning $10.75 at the time, because they had already put in 500 hours at $10.50/hr before receiving an incremental raise.

When the corporation increased the starting wage, they did not add another 25 cents an hour to those who were already in the progression. The measure was not seen as equitable or fair to those who had been diligent in doing their jobs and did little for staff morale.

 

[Garnet]

I'm an IT Senior Business Analyst. In my field, I've been seeing some employers advertise for a combination of skills that I can only label as looking for the purple unicorn...something that doesn't exist. They set the bar extremely high and don't offer commensurate compensation. I had an experience a few months ago where I went for an interview for a job that really lit me up. It was a combination BA/PM position for which I was well qualified. It would have been working with a major railroad which would have been cool. I went to the interview and hit it off immediately with both of the people with whom I would have been closely working. I was over the moon about this job until the actual offer. Despite the fact that I had clearly stated my salary requirements up front, even before the interview, they offered me $30,000 a year less than what I am making now.

Needless to say, I declined.

I noticed yesterday that they're still advertising for that position. Good luck with that when you're essentially offering peanuts.

 

[coloradoatheist]

One of our corporate stores was so short of staff last October, that they had to raise their starting wage by 25 cents to $10.75 from $10.50.

This rather offended those who were earning $10.75 at the time, because they had already put in 500 hours at $10.50/hr before receiving an incremental raise.

When the corporation increased the starting wage, they did not add another 25 cents an hour to those who were already in the progression. The measure was not seen as equitable or fair to those who had been diligent in doing their jobs and did little for staff morale.

That's been an issue in IT for a long time. New hires usually got better salaries than current employees, so in the IT field you bounced around to get the wage increases instead of normal end of the year wages.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm an IT Senior Business Analyst. In my field, I've been seeing some employers advertise for a combination of skills that I can only label as looking for the purple unicorn...something that doesn't exist. They set the bar extremely high and don't offer commensurate compensation. I had an experience a few months ago where I went for an interview for a job that really lit me up. It was a combination BA/PM position for which I was well qualified. It would have been working with a major railroad which would have been cool. I went to the interview and hit it off immediately with both of the people with whom I would have been closely working. I was over the moon about this job until the actual offer. Despite the fact that I had clearly stated my salary requirements up front, even before the interview, they offered me $30,000 a year less than what I am making now.

Needless to say, I declined.

I noticed yesterday that they're still advertising for that position. Good luck with that when you're essentially offering peanuts.

It's interesting. In the IT field you apply to jobs even if you qualify for only some of the things they are looking for. But what job do they have that can wait to fill that position for that long?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/13/5713304/is-there-a-skills-gap-small-businesses-seem-to-think-so

Small business confidence has hit its highest point since 2007, according to a new survey from the National Federation of Independent Business.

That's great news, but one area where businesses aren't feeling confident is in the qualifications of the people applying to their job openings.

Today, 41 percent of small businesses say they have few or no qualified applicants for the jobs they have open, up nearly 10 percentage points from three years ago and 16 points up from 2009.

I call bullshit on the employers claiming they can't find qualified workers.

You're right -- they're lying. What they want is lower-cost labor instead of crybabies who demand more than they're worth.

So they reject the crybabies and go in search of lower-cost immigrant workers, to the benefit of consumers, because lower cost of production = lower prices to consumers = higher standard of living.

Same reason why they replace costly workers with labor-saving devices like robots and computers. It's all basic economics.

But since the crybabies don't understand basic economics, but only whine for higher pay than their market value, the employers lie to them and go after the cheaper labor. Because they put serving consumers, and thus the country (and of course profit), above pandering to whining crybabies.

 

[Garnet]

It's interesting. In the IT field you apply to jobs even if you qualify for only some of the things they are looking for. But what job do they have that can wait to fill that position for that long?

I tend not to apply to jobs that ask for developer skills. That is something I simply ain't. As for how they can keep that particular position unfilled, hell if I know. Maybe they hired someone from the first round and it didn't work out. That would be unsurprising since they are asking for a range of experience and combined skill set that takes a good 5 - 10 years to acquire but they're paying freshout wages.

 

[Bronzeage]

One of our corporate stores was so short of staff last October, that they had to raise their starting wage by 25 cents to $10.75 from $10.50.

This rather offended those who were earning $10.75 at the time, because they had already put in 500 hours at $10.50/hr before receiving an incremental raise.

When the corporation increased the starting wage, they did not add another 25 cents an hour to those who were already in the progression. The measure was not seen as equitable or fair to those who had been diligent in doing their jobs and did little for staff morale.

The end result of this kind of move is all those who were already making $10.75 reduced their output by 25 cents/hour.

This kind of thing is incredibly short sighted management, when one considers the training costs which are a part of the investment in any starting employee. The $10.75 newbies are costing the company much more than $10.75 and producing much less than an experienced $10.75 employee. The idea that money is saved by not raising wages across the board is a very false economy.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I have skimmed thread, so I may have missed this if it has already been mentioned.

When I was working HR for a CRO, we were given the criteria for candidates for various jobs. What I noticed, besides nepotism and patronage, was the criteria for candidates and the actual job did not always jive. The criteria of candidates and the job description would match, but when you observed the actual worker working, they didn't use or need many of the skills outlined in those big binders on the bookshelf in my office.

That's a problem.

 

[Bronzeage]

I have skimmed thread, so I may have missed this if it has already been mentioned.

When I was working HR for a CRO, we were given the criteria for candidates for various jobs. What I noticed, besides nepotism and patronage, was the criteria for candidates and the actual job did not always jive. The criteria of candidates and the job description would match, but when you observed the actual worker working, they didn't use or need many of the skills outlined in those big binders on the bookshelf in my office.

That's a problem.

This is because HR people are the ones who write the skill outlines.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I have skimmed thread, so I may have missed this if it has already been mentioned.

When I was working HR for a CRO, we were given the criteria for candidates for various jobs. What I noticed, besides nepotism and patronage, was the criteria for candidates and the actual job did not always jive. The criteria of candidates and the job description would match, but when you observed the actual worker working, they didn't use or need many of the skills outlined in those big binders on the bookshelf in my office.

That's a problem a standard across businesses.

FIFY

I look at jobs like personal ads. Everyone is lying.

 

[rousseau]

I have skimmed thread, so I may have missed this if it has already been mentioned.

When I was working HR for a CRO, we were given the criteria for candidates for various jobs. What I noticed, besides nepotism and patronage, was the criteria for candidates and the actual job did not always jive. The criteria of candidates and the job description would match, but when you observed the actual worker working, they didn't use or need many of the skills outlined in those big binders on the bookshelf in my office.

That's a problem a standard across businesses.

FIFY

I look at jobs like personal ads. Everyone is lying.

I really don't understand the point of this or what it's effective for, and on the contrary I find job ads quite confusing. Maybe you attract some strong candidates, but on the other hand you likely scare away a good amount of qualified candidates. Just today I received a recruiter e-mail for the position of 'Java Architect', asking for director level experience and 10 years of java dev work. A few things could be happening: 1) the recruiter is a moron 2) the position is asking for far, far too much. Number 1 is likely the case as this is an extreme example, but the same concept applies to many e-mails I get. I legitimately don't know if I should be applying for 'senior developer' jobs, and if taken literally I would actually assume I shouldn't ... but if businesses aren't accurately portraying the role then who knows?

The obvious reality is that candidates should apply up, and if job ads aimed too low they'd get too many dumb resumes, but if the candidates needs to infer whether or not they can actually do the required work effectively then the job ad is failing, imo.

 

[Garnet]

Oh, don't even get me started on recruiters... *mutters, grumbles and kicks the wall*

 

[rousseau]

I'm starting to transition from the entry-level enthusiasm of 'wow! someone is actually paying attention to me!' to 'wow! this is the most ridiculous thing I've seen!'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My thought on the whole H1-B visa thing is somewhat different, though the above could work as well. Part of the issues is that companies whine that they are being prevented via anti-immigration laws from catching those foreign ‘rocket scientists’. Which is BS, as the H1-B visa IT worker is getting roughly $2-3k less salary than a CS graduate (at least the last time I read about it). Just set the minimum salary for said occupation to something like 120% of the average for the field in the local cost of living area (which the govt. already has data for). No company will want to hire 4 mediocre imported DBA’s even if they are willing to work 80 hours a week, when they have to actually pay them what a qualified American is worth. But if the person is that ‘rocket scientist’ they claim to be clamoring for, they will be quite willing to pay that person 150% of average or more. I bet we would see an 80-95% drop in H1-B hiring….for good reason.

80 hr/wk for 120% of what you pay the American for 40 hr/wk would still be a good deal. Also, they often play the game of hiring an "entry level" person for a far more senior position. I don't think your 120% is enough.

2) The unemployed: Add another category of do-not-ask information: When you did something. Resumes would not give dates for anything, just durations. Likewise, your employment status would be do-not-ask.

Interesting idea…so far nothing jumps out at me as to why it would cause any real problems.

The only issue I see is in some cases it hides how current your knowledge is. I think that's better determined by testing anyway.

When times were good it was actually a reasonable thing for employers to look for substantial gaps--they likely indicated something wrong with the person. That's no longer the case, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wonder if the more accurate claim is that businesses cannot find qualified candidates at the offered compensation.

In my field (software) most companies are looking for exceedingly skilled people which are in chronic short supply. Those who are skilled enough to get a high wage are usually already employed.

I'm pretty close to entry level, almost an intermediate developer, and I'm constantly being contacted for positions looking for experience that I am nowhere close to having. So at least in my field there's a big skill shortage, and those who actually have skill are usually won out by the highest bidder, leaving small businesses left with those who are somewhere around incompetent.

All that said, in my field in particular actually training your employees is what businesses should be doing.

There's a shortage *IN SOME CITIES*. And you're young.

Try cities without a big IT reputation and when you're middle aged. They don't come knocking anymore.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Overpaid according to whom?

The usual market rates before and after. The .com boom was accompanied by a spike in the salaries of the people that made those systems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm an IT Senior Business Analyst. In my field, I've been seeing some employers advertise for a combination of skills that I can only label as looking for the purple unicorn...something that doesn't exist. They set the bar extremely high and don't offer commensurate compensation. I had an experience a few months ago where I went for an interview for a job that really lit me up. It was a combination BA/PM position for which I was well qualified. It would have been working with a major railroad which would have been cool. I went to the interview and hit it off immediately with both of the people with whom I would have been closely working. I was over the moon about this job until the actual offer. Despite the fact that I had clearly stated my salary requirements up front, even before the interview, they offered me $30,000 a year less than what I am making now.

Needless to say, I declined.

I noticed yesterday that they're still advertising for that position. Good luck with that when you're essentially offering peanuts.

Yeah, I've seen plenty of purple unicorn jobs. I have never had the experience of applying for one because the requested skills are crazy, I've never come close enough to try for one. I see the same ones over and over, though. I just had one pop back up that's been on and off for years.

I think a driving force behind these is they take the skill set of the person that left and try to match it--never realizing that the guy left because they were underpaid. Not only that, but it's a buyer's market, cut the salary offered!

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/13/5713304/is-there-a-skills-gap-small-businesses-seem-to-think-so

Small business confidence has hit its highest point since 2007, according to a new survey from the National Federation of Independent Business.

That's great news, but one area where businesses aren't feeling confident is in the qualifications of the people applying to their job openings.

Today, 41 percent of small businesses say they have few or no qualified applicants for the jobs they have open, up nearly 10 percentage points from three years ago and 16 points up from 2009.

I call bullshit on the employers claiming they can't find qualified workers.

You're right -- they're lying. What they want is lower-cost labor instead of crybabies who demand more than they're worth.

So they reject the crybabies and go in search of lower-cost immigrant workers, to the benefit of consumers, because lower cost of production = lower prices to consumers = higher standard of living.

Same reason why they replace costly workers with labor-saving devices like robots and computers. It's all basic economics.

But since the crybabies don't understand basic economics, but only whine for higher pay than their market value, the employers lie to them and go after the cheaper labor. Because they put serving consumers, and thus the country (and of course profit), above pandering to whining crybabies.

Here I disagree with you. Foreign workers come with a big government subsidy--that green card.

 

[lpetrich]

I call bullshit on the employers claiming they can't find qualified workers.

You're right -- they're lying. What they want is lower-cost labor instead of crybabies who demand more than they're worth.

Define "worth".
I repeat, define "worth".

So they reject the crybabies and go in search of lower-cost immigrant workers, to the benefit of consumers, because lower cost of production = lower prices to consumers = higher standard of living.

As if consumers get their spending money from picking money trees. Geez, I wish I had some money trees in my backyard. It would make me a much better consumer.

 

[bilby]

Trained staff cannot exist in a free market. Any firm that takes on the very large cost of training up employees can be out-bid on wages by firms that spend nothing on training. It is a classic 'tragedy of the commons'; rapaciously exploiting improvements made by others is always more profitable than making any improvements can be. So you end up with a shortage of workers, at the same time as having high unemployment.

The closer your employment market gets to the utopian 'free market' model, the less likely it is that anyone will be trained to do anything. But that's OK, because the aristocrats can live lives of luxury anyway, as long as labour is dirt cheap. You don't need to train a backhoe driver (or to purchase a backhoe) if you can afford to pay for a thousand men with shovels. This is the labour model that works so effectively in Africa, where construction sites are a teeming mass of labourers with hardly a machine in sight.