Daniel Gross has a post about the large number of unfilled jobs at strategy + business. Here’s the meat of his post:
The question cities and states should ask themselves is not how to attract entirely new companies to the area that will bring jobs, but rather how to help or convince companies that are already here to fill open positions.
He’s making an assumption of which I’m skeptical. I think that the simplest explanation is that a very large number of the jobs are bogus; they never existed. Companies fish, they advertise jobs that they’ve already filled, they post jobs in the hopes of justifying bringing in H1-B workers at lower wages.
If there were actually that many unfilled jobs wouldn’t somebody somewhere think of offering higher wages? That’s not happening so it seems most likely that the jobs don’t really exist.
Wages won’t fix everything. And you bump up against the prices people are willing to pay for goods and services.
In many jobs the main qualification is that you will show up and actually perform your duties………..for more than just two weeks. Those jobs are in the statistics, and you can only pay so much. Further, paying poor performers more only accomplishes one thing: higher paid poor performers.
For others, a classic example would be maintenance related workers, their value is so great that we pay them handsomely, and do all we can to protect them as headcounts must be adjusted. Maintenance people keep production lines running, the holy grail in manufacturing.
I don’t know the first thing about H1-B. We don’t hire them, and it seems to be an issue with large, data intensive organizations. But it strikes me that criticizing companies for attempting to (legally) lower labor costs is akin to criticizing people for clipping coupons or buying products during sales events. It sounds like a public policy issue needs to be resolved, limiting H1-B just like imposing tariffs.
I have worked on multiple projects that required an engineer with a specific degree, and if we could not locate one in that discipline, we used another engineer. There have been cases where few people have the specialized knowledge required, but this is limited to something specific.
My previous employer was also a ‘body shop’ for engineers and other technical personnel. If an exact match could not be located, an alternative was proposed to the client, and they would usually take it.
For most jobs, we could teach a monkey, but we have qualified people who can help a project if needed. I cannot imagine amy company voluntarily passing up revenue, at least any place I have worked.
Somehow business is the most efficient at doing things except actually procuring people to the great things they do.
It’s probably a small part of the pie, but there is also government contracting, particularly service contacts. Competitors will advertise for positions while still bidding on the contract – in many cases, it is required to show they have the personnel needed and ready to go should they win the contract. So you could see 4-5 job openings for a single job.
It may not be that small a piece of the pie any more. No one really knows how many government contractors there are.
That’s a bit harsh, Tasty. You wouldn’t want want to hire me to do EE work, although even after all these years I could be back up to speed in ChemE or Metallurgy in a heartbeat.
Good point Andy, and with electronic advertising, you can do that cheaply.
Steve
@Drew (AKA @Guarneri)
If it meant not losing a contract, we would hire your dog, but you should have enough engineering knowledge to get started. We would add resources as needed to get you up-to-speed and for any problems you may encounter.
When somebody tells the owner that too much work is the problem, he responds, “That’s the kind of problem I like.”