Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
United States Businesses The Almighty Buck

US Employers Struggle To Match Workers With Open Jobs ( 556

In the United States, there's a record number of jobs open: around 6 million. That's just about one job opening for every officially unemployed person in the country. From a report: Matching the unemployed with the right job is difficult, but there are some things employers could do to improve the odds. Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist for the job site Glassdoor, says U.S. employers often complain that workers don't have the skills needed for the jobs available. That is true for some upper-level health care and technology jobs. "But for the most part, it doesn't look to be like there is a skills gap," Chamberlain says. "That's not the main reason why there are many job openings." Chamberlain says that with unemployment so low and the U.S. labor force growing slowly, there's no doubt it is harder for companies to find workers. But he says if that were the main problem, you would see wages rising more rapidly in the economy -- and that's not the case in many industries. Part of the hiring problem, Chamberlain says, lies in company hiring policies.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Employers Struggle To Match Workers With Open Jobs

Comments Filter:
  • On the Job Training (Score:5, Informative)

    by krisyan ( 2812943 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @01:33PM (#55123963)
    There is on the job training funds (and training funds in general) available through the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. You can access them by visiting your local Career One Stop or Workforce center. []
    • by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:34PM (#55124551)

      HR: " We need someone with 5 years experience with Tech A, 10 years with Tech b, and two years with Tech C"

      Recruiter: "Tech C has only been available for 1 year"

      HR: "That's what the manager said"

      Recruiter: "I have someone who's been in the Industry for 30 years, has 10 years in Tech A, 20 years with Tech B, but only six months with Tech C."

      HR: "Sorry, we can't use him."

      Lest you think I jest. I saw this in person.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <> on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:46PM (#55124681) Homepage Journal

        In my experience they know that their spec is unrealistic, and are just using it as an excuse. An excuse to offer less money, or dismiss candidates they dislike but can't legally give the real reason why (age, race etc.)

        If they offered me the position but at a lower salary due to lack of experience, I'd just call their bluff tell them to go with the candidate who has more experience. It's not like there is a shortage of tech jobs around here at the moment.

      • by peragrin ( 659227 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:48PM (#55124703)

        It gets better outside of tech.

        We want a bachelors degree with 5 or more years experience in unique field and the pay rate is $40,000 to $45,000.

        Do they realize that a bachelors degree is 4 times that amount? Nope we set our wages in 1990 and haven't adjusted them since. This is the bigger issue companies want to pay 1990 wages in 2017. Changing that is the difficult part.

      • by thevirtualcat ( 1071504 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:50PM (#55124717)

        Also fairly common:

        HR: "We need someone with 5 years experience with Tech A, 10 years with Tech b, and two years with Tech C."
        Recruiter/Candidate: "Okay, (we can find that|that's me). What's the rate?"
        HR: "We pay $12/hour. No benefits or overtime."
        Recruiter/Candidate: "Thanks, but no thanks."
        HR: "Woe is us, we can't find anyone to fill this position!"

  • Pay More Money (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01, 2017 @01:33PM (#55123967)
    If only there was a way to motivate American workers to apply for jobs? Oh well, I guess more immigration/H1Bs is the only solution.
    • 94 million Americans still out of work. If that's not enough motivation, I don't know what is.
    • by tomhath ( 637240 )

      Paying more will motivate some people to change employers, but it won't solve the shortage of people with the right skills.

      If the Yankees would only pay more for a good shortstop I'd even apply for that job.

      • It's about paying the right wage for the right skills. And presently, corporations do NOT want to do that. Why should they? When they can import those skills for much cheaper.

        The big deciding factor for many is student loans. A MD or IT worker from India can take jobs that an America cannot afford to take due to the lack of large monthly student loan payments.

      • If the Yankees would only pay more for a good shortstop I'd even apply for that job.

        If the position "shortstop" pays more, you are more inclined to get the necessary training to become one.

    • Re:Pay More Money (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:34PM (#55124541)

      I make a 6 figure salary; it's hard to find jobs which pay more out in total compensation than I make today. That said, paying me more base salary/bonus, at this point in my career, is not even close to important.

      What is important, you ask?

      1. Flexibility
      2. Vacation
      3. Insurance cost
      4. Opportunity
      5. Freedom to operate
      6. Interesting work

      There are others, but you get the general idea. That said, I had a job interview elsewhere, recently, where the recruiter reached out to me and basically begged me to come into speak with them. The position has been open for 11 months and they cannot find anyone. Yeah, the pay is lower than I make today and the insurance is 2x the cost, but the real problem was that it was an institution where there was no flexibility or freedom to operate. They wanted something done to solve their problems but had a very narrow allowed view on how that could occur.

      Just like others who likely passed before me, it was probably due to the environment, not the pay. At some point, money stops being a motivator.

      • by pnutjam ( 523990 )
        Imagine it paid 20% more and fully funded your insurance contribution. Money still not important?
        • Re:Pay More Money (Score:5, Insightful)

          by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @03:36PM (#55125139) Journal

          Depends. 20% more and fully funding my insurance contribution is great.

          But if I'm working in an open floor-plan for a boss that doesn't know his ass from his elbow at a company that has some shady business practices and they've had a ton of turnover recently and everybody who works there seems really miserable? My mental health is worth more than a 20% raise, thank you.

    • Re:Pay More Money (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:44PM (#55124661)
      Oh no, corporations only follow capitalism when they're the sellers. The rest of the time they want to suckle at the public teat.
  • TL;DR (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @01:35PM (#55123981)

    Zombie 'openings' that expect senior rock-star level experience for H1-B level wages. Pay more. Train people. KTHXBYE.

  • Alternative Title: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @01:36PM (#55123987)

    "US Employers struggle to find workers willing to be paid minimum wage, part time with no benefits."

  • Drugs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @01:36PM (#55123989)

    The main reason companies are unable to fill low skill positions is that they have strict drug check programs where if marijuana is in your blood you are an automatic fail even if you smoked on the weekend and its legal in your state to smoke recreationally.
    Companies need to change their drug screening processes to match with the reality of American society where almost all poor people are doing drugs

    • by mysidia ( 191772 )

      is that they have strict drug check programs where if marijuana is in your blood you are an automatic fail

      Required policy mandated by their workers' comp. insurance carrier. Not companies' choice. I think that's typically where these policies come from..... we had no drug testing for many years, until we became a slightly larger company, and were required by the state to provide workers comp, and the insurers mandated that we put the testing in place as part of the requirements for us to be ins

    • by Hadlock ( 143607 )

      I've worked a variety of jobs since I was 16, from smoothie shop cashier, chocolate shop cashier, movie theater projectionist, office temping, SEO marketer, and for the last decade variety of software development roles, only one of the SEO marketer (did this at two companies) jobs asked me to do a piss test. I worked in a "at will" state meaning either employer or employee could cancel the work agreement at any time for any reason. Might be more difficult in a union-heavy state like in the rust belt.

      • by torkus ( 1133985 )

        It depends a lot where you live and what industry you're in. Corporate america, finance, etc. you can certainly expect to be drug tested in most places.

        I've been working since I was 15 and every job I've had except my first one (mom&pop camera store) drug tested. Several did background checks and my current does a full fingerprint scan and FBI criminal background check.

    • how about America change it's policies so that poor people don't feel the need to turn to addictive substances to cope. Not that I'm opposed to what you're suggesting, I'm just saying there's more than one way to attack that problem.
  • by HBI ( 604924 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @01:38PM (#55124011) Journal

    150-180k net jobs created per month is not good at all. 300k/month used to be the gold standard for robust growth. The anemic Obama economy got people used to this, but by pre-2008 standards, this is a mild recession right now.

    If the business were out there to justify it, people would be willing to pay higher salaries to lure in workers. The fact they aren't tells you the truth about what I said above - the economy is not that great.

    • It's not a recession until it's receeded. It has to go backwards, not forwards slowly.

    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      Obama? Try Bush Jr - []
    • by torkus ( 1133985 )

      It's not a recession when you take a depression in comparison that they refused to label anything BUT a recession.

      Talk to joe q public and most people will tell you that our economy is not out of the deep end yet. They put the dow jones back on track and cemented up lots of big business interests but in the process gave them all excuses....erm reasons...for limiting wages, raises, and similar.

      Companies are far more focused on preserving their bank accounts and stock price than their employees making a fair

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01, 2017 @01:39PM (#55124015)

    First, just read the summary.

    Back in '08 when the shit hit the fan, I was told, "Just get a job waiting tables! It'll show that you have gumption!!"

    So, I went to the local bar and grill who was looking for help and applied. Sorry, we need someone who has had at least 5 years of RECENT experience.

    The local landscaper (professional lawn mowing company) asked me, "Do you have experience in this line of work."
    Now, how to answer that. "Uh, how hard is it to mow lawns?!" or "No sir, I do not."

    Well, they are both wrong answers. (BTW, working beneath you skills ruins your career. All those folks who said, "Get a job flipping burgers to pay your mortgage!" were wrong. If you did that, you ruined your career. YOU ARE YOUR LAST JOB. And if that's flipping burgers, then you are a burger flipper - sorry Mr. BS CS. Been there - I know.)

    Tech is even more retarded. I once recommended this brilliant ENGINEER (BS ME - a REAL engineer) who had tons of experience with the company's technology.

    Nope. "Sorry, you don't fit in to our corporate culture."

    Kiss my fucking ass. EVERY company that says they cannot get qualified people are liars. Period.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ryanrule ( 1657199 )
      Learnt to lie.
    • by ghoul ( 157158 )

      Matching with the culture is important. We have a no asshole rule. Even if an asshole is 100% more productive if he/she reduces the productivity of 5 other people on the team by 20% each its a wash on the productivity of the team and in addition you have made 50% of your awake hours more miserable.

    • by torkus ( 1133985 )

      Yes and no. For every open position I've ever had available, I get at least a dozen or two really crappy resumes - AFTER being filtered by two different levels before I even see them.

      I know there's talent out there. I also know there's a huge amount of people who are pitifully under-qualified (or just lying) for the jobs they're applying for. There's also the people who don't care and expect every job to accommodate their individual quirks and blame 'the man' when they aren't hired. No, sorry, pink drea

  • You don't see companies raising wages to attract the employees need because for the most part (i.e. not the multinationals hiring h1b's, but the majority of companies who employ the majority of people and are small-mid size) they can't.

    We live in a debt-based economic system with inflation at a rate of about 2.5% annually, runaway government spending and about 65-75% taxation by the time cash makes its way from a client to an employee. Meanwhile, the government will spend what it expects things to be value

  • by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @01:46PM (#55124065)

    Economics 101 says a labor shortage is not possible - employers need only raise offered wages until all positions are filled. What went wrong? Econ 101 explanations seem to be highly satisfactory when the job market is on the way down (in a recession for example).

  • by BlueStrat ( 756137 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @01:49PM (#55124087)

    Chamberlain says that with unemployment so low...

    Yup, that's where I stopped reading.

    This person is not dealing in reality.

    I can come up with my own random hypotheticals and 'what-ifs' so I don't need to hear about his, thanks all the same.


  • by StevenMaurer ( 115071 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @01:54PM (#55124129) Homepage

    I pop in here to the comment section, and read a bunch of people angrily talking about how there really not being an job opening problem, just that "employers are full of shit".

    Here's the thing. That's what the article says. Let me be helpful to you, and quote it:

    Part of the hiring problem, Chamberlain says, lies in company hiring policies.

    Peter Cappelli, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, agrees. He says one problem is that companies are posting openings with required qualifications that aren't really necessary for the job.

    "They're just asking for the moon, and not expecting to pay very much for it," Cappelli says. "And as a result they [can't] find those people. Now that [doesn't] mean there was nobody to do the job; it just [means] that there was nobody at the price they were willing to pay."

    Come on people! Read!

  • You don't want to move 1000 miles to deliver pizza? For less than minimum wage? I'm shocked, just shocked I say.
  • by IWantMoreSpamPlease ( 571972 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @01:55PM (#55124137) Homepage Journal

    when I was young. The gov't placed you in a job, and paid for your training/education, and the company got a tax break until you were up to snuff. Kept unemployment low, and people happy.
    I don't see why this can't be done here.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

      when I was young. The gov't placed you in a job, and paid for your training/education, and the company got a tax break until you were up to snuff. Kept unemployment low, and people happy. I don't see why this can't be done here.

      Because that isn't the limited, enumerated responsibility of the government, especially the US Federal government.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    US employers struggle to find purple squirrels.

    And they refuse to acknowledge that a red squirrel and a blur squirrel can, on average, do the same job.

  • Outside of the "usual suspect" metro areas, a lot of the country is still in a condition where home values are still recovering from the recession, so people are less inclined to move unless the company wanting to hire can make that problem go away. Right now if I had to sell my house I'd likely not only lose money versus what I paid for it, but then have to pay the realtor's commission on top of it, then have no great amount of equity to use as a down payment on another place, and then there's the cost of

  • by FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:08PM (#55124257)
    Information has a cost and this is the main reason today for unemployment. This is similar to [] .
    I want to hire some one to do X. I want to pay the minimum possible but still get a good employee. Also I don't know how good an employee is and I (hate firing/can't fire/or incur cost with each hire). This is the asymmetry. The employee knows his value but I don't. I might pay $100K for a good worker but I'll only pay $40K for a poor one. If I offer the median $70K I only get candidates that are worth between $70K and $40K. So then I chose the median of that $55K....and eventually I'm down to $40 and not able to hire anyone.
    Employees are also sticky. An employer might be willing to pay $25 for picking tobacco or some other seasonal work but no one is going to quit even a $15/hr part job and move to the middle of no where for that. Even an unemployed person won't do it because they give up the opportunity to get a steady job (and they might lose some benefits (hey maybe we need a basic income))
    Some employers are either clueless or collectively keeping wages down in some industries or regions. They then use the open positions as an excuse to get seasonal immigrant labour or H1-B type visas.

    A solution could be: more transparency about wages (make wages public), less regulation on employee rights but more enforcement of them and a reduction to H1-B and migrant employment.
  • by Herkum01 ( 592704 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:09PM (#55124269)

    I had 2 phone interviews without any depth to them and over in a few minutes. The reason why? They were stuck on looking for a specific skill and if you did not have it, you were done.

    The first failed on AWS, oh you have not worked with AWS? Sorry, we are not going forward. It was not a matter if I understood networking, or servers or administration or any of the 50 tools that AWS promises, no direct experience, interview over. Not only that, they ended up hiring nobody!

    The second one was Scrum and Continuous Integration, have not done either, interview is over (over in 2 minutes with pleasantries). They don't even try to evaluate your skills, or your thought process or even if you are capable.

    It seems like they cannot even be bothered to try and get someone to be productivity and thejob salaries are not great either, just average. If companies were really desperate they would be more aggressive but I think they are just cruising along, not really competing or losing ground. When they become greedy or desperate that is when you will see change.

    Note: In reference to AWS, I took an online course on AWS after the interview. It was powerful, not hard but broad. Certainly not as hard as working with specific hardware that implements the same features.

  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:17PM (#55124347)

    HR BS and H1B fake job postings can account for a lot of the openings.

    Also this one place said that we not really hiring but just have an posting to see who is out there.

  • they don't want to pay to train anymore. They want employees already trained in whatever specialty they want this week and they want to dispose of them (or force them to train on their own time/dime) when that specialty gets obsolete.

    We had a social contract and it's been broken. Time for a New New Deal (google it).
  • by zarmanto ( 884704 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:35PM (#55124559) Journal

    If corporations cared at all about unemployment, they already know exactly what they could do to remedy that problem: Let the cream rise to the top. That is to say, offer additional training to existing highly skilled employees, so that they can easily qualify for the next job up the ladder, and then move them up. Then fill the now vacant lower level jobs with people who are presently unemployed and living on the street (or in their parents basement). The newly hired wage earners will be thrilled just to have a job at all, and won't be quite as picky about how much they're earning, and the highly skilled workers will be thrilled to get the raise, and to be recognized for their contributions.

    The problem, as I see it, is that far too many companies are more interested in the bottom line than in anything else. And one of the easiest ways to turn a profit is (and always has been) to milk existing employees for all that they're worth for as long as possible, and make them do tasks above their pay level, because they "can't find anyone qualified for that position, right now"... which basically causes that old adage, "You have to move out to move up," to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've moved out because of that, myself. If you're in the workforce at all, you've probably done it, too.

    And here's where it gets even more frustrating: the "requirements" for any given position do not remain static. It's quite common for employers to adjust the requirements based upon the skillset of the person who just left that position. "Hey, Ralph became a freaking genius at SharePoint while he was working for us. We can't possibly hire someone who knows less than him, now! Change that job req for his position to include senior SharePoint experience, okay? Years of experience? I dunno... how long did Ralph work here? That long? Really?"

    And thus, the position that Ralph left -- specifically because he was being underpaid for the skills he'd gained over his years there -- is now entirely un-fillable. Because nobody with those skills would take the job, at the offered pay.

    Employers shoot themselves in the foot like that, all too often. My previous employer did it, too... that's why they're my previous employer. And over the past few weeks, I've sat by and watched as my up-line supervisor is being run through the beginnings of the scenario I've described above... so I would imagine she's currently evaluating her options.

    The wheel turns, and the cycle repeats itself.

  • How about that Trump economy folks?

    The bottom line is companies have had 8 years of garbage economy (1% growth) under Obama, and they are just taking a little while to adapt to the reality that they can't be as choosy about their employees with a robust economy, and they may have to pay more as well. The days of getting 100 applications for a single job and only taking the very best person are over. You hire who you can train to get the job done, or you get left behind in a growing economy. The winners w

  • by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:46PM (#55124683) Homepage

    We have millions of job openings. See...

    Job 1: Social Worker - Must have master's degree. Salary $35,000/year.
    [Translation, must be someone who did not get their degree in the U.S. because there is no way one can pay for a master's on $35K/year.]

    Job 2: Warehouse $12-$14/hr. Flexible hours (either 60 or 20, but not 40). $29,000 a year...with little prospect of moving up. Maybe $17/hr after you've been there 10 years. Support your family on THAT!

    Job 3: IT Position $60K a year in major urban city requiring you to live in very expensive housing, the slums, or outside of the city requiring 2-3 hours commuting a day. Please note, we understand that between your commute, mortgage, family, and student loans, that this salary is not sustainable for you. However, it allows us to employ an IT engineer from India, seeing as they do not have a several hundred a month student loan payment.

  • by p51d007 ( 656414 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:49PM (#55124707)
    Before you slam me on this, here me out. You see people going to college, getting a traditional "four year degree", some going even for post graduate degrees. In what? Teaching, philosophy, ancient languages and what not. Not a lot of "demand" so to speak for those degrees. Then, when thousands of those hit the street, the salaries DROP because of the supply is greater than the demand. Most kids, would be better served if they went to a two year technical college/school, getting an associate degree in science, computers and the like. More demand for that, as technology grows. I did, in the late 70's. I went to a two year electronics school, got an associate in electronics, NEVER have been unemployed or under employed. Plus, even though it was the 70's, I came out of school DEBT FREE.
  • Unemployment is anything but low [] The government has changed the definition over the years, and now publishes a number that excludes a lot of people who would really, really like a job. But once their unemployment benefits have run out, well, they magically aren't "unemployed" anymore, at least, not according to the government.

    While I don't live in the US, I have friends and family there, and I don't have the impression that there are 6 million decent jobs waiting to be filled. There are a lot of crap jobs o

  • by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @02:53PM (#55124749) Homepage

    Position: Internet Application Developer
    Salary $250K-$350K

    REQUIREMENTS: Must have 5+ years of HTML6 experience, and be familiar with Windows 12.

    • by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @04:29PM (#55125573) Journal

      Position: Internet Application Developer
      Salary $250K-$350K

      REQUIREMENTS: Must have 5+ years of HTML6 experience, and be familiar with Windows 12.

      I have a team in Bangalore who has that. We can offer you a rate much smaller and our salesmen can show you how to use it as a tax right off so it is free where you do not have to pay benefits.

  • "US Employers Struggle To Match Workers Willing to be Underpaid for Open Jobs" There, fixed it for you.
  • by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @04:18PM (#55125475) Journal

    The problem is HR wants someone in percise wording that matches the job description with years of experience and rather be understaffed than take a risk. Worse, they use software programs to do the work for them which filter 100% of all the qualified candidates out.

    This is why the H1B1 visa is popular. It is not about cost savings anymore. It is the Indian firms will lie and make a resume that matches the description as no American can do the job etc.

    In the old days if you had 7 years of experience in programming in one language and doing the same work then you can learn another language in a similair role etc. NOT today! You need to have ONLY that language. Worse, you can have the same language AND same kind of work experience but still be not qualified. It is because your coverletter and resume didn't have the keyword % of the descriptions. Or you have done it for 10 years, but your last position where you have 3 years experience doesn't touch what the job entails so therefore you are not qualified.

    What needs to change is managers need to do the filtering and not HR and God FORBID do not use Taleo to filter out resumes first. You will get liars and Indians and just because I have done a job for 5 years doesn't mean I am any good.

    Competence is job title and projects you work on. Not based on how many years you did the same tasks which is all HR looks at. I would take a senior software engineer who did design work in another language or different tasks then to pick a mediocre guy who only did 5 years experience in the same tasks over and over which HR would choose.

  • by gestalt_n_pepper ( 991155 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @04:38PM (#55125677)

    Dear Hiring Managers Everywhere,

    I've been hired and have had to do the hiring. I know the drill. So, you want good candidates? Do the following:

    1) Get HR out of the loop. HR, as you know, isn't where the brain trust of the company lives. They also tend to be lazy. Result? They're using keywords to exclude resumes. If you don't say, "Agile" on your resume, you sink out of sight, even if you've been working in an Agile environment for years. Keyword based systems are an utter, abysmal, total fail.

    2) Don't throw every skill you can think of into your ad. Otherwise good candidates who may not have ever used say, Jira (which takes all of about 15 minutes to learn), are excluded. Pick a few of the core ones. You want someone who can teach themselves. That's as or more important than experience in any specific technology.

    3) Understand that you'll have to train and that this will take time. Nobody's going to have everything. If they lie enough to claim they do, well... good luck.

    4) If you have a thoughtlessly hacked together toolset that includes, VB6, F#, Erhang, Perl, a collection of proprietary, obscure TLAs and BrainFuck 2, you'll probably have to hire two or three people, instead of the 1 you could have hired to maintain a standard LAMP or Windows stack.

    5) What you really want is a 20 year old kid with 30 years of experience who'll work 60 hours a week for 40,000 a year. Guess what? You won't find that person. If you do, don't expect him to stick around. If your manager(s) don't/won't understand that, your company is doomed. Polish up your resume and start looking.

    6) Fix your application software. If you get a resume, do not make anybody fill in all that redundant information again, get disgusted and stop. Don't ask the address, web site, and supervisor phone number of the company that died in the dot com crash of 2001. It wastes everyone's time and make you look like idiots.

  • by T.E.D. ( 34228 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @06:06PM (#55126245)

    Lorenz says another thing employers need to understand is that wages need to rise, even at entry levels, if they want to fill jobs. He says he is telling manufacturers, "If you are below $12 an hour, I don't know that I'm going to be the person to be able to help you with those jobs."

    That's because in the past year, job openings have nearly doubled in western North Carolina where he works, and the supply of additional workers is shrinking fast.

    Cappelli says another part of the problem is that employers haven't adjusted to new conditions. For years they've had their choice of workers desperate for a job. Now, the labor market has tightened, but many employers haven't responded, he says.

    Pretty obvious what's going on here:

    Normal Economy: Recession ends -> labor market shrinks -> wages rise.

    US Economy last 40 years: Recession ends -> labor market shrinks -> immigration fills the gap.

    US Economy under cartoonishly anti-immigrant government: Recession ends -> labor market shrinks -> immigration goes down anyway -> OMG what do we do!!!?

    Obviously wages either have to go up, or managers will have to move the work overseas. Given the attitude of US management for the last 40 years [] about sharing their wealth increases with workers, I know which I'd bet on...

  • by jshackney ( 99735 ) on Friday September 01, 2017 @07:31PM (#55126627) Homepage

    That's funny. I'm in the aviation industry and I keep hearing about this pilot shortage that we're having. I've been diligently hunting for a better job for the past five years and can't get so much as a peep from any decent employer. I have had plenty of savage offers for 40-70% pay cuts, opportunities without benefits (e.g. no health insurance), and offers to work 30% more for 20% less. There's lots of work out there, but not for anyone with experience it seems.

A bug in the hand is better than one as yet undetected.