Why the Disconnect Around IT Employment Numbers?

Corporations look to save as much $ as possible for whatever reason. Continual reduction in force in the I/T departments 'seems' to be the solution UNTIL there is an I/T 'disaster'. Then with the variety of employees reduced too far for recovery, the companies are 'forced' to hire contractors. There is no overhead there; they can be discarded at will with no lingering expenses ie pensions. Even better for the corporations (they think) is when the contractors come on board at significantly less than the going FTE rates. Corporations end up 'complaining' that there are no qualified American FTE's so they have to go for the H1B, L1, or offshore. THOSE OF US WHO WERE KNOCKED OUT OF THE WORKFORCE DUE TO THAT SHORT-SIGHTED APPROACH ARE STUCK PULLING UNEMPLOYMENT BECAUSE NOBODY WILL HIRE QUALIFIED AMERICAN CITIZENS. Then we laugh and find work elsewhere. The companies that did this are then bought up by non-American companies. America is no longer #1.

When looking at the whole picture, it is easy to see where some disconnects are. These are not exclusive to IT but to some extent in business practices as a whole.

1. The CIO gripe about being unable to find the workforce with the right skills often has the unspoken ending of at the rate we are willing to pay. This then drives to other issues.
2. Offshore or visa bearing workers bring reduced wages, increased diversity, more recent training and sometimes a fresh perspective.
3. With tight business competition, reduced wages and contracted type labor provide a better cushion against already strapped IT budgets.
4. The permanent labor force is so inundated with assigned tasks that there is little time for new projects, let alone learning new technologies or skills enhancement.
5. Shifting one person from one project to another just means another backfill has to be located, so it becomes more productive to fill the new projects with new resources already familiar with the technology.
6. The more established workforce wants a better work-life balance and is not willing to step into a 50-70 hour workweek including weekends without real compensation or other benefit to augment loss of personal life. Offshore and visa holding working workers are willing to put extra hours in, often using this chance to gain the experience and knowledge that could provide a larger opportunity in their homeland.

My guess is that many IT "pros" who comment negatively are those who, phrased bluntly, can't make the grade. I don't care if they possess some useless 3-letter degree and some impressive-sounding--albeit obsolete-- certifications. Thus, I would posit that the whining comments are a false indicator; everything is going fine for the serious IT people. These other folks should switch careers or learn how to present themselves better. Griping won't pay the mortgage. Indians deserve to get more IT projects if they continue to work harder than Americans.

Pauli - glad you got everything figured out - LOL. That's why my company pays me to fix and test the code from Bangalore - they think they are getting productivity gains but instead it's double work.

Pauli is incorrect. There are plenty of successful IT people with above-average pay with steady employment (like me) who write that the bulk of jobs are moving offshore because human resources are cheaper there. IT jobs also are moving out of the highly paid areas of the U.S. to the lower cost areas. Our IT went from 1500 to 500 U.S. IT workers in 8 years. All logical, but certainly no solice to highly qualified IT professionals in the NY metro area who have seen the average price for their skills go down while requirements, qualifications and hours have gone up. The reason many more seasoned IT workers are moving out of IT into other business areas is because there is better life-work balance there for the same money, and it is less subject to outsourcing.

I have never seen such a strong IT jobs market in my nearly 20 years of IT recruitment. I can say that the demand is for more specialized skills today, and that generalists are likely to find themselves taking longer to land if unemployed. There is an abundance of talent in the generalist management ranks and that should cause those in transition to take longer to land. In the high demand areas (SAP, .NET, J2EE, data warehousing, architects, etc.) there simply are not enough people to meet demand.

Visit the Department of Labor and look at the stats. There are more IT people working in the U.S. than ever before, and the IT sector is growing not shrinking. Only a very small percentile of IT jobs have gone overseas, and with the baby boomers beginning to retire, we need more, not fewer IT jobs to go overseas.

Also, I have not seen any area of IT, regardless of geography, go down when it comes to salaries. Quite the opposite: we are getting offers that are stronger than ever.

A major factor is being well networked and connected to the major IT search firms in the U.S. It is not what you know, and who you know. It is who knows you.

Greg's statements that "I have never seen such a strong IT jobs market in my nearly 20 years of IT recruitment" and "there are more IT people working in the U.S. than ever before" are BOGUS! The bulk of consulting work is made up of H1-B and L-1 visa holders. When all of the H1-B visas are allocated, the U.S.-based Indian consultant companies can bring an unlimited number of workers over on L-1 visas. The catch is that rather than have them work at the company's home office to get familiar with that company's corporate culture, etc. (the original purpose of the L-1 visa), they send them to client sites as consultants.

Any time a client in 2008 is looking to pay $45 per hour on a corp. to corp. basis for a database administrator when back in the early 1990's that was the going rate for a regular programmer, you know something is depressing consulting wages... and that's where the H1-B and L-1 visas come in... CHEAP LABOR.

It is pretty obvious that the people who think that the people who complain about offshore outsourcing are whiners have never faced losing their jobs. Quite often they are themselves working for the Indian companies that are bringing in the cheap labor.

I did lose my job. I put in 50-70 hours per week. I had been performing very well for the employer who let me go as they replaced me with two Indian workers (1 DBA and 1 programmer/analyst), none of which had the specific experience needed for the job. I found another job. It was an entry-level job in a newer technology and I spent quite a bit of time retraining myself from Informix, UNIX, ESQL/C/C++ development into Java development, but I did it. I complained loud and clear that this was wrong, especially when I heard time and time again that employers couldn't find skilled people when there were thousands of us looking for work. Yes, we would need a little training, but so did the Indian replacements. Face it, the overriding factor is always how little the Indian workers are willing to work for and how much the employers are willing to break the law to pay them so little.

Eventually, I moved back into a senior-level position, but it took years. During that time, I spent little money and paid fewer taxes. Those Indian workers are paying no taxes and buying no American products. My former employer didn't pass on any saving to their customers because there weren't any savings to pass on. They lost enough money that they were bought out in a private equity deal. How is that good for our economy or America?

This is not surprising. We have two political parties which both work for corporations and the elite. One has even gone as far as to say the U.S. Constitution is a "damn piece of paper."

We need more people like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich who are not beholded to lobbyists and foreign interests and do not treat the Federal Reserve like a piggy bank devaluing the dollar.

In my 20+ years in IT, this is the worst market I've ever experienced. Real IT wages for most workers are falling or stagnant, hiring-cycles are longer (from the candidate side) and minimum requirements are rising. When a product or service is in high demand relative to supply, price goes up, purchase is quicker once potential supply is found and/or requirements are relaxed.

Why the disconnect? One of McCain's advisers might have been right when he called America a nation of whiners. Some of the best whiners in this country are those in leadership positions (C-level corporate officers and political leaders on both sides of the fence) and the rest of us just follow the leaders like you'd expect.

I have over 20 years of IT experience, and have bent over backward to keep my skills current. Unlike many of my coworkers, I embrace new technologies and have made every attempt to keep up on the ever changing set of Internet technologies.

That said, you would think I have leprosy from the responses I get when applying for jobs. I have 9 to 12 of the 10 skills being requested for most jobs, but since I turned 40, even that rarely gets a returned phone call for a submitted resume. This is the only profession I have ever heard of that 20 years of experience is a liability.

I did what many have mentioned and switched careers, rather than stay unemployed. I am now a graphic artist with mad computer skills.

In my 20+ years in IT, this is the worst market I have seen. I have been out of work for over 8 months and I specialize in information security, risk and governance. Companies do not understand the need for protecting their information assets and do not want someone that knows the environment, regulations and market to assist them. The hiring cycles are ridiculous; companies state they will reimburse candidates when the company requests they pay for the travel on interviews (and never reimburse them). Finally, companies say they want the best candidates, yet when it comes down to it, they go with a cheaper or local candidate that is not as qualified. Go figure.

Why the disconnect? Companies themselves do not understand the risk they have in their own environments, with the exposure of their assets to outsources and partners. Then the market and government puts on additional regulations and companies are forced to cut staff and budgets. IT staffers currently working may be averaging 60 hours a week and still have to be on call. I guess it's, hire the cheapest to get the work done, burn them out, get rid of them, and hire the cheapest again to start over. Lee Iacocca's book of "Where Have All The Leaders Gone" has hit the nail on the head. Today's management will not stand up for their staff when they need assistance--they want management to think that all is nice and rosey and they are keeping underbudget.

I guess my comment has been rejected.

I thought I provided some simple verifiable facts that answered your question.

Why the Disconnect Around IT Employment Numbers?
New government data show IT employment at an all-time high. But readers aren't buying it.

BTW: I searched for CIO Insight's Government statistics study and could not find it.

First, almost everyone who has commented has some grain of truth in their comment.

Yes, business does not realize that shifting any set of jobs overseas puts their company at risk for short term savings.

BTW, India is too expensive now and most are going elsewhere, emerging areas are China and South America.

Second, keeping skills current, means ACTIVELY USING THOSE SKILLS IN A JOB. I shout that as I receive tons of resumes for the "experienced" developer that has taken classes, CBTs or read books but no practical use of open technology.

I'm not C level--maybe someday, but not there yet. But I realize what it takes to get there and unless you check all the boxes, "you ain't there yet," get the experience with the tech.

That said I've had 2 positions open for over 6 months (citizenship required); the problem is the people on the street sending in resumes are not qualified for the job, or when you talk to them, they don't want to work. Just because you have x years with your current (or past) company and had earned certain levels of benefits, doesn't mean you automatically get them when you join a new company. The new company doesn't know you or your work, all they know is a resume and an interview.

90+K a year with benefits is not chicken feed in the southeast (look up cost of living calculators on the net), Unless you had grown your salary year over year getting your 3 to 6% raises and now you are paid that salary. If you didn't 'earn' the money, and only got your standard increase, don't whine. People aren't going to pay you that money because you are a nice guy that didn't apply themselves and got let go because someone was willing to do your job for less money (and may be better at it too)

IT is putting in more hours, but that isn't the employers fault--it is due to the new technologies.

Old mainframe programmers worked on established systems, maybe a little overtime during new system rollout, but the tech was stable and in-house for years. Emerging technology is emerging, and business needs stable environments. Open isn't always 100% stable, so more is required. Unfortunately in today's business climate more doesn't represent head count, it represents work for existing.

So don't whine, just use new any new skills and realize what it takes to move.

Jim , the real kernel of truth of why you have two open positions--It works both ways--you do not want to pay what people are worth or asking for. Someone will eventually take those positions, maybe because they need fast money to stop a possible foreclosure--but believe me they will be looking everyday for the next higher paid position and yes, you will a revolving door until you: pay that "nothing to sneeze at" salary to get and maintain the employee. Yes, it is a cold world but you want champagne but you only want to pay for beer. Negotiate and if it taste like vinegar...well you get what you pay for.

Financial costs have little to do with price. Price is the highest the demander (in this case, the potential employer) is willing and able to pay above or equal the lowest price where sale of a good or service is the best course of action for the supplier (the potential employee in this case). If the employer is unwilling and/or unable to pay above that minimum, the employer has NO demand.

As a potential demander you only have three choices: increase what you are willing to pay, reduce your expectations or figure out how you can get the work done cheaper. Many business leaders and politicians seem to have chosen whining as the best path to get the work done cheaper.

Okay, I'll try again posting facts -- perhaps hyperlinks are not allowed.

Disconnect 1:

According to the AeA Cyberstates yearly reports, "High Tech" employment experienced job losses of 945,000 in the 2001 recession.

"Tech employment declined by 333,000 in 2003 and by 612,000 in 2002."

Since this drop in employment, the "High Tech" sector has recovered about 300,000 jobs, but during the period in question, a probable 669,681 H-1B and L-1 computer-related workers were added to the workforce.

Basically, 1.7 million persons were competing for 300,000 jobs, without the requirement of advertising before hiring a guestworker.

Disconnect 2:

According to National Science Foundation averages, 271,936 citizens and permanent residents earn Bachelors degrees in Computer Science every six years.

The AeA put "High Tech" employment at 6.5 million in 2001 and about 5.9 million in 2007.

Disconnect 3:

Wages are declining--some H-1Bs with master's degrees in the same occupations earn less than bachelor's degrees.

2006 Computer-related occupations H-1B Average Salaries:
Bachelor's Degree = $56,000.00
Master's Degree = $55,600.00

2006 Writers occupation H-1B Average Salaries:
Bachelor's Degree = $37,900.00
Master's Degree = $37,500.00

The number of H-1Bs granted to computer-related bachelor's and master's holders were significant samples and comparative in number 31,862 to 25,490 respectively.

Source: National Science Foundation
National Science Foundation: "Science and Engineering Indicators 2008"

Disconnect 4:

Low unemployment rates have do not indicate full employment, nor a healthy economy.

BLS Employment Growth over NonInstCiv Population Growth by Decade:

1950s
Population Growth = 11,516,000
Employment Growth = 7,215,000 (63%)

1960s
Population Growth = 19,449,000
Employment Growth = 13,862,000 (71%)

1970s
Population Growth = 30,811,000
Employment Growth = 21,224,000 (69%)

1980s
Population Growth = 20,865,000
Employment Growth = 17,685,000 (85%)

1990s
Population Growth = 21,667,000
Employment Growth = 16,998,000 (78%)

2000s
Population Growth = 24,795,000
Employment Growth = 11,953,000 (48%)

OK real world...MBA BBA 22+ years experience over 15 as an IT director in two different positions...Current CISSP, MCSE 2003, Comptia proj mgmt+, security+, network+...all paid for by ME in 2006...

I interviewed today for a job that was orginally posted in JAN 08....no response at all...same job posted again in July 08...contacted a friend of my brothers who worked at the firm for 12 yrs before recently retiring...friend called employer...interview received 2nd time around...Apparently who you know, not what you know, does have some grain of truth to it!

The job salary range (IT Director) was reduced from the published range in FEB 08 by over 12,000 in the JULY 08 job ad! More importanly there were still over 450+ applicants according to HR...more than 10 candidates were actually interview in the past two weeks...again according to the HR folks there...

Now, houses have doubled+ in price here (FLA) the past few years and even with recent downturns are still 40-60 percent higher than they were when this jobs salary range was 12K higher...gas has quadrupled...home insurance and taxes more than doubled...and the employer wants to pay 12K less!

If things are so rosy out here...why are there more than 20X the number of applicants for most all the IT director jobs I have applied for compared to the late 90's?...regardless of how poor they might pay or how bad the environment might be?

Now, I only have an MBA...can CIO magazine or some bright PhD out there tell me how this is gonna keep working for the US? Thanks...

Ted

I notice no stampede of reasonable answers here!

ted

Companies used to hire new graduates with aptitude for IT to do IT jobs. Many of the best programmers I know, including me, are economics or music or even English majors that went through a company bootcamp. Now employers want 5 years on experience in six month-old technologies. What they get is either no response or lies since the skills they are asking for do not exist.

Employers and especially HR need to realize that skills are transferable from one technology to another, sometimes in days. The best programmers have an aptitude for programming, an ability to break down problems and an ability to understand what the customer wants even if the customer doesn't. It really doesn't matter if the language is COBOL or JAVA or C# or if the methodology is structured programming or object-oriented. The problem-solving skills are very transferable. Code is code. On the other side, experienced programmers need to learn to understand new technologies on their own time, not just wait for the employer to send them off to school.

I think in the case of Ted's specific example it is very unlikely the 450+ applicants are qualified. There may be 15 - 20 qualified applicants including Ted. However, the bigger problem is the hiring process inside large organizations is very inefficient. Taking six months to a year for filling a director position is not a surprise at all. The last major public company in which I consulted had the following process for an IT director: (1) Collect a bunch of resumes, and allow select outside agencies to submit candidates; (2) HR reviews resumes and screens a select few. This usually limits the available pool to approximately 12 (or less); (3) First interviews with a IT director and select peers. Scheduling this fiasco requires many weeks for each candidate; (4) The VP with budget for the position interviews a select few that have made it thus far; (5) The CIO receives a recommendation of one candidate and package details; (6) If he likes him/her, the CEO now must review the package (I kid you not).

As you can see, this takes months of scheduling if everything goes well. Often the best candidates pull out before reaching the later stages to better opportunities coming along. (In fact my rating scale was based on the point in the process in which a candidate removed himself.)

Well, my main point was/is how can the U.S. continue to have the cost of living double in 5 years while importing large numbers of low cost H1B labor and exporting what few remaining decent jobs that remain? All this while reducing salaries for what jobs that remain now?

The well-off power brokers are slowly selling this country out and have been for the past 30 years in the name of a global economy and cheap labor, which pads their already excessive salaries and bonuses...

Indeed, both responses to my earlier question are valid...U.S. companies have long ago forsaken any kind of longer-term view...training? forget it!...relocation? forget it...transferable but not EXACT skills...forget it!!

The need for the perfect candidate is just an excuse to hire H1Bs...the process is indeed ridiculous...and also a sham in most cases to hire H1Bs or set the stage for outsourcing...Take a look at Nielsen Research here in Tampa...just more of the same!!

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jun/24/nielsen-shift-170-oldsmar-jobs-india/

Say what you will...welcome to the new Roman Empire!!

ted

Matt, you obviously need to check your facts; the 90s in the southeast (or Atlantic) region for a 2-3 year entry-level developer is a good competitive salary (better than most). BTW, our retention rate is in the 90s. The problem is the resumes.

To Ted's comment, HR does receive hundreds (or thousands) of applicants for every posting. For an "Oracle Developer," we have received resumes from forklift operators, technical writers with no development experience, people that fancy themselves a programmer because they fixed their friend's computer when it blue-screened, and a guy with a master's but no experience in open systems. Pretty straightforward, "Oracle" should appear somewhere on the resume. And sorry, being a good .net programmer is not transferable to an "Oracle" developer when you probably don't want to work with Oracle anyway, at least not the ones I've actually called and spoken with.

The problem is finding the right person in the stack of junk.

Also, having been part of the process for the C-level searches here, it takes A LOT longer the further up the chain you go. Transferable experience at the PM and above is more apt to apply, but, you have to have SOME experience in the company's systems. Also note, there are less positions the further up the pyramid you go, therefore less availability, as attrition at these levels is typically less.

If you were truly a manager, director, or above, than you know. This isn't the mainframe days; I was there and you could cross-train almost everyone to do almost everything. Open systems has specialties, if you don't know it or at least understand it, you'll be in over your head and will either quit or be let go in short order. Just like back in the 80's and 90's during the first shift pre-y2k. Some mainframers made and wanted the shift, some didn't and found other MF jobs, now some of those MFs are moving. Also, don't confuse statistics with facts. Y2k brought a large number of programmers back to the MF market for very large fast dollars. Many from retirement. Within a few years after there was a large unemployment in the sector as those positions were no longer needed.

All that said, some companies don't understand the risk and "self-fulfilling prophecy" of offshoring their talent. But they will eventually be bitten by it and be struggling and prices will jump, and then decline, etc. etc. etc. Every industry goes through this, some have longer cycles, some shorter.

The problem we'll see is as more baby boomers in IT retire, and there are less coming into the field (because "IT Sucks", it has to be true, it said so in the paper and this thread!) more IT will be needed and the costs go up. If you look at it from the other perspective, a few very large organizations with IT shops in the hundreds to over a thousand purportedly lay off jobs and send them overseas. The press gets wind and instead of looking at the facts (the layoff was after a purchase of another company and you don't need 2 of every position) they sensationalize the news (as usual) and state all IT is going elsewhere. Meanwhile, that same firm has adds in the paper looking to hire, go figure. Well the press blows it up and high school counselors say don't do IT, and college advisors say don't do IT, but the need is still there. Now the employers have a problem. They have a need and the U.S. isn't supplying the need, where to go? Hmmm. Let's think about this. Here is a stack of resumes with some people in a similar experience, and here is a stack with the exact experience. Now, H and Ls all need to be sponsored and this costs money (it really does, look it up, immigration lawyers fees, renewals, etc.) so the employer has a choice to make. BTW, my employer, says no to sponsorship but will offshore small projects instead of increase headcount, but nothing critical leaves.

So if you are looking, sorry for your struggle as I may be there someday if I choose wrong or piss off the wrong person, but maybe, just maybe, in your case it may be something other than everything is going overseas. I moved for this job, and moved for my last, and the one before that. Different salaries in different places, was offered a TON to move to CA not to long ago, but I couldn't see that move, and glad I didn't now with the housing market doing a major correction in that area. And just received a call for a director's job just north of town for more money, so the jobs are out there, I'm seeing them and have some open at lower levels.

Oh, forgot on the openings, had a candidate scheduled for interview for either (just 5 days later), he called to apologize as he had already taken a job with someone else, so the talent is being hired quickly. Just to stop the stupid comments, one of our competitors in the area hired him with just a phone interview and we require a face to face. He told me what they offered and he accepted, the mid 80s, didn't have the heart to tell him he could have made more.

One thing alluded to but not addressed in these posts is the poor to unworkable hiring system that relies primarily on the online marketplace. When a fraction of a second is all that it takes to send a resume, thousands of completely unqualified applicants arrive for every position, assuring the employer that there are many qualified candidates and that they can offer the minimum wage. Since these are IT folks, it doesn't take long to figure out the keyword searches required to get through the software. Hiring firms then wonder why they do not speak with qualified applicants, which typically requires more information than can be communicated in ten keywords. Short cuts (the use of keywords to find highly qualified resoures) don't work for most processes, and not for hiring key staff.

I also agree with the poster that mentioned 20 years of experience being a liability. There does not seem to be an understanding that over that 20 years, people have learned and dealt with more "new" technology than the upcoming crop. These new technologists seem to think they invented everything technical, including new "methodologies." Did they get rid of design, code or test? Add a female name to the mix and...

It's truly abysmal - the rates paid for consultants, contractors - whatever you want to call them - are the same as were being paid 8-10 years ago. U.S. companies are looking to cut costs, and IT employees are a major area to slash.

Not only that, job ads these days for an Oracle developer require 10 years SQL Server, 10 years .NET blah blah - come on folks, get real. Companies are getting what they pay for - except most of them aren't yet smart enough to have figured out the true long-term value to their shareholders (of qualified candidates versus half-price inexperienced wannabes for short-term gain).

I've just spent a few months in Europe - a source of great income - especially at the current exchange rates.

Pauli - America built the IT industry that now everyone is a part of today. Americans are not lazy nor do they lack skill.
U.S. corporations have left their loyality in the boardroom. U.S. corporations once trained their employees to meet the changing requirements and technologies. Now they prefer to dump the senior-level employees for creaper new blood. When these people become senior they too will find it difficult to find work as well. Case in point: when the H1-B visas were restricted to 65,000 per year U.S. IT salaries increased.

It has been my experience as a consultant that companies that have used offshore resources have ended up coming back to the states because the quality and customer service has NOT been up to par with having the same work done in the U.S.

I am relatively new to the IT industry (only the past few years). I come from a background in financial analysis - got laid off ANYtime the economy was not going well (totally value-added). I love IT and figured I'd have less odds of getting laid off (I hope anyway).

What most companies don't realize is that they NEED good IT people to keep their business going AND growing with technology changes. (With over 10 years on the business end I completely understand the value of IT).

As a consultant I see a total lack of importance placed on IN-HOUSE IT. Consultants are brought in to deal with issues and fix problems but in the long run the consultants leave... and the IT department goes back to the same position it was in before - NOT HAVING ENOUGH RESOURCES. They end up with overworked IT people who use shortcuts to get things done because everything needed to be done YESTERDAY. Too many companies are REACTIVE as opposed to being PROACTIVE because they do not have enough resources.

IT may not provide revenue for companies... but it keeps the revenue flowing because ALL business processes are based in IT. From email to major reports... none of these things work properly without IT.

In most companies... if the systems were to completely shut down... the company would completely shut down - no sales... no customer service... no numbers generated... NOTHING.

If companies don't smarten up... they are going to get what they give... which will be nothing. Sending IT jobs offshore is not only bad business practice for the U.S... but bad business practice for the companies in general.

The IT jobs are out there, but rates are so low that travel is difficult. My job went away at no fault of my own in 2003. After five years of consulting and travel, I am now home looking closer. In the meantime, I am part time at a golf course. Maybe it is time to retool and do something that can not be sent away to a place that does not eat beef.

I fought for several years to implement a project to save my Fortune 50 tech company several hundred thousand dollars per year in operating costs. They put me in a gilded cage for two years. Finally, a manager let me implement the project. I ended up saving $30M in operating costs in 2 years, reducing the cost of service by 85%. Just when I was expecting to get a raise and promotion for this achievement, I was laid off, putting an end to what I expected would be a fruitful career in that company. The experience soured me completely on the strategic, ethical, or business prattlings that come out of the mouth of any company IT officer.

When I went into engineering school in the 70's it was just after we went to the moon and the stories about engineers walking the streets and driving cabs were legion. I stuck with it while my peers "bailed" for easier majors. I loved it. I wanted to be an engineer since taking my toys apart as a 5-year old to see how they worked. A funny thing happened four and a half years later. Because my peers "bailed" due to the naysayers there was a "shortage" of graduating engineers and I had my pick of jobs.

Why did I stick with it? I figured that life is too long to do something just for the $$$. You need to love what you do. If you do, you'll naturally be good at it and naturally out compete those who are just in it for a paycheck.

I eventually morphed into IT after that as I found out that I was really good at pushing around 1's and 0's. I've forgotten more computer languages than most PhD CIS majors will ever know. I'm in the midst of learning Objective-C so I can program the wondrous iPhone (completed my first app with just a few weeks of study.) I've kept my skills up because I love what I do and I'm good at it. I haven't had too much problem finding employment doing it. I tell young folks not to pursue something just because it does or doesn't pay well. Pursue it because it's your passion. You'll then be better qualified than the average joe for whom it's just a "job" and you'll not whine about your employer not training you. You make time for your own continuing ed because it's your passion. I've been up until the wee hours for the past several weeks working on my pet iPhone apps. That's just an example of what I mean. The old saying is true, "If you love what you do for a living, you'll never work a day in your life."

Finally, I don't see technology abating. If anything, there will be greater need for "1 and 0 pushers" as time goes on. But that will take new forms besides COBOL, CICS and DB2. Today it's the iPhone and SQLite. But for the past 35 years it's been fundamentally 1's and 0's. Get over it and get on with it. If you don't love it, find a new line of work. Life is too short for whining and too long to do something that you wouldn't do even if you weren't paid for it. Find your passion.

-dB

I spent a while as an IT director for a nationwide billion dollar company dependent on internet technologies. My employer was unrealistic about what it takes in compensation and benefits to attract and retain good people in certain specialties. Some of my people were able to spend 1-2 years with us then land a new job with another employer that included a $30K salary increase from our salary in the mid 50's. These were young JAVA developers who, in my opinion, had trouble completing projects on a timely basis because of inexperience. On the other hand, competent ColdFusion programmers in the same salary range were relatively easy to find and retain.

My experience reinforces some comments from others: certain skills are in high demand; others less so.

There is a disconect in the HR arena with respect to transferrable experience. This is brought about by recruiters: they take job orders for specific skills and will not waver. This attitude and strategy has crept into corporate hiring. I see exec job postings all the time that require 5-10 years experience doing the same job someplace else. So who will that attract? Someone who is dissatisfied or underpaid, pretenders, or those who have recently lost similar jobs. Mediocrity! I'd rather find the person who is ready to step up, not laterally. Sure, I would look for similarities in complexity of the projects, familiarity with certain technologies, etc.

Anyway, I digress. The primary disconnect is caused by irrational "skill requirements" perpetrated by the IT recruiting industry in an attempt to differentiate themselves and their candidates.

Another reason why I agree with Christine Davis and others: IT is a bad career because you are "expected to keep your skills current on your own time." This means that you work either 40 hrs of ultra-stress/wk or 60 hrs of drudgery/wk, and then are expected to "self-certify" 20-40 hours per week. That is "theoretically" how you keep your job or your employability. But then, you can still lose your job for no fault of your own! I've got a family and a mortgage to worry about. That is why I am going to cynically milk the IT profession to save money so I can get a totally new career. I love technology, but IT has completely lost its glamour for me as a profession and work-life.

The answer is simple. There is no disconnect.

There is a lot of IT work out there, but it's being filled by H1-B and L-1 visas. The reason that CIOs gripe about no qualified candidates with appropriate IT skills is so that its easier for them to justify more H1-B and L-1s instead of hiring Americans at a higher salary. What's that you say? A CIO exaggerate or "misinterpret" in order to gain a short term salary reduction? Pshaw!

The reality is that CIOs are shooting themselves in the collective foot. For the most part, H1-B and L-1 quality is lacking and the innovation level is non-existent. Heavily outsourced companies will wake up down the road and wonder why their IT departments aren't paying off in new design and strategy. They'll be lagging behind the competition and it will show in the marketplace. If they're lucky, they'll be able to recover from their mistake without the company going under, but it will take years and they'll feel it in form of lower revenue and increased customer dissatisfaction.

As a 14 year IT employee, I believe that many of you are hitting on the problems that are occurring worldwide. We are looking for cheaper labor outside of our own country. Understandably, we do work for companies that are supposed to make a profit for their shareholders. However, being an employee who works 60-70 hours a week, received a 2.7% increase this year (1.4% last year) - and yes, I'm graded as a top performer and I have a degree!.... I can't make the cost of living equate. I am constantly being told that we can not bring on more headcount and yet I spend much more time fixing things that less experienced people are doing incorrectly. You can't convince me right now that offshoring and/or lean practices are creating an environment where people are thriving. Executives are over-paid, worker-bees are in fear for their jobs, and management is just plain harassed. New perspectives are great; however, not at the cost of useful knowledge. By the way, as I am working 60-70 hours a week... how am I to re-educate myself or look for new jobs?

Don B - you are correct in that we should find our passions. However, supporting our families, paying the oil bill, and putting food on the table have to take a priority to what our perfect job would be.

Dave, you will not be dumped for an H1-B if you represent REAL value to the organization. That goes beyond writing your code and having it ready on time, as we both know.

Apparently American IT companies can sell in foreign markets but foreigners cannot sell their skills to American companies.

Also, it would suck for me to be in a technical position past my 40th birthday. This is a young person's game! At that age, you can learn all the new crap you want but you'd still sound less convincing than a 26 yr old for that 7 yrs .NET experience job.

I have been in IT for 33 years, back when it was called data processing, keypunch machines, paper tapes, card readers & no CICS. I worked my way up through the ranks over the years and had been a loyal company employee for the same firm for nearly 18 years. We were bought out by one of the major U.S. financial corporations who prefers outsourcing to allow the upper management to pull in larger bonuses for themselves.

I was loyal, U.S. firms are no longer loyal to their employees but demand it from those employees they are so quick to discard.

Additionally, I was unemployed for a year - not due to a lack of skills, but because U.S. firms were not hiring U.S. citizens. I was unable to collect unemployment as I had no permananent address because I was looking for a job. I lost my house and most everything I had accummulated over the years. I was more than entitled to receive those unemployment benefits due to having worked for 40 years and paying into Social Security, unemployement and all those other lovely taxes & levys on the employed.

I finally found a job and have been with them for almost 3 years now, although I had to relocate to another region of the country and start all over.

Now my 'new' company is in the process of outsourcing us all, to give larger bonuses to upper management and I will be out the door again. It's especially hard for those of us who are well into our 50's, the greying wolves, we're too old to be hired by many firms, although legally, they cannot say we are too old - we have too much experience to be considered for the position and we're too young to be greeters at WalMart.

Thanks to U.S. policy rewarding companies who outsource, I will be unemployed, unemployable and not able to start collecting that Social Security. Maybe I can find a nice large box to live in, in a warmer climate this time.

Please also keep in mind that the American government and American companies typically don't like to pay to educate employees. Workers from India as well as a lot of other countries have their education greatly subsidized. Fully knowing that if the students get a job in the U.S. a large portion of the money will be going back to their countries. This is Mexico's 2nd largest source of revenue.

I would like to take a different approach to this discussion. Based on my nearly 40 years in the IT world, I believe that one of the key conditions that leads to this disconnect is the failure of supposed IT leaders (CTO, CIO positions) to understand the fields of computer science and information technology.

The field of computer science (from which IT evolves) is 50+ years old, yet senior managment still manages technology the same way they managed it in the 60's - as a cost center, not as a profit center. The maturation of computer science has allowed people to specialize is a particular discipline - much like specialization in medicine. I do not believe that American management practice has grown at the same rate.

Most of the IT disasters I had to help fix were not the result of technology (program, design, etc) problems - but a failure of management to act on performance and trend information. The management myopia on hiring technology experts instead of people who can see the bigger picture is a self-defeating prophesy. But then again, people who understand the business are more expensive than people who work specific technologies.

I find that most senior managers who have technology somewhere in the alphabet soup set of the initials that follow their names think that IT is a collection of technology skill sets - that's the way they manage. Unfortunately, the academic and scientific communities in this country understand that there is a need for computer science as a practiced discipline.

>> Second, keeping skills current, means ACTIVELY USING THOSE SKILLS IN A JOB.

If this is what companies expect, then they must be willing to let their employees USE new technology. If a DBA wants to learn technology X, he is not going to be able to use that skill in the job, since it does not apply to his DBA position. Of course, when the CIO reads an article about it and proclaims it to be the corporate direction, they will look to hire some H1B with no experience, instead of the loyal employee who took it upon himself to expand his skills.

Even a programmer who learns a new language will not be able to use it if it is not widely in use at the company. Who wants someone to develop in a language which only he knows?

It is even worse if you are talking about some of the more expensive pieces of technology. Even if you are learning Windows Server 20xx, you won't be able to put it into practice unless the company has that system installed (AND you are in the admin group). Of course you could spend several thousand dollars of your own money and install such a system at your home (but that is not using the technology on the job). And that doesn't help with learning mainframe software or network servers and switches.

Greying Wolf:

I know the feeling same exact situation...and the best part is the government says all of us are out here happily employed!! Who and what the hell are they counting??

This has been most interesting. There are always 2 sides or 2 versions, and both are some what right and some what wrong.

I am not committing to correct either version.

For many years I have questioned the government's numbers, as on several occasions I am certain I was never included in the numbers as I was no longer on the roles of the insured unemployed.

I lost my last position as a senior technical program manager in late 2003 with almost 5 years of service to the company; my sales support practice positioned and helped capture approximately $200M in revenue during my tenure with the company. Of course it was a business decision. But, I knew at the time, age 58, that it probably meant the end of my career, I would be unemployable. So now the only statistical role I am counted in is AARP.

I am told that I have a very impressive resume, but I still do not get the interviews or consideration; is it age, too much experience, or that I would be older than the manager and with more experience. I am fit and healthy and my work ethic is the same as it was when I worked for H Ross.

I came up through the ranks as a techie, always reading, learning, and moving up to the latest advancement, VLDB, DWH, BI, etc, and then into management. I too have been replaced by Indians, which I had no problem with, it was just business; they need to feed their families too.

Not only is our government not presenting accurate numbers, we all know that numbers can be made to represent what we want them to, but I feel that many corporations are posting positions that they have no intention of filling. (I said my feeling, not a fact)

There are many problems, too many for this forum-- education, big business, and government. Yes, America has been sliding backwards, the economy is terrible, it is very sad that we have leaders that have pushed us to this state, and greed has led the way. It is time to start caring and getting back on track to becoming a great nation once again. Get A JOB, Work Hard, and good Luck.

Roger

Business drives the need for information technology and as the nature of business changes, the need for IT also changes. What used to be a demand for programmers and analysts has been replaced by needs for network, server, and database administrators. These are very different jobs with very different skills.

I think it's simple. The demand for newer skills is on the rise. The demand for older skills is declining and these are IT workers that are being displaced.

There are plenty of IT JOBS but when outsourcing for those that have those skills, companies lost the industry experience that is associated with longevity. One day the CEOs, CIOs of will get back to actually training their own employees and updating the employees skills. Hopefully.

It is one thing to know the latest technology but a totally different animal to replace the knowledge of a "downsized" employee.

Stories like this are full of S@@T!

I send out 40-50 resumes a week and with close to 35 years of experience I don't even get a RESPONSE to my resumes.

Some H-1b visa workers may end up in Canada. Alberta is trying to attract foreign IT pros working in the U.S. whose visas have expired. Check out "H-1B 'Expatriates' Head North"

I've been working in the IT world for a better part of 20 yrs and lately I worry more and more about the quality of life. I do not believe that working all these hours is the way to go. We should all become sales people and let someone else fugire things out...We can make more money and not worry about any additional cert's...

most bases have been covered by the comments already made, but i would like to stress a couple of points.

1. when the job is over, it's never over. so when the new app is in production and things go wrong, mgmt is held hostage by the only people who know the app-the ones they were subcontracting or outsourcing to -fix it. ditto for enhancements.

in the end, while the meter is running, mgmt pays for the original app and the ongoing maintenance, instead of investing in in-house talent.

2. because a lot of outsourcing is attractively priced, and you get what you pay for, apps are rarely built correctly the first time around. sr mgmt, who used to care about things such as competitive time to mkt, now is supersensitive to their own bonus clauses, and care only about expenses. so however long it finally takes to deliver the app, mgmt feels they saved on cost. i guess lateness doesnt count for them, nor their role in losing mkt share.

Don, I would agree with 100% except for 1 little thing. You and I went to school in the 70's, when going to college, though not cheap, was at least semi-affordable. With the cost of a 4-year degree being what it is at most major universities today, you HAVE to take into account what type job prospects you have, and what kind of salary you can reasonably expect. Basically, what is the probable return on your investment, both long and short term? An $80k salary down the road 10 - 20 years sounds good, but can you pay your bills those first 4 or 5 years?
As an example, consider my friend Pete. Pete was a dump truck driver in his mid twenties making $13.50/hr. in 2000 with consistent employment throughout the year and plenty of overtime with time and a half in the summer. Pete loved working with computers and decided his long term prospects looked better there than driving a dump truck. So he enrolled in a local community college and took courses while still working as a driver. He received his associate with honors (he was second in his class) in network engineering. Because of his success in community college he was offered a partial scholarship from a major university in a nearby town. He enrolled full time, quit his job due to the increased class time, study time, and commute. What the scholarship didn't pay for, he paid for with student loans. He took a part time job as a pizza delivery driver to make ends meet. After 3 years (some of the community college courses wouldn't transfer) he graduated in the top 25% of his class in computer science. He spent an extra 6 months, and $10k, acquiring a respected certification in networking.
His first job? Help desk paying $9/hr. After 6 months he was able to land a job as a network engineer at $28k. The company was bought out and he was let go. Six months of unemployment and he was able to land another networking job at a little under $34k ($650 a week to be precise). A typical work week is 55-60 hours if he isn't called in for some emergency. He deferred his student loans for the first 2 years after college due to the bills that mounted while he was in school and the low pay/unemployment of his first 2 years of work.

So where does this leave Pete financially? Well, let's take a look. Pete takes home $480/wk after taxes, health insurance, and mandatory retirement contributions. That's $1920 a month on a 4 pay week month. Not good, but not too bad for early in his career. That is until you look at his expenses:
Modest 1 bedroom apartment: $450/month
Student Loans: $430/month (and that's for 15 yrs.)
Certification Loan: $245/month (for 10 years)
Other College Debt: $90/month (for 5 years)
Basic Utilities: $180/month
Which leaves him with $525/month for groceries, transportation, clothing, etc.
A car? Forget about it! He couldn't afford the insurance and gas even if you gave him one. Dining out? Only at Taco Bell and McDonalds (and the value menus at that). But his biggest expense? It cost him his fiance. She said he didn't have time for her, and he admitted she was right. He recently told me, "I love working in this field. But if I had a chance to do it all over again I never would have gotten into it, the costs in money and my personal life have been too high."

That pretty much sums up why nobody wants to get into IT.

I agree with both sides. There are a large number of IT professionals that are independent contractors and do 1099 or corp-to-corp contracts. As such, they don't usually have enough people in their little groups to have unemployment insurance or many other benefits. Many will travel to wherever the client wants and some drive their RV to the sites or stay Monday thru Thursday in the cheapest places. Some send money to their families in foreign countries as well.

These people don't show on the government employment rolls the same way an employee of a big consulting firm or large corporation. When they are "between projects," they write books, get the next best certification, travel and don't collect government unemployment.

So, when IT employments peaks (during downturns) it may be because consultants are taking a job to weather the lack of consulting opportunities. When consulting gigs become more profitable and available, these people may go back into independent consulting.

"then they must be willing to let their employees USE new technology."

Lee Creel, you are 100% correct. To continue that statement, if the company you are at does not allow new technology (even for exploration of strategic direction) you should consider leaving before your skills become obsolete. Change can be rough, but sometimes you have to take a step back to move forward.

If an ad states 3,4,5 years experience in a technology, that sounds like a requirement.

Some companies need people who are able to hit the ground running and not allow for people to be trained, and catch up. Some companies are larger and have low-level entry level positions.

The company I am currently at just got done training EVERYONE, not just the youngsters but the people with 20+ years too. All on the latest revisions and toolsets. Some of the 20+ group(years of experience with the company) never work with it and were being trained in some of the tools for the first time. It was an interesting class.

There are other problems at some companies, but we are talking about individuals, not companies. The era of corporate loyalty and retirement pensions is a thing of the past (unfortunately). I've seen it dissolve and I don't never got one. I started programming in the late 70's so not as old as some but no spring chicken either. I worked through the IT boon in the late 90's and saw it drop back to normal levels in the early 2000's. So I'm in the age group with some of the people stating if you are too old you can't get a job. That's a nice excuse, but it is just an excuse. Others in the over 30 age bracket get work when they want, as I stated, there is a directors opening in the SE that is paying 140 to 160 with succession to CIO. Just got a call on it the other day. Funny how headhunters are calling me when there are so many qualified candidates out there. I'm not any better than the next guy, at least I don't think I am. But it may mean relocating, oh my god I said the "R" word.

Someone said there isn't anything in their area? MOVE. I'm guessing there aren't any IT jobs available in Ghana those people are looking elsewhere and MOVING to where the jobs are. (and yes some are H1B's etc., but a lot are becoming US citizens too)

The jobs are available and the CIO's are right, in their areas they are having a tough time finding qualified people. Qualified also includes being able to converse with the business, but that's not the only requirement, you need to understand the technology. That's why there are interviews, tech tests, personality tests, etc. If you are going to interviews and it isn't panning out, maybe you are in the wrong field, if you aren't getting the interviews maybe your resume doesn't accurately reflect your skill set. But something is wrong, don't Assume it's the companies you send in your resume too.

I remember seeing a YouTube video of a conference where some New York attorney was advising HR people from different corporations on how to make it appear that they attempted to hire American workers, with the real intention of hiring offshore people. The advice was to run vague ads in newspapers for a couple of printings, then to go out and interview the offshore candidates with the initial intent being to hire them. The attorney should have been taken out and hanged and the people that were subscribing to his advice should leave the country and leave it to the people who are loyal Americans and to those who have served honorably.

As a very sr. IT pro, who works only as a contractor since taking an early retirement buy-out, I can say this to the ongoing discussion:
It's all about the money.
There's a large corp. in NJ that is ALWAYS looking for talent, but, their rates and FTE salaries are 40% of going rates in the area. They have become a huge consumer of 'Visa' labor. And that labor isn't very good, hence 'always looking.' But there are many positions open paying the 'right' rates and salaries. But, for the money, they want real quality. They want people who stay current, and know what they are doing. I'm at the top of the contractor rate scale, but - the people I have worked for obviously found the value in me, as I have returned to many on several different projects.

It's a simple fact - people who want the best will always buy the 'Rolls Royce'. And, as one automotive writer pointed out a few years ago, the Rolls Royce was the most cost effective auto for people who held them long-term. Same goes for the 'right' IT talent.

The only thing I can't understand is why a few businesses will trust their present and future to the lowest priced IT talent. But I suppose that the management of those companies knows their business isn't worth much anyway, so why spend money for IT talent, as the business' future is so questionable. If that isn't the case, then it is clear that there are some number of very stupid managers. And they whine, when it is their lack of capability that creates the situations they are whining about. My solution is simple. I just work for the good companies.

HJB

This is my response to the last paragraph of HJB. Not all companies who are willing to hire IT talents need superior skill level since not all businesses are making their revenues on the solid ground of IT. Let's take for example a very large manufacturing company in the beverage industry, a large law firm, advertising companies, etc... These companies all require IT personals from top level positions to rank and file. Companies like this will always put their money where their mouth is. So bottom line is "cheap labor" for the IT positions will work for them. It's not because of "stupid managers". And to quote your last words - "I just work for the good companies." Not all good companies are IT dependent unless it's their business.

too little too late. export of thousands of jobs, importation of herds of cheap labor has all taken a toll on IT. Wages have gone down 20 to 30% and large number of American in IT sector have suffered as a result.

I am a much maligned C-level IT manager from a company that does complex work in the telecommunication industry. We do cutting edge work with IPTV and so on.

Sadly we have been forced to outsource to India - I have made several trips to Bangalore and Pune to help set things up. (Wow this person is the enemy, no doubt you are thinking.)

But the truth is more complex. Cost and competitive pressures are such that we have no alternative. Our competitors are doing it and our customers are demanding lower price points all the time. The options were: outsource to cut costs or go out of business.

And then came the layoffs - high quality developers with years of experience replaced by teams in India. The ratio is about three to one. But an Indian developer costs about $12,000 whereas a fully loaded (office space, computers, etc.) NA developer is close to $100k even if they don't get paid that amount. The IT industry is becoming awful.

So I strongly come down on the side of 'there is no shortage.' It is just companies using the bogus shortage (and headhunters talk it up too) to justify H1-B visas and lower salaries and higher headhunter rates.

My advice is if you are young, get out of IT. My son is finishing engineering at university and I have actively discouraged him from going anywhere near IT. There are better options.

If you are older, like me, well you just have to hunker down and survive while recognizing that the industry the U.S. created is now going elsewhere and soon the U.S. will slip behind (though I doubt whether there will be much innovation offshore).

And we are all complicit. Every time you want another low cost gadget laden with software, remember that gadget would be that much more expensive if it was made in the U.S.

As I said, in my 25 years IT has gone from one of the most exciting industries on the planet - to a sad kind of career death march.

It's amazing to see that some things never change. People forget, this story occurred eight years ago. The story hasn't changed, the people have. They are the new IT workers. A correction has to occur with IT wages and corporations have to again maximize on profit margins. Question: Why are IT workers from India afforded the opportunity to learn a skill and given time and support to come up to speed when Americans are just unqualified? How much does it take to enhance your existing skills? In the past companies went as far as to hire incompetent IT workers over more experienced professionals to save a dollar and justify the need for additional workers (i.e. offshore). This is about profit margins and nothing more. A true IT professional should not have a problem learning any new technology; it's not rocket science. It's best to determine ways to compete or find opportunities with other countries. It's all about leverage.

re: 'fact' #1: the gov't lies, everyone knows this
re: 'fact' #2: cios lie too
re: fact #3: it's real

Does anyone see/feel a trend(s) overall here? :0)) Facts are/is the government lies, the politicians are all bought and paid for by big business, the business C-level folks are willing to chop the last American worker in order to save that last dollar so they can get those huge stock and bonus grants so they can drive home in their Mercedes, get home to their gated communities, jump into their big pools, send their kids to private schools and go on ten vacations a year...

Geez, and I was always told if I was well educated, worked hard and stuck with the hard jobs (loyalty!) that things would be fine...Hey, guess what not so true!

As a local IT tech that has been contracted to support 4700+ users in a regional area of the Midwest for a multimillion dollar company, I can assure you that the over seas techs my clients and I deal with on a daily basis are not up to speed with technology, they cannot speak clear English, which causes issues to not be resolved. and they are more than willing to pass on the work to a local tech after they have messed things up so bad that the only way to fix it is to wipe and start over. Oh and I know some of you say I'm tooting my American horn; well I say data does not lie. For several months I have been keeping records of what where when and why when it comes to local vs overseas support. FYI the overseas support personnel are failing our businesses in a big way. Yes we are having issues finding good IT people in this country due to the lack of of proper wages, why would someone want to put thousands of dollars into education for a job that will not pay them what there worth or what they need to live. I know personally when 911 happened I lost my job in aviation and went back to school for an IT education and graduated with honors! I'm having issues finding a perm position with benefits and wages to cover my living expenses and my SCHOOL LOANS!

A disconnect is the U.S. lifestyle vs. H1B lifestyle at a certain level. In your 20's most dedicated IT people will work 55 hours/week and go to school evenings. However, once you reach 35-40 you have family w/"fun" obligations (church, sports), mortgage, etc. You may be able to work 50 hrs/week and take work home. If you take a 40 year old person and are told "go to school at night to retrain yourself" and "move to where the jobs are" you are essentially making them into Okies like the "Grapes of Wrath." This causes tremendous strain at home (it was always implied in the U.S. that hard work in 20's/30's would lead to stability after). Maybe we should not have assumed that, but for peer professions (accounting, law, certainly govt/ed) that is the case and most think it is totally unfair.

The disconnect revolves around the issue of quality. There is a huge number of mediocre workers passing themselves off as IT professionals. Perhaps only 50-60% of the people in IT are worthy of the title. The rest are doomed to spend their lives at the margins and to be passed over by their betters.

I decided to take a stroll down memory lane today, going over the 70 - 80 hr work weeks I worked back in 1973, as a supervisor of a keypunch department of 17 individuals. We women were only allowed to keypunch in those days. My annual salary was a grand total of $2,500.00. We did get CRT's while I still worked there and when I left that company 6 years later with the exact same job title, my salary was $4,000.00 annually. I wanted to learn and better myself; create a career to be able to support myself & my children. I got an increase of $1,000.00 per year by changing companies and starting reading syslogs, documentation manuals of all sorts to be told repeatedly that I didn't need to know any of that stuff - it would only confuse me. I was in a supervisory role at my second IT job as well, had 16 people reporting to me, data entry, clerical staff, tape librarians & report/mail delivery staff. I continued working my 70 - 80 hr weeks and taught myself JCL in the DOS/VM/VSE/CM environment. Then joined a team of others in converting to MVS; taught myself MVS JCL and utilities using manuals. Taught myself all the 3rd layered software by reading the manuals and finally left that firm 7 years later, with a nice job title (systems analyst) and making a whopping $10,500.00 per year. Suffice it to say, that earlier in my career, I left after 7 or 8 years to get an increase in salary to support my family. And I still work 70 - 80 hr weeks in my mid 50's because it's got to be done in order to do the work of the 3 people who used to have my job. I still crack open manuals (okay, you got me, they are PDF files now) and continue learning on my own.

None of this really matters to the company I now work for; they are going to outsource us all anyway but it does matter to me, that I keep my knowledge current and pick up new & better ways to utilize my skills. It doesn't matter to the company that I currently work for that I have worked already 200 days this calendar year. The work gets done - they have 1 person doing the work of 3, getting paid the salary of half a person.

If the greedy 10% of (CEOs CIOs CFOs etc etc...) 'winners' in the US who already have 65% of the wealth continue to sell off the quality jobs in the US to India China Mexico etc...so they can have 95% of the wealth...well we're already in trouble and it won't be long until the golden goose lays a big one! It is like the canary in the mineshaft...others had better get ready!

Apathy and a lackadaisical attitude of entitlement are allowing greed and a corporate fraternity to run rampant over the American worker.

I see whining about the evil/ignorant corporate execs exploiting the H1B program to screw American workers.

Forget about your work ethic and maintaining your skillsets. How many people take an active role in corporate governance?

In your 401k plans and pension plans, the American worker controls a significant amount of stock (i.e. capital power with voting rights in our corporations). Do you organize and exercise that power in voting your stock shares? Have you even bothered to vote your shares?

"Market based" salaries are the mantra of the executive suite when they want to deny pay raises. Well (with the exception of a handful of CEO's who built their companies) most of the corporate 500 leadership has run amok with executive compensation packages of $25-$100 million dollars annual. Look at their track record, and I could advertise on the "open market" for their replacements and have a line 1 mile long for only $1-$5 million annually. And trust me, the decisions made by the low-budget CEO's would probably get better.

Wake up -- vote your shares -- and hold CEOs and the boards of directors (especially the executive compensation committees) accountable.

The Internet has been a great way to organize the masses. It is time we use it to oust an over priced CEO and his minion of directors. Crash the fraternity party.

Take GM Chairman G. Richard Wagoner. From 2001-2007 he was paid (I cannot say earned) an avg of $6.3 million annually while the company was in a tailspin and saw its stock price drop from $50.94 per share to $11.00 per share. If your code or database performance reflected that performance, you would have been terminated.

It is time for the working people of this country to exert their ownership rights.

-Tomeaux

Tomeaux:

Great idea but I'm way too busy greeting people in my 'fully employed' Wal-Mart position and trying to feed my family!

"W" and his crowd do say I am 'fully employed' and that the economy is fine, so who am I to question their imperial wisdom!

Signed,

MBA, BBA, Lotsa Certifications, 20+ yrs experience low-life american citizen!

The poster 'Jim', apparently a tech manager, has some interesting points to make, but ultimately is looking at the 'skills shortage' from an incorrect perspective.

I have been both a s/e engineer and manager at well known companies, on both sides of the hiring table.

It *is* hard to hire right, but not because of a skill shortage. The hiring process is broken.

Jim's comments illustrate this: an overly narrow focus on 'requirements'. Yes, Jim, cross training is not trivial, but experienced smart people are usually able to move to new technologies; most have been doing so and will continue to do so. To insist on too narrow a definition of required skills is to shortchange yourself.

But it goes deeper: most larger companies have too heavyweight a process, and HR and other non technical screeners are too prominent too early on.

The pressure on a manager is to write a job description to cover himself, and not to stretch. I've had to fight my bosses and HR to hire good people who didn't fit the litany of acronyms but were very talented. When I was able to, those hires worked out, because as one who still has deep tech understanding, I know how to recognize true talent. Conversely, I've seen 'by the numbers' hires that were terrible, but they fit the job description.

Jim, you are too concerned with 'credentials'. You don't hire credentials. You hire a person. To all the managers, execs, etc who complain about the shortage: Open your eyes to the real talent pool. Forget the H1-Bs, etc, even those who do have some techincal chops usually lack depth and breadth, perspective, analytical ability, and usually problematic communication skills.

No, I wouldn't hire a fork-lift operator as an Oracle developer, but someone who has worked on several platforms with different languages over the years would certainly get my consideration.

That's a real proven talent: someone who can learn and adapt.

As one who worked in the field for 35 years now, I would say that my skills are better than most. However, IT has been treated (and thus has become) more and more of a commodity.

Managers are looking for specific skills for a specific task, and do not look for someone who is cross-trained. System administrators are not expected to know or do network administration, and in network support, security administration for firewalls and system security and network security is likely a different department.

I call it the "dumbing down" of IT positions, and it makes it difficult for someone who has worked in multiple areas with multiple skills to find a good position unless they want to settle on an area of specialty. This also means when that area of specialty is spent, the person is out of a job again.

My last full-time position I received retention bonuses because I had specialty knowledge of older technology. I integrated current systems to be able to smoothly access and monitor the older systems, and yet, even though promised a new project due to my expertise and experience, when we finally shut that project down, the new project was given to a different team in Amsterdam and my team of 5 was unceremoniously laid off.

I received a good severance package, so I don't complain. But, the field has changed. Managers don't think they want or need people with problem-solving skills. They think they need people with system admin skills, network admin skills, data base admin skills, etc. Putting each position into a little box and throwing the problem over the wall to the other group when your part of the solution is finished. (Note most of the skills I mentioned are "administration" -- the jobs are becoming clerical).

Gone are the days when someone owned a problem until it is solved. Using trouble tracking systems to monitor productivity, management wants each ticket closed as soon as possible, even if it isn't solved so that their departments will look good in the statistics. They hope the problems will just go away, and if it takes 6 or 20 tickets to solve a single problem that is fine, as long as each ticket is closed quickly.

I would still encourage someone with an interest, or passion, to enter the IT field, but I would tell them to keep an eye on the trends, and to request as much internal cross training as possible.

It is the company's responsibility to keep it's workforce up to date. It's part of doing business. But in this day of "I want it now!" management is losing sight of this, and thinks that even for skilled positions that require a lot of training, people will just be there as a disposable resource. Even calling it human resources had dehumanized the process and people are thought of as interchangeable components. When this one is spent, we'll just get another. That isn't the way to build a company that will last.

Oh, that's right. Most CEOs these days don't care whether the company lasts, just whether they maximize shareholder value each quarter, and maximize their own bonuses and stock options during their tenure as CEO.

CEOs need to realize that just because they have an MBA which often gets them into a company at a management or corporate officer level, the people who develop and create the products or services they provide have skills which took years to develop, and they (the CEOs) have a responsibility to provide an environment for those skills to be honed and developed further, otherwise the company will go under.

It reminds me of a scene in the movie "Braveheart" where the king says to send in the archers. His advisor says, "But we'll hit our own troops." The king responds, "That's OK! We have reserves!" Well, in this day of lean running companies, there are no reserves, and CEOs need to realize this before it's too late.

IT Guru is spot on.

The problem is that while the laid-off pro has been unemployed, the other fellow is working and building skills. When the job comes available, who do you think the manager will hire? The one with the skills and recent experience.

Couple that with the pace of change in the industry and someone out of work for the duration of a recession can become hopelessly out of date in the field.

So what is the solution?

1) If the severance package includes training dollars, use them. Get the certifications that say you know how the company will use your skills. Don't neglect the non-technical certifications like ITIL, PMP, ARMA. They say you know how to do the work regardless of technology.

2) Get the training so you are prepared for the next wave. Ask a non-IT person what the most critical project in the company will be in 6 months. Then ask the IT architect or similar person what technology or methodology they expect to use for that project. Then get that training so you are the one hired in 6 months.

3) Volunteer. Even if you are not paid, you are still using your skills and keeping them sharp. When you interview you can talk about the great work you did for the national church Web site or other charity. You will even get recommendations from respected community leaders. The hiring manager will not care whether you were paid; they will care that you did similar work and demopnstrated the skills. Tip: Working for the national or regional office is more impressive than the local office.

I haven't read every line of every comment, but I haven't seen anyone mention what I think is most important: companies don't want to pay for skills they don't need.

Imagine two programmers, Chris and Pat. Chris just graduated, and has skills A, B, and C. Pat has 30 years of experience and has skills A, B, G, J, W, Z, 7, and omega. They both apply for a job with Big Equipment Corp. that requires A, B, C, and D. Neither one is perfect -- they are both missing D -- but Big Equipment Corp can hire Chris for $40K and Pat for $100K. Which would you choose? If you were Pat, would you be willing to work for $40K?

Maybe G, J, W, Z, 7, and omega would be useful for Big Equipment Corp at some point. However, that isn't guaranteed, and they need someone to do A, B, C, and D *today*.

(By the way, I have A, C, G, K, N, O, Q, W, Z, 7, omega, and maroon if anyone needs that set and is hiring...)

There is clearly 2 sides to this issue.

The first is the abuse of immigration law by H1B and L1 visa holders. I have personal experience with non-American H1B visa holders obtaining employment in violation of the H1B visa laws. One particular case (of many) involved an Indian, living with 3 other Indians, no car, no health insurance, barely able to speak English and his "expertise" was his ability to google various problems and get answers. Strangely enough, I really don't have ill will toward the Indian, but I have lot's of ill will toward the American IT manager who brought the person on board. This is clearly a case of wasting money. Offshoring, H1B and L1 are not the panacea that many American managers believe. Cultural and language issues are a big problem. Having a degree from an Indian university does not constitute a skill set.

The flipside of the coin are American workers who are not willing to invest in updating their skills. Shame on any workers who complain about a poor job market who haven't taken concrete steps to further their careers. I'm close to 30 years in IT, and I am constantly learning new technology. If I didn't, my only skill set would be COBOL and IMS, and I'd be riding the bench, too. The market is ultra competitive. You cannot sit back and wait for training to come to you.

Garrett

It kind of pisses me off to see all our tech jobs going overseas or to H-1B; we have many great and talented workers in this country.

I'm an IT professional and a damn good one that should be on any team. I've been finding it impossible to get a job, all I want is to find something that pays well and keeps me busy.I enjoy work and those I work with, and I'm a damn hard and smart worker, but I'm competing with people who either lie on their resume or just sell themselves better. I'm also stuck in a world were names of tasks are changing.

If anyone out there knows of someone who can use someone like me, please let me know, I've posted my VisualCV at http://www.visualcv.com/pramsey.

I have read many of the comments made in this blog. I have 20 years of technology management up to the CIO level. I've worked in multiple industries, federal, private, non-profit, international.

I remember in the old days when I was doing federal contracting. The lowest bid always posed the biggest problems. "You get what you pay for." You end up with longer delivery times than anticipated, rework to correct the problems, firing and hiring new resources, and, in some instances, the project gets dumped.

There's a difference between business and technology. And, even though they are coming closer together, they still sit on either side of the aisle. One side doesn't easily translate into the other side. The business folks are trained in how to be more efficient by cutting costs. The technology side, which many times don't have either management education or training, much less business management training, don't get that if you experiment in solutions, it costs money and the job won't get done on time. And, many of these technology folks don't know how to interview. I can't tell you how many times I've interviewed with technology types who don't know the right questions to ask. I laugh at this ignorance. And we wonder why jobs sit idle, we can't find the right people, and when we do finally hire, there's often some kind of tragedy that requires triage, whether it be someone lied, someone didnt' ask the right questions, or someone just was at their wits end and had to make a quick decision.

I worked with a professional recruiter who showed me how it should be done. It takes focus, it takes a couple of people working at the same focused time, and honestly, we filled over 30 positions within 15 days. And they were all the right people. There is an art to it that many people with whom I've dealt don't know how it's done.

Next, I've seen many job descriptions that require the knowledge of everything and the kitchen sink. Come on people, the job descriptions against which candidates are being compared aren't