I'm not in the US, but from what I've seen here and in other boards, the whole STEM Crisis is actually a HR Crisis.
No wonder you can't hire anyone if you want rocket scientists to build your world-changing photo sharing app.
No wonder you can't hire anyone if you want rocket scientists to build your world-changing photo sharing app.
1) There is a business preference to find the best candidate for the lowest rate (practical sense) which leads towards hiring the youngest/cheapest resource available who meets the criteria.
2) Existing companies refuse to invest in building up / educating employees. In the old days you hired based on merit and potential, but you also provided training to make sure employees adapted with technology. These days, there is no training and employees are expected to adapt on their own (there are certainly arguments for keeping on top of things, but if you have a full time job and other obligations, external interests might not be technical/career related)
Unfortunately, because of (1) and no requirement for companies to commit to (2), there is a push to allow for more non-domestic workers through programs like H1-B and related visas.
Personally, I think most engineers should hone their skills and continue to learn and evolve. That said, some situations don't allow that and when coupled with a refusal of companies refusing to hire/train based off potential, we end up in the mythical "STEM crisis".
I'm not talking the founder visa issue here, I am talking the normal boots on the ground. For which, no longer training and wanting the cheapest option have created a toxic environment for a certain segment of the tech community.
1) Requiring more experience than necessary or even plausible on certain technologies. 5 years of experience in X. When X is 2 years old.
2) Focusing too much in a specific technology stack. We use X, Y and Z. You lack Z? Bye. Or we use Z 1.2, you've only used 0.9? Bye.
3) The 3 day interview, the brain-teaser interview, the work-for-free interview, the you-only-got-1% psychometric test interview.
Regarding your point #2, Mexico recently implemented tax incentives for companies hiring first-time employees. That's something other countries should consider.
Again, my argument is based off the norm that companies invest much less in their employee development than they used to - the onus is strictly on the employee these days. Which is the other extreme.
Free trade (and movement of labour and capital) is better for our economy, and better for the rest of the world. The people on the other side of the fence are human, too!
Some work can be easily moved around the world. Some can't. For instance, workers on your local railway can for up wages because the railway can't move, and local people need it. Software can be written anywhere, so if US wages are high, it will be written elsewhere.
And you do see this. US wages, and Japanese wages, are higher than in Europe for developers. Here in the UK, a lot of engineering is essentially R&D outsourced from the US to a place with cheaper STEM workers.
At the same time, I feel wages can be at current levels because developers don't realize how much they are worth. A big part of this is because it's hard to link revenues, even at a software company, to an individual developers achievement. If profit is a pie(chart) carved up between different workers and the share holders, then the worker who has best visibility how the money gets there, and how they contributed, will do best. Hence sales/marketing, management, and finance, all tend to do better, because they get to see the budget.
So for instance, in Basingstoke, an area where land is cheap just outside London, Sony, Huawei, and ST Ericcson (semiconductor major), all do high grade R&D work. Friends that work for those companies tell me that the work is run from a head office in America, Japan, or China, but done in the UK because of good IP laws, and lower cost workers than in Japan or America.
Similarly, AMD have a huge R&D presence in India, and a lot of foreign talent is willing to relocate there because although wages are lower than in the US, they can enjoy a very high standard of living.
I think the outsourcing you are talking about (small, non IT business buys a custom warehouse management system, programmed as s service), has little resemblance to the actual movement of jobs within large companies that I discuss.
This (movement for whatever reason) has happened to whole industries. The UK used to be a center for semiconductor manufacture, but lost that status for 2 reasons. One was a series of catastrophic strategic decisions at UK semiconductor companies. But the other was that the UK government stopped giving tax breaks to the same extent, and were outbid by Singapore, which was willing to provide tax breaks, infrastructure, and an easy ride through city planning.
The reason semiconductors moved was that the industry involve huge capital investments, and would make them where the deal was best (otherwise they would be outcompeted by a company that got a better deal).
In software, the primary cost is definitely wages, so I'd presume large companies will be very sensitive to wage prices, and go the place the trade off is best.
The positions with higher pay should be open to the candidates with better skills, wherever they happened to be born.
There are quite a lot of assumptions in this statement. You assume an efficient market (something that does not and probably cannot exist at scale, if at all). You assume information equality, which is the exact opposite of actual practice, you assume the people who make the hiring decisions have some means of separating the average from the above or below average. In practice development skill is a completely separate and unrelated skill to marketing (of one's self). Ability derives from the former, salary from the latter.
So no, unrestricted labour movement most definitely does not mean you get paid average if you are average (not that I care about this anyway: I think all developer pay should go up across the board). What it will mean is employer perception will be that they should be able to get even better talent at even lower prices. And since employers can wait literally years to fill positions and people can rarely go more than a month without a job, this will certainly drive salaries down even further.
Of course, one could imagine that eventually everything would become more efficient and companies should recognise that better developers cost more. But how many companies actually care about having better developers? For the majority of IT jobs, the hiring company doesn't care about developer quality, they care about costs. If development takes longer, so what. Everyone else in their market will be working under the same constraints so it doesn't matter.
Software development appears to be the one the most exposed to cheap competition.
The issue is, those people "on the other side of the fence" can have dramatically lower costs of living. A completely free labour market for software development would mean that nearly all software developers would have to live in some extreme low cost location just to survive.
And who does this benefit exactly? Not the software developers, the majority of them would take a massive reduction in salary or complete loss of one. Not consumers because that's us. Those who just got a massive pay cut or lost their job. Nope, just executives who are already making far over their share.
In other words, globalisation of the labour force helps those who need the least help.
They are doing that and in effect we are all getting a better more efficient society. Plus the best minds aren't working on world peace because people vote for people with the best hair to do that job.
If this is true, we should all be mortally terrified and running around like headless chickens, screaming to the heavens to save us.
Ie get the most interesting market messages to the right people, while not bothering the rest.
Not that I do anything related to advertising, but when done intelligently it can actually be a pretty important.
The facts that ads are paid per click and not per impression creates more ad impressions, not more efficient ones.
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2009/is-the-ad-biz-thr...
Sometimes the illusion wavers for a moment, when the product part fails to happen (e.g. Color) but everything else still does.