Computer Industry Recruitment Failures 2. Evidence
Well, what’s the evidence? That there is a lack of computing personnel? How about economic and logistic evidence?
Computer skills are well paid. On the other hand, the pay is not excessive. A degree gets a start at £20,000… about the start for teachers or doctors—buys a lease on a car and a mortgage. No big deal, but beats five‐sixths of the population. Pay is advertised as rising to £30,000 or £40,000 for senior work. ‘Senior’ means something with experience, project management, and maybe day‐management. Well, that’s about £20,000 short of a headteacher so, good pay. But behind a public‐facing doctor (a General Practitioner)—£80,000 a year or so. Then again, a General Practitioner has a societal privilege teachers do not have—doctors get sued (lives saved are currently valued more than lives damaged). All things considered, computing pay seems about par.
This doesn’t correspond with a skills shortage. Adamsian economics—if computing needs programmers, then available programmers ought to earn vast salaries. But they earn mid‐way good salaries. For the territory.
Such is the nature of modern economic thinking, people believe the Adamsian price/supply equation is economics. However, it does not explain much or often. It does not explain why junior doctors go on strike. They pocket more cash in a week than I earned last year, and maybe you are a villain like me. Not only that, economics aside, junior doctors went on strike in England, where striking is a marginal crime. They went on strike over conditions, even conscience (what? what’s conscience?), as well as a belief that Adamsian economics was not applying.
So, whatever the incomes, there may be a problem with computer recruitment. An Adamsian economist may argue, “No problem”, but nobody of sane mind would take that for argument.
Maybe we can gather evidence from applications? Where I live, any number between 60–600 people will apply for a job. More reasonably, minor qualified clerical work e.g. university assistants, can run to 60–120 applications. Far as I see, computer posts must be attractive and low‐fence to attract 20 people. I’ve seen posts with no applicants at all. Alright, this suggests there is a problem.
Are these posts for real jobs? Yeh, ok, that question. Answer, far as I know, is the posts I have seen were connected to firms, not advertising agencies. So yes, there was a vacancy… or, at least, an interest.
There’s other evidence, but that’s all I have access to. I can’t tell you if computer firms are desperate to fix code (like social workers). I can’t tell you if computer coders are dead on their feet (like teachers). I can’t tell you if computer coders divorce each other frequently (like the Police). I can’t tell you if orders are dropped (like printers). All I can say is, which I’ll get to, there’s vague evidence of shortages.
But… careful now with evidence from pay and applications. It does not mean there is a shortage of skills. It means an employer who advertises a post is unable to fill the post. Let’s say I need people to shovel manure. I can’t find them. I could cry, “Skills shortage!” However, for the same money, people may prefer to work in a bar.
At this place in the argument, claims of a shortage are to be treated warily. You know it. They may be.. misconceived.
Onwards, Next