Funny how the more capitalist outlets will classify workers as being in 'shortage', but commodities are never in shortage, they are in 'high demand' and there are 'price spikes while the market adjusts to new levels of supply and demand'. It's almost as if they are less about capitalism and more corporatism.
The reality of most 'talent shortages', and this goes for people outside of tech, is the people with capital don't want to adjust their business model to deal with changing market conditions.
Tech companies complain about 'talent shortages' in a time... when you could literally hire any programmer anywhere in the world to work remotely! It's insane.
So it's obvious there isn't a shortage of talent, but a shortage of local talent. But why do they need local talent?
It's like the US military complaining they can't get tech people. But if you work for them you can't smoke weed (even with a medical rec), you have to be in on time, wear a tie, punch in, sit in a horrible cubicle with horrible lighting and comply with a million bureaucratic minutia. So they don't get good candidates.
Somehow the responsibility of of BOTH sides (labor and capital) to adapt to an ever changing environment seems lost on some people. They can see why one side should adapt, but not the other. The right sees that labor should adjust, and they are right, but likewise capital should also adjust when market forces push them, and not cry foul.
I'll believe there are labor shortages when labor is paid the same percentage of GDP as it was in the 1960s, and when compensation packages include greater variety. After all, truly competitive markets will offer greatly different options. For labor, that could include working remotely, offering more days off, more vacation time, the CHOICE of private offices and/or open office, better indoor lighting, etc.
Note: I'm a realistic capitalist who has actually read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
you have to be in on time, wear a tie, punch in, sit in a horrible cubicle with horrible lighting
I worked as a software engineer in defense (mumble) years ago, and even then nobody punched in and nobody (except management) wore a tie.
We did have cubicles, though... which I prefer immensely to open desk plans. And I'd be happy to bring in my own adjustable-spectrum light if they haven't upgraded lighting in (mumble) years.
The reality of most 'talent shortages', and this goes for people outside of tech, is the people with capital don't want to adjust their business model to deal with changing market conditions.
Tech companies complain about 'talent shortages' in a time... when you could literally hire any programmer anywhere in the world to work remotely! It's insane.
So it's obvious there isn't a shortage of talent, but a shortage of local talent. But why do they need local talent?
It's like the US military complaining they can't get tech people. But if you work for them you can't smoke weed (even with a medical rec), you have to be in on time, wear a tie, punch in, sit in a horrible cubicle with horrible lighting and comply with a million bureaucratic minutia. So they don't get good candidates.
Somehow the responsibility of of BOTH sides (labor and capital) to adapt to an ever changing environment seems lost on some people. They can see why one side should adapt, but not the other. The right sees that labor should adjust, and they are right, but likewise capital should also adjust when market forces push them, and not cry foul.
I'll believe there are labor shortages when labor is paid the same percentage of GDP as it was in the 1960s, and when compensation packages include greater variety. After all, truly competitive markets will offer greatly different options. For labor, that could include working remotely, offering more days off, more vacation time, the CHOICE of private offices and/or open office, better indoor lighting, etc.
Note: I'm a realistic capitalist who has actually read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.