They show that even within a specific (job-title, company, state) tuple, higher unemployment led to higher skills requirements, in a probably-causal way.
That doesn't mean the skills gap is a lie, or any other nefarious bad behavior on the company's part. The study doesn't go into that.
I knew as soon as I saw the source, this would be the case....Matt Yglesias isn't exactly...honest. He has a history of false claims and or really bad ideas. More of a commentator than a journalist, though somehow he is treated as one by Vox.
Yes it does: people were positing that high unemployment was due to structural frictions not macroeconomic problems. Then the macroeconomic problems got better, no effort was made to solve the structural frictions, and employers got less choosy.
"higher unemployment led to higher skills requirements, in a probably-causal way."
Can you explain the causal bit?
The sneaky detail that stands out to me is that this is the 'share' or '%' of jobs with high skills went down, but not necessarily the absolute number of high skills jobs.
So during a recession, there are not a lot of low-end jobs available. As things warm up, more Ops. needed, so more jobs.
But the 'long term view' R&D jobs may have always been there in absolute terms. They might have only changed in relative terms because of the number of regular jobs going up and down.
It implies more causality between 'regular jobs' and 'the economy' but maybe less so between 'high end jobs' and 'the economy'.
Ergo, the 'skills' gap still exists - companies still want high end folks and can't find them. Which makes sense as well because I believe one could crudely say there is a 'skills gap' - anyone hiring high-end people can feel this.
Developers often joke about job ads that require "5 or more years of experience" in about 10 different technologies. I once calculated the probability of a real person matching such a description and came to something like 1 out 500 trillion people. Unless the job ad is published to the entire Virgo Galactic Supercluster, they won't likely get a match.
There are rumors such ads are written so companies can officially reject citizens for H1B visa workers. However, Hanlon's Razor could be at play.
Immigration related jobs ads will have these qualities:
a) a very specific list of requirements, that just happens to match a specific person. Definitely not any choices of language in the list, but possibly degree or equivalent experience if necessary.
b) be posted in a newspaper and on their main jobs page, but not widely elsewhere
c) ask for submissions by mail only, by a certain date
B and C are more telling than A though, because a weird list of requirements could be just someone weird, but narrowly posting and requiring applications by mail are part of exactly following the rules for demonstrating lack of candidates.
I could imagine it might sometimes be the H1B thing, but more common are hyper-precise lists of technologies needed, when they already know the candidate they want but have a legal or administrative requirement to post the job.
Also, I get the impression hiring managers start with what they would like, and out of a long-bred instinct to have an opening bargaining position that's more than they actually want, they put down too many things.
Of course, if no offers come in, and they don't actually have an H1B or other candidate in mind, then maybe they go back and reduce what they're asking for, which would lead directly to this article's conclusion.
There is also the classic "need X years of experience with Y technology" but Y technology has only been in existence for <X years. I love HR departments.
Factfullness, one of the best books on Bill Gates summer reading list covers "the gap instinct"
Factfulness is . . . recognizing when a story talks about a gap, and remembering that this paints a picture of two separate groups, with a gap in between. The reality is often not polarized at all. Usually the majority is right there in the middle, where the gap is supposed to be.
To control the gap instinct, look for the majority.
Beware comparisons of averages. If you could check the spreads you would probably find they overlap. There is probably no gap at all.
Beware comparisons of extremes. In all groups, of countries or people, there are some at the top and some at the bottom. The difference is sometimes extremely unfair. But even then the majority is usually somewhere in between, right where the gap is supposed to be.
The view from up here. Remember, looking down from above distorts the view. Everything else looks equally short, but it’s not.
the one thing that was befuddling to me, is that there wasn't a single smart company during the mist of the great recession (as far as I could tell) .
What I mean by that is, when a company has massive layoffs, presumably they keep their best employees. This gives other companies insight into what you have left, and they can now poach your best. likewise if you don't lay off, you dont convey that data to competitors.
If I were CEO during such a recession, I'd hire, not fire.
"What I mean by that is, when a company has massive layoffs, presumably they keep their best employees. "
That's typically not how it's done. Most layoffs are by department or division and there is not much consideration for individual performance. Some people with a good network may be able to jump to a safe position.
I don't think that's a safe presumption, especially in the case of mass layoffs. Often every team will have to shed people, so if a whole team is made up of high performers they'll still have to get rid of good people. Then you've got the cost cutting nature of laying people off, sometimes the highest paid will be the ones with a target on their back.
The high performers are often on duties that have them directing the future of the company, things like planning to upgrade/rewrite that old legacy system. When it comes to layoffs they'll be let go while poorer performers maintaining the old system will be kept because they're needed for immediate operations.
Companies will layoff anyone not involved with "keeping the light's on", that doesn't correlate with individual performance.
"This gives other companies insight into what you have left"
I don't really understand... surely, you know exactly who the best employees in your competitors are just by searching for senior positions in Linkedin?
The company may want to keep its best employees, but those employees are by definition the best equipped to leave, the most likely to have experienced lay-offs before, the most expensive, and the most knowledgeable about the financial state of the company. Most of them are going to hop on LinkedIn the moment lay-offs are announced.
Very similar to equities purchases. You want to be buying “when there’s blood in the streets” (heavily distressed markets) not at the market peak.
This takes enough management savvy and foresight to manage your cash flow and reserves to enable absorbing talent from disadvantaged firms during times of economic uncertainty.
when a company has massive layoffs, presumably they keep their best employees
That is not how it works. Firstly positions are made redundant, not people. If the company is closing the widget factory, it doesn’t matter who is the best or the worst widget-wrangler, those positions simply don’t exist anymore.
Secondly you can’t hire wranglers just for the sake of it, you need demand for widgets in the market, and if there is such demand why did your competitor close the factory?
What good is lower unemployment if no one can live from their job?
I know it's a problem in Germany, but from what I've heard it's a lot worse in the US, with people working 2 or more jobs...
[+] [-] imh|7 years ago|reply
They show that even within a specific (job-title, company, state) tuple, higher unemployment led to higher skills requirements, in a probably-causal way.
That doesn't mean the skills gap is a lie, or any other nefarious bad behavior on the company's part. The study doesn't go into that.
[+] [-] partiallypro|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wbl|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sonnyblarney|7 years ago|reply
Can you explain the causal bit?
The sneaky detail that stands out to me is that this is the 'share' or '%' of jobs with high skills went down, but not necessarily the absolute number of high skills jobs.
So during a recession, there are not a lot of low-end jobs available. As things warm up, more Ops. needed, so more jobs.
But the 'long term view' R&D jobs may have always been there in absolute terms. They might have only changed in relative terms because of the number of regular jobs going up and down.
It implies more causality between 'regular jobs' and 'the economy' but maybe less so between 'high end jobs' and 'the economy'.
Ergo, the 'skills' gap still exists - companies still want high end folks and can't find them. Which makes sense as well because I believe one could crudely say there is a 'skills gap' - anyone hiring high-end people can feel this.
[+] [-] tabtab|7 years ago|reply
There are rumors such ads are written so companies can officially reject citizens for H1B visa workers. However, Hanlon's Razor could be at play.
[+] [-] toast0|7 years ago|reply
a) a very specific list of requirements, that just happens to match a specific person. Definitely not any choices of language in the list, but possibly degree or equivalent experience if necessary.
b) be posted in a newspaper and on their main jobs page, but not widely elsewhere
c) ask for submissions by mail only, by a certain date
B and C are more telling than A though, because a weird list of requirements could be just someone weird, but narrowly posting and requiring applications by mail are part of exactly following the rules for demonstrating lack of candidates.
[+] [-] rossdavidh|7 years ago|reply
Also, I get the impression hiring managers start with what they would like, and out of a long-bred instinct to have an opening bargaining position that's more than they actually want, they put down too many things.
Of course, if no offers come in, and they don't actually have an H1B or other candidate in mind, then maybe they go back and reduce what they're asking for, which would lead directly to this article's conclusion.
[+] [-] tenpies|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otreblatercero|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knoxa2511|7 years ago|reply
Factfulness is . . . recognizing when a story talks about a gap, and remembering that this paints a picture of two separate groups, with a gap in between. The reality is often not polarized at all. Usually the majority is right there in the middle, where the gap is supposed to be.
To control the gap instinct, look for the majority.
Beware comparisons of averages. If you could check the spreads you would probably find they overlap. There is probably no gap at all.
Beware comparisons of extremes. In all groups, of countries or people, there are some at the top and some at the bottom. The difference is sometimes extremely unfair. But even then the majority is usually somewhere in between, right where the gap is supposed to be.
The view from up here. Remember, looking down from above distorts the view. Everything else looks equally short, but it’s not.
[+] [-] ralusek|7 years ago|reply
What is presented here, that employers have the luxury of choosiness when unemployment is high, makes perfect sense.
[+] [-] autokad|7 years ago|reply
What I mean by that is, when a company has massive layoffs, presumably they keep their best employees. This gives other companies insight into what you have left, and they can now poach your best. likewise if you don't lay off, you dont convey that data to competitors.
If I were CEO during such a recession, I'd hire, not fire.
[+] [-] maxxxxx|7 years ago|reply
That's typically not how it's done. Most layoffs are by department or division and there is not much consideration for individual performance. Some people with a good network may be able to jump to a safe position.
[+] [-] flukus|7 years ago|reply
I don't think that's a safe presumption, especially in the case of mass layoffs. Often every team will have to shed people, so if a whole team is made up of high performers they'll still have to get rid of good people. Then you've got the cost cutting nature of laying people off, sometimes the highest paid will be the ones with a target on their back.
The high performers are often on duties that have them directing the future of the company, things like planning to upgrade/rewrite that old legacy system. When it comes to layoffs they'll be let go while poorer performers maintaining the old system will be kept because they're needed for immediate operations.
Companies will layoff anyone not involved with "keeping the light's on", that doesn't correlate with individual performance.
[+] [-] AznHisoka|7 years ago|reply
I don't really understand... surely, you know exactly who the best employees in your competitors are just by searching for senior positions in Linkedin?
[+] [-] strken|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|7 years ago|reply
This takes enough management savvy and foresight to manage your cash flow and reserves to enable absorbing talent from disadvantaged firms during times of economic uncertainty.
[+] [-] gaius|7 years ago|reply
That is not how it works. Firstly positions are made redundant, not people. If the company is closing the widget factory, it doesn’t matter who is the best or the worst widget-wrangler, those positions simply don’t exist anymore.
Secondly you can’t hire wranglers just for the sake of it, you need demand for widgets in the market, and if there is such demand why did your competitor close the factory?
[+] [-] sitkack|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wink|7 years ago|reply