What's this?
> When companies complain that they "can't find qualified candidates," they really mean people willing to work cheap enough.
Well maybe they can't find anyone who will work cheaply enough to justify hiring them based on how much they will generate the company? That's just economics.
An acronym invented by Jim Cramer: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Google
> Maybe they can't find anyone who will work cheaply enough to justify hiring them based on how much they will generate the company
While we're on the topic of FANG, these companies post profits in the billions of dollars. They could afford to pay their engineers 5x what they get now, if they were so inclined.
As you said, economics (read: the profit motive) means they will actually pay them what the market demands (and no more). As rational actors (again thinking with our economics hat on), big tech companies would love it if the market for SWEs were a little less hot, and they could get away with paying less. Why make 1 billion in profit when you could make 2 billion, amirite??
So it's not a conspiracy theory to suppose that a big part of what motivates the "we need more STEM grads!" narrative is a desire to saturate the job market and thereby depress engineer salaries.
I own stock in all the FANG companies, I would be beyond pissed if their costs when up 5x or even 2x just because they decided they wanted to overpay employees.
These companies are businesses, they are not a big happy family or a charity. When you work for them, you agree to a price for your services. Go to work, do your thing, and go home. That’s it. An employee does not need to be compensated anymore than what the market is willing to bear, and on average the payout is usually a bit less anyway.
But obviously at some point it just becomes not profitable to employ someone to do that job at that pay rate, even if you want the job done.
But typically the companies who complain the loudest about "not finding qualified engineers" are not small consulting shops, but big firms that are already very profitable. They _could_ afford additional engineers, but they'd rather make another $1 on their dividends. It's often just a question of priorities.
It's mostly used in reference to their stocks.
As for your edit: you could be right, but if that's the case, they really should say that. Because not being able to find qualified people is different than not being able to find affordable people.