This article doesn't seem to match up with reality. There are so many companies out there looking for talented developers, it's staggering.
And I'm not mentioning the millions of liberal arts majors who used to be quietly employed but now are finding that many companies simply don't want or need them.
That's why I think the recession and unemployment will persist for a very long time- many of those lost jobs just aren't coming back.
Everyone wants talented developers because companies typically pay them only incrementally more than lousy developers even though they're vastly more productive.
Perhaps the reason people are having trouble finding jobs and companies are having trouble finding people is because both sides are realizing this but companies are still offering the same terms which the talented developers are rejecting either by seeking out the companies offering more pay, the companies offering better projects and teams or by rejecting the system entirely and starting their own companies where they can be the ones that reap the rewards of their efforts rather than the often disproportionately paid executive staff.
Come on. I know the general disdain for liberal arts amongst this crowd, but couldn't you instead pick on, oh I don't know, those who never even went to college or even finished high school? The unemployment rate for those with college degrees _of any kind_ is 4.5%. Among non-degree holders over 9%, and among non-diploma holders over 12%. Yet, you're assuming it's all those philosophy majors that make up the bulk of the unemployed?
Case in point, I'm an English major who has been working for a major mid-sized public software company for over 8 years now making about 40k above the median US household income, not including bonuses or stock options. Believe me when I say I'm not one of the luckier ones, as I have colleagues in the same field (technical publication writing, course developers, or technology journalists) that make US$110000 or more depending on the region and experience level.
Employers look to a degree - _any_ degree - for proof that a candidate has discipline and is a generalist who can adapt to fast-moving actions and targets all under tight deadlines; a person who, through creativity _and_ technical prowess, can solve business problems and work with clients, partners, and fellow associates. That seriously can't _just_ be CS majors. In fact, what makes you think you're safe, if _FTA_ it says you'll have to bring more to the table than just a CS degree with some C++ or Java skills? You're just as vulnerable if you're an average coder than if you're an average desktop support jockey or technical writer.
As for the unemployment rate, you come on. Quoting that 4.5% figure is intellectually dishonest when discussing the value of a degree NOW, in the current economy.
People who were lucky to get a job years before the current recession are mostly doing OK and surviving layoffs,etc.
For RECENT college graduates, the employment picture is far bleaker. The truth is, employers are not hiring at nearly the rate they were before. I've seen the unemployment rate for recent college graduates(aged 22-25) cited at anywhere from 10% to 30%. 80% of college graduates finish school without a job offer in hand.
If it's so easy to get a job with a liberal arts degree, I would love to refer you to dozens of my friends who are desperate for any job at this point and can't find ANYTHING. I'm sure you'll be able to help them out.
As for your friends, I never said it wasn't going to be easy, I just said they'd have a better chance than your claim of lib arts grads being the bulk of the persona non grata in the workforce. There is just WAY too many non degree holders that make up the bulk of the jobless for it to be remotely true.
They're also trying to take advantage of the economic situation to lowball those talented developers -- many of whom are leaving the industry or starting their own companies, or in some cases (like me) both.
Where I am now, we've hired a few folks that the tech team wasn't very keen on, because they were the least useless candidates we could find, not because they're talented.
The media are conveniently ignoring the fact that a surprisingly large fraction of the people who are unable to find tech jobs weren't qualified for them in the first place, and only got hired because the employers were desperate. Unfortunately, the ones who were never qualified in the first place don't know that (or do but refuse to admit it), and the employers can't tell them apart anyway, so everyone ends up getting the short end of the stick.
The chief hurdles to more robust technology hiring appear to be increasing automation and the addition of highly skilled labor overseas. The result is a mismatch of skill levels here at home: not enough workers with the cutting-edge skills coveted by tech firms, and too many people with abilities that can be duplicated offshore at lower cost.
Nevertheless, many high-tech companies large and small say they are struggling to find highly skilled engineering talent in the United States.
“We are firing up our college recruiting program, enduring all manner of humiliation to try to fill these jobs,” said Glenn Kelman, chief executive of Redfin, an online brokerage agency for buying and selling homes that is based in Seattle and San Francisco. “I do think we’re still chasing them, not the other way around.”
This was the most interesting part of the article to me. Ruby on Rails is relatively obscure. Scaling web sites is relatively obscure. I bet there is a latency, probably inversely proportional to market size, between when a specialized tech skill is originated and when it has disseminated sufficiently that it can be outsourced.
So, there can be a simultaneous shortage and surplus: a shortage of talented developers working with recent technology, and a surplus of talented (and otherwise) developers who are only familiar with older technology.