text \doc\web\98\04\softlabr.txt
image \clip\98\06\softlab1.tif, softlab2.tif
March 1998 Computer Source Magazine (Seattle area free computer
journal) Under the surface: Is the pool of programming talent too
small?  Is There A Shortage Of High Tech Workers?


"I think there's something behind that argument, the ITAA's antics
notwithstanding. As proof, I quote Matloff's report : " any competent
programmer can learn Java and be productive in it within a couple of
weeks '' Really? Then why aren't these unemployed midcareer COBOL
programmers learning it? The answer is simple (Java really isn't that
easy), and this statement proves at least some unfamiliarity about
the topic at hand. "


If you listen hard may even hear the head of a software company crying


Software companies nationwide are complaining that the pool of
programming talent, as well as that of related fields such as
testing, is too small, and that there needs to be a concerted effort
to raise awareness among educators, update aging hardware in schools,
and even get them to destigmatize the role of the programmer us a
class of nerds and geeks This argument v as brought forth in
mid-January by the information Technology Associations of America on
organization mode up of 11,000 software companies and interests, at
conference on information technology in Berkeley, CA.


The ITAA study blames empty classroom seats and a poor professional
image among other key factors for computer science-related talent
shortages They estimate the.core computer workforce at 3,354,000,
including programmers, analysts and computer engineers However, they
soy, some 346,000 positions remain open, a 10% shortfall Their sample
is based on almost l 500 companies with 100 or more employees, both
within and outside the information technology field 


CIO Magazine's year-end issue echoes the ITAA's concerns, its cover
blaring "will you survive the IS staffing crisis The issue has a few
more reasons chief information officers ore tearing their hair out,
such as the reservations of human resources officers to increase so
cries as rapidly as the market demands Their logic: why give
programmers 20% raises each year when their nontechnical coworkers
ore getting one-fifth that? (For its port, the magazine suggests IS
departments should handle their own HR because the technical job
market and its pay scales can't be reconciled with traditional jobs
to the bean counters.)


As a result of the conference, word spread in the media that geeks
were in demand. Even President Clinton got in on the act, coiling for
millions in increased federal spending on computers in education on
Internet-based job bank a-d a PR facelift for the trade. When this
stony broke, hundreds of thousands of developers rejoiced. Here they
were being evangelized as the workhorses of American business, a $500
billion industry expected to continue growing for more rapidly than
any other field, with salaries increasing at an astronomical 15% per
annum. Not since Jeff Goldblum destroyed the mothership in
Independence Day'. were programmers seen in such a heroic light


Mare to the point, though, were the dollar figures IT things continue
at the present rate, gearheads could expect to see their salaries
double every six years, and with the panicked look in the ITAA's
eyes, job security seemed assured A programmer would have the pick of
the litter, a steady flow of job offers from around the globe, and
sample nectar and ambrosia atop Mount Olympus before hopping into the
Beemer far the morning commute.


Imagine the hangover one might have had on January 15. That day, a
report with the ominous title 'Debunking the Myth of a Desperate
Software Labor Shortage was presented at the ITAA conference. Author
Norman Matloff, a computer science professor at the University of
California at Davis, is highly skeptical of the ITAA's assessment,
and called the organization's motivation into question If programmers
are so rare and valuable, he says, why are companies like Microsoft
hiring a mere 2% of their applicants?


The answer, according to Matloff, is twofold:


1 ) Luring hot skills such as Java with high salaries isn't as
cost-effective as hiring a person with good programming skills and
training them Likewise, companies are harvesting narrow bands of
skill sets, like Java and Web development, from resumes without
paying attention to the most important element to the job: strong
general programming talent. The skills, says Matloff, ore nothing
without the talent to back them up in the long term


2) Because companies recruit skilled workers away from one another,
employees can leave a company at horribly inopportune times Because
of this environment, and programmers who capitalize on it to increase
their salaries by moving from job to job, employers ore paying too
much for fly-by-night laborers


Dr. Matloff further suggests that there is a bias in the computer
industry against those over 35 years of age, particularly those
without the current skills He cites companies like Intel and
Microsoft who he claims go out of their


-way to recruit recent college graduates (with on emphasis on recent)
rather than retain more expensive midcareer developers The upshot:
the industry claims there is a shortage of workers when what they
really mean is that there is a shortage of cheap workers


The report, presented to a smaller than expected crowd, naturally was
on affront to the ITAA who called the researcher paranoid and
questioned his credibility. (Matloff told the San Francisco Chronicle
that he believes the labor group conspired to move a large number of
the conference attendees to a gathering across town to avoid the
report). Others argued the report was misleading, confused, even
bordering on intellectual dishonesty



I think there's something behind that argument, the ITAA's antics
notwithstanding. As proof, I quote Matloff's report : " any competent
programmer can learn Java and be productive in it within a couple of
weeks '' Really? Then why aren't these unemployed midcareer COBOL
programmers learning it? The answer is simple (Java really isn't that
easy), and this statement proves at least some unfamiliarity about
the topic at hand. More such misinformation exists about the facility
of today's programming languages and the ability of "competent"
programmers to adopt to environments in constant flux. It suggests a
fundamental difference between the ivory tower a nd the trenches
Internet time, or the constant flaw of new information to replace and
augment the old, is what drives the developers of this decade mare
than understanding of the basic structures of a language.  Surely a
programmer can learn Java's structure in a couple weeks, but its the
ability to stay with it and adapt, as the releases grow larger and
faster than any programming tool ever has, that provides value


Still, it is refreshing to hear someone shouting that the emperor has
no clothes It's clear that the I agenda do is to keep labor costs
low, and as a result, messages like this need to be taken with a
grain of salt Surely there is a need far college-educated developers,
but their purpose should be to provide quality development skills,
not to replace more experienced laborers in order to save money
Another result of Internet net time is the need for programmers to
selfstudy and retool themselves, because if they don't, there appears
to be a goad number of younger programmers eager to take their place
In such a situation, the labor casts, while they seem dangerously
inflated, are justified by the amount of work expected of employees
just to continue doing their jab It's already a rare, doe-eyed
developer who expects the gold watch and retirement roast, and the
ITAA appears to be hoping far that breed's extinction