Data Scientist at major company here that was pounding nails in construction circa 2005. This to me is no surprise. At the time I was early 20s and needed that job that would be sort of an apprenticeship. The problem was, these jobs just didn't exist. The young guys (me) got laid of every winter to keep on as many senior crew members as possible and every spring the jobs were less skilled and more labor (think demolition vs. the skills needed for finish work). Young workers need a solid 5-7 years to develop those skills, but from the years 2005 (yea, that early things started slowing down in construction) to 2015 we didn't really train anyone new. My story was a common one; unable to find work in the trades, I eventually gave up and looked for work elsewhere. So there is a gap in the training of skilled labor. How long will it take to recover? Easy, the same 5-10 years we took a break from training new labor.
Your career path (and its determinants) mirror mine to an uncanny degree. Nonetheless, I disagree that there's a long-term shortage of skilled labor in the US in general, or that any short-term shortage has its root cause in underdeveloped supply channels. I saw first hand how easy it was to procure non-union labor, even at the height of construction boom circa 2004 (when I left construction trades) or 2015 (when I left the construction industry as a licensed engineer). Like yourself, I couldn't compete (or refused to put up with) what's essentially become a migrant work force. While it does take about as long to become a skilled carpenter as it takes to become a software developer (and a strikingly similar mindset too), it's infinitely easier to employ migrant skilled workers, the workers are highly mobile, there's a ready supply of them anywhere there's active construction going on, and everyone in the construction business -- from employers to clients -- has de facto acquiesced in the status quo where work permits are not enforced. Union labor is indeed rather inelastic during the periods of boom and bust, but it's also chronically underemployed, historically shrinking and in the big scheme of things a tiny portion of the overall labor.
I was a land surveyor from 2000-2008, it's a subset of civil engineering. But unlike CE, there's a lot of field work and a small amount of office work. In my case I'd say it was anywhere from 80-90% field and 10-20% office. But even though surveying is hardly unskilled labour and usually requires a degree, it was still subject to the same effects the grandparent comment mentions: constant layoffs in winter, culminating in 2008 and the subprime mortgage crash (which, surprisingly to some, affected commercial property) when all 12 staff surveyors at the office where I worked were laid off on the same day for good, with no expectation of being called back ever again.
It will be no surprise to anyone reading this that land surveying is dead now, especially two/three-man team land surveying. Nobody was trained during those "gap" periods, and meanwhile the older generation of baby-boom surveyors (of which there were many) retired. Furthermore, LiDAR, scanning, survey-grade GPS, and robotic total stations meant that some engineering firms cut corners and took a chance by sending CEs out into the field solo to do the field work. That dynamic ensures no training of new surveyors in the field is possible.
So what are you saying? Surveyor pay is booming now, or no surveying is needed any more? ('Needed' as in, people are actually paying to get it done, not 'needed' as in 'people theorize that it would be useful')
The point I'm trying to make is in support of the grandparent comment in this thread: not many young people choose land surveying as a career because even though it's hugely needed and necessary to create the built environment, it's boom or bust. You can't be trained properly and stay in the job if you're getting laid off every winter. And since LS is protected by a guild (professional licensure), this drives prices up.
Yes I got that. My point was: as far as I know, surveyors aren't raking in $250k plus salaries (probably <$100? You probably know better than I do). And also as far as I know, not all building has stopped because of a lack of surveyors. So clearly, there are still enough surveyors, potentially using more productive work methods than they used to to make up for the reduction in labor supply. People in this thread (like GP) are spinning narratives of real 'choke points' in skill supply; for which there is simply no evidence on the ground. Sure, some project managers' lives are harder because they have to account for longer lead times and more uncertainty on resource availability; and costs go up here and there; but in the end, these are simple issues of supply and demand that don't even register over the medium (5-10 year) term.
'Labor shortage' is always 'I can't find people at the price I originally thought I'd have to pay', modulo some time lag dependent on the exact skill set (i.e., training time).
> While it does take about as long to become a skilled carpenter as it takes to become a software developer (and a strikingly similar mindset too).
Sorry for the non-contributing anecdote but I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. Once you start to understand things more clearly as a system and how to work on that system you come to realize it's a lot of tacking things together any way possible.
I agree. The ability to employ people from just about anywhere makes demand very sensitive to any wage increases.
Further, the economy doing well when people see wage increases reinforces that marginal increases in income for the 99% highly benefit the national output.
