The Employment Paradox

NOTE: I promise all my posts won't be this long, when I do post, but this is a place where I'm going to look at issues from my perspective, which is usually very deeply examined and a little against-the-grain. Feel free to disagree with me in the comments section, but don't take it personally if I deconstruct your argument. I'll try to make the next one a little more "cool", at least.

Before I get into my theory, let me give you a little background. I have been looking, albeit casually at first, for a full-time job in Software Development (or something related) since November. I completed my Master's in Computer Science in May, while I was doing contract work for a small consulting firm in the Nashville (Tennessee) area. The firm offered me a full-time position, but their benefits weren't really that great and they didn't offer me nearly enough money, on top of the fact that they are moving farther away from where I live (I own my house). Since they only gave me 4 hours to make a decision, I had to say no.

So, I've been looking hard for a real job since early June. And now, well... I'm still looking.

Heres the trouble: the Nashville market is doing relatively poorly in the technology field, supposedly due to this "recession" we're in, which to be honest, probably hasn't had much impact on the technology field anywhere. As a result, all of the companies that need software developers in the Nashville area only want developers that have quite a bit of experience. The problem is, all of those people already have jobs or have moved on to bigger places. In fact, there seems to be a small exodus of experienced developers, which I guess accounts for the large number of jobs that require experience :)

I even had one company interview me, say they thought I was a great fit for the position, and then say they decided to redefine the position to require more experience. Little did they know that they moved from an open market to a stagnating market where I've been watching positions go unfilled for months now.

So, here's the "Employment Paradox" problem, as it applies to a given area (here, Nashville):
A) All companies want developers with experience.
B) All the available developers have little or no experience.
C) The companies won't hire the inexperienced developers.
D) Therefore, the developers can't get experience, so no one can fill the companies' positions.

There's an easy solution to this problem. That solution is hire the inexperienced developers and train them as necessary, or just wait for them to catch up. That negates the whole paradox, because the positions get filled, the developers get experience, and even if some experience-only positions remain, there will soon be more experienced developers to fill them.

There is a better argument for hiring inexperienced developers, however, assuming this is not a management or "domain expert" position. In fact, there are several arguments:
1. Inexperienced developers can be hired cheaper -- MUCH cheaper. He will remain cheaper beyond the point that he becomes an experienced developer in most cases, as people moving to a new company usually ask for more money.
2. An inexperienced, but well educated developer can perform at least 50% of the functions of an experienced developer immediately after being trained on a system. After 6 months, that developer will be able to perform at least 75% of the functions of the experienced developer. After 1 year, you will find little difference between the skill levels of the developers. These are estimates, and often you will find the inexperienced developer to be just as capable as an experienced developer, and you got to train him to do things your way.
3. Inexperienced developers have fewer bad habits than experienced developers and are more likely to ask questions when they are not sure what to do.
4. It is much easier to fill entry level positions with good developers, because more people are qualified to apply. This gives you a better selection. Some "experienced" developers may not be experienced in the specific things you require, but may actually be overqualified for the job, yet you'll miss out on talking to this person.

More importantly with that last item, is that I've worked in the real world around "experienced" developers. I have to say that, while I am pretty skilled for someone with my "lack of experience", you'd be surprised how often the inexperienced developer is more qualified than the developer with experience. By having an arbitrary requirement of 1-2 years of experience, you will be missing out on the opportunity to hire some of the best employees you will ever get, fresh out of college or even graduate school.

So, if anyone out there reading this (hi Mom) is in the position of interviewing candidates for a job, consider lowering your requirements, especially for positions that only require 1-3 years of experience. You might find some bright young individual straight out of the classroom who is the best person for the job. Worst case scenario, you'll end up talking to a few unqualified kids on the phone for 10 minutes, and you'll scare off fewer applicants. And keep in mind that inexperienced is usually just another way to say "trainable".

P.S. Thankfully, other markets, where "defense contractors" tend to hang out (Washington DC, Huntsville, Atlanta, etc.), haven't convinced themselves that they can't handle entry-level computer experts. There's still, as always, at least a trickle of entry-level jobs around these areas. Wish me luck!