Is Your Engineering Job Safe?
What do you do with a highly paid engineer or scientist who’s over 50?
That question was posed to me individually in recent weeks by several engineers and scientists who have passed the half-century mark. Two decades ago, these highly trained and experienced people were guaranteed a future inside of large companies—and could continue to make contributions for as long as they could stand the everyday rigors of corporate life.
Today, unless they’re working in niches that are short on expertise—think analog or power management or wireless security—they’re at the whim of a global marketplace. That means they can be replaced by someone who’s paid a fraction of their salary in a city on the other side of the globe. In some cases, they can be replaced by four or five people for the same money.
Welcome to the global economy. While globalization opens new markets for companies, it also creates competition on a global scale. Companies no longer use teams just from the United States or Europe to design complex products. Intel is betting the bank on development teams in Israel and India, for example. Others are doing the same in places like Romania, Russia, Vietnam, and even the farther reaches of China, where labor is even cheaper than in Shanghai or Shenzhen.
All of this makes the argument for extending visas of students in the United States particularly complex and somewhat irritating to rank-and-file employees. On the one hand, having young talent in the pool is always a good thing, no matter where it comes from. This country’s economy was built on an influx of immigrants and fresh ideas from around the globe. On the other, any more competition for over-50 employees is sure to tilt the balance away from productivity and into shell-shock mode.
There has been much written about a jobless recovery since 2001. In reality, many jobs have been created, most of them at lower pay and many of them on the other side of the globe. So what’s the solution?
First, it’s up to employees with skills to keep them fresh, current, and to judge the market shifts. Being an engineer or a scientist is no longer good enough. Neither is experience in a market that isn’t growing. Building a skill set that takes advantage of new markets—and keeping abreast of global changes—is vital. That means every engineer and scientist needs to expand their horizons and start looking at new opportunities, and then think about opportunities beyond that one and the one after.
Second, it’s up to companies to keep their top employees highly trained and motivated. As any good manager knows—and the emphasis is on the word ‘good’—top talent is vital to being competitive. Growing it is almost always a better alternative to buying it. Just like buying other companies, integration takes time, effort and lots of money. Pumping money into education to update skill sets is vital. So is sharing of potential opportunities with employees so they can understand the changes around them instead of going into defensive mode, which negatively impacts productivity
Third, it’s always a good idea for engineers and scientists to keep their pulse on the market. If they’re not getting a fair shake from U.S. companies in a global market, consider looking at international companies trying to expand into the U.S. and Europe. Lenovo hired most of its U.S. staff from the United States. So did Samsung, and so did most of the Japanese companies that expanded into the United States and Europe. It’s up to U.S. and European companies to keep their employees happy. If not, there are plenty of opportunities in a global market available with a minimal amount of retooling.
With a little self marketing and some global understanding, the real winners in all of this could well be the experienced engineers and scientists. What do you think?
Ed Sperling
Editor in Chief, Electronic News
cack commented:
CC commented:
Tony V commented:
Components Salesman commented:
Shawn commented:
Gloria commented:
Singh, V. P. commented:
Jim G commented:
anonymous commented:
TN1 MBA from Canada commented:
Debra S. commented:
FLE commented:
Mike Korkowski commented:
RonW commented:
SteveW commented:
Dr Bob commented:
CM in Taiwan commented:
Ken Best commented:
BobbyMoe commented:
Another Pessimist commented:
Stimpy commented:
Barry Gray commented:
Kerry McClenahan commented:
Gus Calabrese commented:
30pack commented:
Gary Petty commented:
Benny commented:
realist commented:
Richard commented:
Dave Canterbury commented:
x bell labs guy commented:
David Hoyle commented:
Dave Cochran commented:
JoeG commented:
ImEngineer commented:















