Re: Modern Marvels

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:fuger0$o05$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Wilson wrote:
>>
>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:fug08h$982$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>> news:fufp8b$a0q$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Victor Kan" <victor.kan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>>>>
news:5523c98f-b1b9-4a71-877e-9a893f3e32ed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 8:16 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The starting wage for a civil engineer with a graduate degree is
a
>>>>>>>> larger US city is about $40/year, or less than a third of what a 
>>>>>>>> doctor
>>>>>>>> or lawyer would make.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kinda bizarre though--according to this page, Civil Engineers with
a
>>>>>>> Bachelors have a higher average starting salary than those with a
>>>>>>> Masters degree.  Wow, Petroleum engineers too!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know, but if I had to venture a guess I'd say civil
engineers 
>>>>>> who have hung around in college to get masters degrees and other 
>>>>>> advanced degrees probably don't have the reputation of being the
"can 
>>>>>> do" types entering in the field.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, there is a shortage of civil engineers with graduate 
>>>>> degrees. However, the shortage results in more work for the same
pay, 
>>>>> not higher wages. The level playing field imagined by the
libertarian 
>>>>> free market advocates only exists in theory; in the real world the 
>>>>> system is always gamed to someones advantage.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not getting it.  If the shortage of civil engineers with graduate

>>>> degrees isn't driving up their wages, but only resulting in a greater

>>>> work load for them, then I have to wonder if their numerical shortage

>>>> isn't somewhat imagined in some quarters.  It appears the present
work 
>>>> load is getting done with existing personnel. What am I missing?
>>>
>>> Engineering is an exempt profession, so an engineer working 70 hours
per 
>>> week can be paid the same as one working 40 hours per week. When the 
>>> cost of benefits are included, there is a great incentive to NOT hire 
>>> more engineers.
>>>
>>> Non-exempt employees get paid "time and a half" [1] by the FLSA, so at

>>> some point it becomes financially advantageous for the employer to
hire 
>>> more workers.
>>>
>>> [1] Unless covered by a collective bargaining agreement that has a 
>>> different provision.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>
>> I take your words to mean that you believe there is a shortage of 
>> engineers in your firm, but your employer doesn't necessarily buy into 
>> your hypothesis.
>
> No, the shortage is constantly being commented on by personnel
departments 
> of larger firms and by trade organizations. People leave the profession
or 
> decide not to go into it in the first place due to lower compensation 
> and/or work expectations.
>
> -- 

It always seems I'm missing something here.  If there is a truly a
shortage 
and employers who need to hire additional engineers have to compete for
them 
from a smaller pool of  those available, then how come that doesn't tend
to 
drive wages up?    Claiming existing engineers have to work harder and 
longer won't answer this question because it only tends to increase the 
shortage as you point out above.