The largely false issue of “Fachkräftemangel”, an alleged lack of qualified workers/professionals, is of considerable importance in Germany and, by analogy, in many other places—and very worthy of a text. On the other hand, I have so many other tasks of various priorities that I can make no statement as to when a serious discussion will follow.
As a compromise, I give just an executive summary and two excursions for now, leaving a fuller discussion for a later day.
Also note several texts from my Wordpress days that deal with overlapping topics, e.g. [1], [2], and various linked or back-linked texts.
The word it self is a compound of “Fachkraft” (I am not aware of a direct English equivalent, but something like “specialist”, “expert”, or “professional” might give the right idea) and “Mangel” (a deficit or lack of something); something like “specialist deficit” might, then, serve as a translation of the overall expression.
In Germany, complaints abound of an alleged “Fachkräftemangel”, a lack of qualified workers/professionals (“Fachkräfte”), which is legitimate in some fields and illegitimate in most fields.
There are at least two problems:
Firstly, a superficial view on the debate might give the impression that the (alleged) deficits concern the likes of physicians and engineers, while, in reality, the problems usually refer to those on much lower qualification levels. At an extreme, I have heard the term applied to a lack of truck drivers, and it might then, on the outside, be relevant to speak of a prosaic “labor deficit”.
Secondly, Germany has a problem with artificial entry barriers and switches from one field to another, which largely arise through over-regulation, the Azubi (think “apprentice”) system, and the power of various quasi- and mega-guilds (IHKs, Handwerkskammer, and similar). Indeed, if these quasi- and mega-guilds had their will, no-one would be allowed to perform such a trivial task as being a cashier in a supermarket without a three-year “degree” as “Kaufmann”/“Kauffrau” (for men/women).
The result, then, is that many who might be both willing and able to perform a certain job are prevented from doing so—no wonder that it is hard to fill positions.
Related, but secondary, issues for later expansion include:
That the “industry” can benefit from making false claims about “Fachkräftemangel”, in order to artificially increase the number of workers in a given field and create a corresponding downwards pressure on remuneration.
That formal qualifications do not necessarily say much about ability, including factors like intelligence and diligence, which implies that this type of trivial (yet lengthy and or costly) qualifications can both keep the suited out and the unsuited in. (Also note an overlapping idea in the following excursion.)
That the “solution” sought is rarely based on market forces, e.g. salaries set by supply and demand, but by government interventions of various types.
That a deficit in unqualified areas (that does not deserve, but is still often given, the label “Fachkräftemangel”) is to some part caused by the many who go to university for poor reasons or without being “college material”. These do not only artificially remove themselves from the labor market for several additional years, but might later be unwilling to take jobs that require lesser qualifications. The same applies, to some degree, to high-school students (note that high school was an exception, say, a hundred years ago). Note the drop in average working years if someone exits the labor market at 65 after entering it at, say, 15, 20, or 25.
That many fields/professions/whatnot suffer from an artificially low productivity, including excessive amounts of administrative work (often due to government or other regulations) and deliberate slowness (e.g. to make a construction contract last longer or through lack of motivation). Moreover, many fields see working hours cut well below the 40 hours/week that has been something of a norm within my lifetime (and which, in turn, is far lower than many historical working weeks).
In (likely) the context of U.S. construction, I once encountered the employer claim that there were many who applied for jobs, but that too few of those had certain key qualifications. Examples of such key qualifications were given and included the likes (pardon my memory) of:
Being able to get to work on Monday morning instead of sleeping off a hangover.
Being able to follow simple instructions.
Being able to read and write short messages.
This gives yet another perspective on the overall issue, including that a true lack of suitable applicants might be present even when there is a nominal bounty and that formal qualifications are far from everything.
Indeed, I have observed similar issues with a poor mentality, lack of professionalism, etc., in my years as a software developer. True, the issues are rarely so basic, but consider flaws like:
Failing to properly learn the (programming) language that one uses.
Unwillingness to adhere to the local style guide.
Writing unit tests that do not actual test anything of value.