May 26th, 2009
When Workforce Planning Meets the Talent Shortage Myth
You don’t hear much about the “Talent Shortage Myth” anymore.
Just a year ago, you could hardly turn around without bumping into overhyped media coverage about how the baby-boom generation was going to be retiring en masse and how this was going to create a huge talent shortage for American business. I didn’t buy this notion then, and of course, that kind of BS is completely laughable now given what has happened to the economy.
In fact, a lot of baby boomers want to stay on the job longer these days given what the recession and economic downturn have done to their IRAs, 401(k)s and other retirement accounts. These are people are a lot like me—boomers who want to work as long as they can, or at least until age 70 so they can maximize their Social Security payout.
But in an odd twist, a lot of boomers are now retiring unexpectedly, and “Instead of seeing older workers staying on the job longer as the economy has worsened, the Social Security system is reporting a major surge in early retirement claims that could have implications for the financial security of millions of baby boomers,” according to a story in the Los Angeles Times.
“Since the current federal fiscal year began Oct. 1, [Social Security retirement] claims have been running 25 percent ahead of last year,” the Times story adds, and “that compares with the 15 percent increase that had been projected as the post-World War II generation reaches eligibility for early retirement, according to Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration.”
This shows you just how hard it is getting a fix on where workers’ heads are and what they might do, and it makes long-range workforce planning extremely difficult. In fact, just last December, a CareerBuilder survey found that 60 percent of workers older than 60 said they planned to postpone retirement and stay on the job.
What has changed, of course, is the economy. While I believe the CareerBuilder survey accurately captured the mood of boomers wanting to continue working back in December, it clearly didn’t anticipate the huge plunge in the economy and job losses in the first quarter of 2009. Yes, a lot of older workers want to keep working, but what do you do if you lose your job, can’t find a new one, and have the Social Security retirement option available?
If you are in that kind of fix, you do what most people would do: You take the retirement money and run, even if that’s not what you planned or wanted to do.
Here’s what is going on, the Times story indicates: “Many of the additional retirements are probably laid-off workers who are claiming Social Security early, despite reduced benefits, because they are under immediate financial pressure, Goss and other analysts believe.” And, the story adds, “The ramifications of the trend are profound for the new retirees, their families, the government and other social institutions that may be called upon to help support them. On top of savings ravaged by the stock market decline and the loss of home equity, many retirees now must make do with Social Security benefits reduced by as much as 25 percent if they retire at age 62 instead of 66.”
This just goes to show you how ridiculous it is trying to make broad-brush assumptions—like baby boomers retiring in a huge wave—given how unpredictable the economy can be. And it just shows again that no matter what part you play in the workforce—employer, manager or down-in the-trenches employee—the smart thinking in this economy continues to be pretty simple: Always hope for the best, but make certain that you prepare for the worst.
Get my latest blog updates and workforce management news by following me on Twitter.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2009/05/26/when-workforce-planning-meets-the-talent-shortage-myth/trackback/
Comments
Post a comment
Blog Index















John, I agree that blanket statements (moreover, myths) regarding “Talent Shortages” resulting from the Boomers ‘mass-exodus’ cannot be accurately projected. As we’ve seen over the last 18 months, there are too many variables for any single person to make an accurate forecast (outside of throwing a dart at the wall simply getting lucky.)
However, there are pockets of markets where there are extreme competitions for talent. For example, consider the paltry number of engineers were graduating each year in the U.S. Yes, ‘Engineering’ is broad-based, however at least it is more granular than evaluating things from an aggregate level. When we start cutting deeper into the engineering numbers, the dearth of graduating engineering talent is unsettling (i.e. aerospace, etc.)
Given GM’s bankruptcy, we’ll have a minimum of 20k+ assembly-line workers hitting the open labor market soon. However, will these individuals be engineering or designing cars? No, not likely. They are transactional workers used to the assembly-line model that so many consultants in the Recruiting and HR Space are trying to popularize in an effort to sell more technology, services, and solutions designed to improve the efficiency of each station in the assembly-line. [Note: The truth, however, is that there is little relationship between efficiency and output/results.]
So, in the aggregate, most of the silver-tsunami claims were hot air . . . but there are still intense skirmishes for niche talent in corners of the market. It’s just that these competitions are more clandestine and special-operations centric than a list of “hot jobs” on a career site.
Posted by: Joshua Letourneau | June 2nd, 2009 at 8:21 am
The great thing about demographic trends is that they are not affected by trivial things like economics, or whether or not we believe them. Canadian data, going back before the Great Depression (yes, we had one here too), shows that less than 1% of the work force remains after the age of 65. Of course, prior to that age, it’s a crapshoot as to what people are going to do. But you can take the 65 cut-off to the bank. At best that gives companies five more years or so of cheap, experienced, competent workers. Since it takes 20 years to create someone like that you can do the math.
Posted by: Kim Bechtel | June 2nd, 2009 at 12:07 pm