You are correct, shehzadi, that it plays both ways.  Employers that want to get the most for the least clearly diminish the value of the worker. Either side can try to take advantage.

Skilled workers are the engine for competitive business.  Hopefully, we will increasingly recognize the distinction in trained and skilled workers that are "professionals" and pay them accordingly.  Everyone wins when we do that.  Business gains a competitive edge with knowledgeable and effective workers and workers gain a market for their dedication and performance.

DHagar

I think we need to demand and supply equation in mind before discussing this imbroglio. It's a fact that the market of skilled professionals is saturted in certain regions. People are under-employed and thus not compensated for their skills and qualifications. IT industry is especially becoming a victim of it gradually as more students are getting graduated from training institutions at an humungous pace. When we have plethora of professionals in certain fields then the employer would bring the wages down. He would prefer to get the maximum by paying less. This would inturn maximize his output and at the same time reduce cost of production. Some of the companies take this plea of 'skill gap' and pay their workers less. It is incumbent of the employer to make an effort to reduce this skill gap with the help of traning and skill enhancements exercises. The excuse of paying less is flimsy and lame !!!

Sometimes it's not just better pay, but room for professional development.  We recently lost someone because she was bored:  it wasn't the pay, but the fact that she didn't feel she would really advance her skills any more working for the company.

In the company I worked for previously, we lost someone because he also wanted to move upwards (as well as wanting more pay).

I think for some organizations which don't need ever-developing skills in a particular area this is fine, but they should then organize themselves in such a way that they are prepared to replace the person on a regular basis.

What I think would be more efficient however would be to give the person a chance to grow and maybe take on duties that would make them more valuable -- not advancing until they're in a position where they're incapable, but simply ensuring the person is in a position that creates the most value.

So a hot-shot designer whose work has flair but is maybe a little disorganized never becomes a manager, but maybe instead is given a greater budget, more critical projects, or room to experiment istead?

I like your view, smkinoshita.  We need to create a competition for real value - then employers will want to pay for the skills they need.  Let's hope analytics moves us that direction.

DHagar

Money plays a huge part whether some skilled individuals take a job or not. On the side of the firm, people should be treated as an investment. Companies can only go so far as where its employees can go. Most people also know what they're worth so if you want them to stay, you better make it worth their while as well. 

@nimantha.da -- It's not a matter of 'fair' it's a matter of effeciency.  The argument is that it is ultimately more costly for a business to underpay skilled workers and the cry about a 'skills shortage' than it would be to hire skilled workers and actually get the job done right.

I doubt that the businesses who try to get skilled work done on the cheap have stepped back to look at the additional costs in terms of time and error when they fill them with interns, or realize exactly how much it costs when a skilled worker leaves for greener pastures.  It's a matter of seeing the true costs and value.

Dont you think its unfair ? I feel the skill gap will not get narrowed simply because of this reason. As at now there are so many skilled workers who do odd under paid jobs just to earn cash for living.

You just hit the nail on the head, @DHagar.

A huge mistake I've seen people make is look at the costs instead of the value.  If the employers actually know the value of the work being done, as well as the potential costs if it's not done properly, then it's much easier to justify the costs as well as provide a good measuring stick to know if they've hired the right person.

I find a lot of problems come from not defining the problem, expectations and goals properly.  I get the feeling this could contribute to underpaying and the short-sightedness -- it's the kind of thing good analytics tends to reveal in my experience.  Really defining expectations, goals and problems can reveal exactly what the real costs and values are.