I think companies are mainly window shopping for that FOA employee. It boils down to if companies are losing more money by not having an employee sitting in an empty chair, they will quickly find someone.
My previous company didn't train, didn't mentor, and most of the time hired every position "ad-hoc", meaning the specifications were made up on the fly according to the tastes and perceived needs of the hiring manager. Professionals within the company either became entrenched, or for the unfortunate ones identified as high-potential, they were put on an "up or out" path. Ironically, the result was to drive out many talented key persons, create a hiring gap, and gut the company of badly needed skills. A paradigm shift is required in most companies to have a multi-faceted pipeline of talent--develop talent within, without creating unnecessary career risk for those willing to try new challenges, link with universities & other talent sources and develop new hires from interns at least two years before graduation, and apply what seems oxymoronic--a standardized but flexible hiring and careeer path approach. The latter consists of standard job descriptions and grades, and professionals are hired into the path and grade based on their merits, and then take on particular tasks and grow within the company; those that do well advance to higher grades, those that don't either plateau out, exit, or move to another path. The all or nothing paradigm most companies are in is hurting US innovation and competitiveness.
Geeze, you should see the resumes and interviews we get. And, it isn't because of the pay. I've seen the other side of this. And, it's no wonder companies just give up and contract to "other countries".
You know how you want to sell you car on craigslist, but you end up giving it to the dealer on a trade in, just because you don't want to deal with all SPAM you'll get. It's a pretty good analogy to the problem. It's not like you get a CarFax on a potential employee. :)
If you want a prime example of "Do as I say, not as I do," ask NASA why they will not hire anyone in civil servant engineering positions with more than three years experience.
ANSWER: Over 50% of their (CS) engineering workers are eligible for full retirement in the next five years. They hire freshouts whom they can train for the next five years. What about the subcontractors who are already performing those jobs? They're too old.
Shouldn't NASA management have been thinking about that problem ten years earlier? How many other government technical agencies operate the same way in blatant violation of the law?
Another aspect of all this hiring controversy is the $25K H.R. types who haven't a clue about resume's that use common acronyms specific to an industry that have 2 or 3 variances. A Bachelor's degree doesn't guarantee competence just as an Associate's along with advanced basket weaving doesn't ensure a "rounded" individual. I've worked with a Master's degree fellow who couldn't wire an A.C. plug.
Misleading. The fact is the companies are not really hiring, but they have to express the idea in a political correct way.
As a company, if you say "we don't need to hire". The bad guy is the company. The meaning is the company is not growing, and might have a bad future.
But if you word that as "we have a lot of openings, but we cannot find the qualified person to fill". The bad guy is those who are looking for job. And the hint is the company is still growing.
It would be interesting to see the actual data on this. How many jobs are actually turned down by engineers because the wage is too low? Maybe it would make a good eetimes poll. Have you, the reader, ever turned down a position when unemployed, a position that was on parity skillset-wise with your former position, due to the wages offered being too low?