Given the decline in overall IT positions over the past two years, I'd say its pretty serious. Recent new graduates with CS/IT backgrounds largely aren't being

Given the decline in overall IT positions over the past two years, I'd say its pretty serious. Recent new graduates with CS/IT backgrounds largely aren't being hired. Historically, we see Information Technology advances first disrupt IT, then it spreads with adoption everywhere else to realize the same cost savings, as a labor multiplier. > Maybe you don't replace the best. In fairness, there's no real way to tell who the best/competent are. University programs have always failed to prepare the student in IT because of the fast moving nature of it. Given the lack of any way to properly distinguish oneself, the best and most competent will look for a time, but eventually they have to go where the money is. That means retraining and taking the loss in time and investment, and its a sticky decision where they aren't likely to fight for such meager scraps. Competent people have options others don't. A wage price floor was hit awhile back in the long trend towards wage suppression. You can't really pay them less when other opportunities with no education provide more economic incentive. This is an example of chaotic distortions involved in money printing generated whipsaws. The opportunity cost ratio between unskilled and skilled labor eliminates any incentive. Why spend 10 years on education and experience when you'll only make at best 33% more than someone who doesn't (pre-tax). Less than that post-tax, and we aren't considering the increased costs that are borne by individuals seeking out positions. The job market has always imposed cost in time, from interview projects (where they steal your work without compensation), to circuitous interviews, etc.