Do you think engineers are on the way to becoming “cheaper by the dozen”?

The Engineering Daily Community Forum has for long been an insightful discussion portal for engineers to voice their opinions on issues that affect us all. One particular topic has gathered a wide spectrum of responses, providing a deeper perspective into perhaps the prevailing attitude about the engineering field. One respondent to the topic titled, Have you lost your job? How are you surviving?, voiced his dissatisfaction with engineering by proclaiming that the “reason that so many engineers are out of work and for longer periods than in the past is that there are so many more of them in the work force.”

Badger, the respondent, lost his job in August, 2009 and as of his last post he was still searching for a job. His obvious dissatisfaction with engineering is further reinforced in the rest of his comment:

The ironic thing about education is that the more people have access to it, the less value it has. Having a BS or MS in any engineering field is not exactly a rarity anywhere. Engineers are almost on the way to becoming cheaper by the dozen. I am fed up with the seemingly eternal battle for survival, where losing a job means a year or two years out of work. I did not go to university for four years to get an expensive hobby, but that is what is happening. Based on what I have experienced in 30 years, I would never touch engineering and would also stay away from university as well. A more hands-on career such as plumbing, HVAC or locksmithing would have worked out better for me. Now it is too late, I wish I had dropped out of engineering before I graduated. It is simply not worth the effort I put into it.

Click to expand...

As job losses become a reality for most engineers, do Badger’s sentiments echo a serious issue in our profession? In his own words, do you think “engineers are on the way to becoming cheaper by the dozen”?

Article Source: www.engineeringdaily.net

I guess I disagree, to a point. Gone are the days when you could get a job and stick with it for years without ever changing fields or companies.

I think engineers must continually look at their background/experience and ensure they are cultivating skills that are needed in the job market.

Just being really really knowledgeable at a particular type of engineering job isn't good enough to keep you employed forever.

As for their being "too many engineers" I don't believe that to really be true, maybe in certain fields, and particular locations.

Listen every market in the country is hurting right now, what makes engineers believe they should be immune to the economy as well? Because we took 7 terms of calculus?

Kephart P.E. said:

Listen every market in the country is hurting right now, what makes engineers believe they should be immune to the economy as well? Because we took 7 terms of calculus?

Click to expand...

Well that and our curricula were ABET certified. That makes us immune, right?

I guess it just seems confusing when you hear about how there is a vast shortage of engineers, yet you have so many who have lost their jobs and cannot find another. I wonder what the statistic is for engineers who have lost their job or are unemployed, compared to the overall national average which includes all types of work.

I can see his side of the story... that the more college is available for everyone, the less weight a college degree will hold. Puts more people on a level playing field, which is not bad... but also creates more supply and less demand.

I have been doing engineering for 30 years and I have never been unemployed more than a couple of months. The odd thing is I came from the background that he thinks is the answere to all his ills. Just like engineers there are plumbers, carpenters and locksmiths that have sucessful careers and there are those who do not. Is it luck, skill, karma, I think its all three.

In my case its has been all three, my family guided my karma and kept me positive even in difficult times, I was lucky to get some jobs that built my career when others were not hired, and my wife pressed me to continue my education making me more vaulable. Could I have done this in the trades, maybe but I really enjoy engineering and appreciate the professionals I work with and enjoy my clients so I feel fortunant.

Remember that those graduating from college following you do not have your experience, if you dont build on your career with experience then you will be competing with some lower paid engineers. You gotta move forward or prepare to move back.

Foreign competition, automation, and economic changes will put engineering jobs at risk but there are not jobs that are immune to these forces. I am glad I choose engineering and plan to stick to it.

I agree with Kephart P.E. But to add to the discussion....

Looking from an expat perspective (im in Norway atm) could this be just a US thing?

The general feel in the norway oil & gas sector right now is once again positive and the local papers are filled with job listings each saturday. And again, I know from friends in Perth that say the engineering companies are again looking to grow and hence employ.

It could be me being naive.... but could it be a case of too many engineers in some locations not willing to move and hence the industry becomes overpopulated in certain favorable areas?

Well, where I work I'm an electrical engineer at a utility with 3 years expeirience. I do design, system studies, etc. Then 3/4 of the time I do design and project supervision. The guys I supervise are trade type folks, and It will be at least another 4 -5 years at my company before I catch up to them on straight-wage, not counting the fact they get paid overtime and I get nothing for overtime. So had I went to one or two years of trade school, I'd have been making their wage 6 years ago instead of 4 years from now. Then we wonder why people don't want to be engineers

When a company fills Lead Engineer positions with people that do not have engineering degrees, that makes you think if we are cheaper by the dozen. When a company has engineers without EIT(or FE) supervising engineers with PE licenses, that causes you to second guess yourself. You do not see lawyers or medicine doctors in that situation. Do you?

We have a manager here with an engineering degree(cool), not an EIT, of course not a PE and with no idea about the field he is working, 8 years of experience total, supervising two engineers(one an EIT and one a PE) with 18 and 25 years of experience respectively. Is there something wrong with that picture?

One of the engineering units has two out of three Lead Engineers without engineering degrees. The other one is a PE. I guess that it is easier when your MO is to copy and paste other designs.

State Boards do not give a darn hoot... and NCEES??? We all know what the god$$$ at the mountain are looking for.

Is there any state that requires at least the EIT for someone to occupy an engineer position? A PE to be able to supervise other engineers? I do not think so.

Yes, we are becoming cheaper by the dozen.

DK,

I'm just wondering, are you in an exempt industry? I think I remember you changing jobs some time back, but I can't remember.

chaosiscash said:

DK,
I'm just wondering, are you in an exempt industry? I think I remember you changing jobs some time back, but I can't remember.

Click to expand...

That is the case

I'm a little late to the discussion but this thread is interesting. To answer the question, I do not think engineers are getting cheaper by the dozen. Not in the least. The real issue we have to keep in mind is that companies can dole out titles to whomever they wish. It's a private company, not a democracy or a meritocracy. Titles and positions of influence go to those who are liked best by management. It's not all about skill and credentials. If it were, there would be strict standards about who could hold a responsible engineering position and about who can supervise projects.

Management just needs to make sure that qualified engineers are doing the design work but when they hold meetings, they want to sit around the table with a guy that they like, even if he isn't fully qualified to do the work. He only needs to know enough to report out on what the qualified engineers are doing.

As long as products need to be designed and manufactured, buildings need to be erected and technology needs to be advanced, degreed and licensed engineers will be in demand. Don't be fooled by the way some companies operate. If you as a PE are being paid less than tradespeople, it's probably because they are members of a strong union and nobody is representing you. You may want to set your sights toward starting your own firm after you have built up enough experience.

Let's face it. Many people want to be engineers but for one reason or another, they realize that they don't have what it takes to earn an engineering degree and they still end up working in or around engineering doing work that is not very technical. Engineering theory and design are things that some people just can't handle. People who can handle this work are not cheaper by the dozen althought it might appear that way when you look into certain companies. I think engineers need to focus on working in companies that value our unique contributions. Since most of us are exempt and don't receive overtime, we really need to enjoy what we are doing in order to justify the commitment.

It is easy to end up playing somebody else's game where the work is set up to emphasize the strengths of tradespeople or others who are not degreed or licensed engineers. I have worked in environments like that. I decided to make the move to a place where engineers are at the top of the food chain and we are valued because we are engineers. I'll admit that it isn't always easy to do.

JavaJim said:

I'm a little late to the discussion but this thread is interesting. To answer the question, I do not think engineers are getting cheaper by the dozen. Not in the least. The real issue we have to keep in mind is that companies can dole out titles to whomever they wish. It's a private company, not a democracy or a meritocracy. Titles and positions of influence go to those who are liked best by management. It's not all about skill and credentials. If it were, there would be strict standards about who could hold a responsible engineering position and about who can supervise projects.
Management just needs to make sure that qualified engineers are doing the design work but when they hold meetings, they want to sit around the table with a guy that they like, even if he isn't fully qualified to do the work. He only needs to know enough to report out on what the qualified engineers are doing.

As long as products need to be designed and manufactured, buildings need to be erected and technology needs to be advanced, degreed and licensed engineers will be in demand. Don't be fooled by the way some companies operate. If you as a PE are being paid less than tradespeople, it's probably because they are members of a strong union and nobody is representing you. You may want to set your sights toward starting your own firm after you have built up enough experience.

Let's face it. Many people want to be engineers but for one reason or another, they realize that they don't have what it takes to earn an engineering degree and they still end up working in or around engineering doing work that is not very technical. Engineering theory and design are things that some people just can't handle. People who can handle this work are not cheaper by the dozen althought it might appear that way when you look into certain companies. I think engineers need to focus on working in companies that value our unique contributions. Since most of us are exempt and don't receive overtime, we really need to enjoy what we are doing in order to justify the commitment.

It is easy to end up playing somebody else's game where the work is set up to emphasize the strengths of tradespeople or others who are not degreed or licensed engineers. I have worked in environments like that. I decided to make the move to a place where engineers are at the top of the food chain and we are valued because we are engineers. I'll admit that it isn't always easy to do.

Click to expand...

So how does one find a place where engineers are nearer to the top of the food chain??

The biggest issue that I see is the fact that most clients are going to the cheaper as opposed to possibly the better. In my former company, cream of the crop was always hired (as still holds true today), but it is hard to compete with "mom and pop" firms that take the same amount (or even more) time to perform the same at a rate of half of what a national firm could do it for. Most clients (municipalities) are trying to save a buck or two and go with a less qualified, or maybe just cheaper firm because of the bottom line.

It is almost impossible for me to compete when I have to charge $200 an hour to do the same work as someone who has no overhead and charges only $100 per hour.

Is this fair? Is this what is best for society on the whole? The world may never know, but have you ever negotiated an attorney's rate?

djohnson.ee said:

So how does one find a place where engineers are nearer to the top of the food chain??

Click to expand...

As I said in my previous post, this is not an easy thing to do. The basic idea is to work for a company that really needs engineers to do engineering. Many companies post engineering degree requirements in their job postings because they really just want a smart person to do their middle management work. They farm out the engineering because they don't have a need for engineering services every day.

jfusilloPE said:

...
It is almost impossible for me to compete when I have to charge $200 an hour to do the same work as someone who has no overhead and charges only $100 per hour.

Is this fair? Is this what is best for society on the whole? The world may never know, but have you ever negotiated an attorney's rate?

Click to expand...

You're right. This is a tough business and it's not fair. I have rarely felt that my work environment is fair. I have negotiated the fees for my attorney and my CPA. When I need services, I tend to shop around for pros who are willing to tailor their fees to my needs. The higher priced pro isn't necessarily the best one for you. My experience has been that the interpersonal chemistry and rapport between people is more important than the certificates hanging on the wall. As long as the attorney is qualified for the services I need, the most important factor is how he understands my needs and how he caters to those needs. If the attorney doesn't work for a big downtown firm with a $10,000/month rent bill, that's better for me. I'd rather be one of the most important clients to a smaller attorney rather than a nuisance to a high roller lawyer who feels his time is too valuable to be bother with my little problems.

JavaJim, your earlier post about tradespeople vs. PE, etc. is pretty much where I am at right now... Engineers are like you say, just need smart people to cover the middle-manager jobs.

jfusilloPE said:

The biggest issue that I see is the fact that most clients are going to the cheaper as opposed to possibly the better. In my former company, cream of the crop was always hired (as still holds true today), but it is hard to compete with "mom and pop" firms that take the same amount (or even more) time to perform the same at a rate of half of what a national firm could do it for. Most clients (municipalities) are trying to save a buck or two and go with a less qualified, or maybe just cheaper firm because of the bottom line.
It is almost impossible for me to compete when I have to charge $200 an hour to do the same work as someone who has no overhead and charges only $100 per hour.

Is this fair? Is this what is best for society on the whole? The world may never know, but have you ever negotiated an attorney's rate?

Click to expand...

$200 an hour is excessive IMHO. But it depends on what exactly you are doing. If you are doing general consulting work that lots of other companies are capable of doing, but you charge 2x as much maybe your company is the one with the problem not these "Mom and Pop" places.

If they take longer to do a job but charge less maybe to be competative your company needs to do the same thing.

Kephart P.E. said:

jfusilloPE said:

The biggest issue that I see is the fact that most clients are going to the cheaper as opposed to possibly the better. In my former company, cream of the crop was always hired (as still holds true today), but it is hard to compete with "mom and pop" firms that take the same amount (or even more) time to perform the same at a rate of half of what a national firm could do it for. Most clients (municipalities) are trying to save a buck or two and go with a less qualified, or maybe just cheaper firm because of the bottom line.
It is almost impossible for me to compete when I have to charge $200 an hour to do the same work as someone who has no overhead and charges only $100 per hour.

Is this fair? Is this what is best for society on the whole? The world may never know, but have you ever negotiated an attorney's rate?

Click to expand...

$200 an hour is excessive IMHO. But it depends on what exactly you are doing. If you are doing general consulting work that lots of other companies are capable of doing, but you charge 2x as much maybe your company is the one with the problem not these "Mom and Pop" places.

If they take longer to do a job but charge less maybe to be competative your company needs to do the same thing.

Click to expand...

Come on Kephart....get outta here with $200/hr being excessive. In the grand scheme of things for the value Engineers bring (let alone a PE), $200/hr is cheap...

And when you look at the sliding scale rates for attorneys and the like, $200/hr is their entry level.

It's a tough problem to deal with since Engineers have pegged their rates awhile ago....how do you raise them across the board in a unified matter? And then how do you do it without it raising red flags of collusion?

Time to step up and have some pride in the profession. The root of the problem is that owners of Engineering companies have lost touch of what it is to be an Engineer, either because of ignorance or in some cases, they aren't an Engineer (e.g. General Electric or some major organization).

As much as we may be annoyed at lawyers and doctors, you have to hand it to them in that these are complete non issues to them. They run their professions properly, and we can learn from them.

These are deep rooted issues where my father & I have a lot of experience dealing with, and while the path to higher ground is feasible, execution will be challenging.

The biggest issue REALLY is the lay public's complete IGNORANCE of what it is we do. Engineering for the most part is an anonymous profession....most people don't know that Engineers design everything: a car from GM comes from the Engineers at GM, not "GM".....an ipod comes from the engineers at apple, not apple.

Further compounding the issue is that many other professions have 1 to 1 dealings with the lay public: You need your taxes done, you call an accountant. You don't feel good, you call a doctor. You need to sue someone, you call a lawyer. You need work done around the house, you call your electrician/plumber/etc. When was the last time John Doe called up an Engineer for anything? lol.

Before we can get into the whole supply/demand thing (which is BS to begin with), there are bigger issues we need to deal with.

BTW, another issue we have is that PEs aren't valued as much by the owners of Engineering firms.

There's a disgusting attitude about cheap labor and it comes straight from the top. Many firm owners would rather get by with minimal quality Engineers at a high rate than keep quality guys who know what they are doing.

They look at it too much as dollars & cents and don't see the bigger picture.

I've done many case studies during my MBA program, and none of the successful startups that you see today were the result of this inhibited ideology.

I blame the bean counters!

audioaddict said:

Kephart P.E. said:

jfusilloPE said:

The biggest issue that I see is the fact that most clients are going to the cheaper as opposed to possibly the better. In my former company, cream of the crop was always hired (as still holds true today), but it is hard to compete with "mom and pop" firms that take the same amount (or even more) time to perform the same at a rate of half of what a national firm could do it for. Most clients (municipalities) are trying to save a buck or two and go with a less qualified, or maybe just cheaper firm because of the bottom line.
It is almost impossible for me to compete when I have to charge $200 an hour to do the same work as someone who has no overhead and charges only $100 per hour.

Is this fair? Is this what is best for society on the whole? The world may never know, but have you ever negotiated an attorney's rate?

Click to expand...

$200 an hour is excessive IMHO. But it depends on what exactly you are doing. If you are doing general consulting work that lots of other companies are capable of doing, but you charge 2x as much maybe your company is the one with the problem not these "Mom and Pop" places.

If they take longer to do a job but charge less maybe to be competative your company needs to do the same thing.

Click to expand...

Come on Kephart....get outta here with $200/hr being excessive. In the grand scheme of things for the value Engineers bring (let alone a PE), $200/hr is cheap...

And when you look at the sliding scale rates for attorneys and the like, $200/hr is their entry level.

It's a tough problem to deal with since Engineers have pegged their rates awhile ago....how do you raise them across the board in a unified matter? And then how do you do it without it raising red flags of collusion?

Time to step up and have some pride in the profession. The root of the problem is that owners of Engineering companies have lost touch of what it is to be an Engineer, either because of ignorance or in some cases, they aren't an Engineer (e.g. General Electric or some major organization).

As much as we may be annoyed at lawyers and doctors, you have to hand it to them in that these are complete non issues to them. They run their professions properly, and we can learn from them.

These are deep rooted issues where my father & I have a lot of experience dealing with, and while the path to higher ground is feasible, execution will be challenging.

The biggest issue REALLY is the lay public's complete IGNORANCE of what it is we do. Engineering for the most part is an anonymous profession....most people don't know that Engineers design everything: a car from GM comes from the Engineers at GM, not "GM".....an ipod comes from the engineers at apple, not apple.

Further compounding the issue is that many other professions have 1 to 1 dealings with the lay public: You need your taxes done, you call an accountant. You don't feel good, you call a doctor. You need to sue someone, you call a lawyer. You need work done around the house, you call your electrician/plumber/etc. When was the last time John Doe called up an Engineer for anything? lol.

Before we can get into the whole supply/demand thing (which is BS to begin with), there are bigger issues we need to deal with.

Click to expand...

And all those other professions REQUIRE LICENSING. A long long time ago corporations got their exemptions and it is holding down much of the profession. And I bet 90% of the engineers have lower billing rates than $200 an hour, so I guess your company is the only one that has got it correct. But hey if you have clients that are willing to pay your rate charge whatever you like. These days however for the really technical analysis stuff we farm out I usually see about $174 and hour. This is in the Petro Chem field so it isn't low ball.