employer

The reality is, training on new technologies has more value to you than it does to your employer.

The OP is implying that an employer should not only pay a salary, but pay for an employee to get trained.

That must be worth a couple of bucks to your employer who wants to get rid of you.

Based on my friends' anecdotal management/employer-side stories across several Dallas companies, it is definitely an employee market right now.

Woohoo -- thanks for calling out my previous employer, which also built Macs for a good while (in Colorado).

Whenever some employer complains they can't find engineers, ask how many people they have in off-site training right now.

At the price set by supply and demand, that employer is priced out of the market.

My point is that you need to present an appealing package with some obvious business value to the client or employer.

Oh, and now that I'm happily employed at my current employer, I still get frequent calls from recruiters.

E.g., my employer's vacation day reporting form is created in Excel by HR, and hell no Google Sheets doesn't work with it.

There are of course other reasons an employer could be priced out of the market or unwilling to pay market wages of course.

If the benefits of learning flow more to you than to your employer, you shouldn't be surprised if the burden of learning falls onto you.

I would not call an employer's unwillingness to pay market rates a "Supply and Demand issue."

First the facts: > Here’s what the researchers discovered: barely one-fifth (21%) of employees are truly engaged in their work, in the sense that they would “go the extra mile” for their employer.