The Myth of the Technician Shortage

The Myth of the Technician Shortage

In recent years, public discourse has increasingly centered on a supposed “shortage of technicians” in the automotive service industry.

This idea is no longer confined to trade publications or internal industry conversations. It appears regularly in mainstream media, surfaces easily through basic online searches, and is frequently presented not as a hypothesis but as an established fact. In some cases, it is even repeated in television interviews by senior executives of major automotive manufacturers.

The concept of a technician shortage has thus fully entered the public media space and is now treated as a given.

Whenever this alleged problem is discussed, the same solutions reliably follow.

One proposal emphasizes increasing the number of technicians. This includes expanding educational programs, importing labor, subsidizing training, and actively directing new entrants into the trade. This position is typically promoted by corporate and managerial circles, but it is also often echoed—somewhat paradoxically—by individuals who publicly identify as technicians on social media.

Another proposal focuses on increasing technician pay and abolishing flat-rate compensation systems. This argument is voiced primarily by technicians themselves and usually includes demands for higher wages, hourly pay, and the elimination of piece-rate structures.

At the outset, one fundamental clarification is required.

These two solutions are mutually exclusive.

It is not possible to significantly increase labor supply while simultaneously expecting sustained upward pressure on wages. From the standpoint of basic economics, these objectives directly contradict one another. An oversupplied labor market does not produce higher compensation, regardless of how frequently the word “shortage” is repeated.

This leads to the central claim, stated as directly as possible.

There is no shortage of technicians.

In fact, there are still too many.

Price as the Diagnostic Criterion

This conclusion is not based on opinion, sentiment, or anecdote. It is based on price.

In a market economy, a genuine shortage of any resource manifests itself through rapid and visible price growth. This rule is universal. It applies equally to raw materials, finished goods, services, and labor.

Recent history provides numerous clear examples. During the COVID period, disruptions in supply chains combined with unprecedented monetary expansion caused sharp price increases in automobiles and recreational vehicles. More recently, the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure has driven dramatic price increases in computer memory, graphics processors, and related components. In each case, constrained supply was followed by immediate and unmistakable price escalation.

When the same diagnostic logic is applied to the labor market in automotive repair, the result is unambiguous.

Despite constant public discussion of a “technician shortage,” compensation for technicians has not increased in any comparable way. Wages remain low relative to skill level, responsibility, capital investment, and legal exposure. There has been no sustained, industry-wide price signal consistent with genuine labor scarcity.

This observation becomes even more revealing when contrasted with how scarcity is treated elsewhere.

When senior executives justify their own compensation, they routinely invoke the logic of scarcity. They argue that very few individuals possess the skills required for top-level management, that such talent is rare, and that this rarity justifies exceptionally high pay.

In other words, scarcity is openly acknowledged and financially rewarded—when it applies to executives.

When it applies to technicians, the same economic logic is suddenly denied.

From an economic standpoint, this contradiction can mean only one thing.

There is no real shortage.

Faulty Metrics and Misinterpreted Signals

Another major error lies in how the industry attempts to measure this alleged shortage.

In practice, scarcity is often inferred from the number of service bays or vehicle lifts that are not assigned to a technician. This metric is fundamentally flawed.

A technician is not an accessory attached to a lift. A lift is a tool, not a job position.

Service bays and lifts are instruments used by technicians, not evidence of labor demand. A single qualified technician can effectively utilize multiple lifts by organizing work cyclically—performing diagnostics, disassembly, waiting for parts, reassembly, and parallel task sequencing.

An unused lift does not indicate labor scarcity. It indicates excess capital investment or poor process design.

Long repair wait times are often presented as further proof of a technician shortage. In reality, they typically point to the same underlying issue.

Delays occur not because there are too few technicians, but because work is scheduled, prioritized, and sequenced inefficiently. Vehicles wait for decisions, parts approvals, authorization, or basic coordination, while both labor and equipment remain idle.

These delays are managerial bottlenecks, not labor market signals.

Historical Oversupply and Managerial Inertia

For an extended period, the automotive service industry operated under conditions of significant oversupply of mechanics. The causes of this oversupply are complex and need not be examined here. What matters is its long-term effect.

Excess labor supply created intense competition among mechanics themselves, which in turn drove the price of labor downward. Skilled labor was treated as abundant, easily replaceable, and inexpensive.

Management systems, compensation models, and operational assumptions were built around this environment of surplus.

When that surplus began to erode, the management framework did not adapt. Instead, the resulting friction was rebranded as a “technician shortage.”

What changed was not the labor market, but the mismatch between outdated managerial assumptions and current economic reality.

The Mathematical Impossibility of Current Pay Structures

If the stated goal is to pay technicians more and retain qualified professionals, the path forward is not to increase labor supply. It is to radically improve labor efficiency and reduce parasitic overhead within automotive service businesses.

Today, it is widely considered normal for a technician to receive only ten to thirty percent of the labor rate paid by the customer.

Within this framework, the wage problem is mathematically unsolvable.

To double a technician’s income under the existing structure, a shop would have to double its labor rate. Doing so would render vehicle repair economically meaningless for a large portion of car owners.

The limiting factor is not customer willingness to pay.

The limiting factor is how labor value is distributed inside the business.

Flat Rate: A Misdiagnosed Cause

Some technicians and managers propose banning flat-rate compensation entirely. This approach is also misguided.

Flat rate exists because it provides a powerful incentive for productivity. Eliminating it without addressing deeper structural issues would likely reduce efficiency further in an industry that already struggles with low effective output.

The real problem is not piece-rate pay as a principle. The real problem is the systematic inability—or unwillingness—to estimate labor time accurately under real-world conditions, especially when labor data is intentionally distorted to maximize short-term profit.

Labor time estimation deserves separate and repeated examination. For present purposes, it is sufficient to state that simply abolishing flat rate does not solve the compensation problem.

The Actual Shortage

There is no shortage of technicians in automotive service.

What the industry is experiencing is a shortage of competent management.

Managers who understand economics, process design, and long-term sustainability do not experience a shortage of technicians. Technicians working within such systems do not experience a shortage of income.

The current market—with existing labor rates, stable demand, and customers’ demonstrated willingness to pay for quality repair—is already capable of supporting strong technician compensation.

The limiting factor is not labor supply.

The limiting factor is management capability.

That is the real problem facing the automotive service industry today.

And that is precisely where the solution lies.