Why can't I get a job in Austin? (Houston, San Antonio: lease, to live in)

[Trainwreck20]

There's a lot of GIS jobs where what the employer really wants is a software engineer who happens to know some GIS. But they also want that person to be able to do cartography, mapping, digitizing, etc-- which usually they can't do well. If the employer doesn't know/care about cartography and geography, they won't see the problem with not having a dedicated GIS person. That seems very common in at consulting/environmental companies.

Sort of, I guess, but the what we have run into is there are some 'natural resources' people (which is what we call them, anyway), that are very up to speed on all those things (probably did them as a job at one time, not sure) and probably could get a job in GIS field now, but are more valuable to us in other roles (endangered species, wetlands, Phase I/Phase II, etc) and we have the GIS person to free them up for other work. We work for huge companies that demand near-immediate data in specific formats, and we get by with one dedicated person.

It isn't meant to be demeaning to the specialty at all, but it is the reality of the work, I think (I am not specialist, obviously), but I think a lot of the ugliest grunt/grind work of GIS is now dealt with by non-GIS specialists, and the true technical work can be done by fewer people now.

I will keep you in mind if we do grow up to another - they are building pipelines all over the place, it seems, and the amount of data is staggering to me .

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Sort of, I guess, but the what we have run into is there are some 'natural resources' people (which is what we call them, anyway), that are very up to speed on all those things (probably did them as a job at one time, not sure) and probably could get a job in GIS field now, but are more valuable to us in other roles (endangered species, wetlands, Phase I/Phase II, etc) and we have the GIS person to free them up for other work. We work for huge companies that demand near-immediate data in specific formats, and we get by with one dedicated person.

It isn't meant to be demeaning to the specialty at all, but it is the reality of the work, I think (I am not specialist, obviously), but I think a lot of the ugliest grunt/grind work of GIS is now dealt with by non-GIS specialists, and the true technical work can be done by fewer people now.

I will keep you in mind if we do grow up to another - they are building pipelines all over the place, it seems, and the amount of data is staggering to me .

Thanks. BTW, my degree track was in both physical geography and GIS. I took way more biogeography and ecology classes than I needed, because I wanted to work in conservation. It didn't work though, I ended up mainly working in oil & gas aside from 2 years in county government.
There are very few jobs out there where you can do ecological analysis with GIS-- I think GIS is underutilized in general. Employers will hire someone to do what they KNOW they need GIS for, but that person typically doesn't have a good grasp of what GIS CAN be used for.

My boss at EOG was a guy with a management degree who happened to learn GIS because a friend got him a job as a lease mapping tech. For half a year I had been remapping old leases to a new landgrid. Well in the last month I created a ModelBuilder script to automate most of the work, to where I did a day's work in an hour. Then I got "laid off" (in quotes because I was a misclassified contractor) and they never used the script because the boss didn't see the value or didn't understand it fully.

GIS is deceptively simple. It's really easy for somebody to learn basic editing, and often that person will have a whole career in GIS, but without a solid foundation in geographic analysis and theory.

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

The bottom end of the GIS market is being utterly devastated by cheaper (and better) software solutions for any work that can be done with a shape file. We've just deployed a new product (Tableau) that can generate a map in five to ten minutes that would have taken half a day in ArcView and has far more robust data analysis and presentation capabilities.

Automated carotgraphy only works if you have preexisting data and a consistent requirements for displaying that data. You also have to be accepting of bad cartography, because without manual design you'll get ugly things like badly placed labels, obscured information, etc.

[winkosmosis]

I've started looking for jobs in Austin again, and there are really no GIS ones! Search Indeed.com for GIS and you get a bunch of developer positions with some tangential GIS. When I made this thread there were some jobs that actually had a substantial GIS component. You would think that in such a rapidly growing city there would be a decent number of openings for GIS analysts and cartographers.

[hillcountryheart]

Yes, we're more high tech than oil and gas - the primary users of cartography these days.

There's also a need to map the entirety of the Indian Ocean, apparently.

We do not have a huge diversity of interests because up until very recently, we were very focused on state government, high tech, and higher ed. We aren't much more diversified now unless you want to cater to our boom in events planning for SXSW, Formula 1, ACL etc.

[sxrckr]

Are you only looking for jobs in the US? I've have several friends who work in the O&G industry and have had some pretty cool foreign assignments. Made lots of money too.

[radiolibre99]

You'd think with those credentials that you would find work anywhere. But I get that you would be better served in Houston. Go to Houston, get into an energy field and start work there. You will making a lot of money I presume.

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

You'd think with those credentials that you would find work anywhere. But I get that you would be better served in Houston. Go to Houston, get into an energy field and start work there. You will making a lot of money I presume.

I hate Houston... I mostly grew up there, started my career there (after an internship in Yellowstone) and worked for 3 years mapping oil and gas leases. I was just there for a year and worked at an oil company downtown, and hated it. It's an awful city with terrible quality of life, poor outdoor activities, long commutes, ugly landscapes, sprawling ghettos, no commuter rail or plans to build, and a general culture that embraces mediocrity.

Last summer I spent almost every weekend in Austin

[Eastcoasting]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

I hate Houston... I mostly grew up there, started my career there (after an internship in Yellowstone) and worked for 3 years mapping oil and gas leases. I was just there for a year and worked at an oil company downtown, and hated it. It's an awful city with terrible quality of life, poor outdoor activities, long commutes, ugly landscapes, sprawling ghettos, no commuter rail or plans to build, and a general culture that embraces mediocrity.

Now don't sugar coat it!

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

I hate Houston... I mostly grew up there, started my career there (after an internship in Yellowstone) and worked for 3 years mapping oil and gas leases. I was just there for a year and worked at an oil company downtown, and hated it. It's an awful city with terrible quality of life, poor outdoor activities, long commutes, ugly landscapes, sprawling ghettos, no commuter rail or plans to build, and a general culture that embraces mediocrity.

Last summer I spent almost every weekend in Austin

I used to think Houston celebrated mediocrity but it's just a practical city for middle class folks. It's not made to cater to the young hip creative class types. But Houston is supposed to be lively to the upwardly mobile. It's more NYC than LA or Colorado.