Posted on 06/20/2011 4:46:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
One puzzle of this somber economy is the existence of unfilled jobs in the midst of mass unemployment. You might think (I did) that with almost 14 million Americans unemployed - and nearly half those for more than six months - that companies could fill almost any opening quickly. Not so. Somehow, there's a mismatch between idle workers and open jobs. Economists call this "structural unemployment."
Just how many jobs are affected is unclear; there are no definitive statistics. Economist Harry Holzer of Georgetown University thinks the unemployment rate might be closer to 8 percent than today's 9.1 percent if most of these jobs were filled. That implies up to 1.5 million more jobs. Economist Prakash Loungani of the International Monetary Fund estimates that 25 percent of unemployment is structural; that's more than 3 million jobs. A recent survey of 2,000 firms by the McKinsey Global Institute, a research group, found that 40 percent had positions open at least six months because they couldn't find suitable candidates.
Let's acknowledge two realities. First, though structural joblessness is important, the main cause of high unemployment remains the deep slump. In the recession, jobs dropped 20 percent in construction, 15 percent in manufacturing and 7 percent in retailing. Only a stronger economy can remedy this unemployment.
Second, a big economy like ours always has some vacancies. People quit or get fired. Hiring procedures grind slowly. Some highly specialized jobs are inherently hard to fill: say, a transportation engineer fluent in both Chinese and English (a real-life example).
Still, the job mismatch hobbles recovery and bodes ill. The harder it is for workers to find jobs, the longer they stay unemployed - and this, in turn, worsens their prospects. "Long-term unemployment sends a negative signal to employers: What's wrong with this person?" says Holzer.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearmarkets.com ...
I’ve read that too and it’s an asinine policy. You can be out the door before you know what hits you and finding a new job may be extremely difficult. So those 3 or 4 weeks you were in transition blackballs you? Ridiculous.
That forces people to take desperation jobs. Then of course that raises red flags on the resume, especially if it’s not in your field and you’ve been there a short time and are jumping ship. You also screw that employer when you ditch them after two months for the one you really wanted. Talk about a catch-22.
If the business wants them positions filled then it best compromise a bit. They must not want them filled that bad if their aren’t willing to hire a qualified person due to a technicality.
typical liberal approach to a problem...they expect the world to change...rather than changing their policies that created the problem.
The inverse is also true.
The longer workers stay unemployed, the harder it is to find jobs.
That is why two years of unemployment benefits helps no one.
Many companies are run by accountants, which is always a bad idea unless it is an accounting firm. I have seen them deny people training, then turn around a pay their salary to learn by goofing off for six months. Then lay them off because they don't know the job. And hire more people.
This is the sort of thing that happens when the only cost you know is the one you can write down on paper. Training gives you an invoice. The cost of dismissing an experienced employee and hiring a far less efficient inexperienced employee doesn't.
However, even our colleges are turning out functionally illiterate people now. If you have interviewed people, you know.
What is wrong with them? They have not found a job.
Bump
BINGO! The price I personally have paid for continued employment is a roughly 35% salary hit. I’ll be leaving as soon as I find something better, and I’m not afraid to pull up stakes after 30 years living where I do.
Hiring and firing are expensive propositions these days. Even before all the new requirements from the government kick-in...like 0bamacare. What improves the chances for an potential employee to get hired off of the unemployment rolls?
First show me some guts. What do I mean by that? Apply anyway, send the resume anyway.
Second, give me a darn good cover letter. Unemployed? What are you doing in the meantime to keep up with the industry and maintain your credentials? It is not the employer's responsibility, it is your career choice...your responsibility.
Third, it is a matter of how you are marketing yourself and skills. You already have proven work experience. Demonstrate how you are 'working' your unemployment time.
If you want to exchange your skills for my prosperity, then show me the value in hiring you.
Most people are putting out resumes before they are actually let go and spend their unemployment time putting out resumes and interviewing. However, if a business won’t hire me because I’ve been out of a job for month, even though I’ve been looking for a job even before my time was up, what else exactly am I supposed to do?
Let’s face it, most businesses to day are managed by lawyers and bean counters from the HQ thousands of miles away. Policy is policy and the local guys have no flexibility of decision making. I’m betting that’s where alot of this is coming from.
My Dad said there were jobs to be had during the great depression if you weren’t too fussy.
Business practices at most companies have not bought company loyalty...that’s for sure. Profits are being made on the backs of employees, and the company, as well as the employee, know that at this point in time, they have no other options, so they comply with pay cuts, increased hours and responsibilities, no raises or COL adjustments, etc.
It’s in large part geography.
Jobs are being created in red states. Red state unemployment is lower. Thus employers in red states have more competition for the people they hire. It’s called “success” and it means the economy in those areas is growing.
Jobs are being lost in blue states. Blue state unemployment is high. Terrible in fact. There aren’t employers in blue states because they’re moving to red states. Leaving lots of unemployment.
Eventually the unemployed in blue states who actually want jobs will move to the red states, leaving failed blue states with falling populations, and falling representation in elections.
Now. If we could agree as a nation we need to keep jobs in America, all this would begin to correct itself.
We are living in a transitional time where the Education Industrial Complex will be the “gatekeeper” regarding who gets or does not get jobs.
Let’s face it though, the COBOL guys are so old that the only code they write is how to put on their Depends.
California, which has about 10% of the U.S. population ranks last in high school education testing. LAST. The state is peppered with hi tech outfits, yet it often goes abroad to hire. Although it has such self-inflated universities as Cal-Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA, the education system can’t produce the technicians the state economy needs. Do you know why? Everyone on this site knows why.
There's also very little vigilance to make sure people who are receiving unemployment are actually looking for a job.
I had a similar experience when I looked into getting a Computer Science degree. (I’m already employed in the computer field and make good money. I was looking to expand my skills)
The degree required me to waste a lot of time on stuff that was not pertinent to my goal. Being as I was already employed full time, I felt I didn’t have the time or energy for more than just computer classes.
0’CARE has a lot of them scared to hire. And they want a person with 20 years experience for beginners wages.
It is a buyers market on houses, and it is an employers market on employees. Those 50 and over are going to have a rough time finding jobs of the same standards as the ones they lost due to 0’hoover’s anti business policies.
Would be interested in your take on the reason.
I haven’t been a student in CA universities, except to have taken some classes on my own for personal interests.
As a current resident in the state, I would be tempted to attribute what you are describing to illegal immigration, though I am not sure I agree that CA universities are not capable of proving adequate technical training. The UC system is perhaps one of California’s remaining bits of former competence.
My best guess would be that many foreign students simply take their UC educations back to their home countries to compete against America.
I think it's a direct result of the old adage "Adding people to a late software project makes it later." Rather than bringing in a candidate who is not a 100% match, the team just pulls more overtime rather than dealing with the distraction of training. And since just about every project is always late, they never fix the structural problem of having too few talented developers on staff - they rely on the two or three veteran "geniuses" to pull off everything on time.
Also, business intelligence is difficult to hire for, because HR gets caught up in matching capital letters they don't understand (C++, C#, SQL) when what is really needed is someone who can conceptualize business problems and their technical solutions. There just aren't that many of those people, which is why job postings these days are almost always asking for someone with dozens of capital letters and 3-5 years of experience rather than the 20 year veteran who very often turns out to be a career office politician with a limited ability to learn. Add in the looming expense of ObamaCare, and it becomes clear why your corporate career is essentially over at 40 if you haven't jumped onto the management track.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.