The Market Is “Banning the Box”: The Long-term unemployed finally going back to work.

City Journal ^ | 08/09/2018 | Aaron M. Renn

[SeekAndFind]

The American economic expansion is finally accomplishing one of the country’s most needed social improvements: getting the long-term unemployed reattached to the labor market. Income inequality gets much of the press today, but as Harvard economist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Ed Glaeser points out, long-term joblessness is the more serious problem. The unemployed face a heightened risk of serious ills ranging from physical maladies and mental health problems to divorce.

Rising long-term joblessness, particularly among prime, working-age men (25 to 54), has been a corrosive trend. A Kansas City Federal Reserve study found that the number of men in that key demographic not in the labor force increased from 4.6 million in 2006 to 7.1 million in 2016. We’re now seeing early signs that this trend may be reversing. Reports describe how a tightening labor market is finally tearing down employer-erected barriers to hiring. The Wall Street Journal recently noted, for example, that firms are increasingly adopting a “no experience required” policy to try to fill jobs, even eliminating the requirement for a college degree in some cases.

Up to now, observers had pointed to the rise in state-mandated occupational licensing as a factor in slow economic growth. Without help from government, though, the private sector itself had become prey to creeping credentialism. Online job postings frequently include a long list of detailed requirements, with most applicants summarily rejected by algorithms or offshore résumé reviewers. Nearly two decades of a recessionary or anemic jobs economy allowed companies to become prima donnas of hiring, and a generation of human resources and hiring managers were marinated in this environment.

Now marketplace discipline is forcing them to change. Anything that reduces an unhealthy fixation on the length of a CV is positive for economic dynamism.

[100American]

Agree totally, I would in a heartbeat rather upskill an person with IT skills that just need some boost than try to bring someone up to speed fresh out of school or with no practical experience in implementation or administration of an IT infrastructure of any scope or scale

[1Old Pro]

big companies have been laying off older workers (older as in, in their fifties) for decades. It sucks.

And against the law if based on age.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Yep. They just went through this at a company where I was a Middle Manager. I retired in 2016 at 56.

Two short years later, after my well-trained underlings did a bang-up job and made a LOT of money for them it was, OUT with the ‘old’ and in with the cheap & clueless, ‘new.’

It was awful, but everyone laid off survived and is better off for it, now. Our area is clamoring for workers of any age with actual ‘skills.’

[FLT-bird]

Not just IT. I see LOADS of Indians....1/4 to 1/3rd of the workforce...doing the back office jobs at major banks I do consulting projects for. Its ridiculous. Great deal for the banks - they get to hire these people on the cheap. Crappy deal for America - they don’t get these middle management white collar jobs that can provide a good income in and of themselves but which also serve as stepping stones to upper management as employees gain experience.

Due to the horrible Obama economy it was a seller’s market for a long time. That is FINALLY changing as companies are finding lowball offers are getting rejected by candidates with the qualifications they want. They’ve started having to...gasp!...hire people who had a gap in employment due to the godawful Obama economy and/or crappy credit history as a result. Of course these people are fully capable of doing the jobs. They didn’t suddenly forget how because they were out of work for a year or two or even longer - which many were.

[FLT-bird]

If you don’t engage in “fluffery” on your resume, you’re at a huge disadvantage. You have to make sure its nothing outrageous. Don’t claim degrees you do not hold or that you worked for companies you did not work for but you can throw in key buzzwords even if you only have a passing knowledge of them. For the vast majority of jobs, you can learn what you need to do once you’re in the job if you have even moderate intelligence and a work ethic.

[Pining_4_TX]

They get around that by including some younger workers in the mix. Besides, the EEOC has little concern for the plight of old, white guys.

[Pining_4_TX]

Happened at my husband’s company. They laid off a bunch of experienced employees a and replaced them with youngsters. It was amusing when a couple of months later an exec sent out an email telling everyone not to make so many mistakes. Served them right. Of course, none of the bigwigs lost their jobs. They even got bonuses for cutting expenses.

[gogeo]

I had to grit my teeth to make it through the article.

Anything that reduces an unhealthy fixation on the length of a CV is positive for economic dynamism.

How would one define 'healthy' as opposed to 'unhealthy?'

The marketplace is also helping those who found themselves with situations that previously rendered them all but unemployable.

Found themselves? FOUND THEMSELVES???

Anyone with an employment gap was effectively exiled from the job market, for example. Someone who fell prey to drugs but then conquered addiction, or who simply had a run of bad luck, found it all but impossible to get a foot back on the job ladder.

Fell prey to drugs? Really?

People with other negatives—such as criminal records—had it even worse.

You're d@mn tootin', Skippy.

...and this 'ban the box' cr@p-listed here for employment purposes, locally in the People's Republic of King County also used for property rental.

A benign sounding thing, it basically puts the onus on the landlord/business owner to PROVE that someone's record would be an impediment.

Some good notions in this article, but the writer is obviously a blockhead.