Unemployed seek protection against job bias

Certainly merits discussion, since the unemployed deserve to be a protected class:

Unemployed seek protection against job bias - Yahoo! News

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

Excellent1

Yes, it's definitely a problem, but it's not one that litigation will solve. Employers can and do discriminate for all sorts of reasons that they are legally not supposed to and there is pretty much nothing that can be done about it. Given the laws on the books are already pretty much unenforceable, I don't see this changing anything, unfortunately--even if it is successful.

Anonymouse

While I think it's a load of BS to not hire someone due to circumstances that they may or may not have any power over I wonder how is this protection supposed to be enforced?

Excellent1

That was my point. Unless an employer says, "by the way, we didn't hire you because you haven't been employed for 2 years" it cannot be enforced. For any given reason an employer decides to discriminate, they can simply trot out the "not the best candidate" or "not the best fit" excuses. Again, given the inability to enforce the laws already on the books, I don't see this effort leading anywhere, but I guess employers will have to be somewhat more circumspect now about discriminating for this reason, should the law pass.

I totally feel for the people going through this, I had a small gap between my last two employers, and I dealt with the issue first hand. All I can say is keep looking and you'll land a job. It may not be the one you want, but they are out there.

Zartanasaurus

Would be the weakest reasoning for a protected class yet. There are way more applicants than job openings right now, companies can be selective. Once the job market turns around, they won't have any choice.

Priston

It wouldn't suprise me if the government decided to offer some kind of tax break or incentive to employers who hire a employee who was unemployed for over 6 months prior to their new employment.

Kind of like how some companies get incentives for being minority owned or having a large amount of minorities.

I heard about one company who wouldn't hire white males(non-minorities).

Blackout

Priston wrote: »

It wouldn't suprise me if the government decided to offer some kind of tax break or incentive to employers who hire a employee who was unemployed for over 6 months prior to their new employment.

Kind of like how some companies get incentives for being minority owned or having a large amount of minorities.

I heard about one company who wouldn't hire white males(non-minorities).

This ^

Rumor has it that the government is mulling giving tax breaks to companies that hire veterans. So I guess its a start.

blargoe

Sounds like a noble idea, but no matter what you do someone is going to lose. I would be really pissed if I got passed over for a job (or laid off from my current one) so my company could get a tax break for hiring a person who is a veteran or a person has been unfortunate enough to be unemployed.

Forsaken_GA

erpadmin wrote: »

Certainly merits discussion, since the unemployed deserve to be a protected class:

Yeah, we're going to have to disagree there. Being black, or hispanic, or ***, or handicapped, etc, those are all things the person can rarely do anything about. It's part of who they are.

Being unemployed? That you can generally do something about, whether it's starting your own business, or taking work you consider 'beneath' you. I am becoming very, very sick of the unemployed wanting to place the responsibility for their lack of a job on everyone other than themselves.

erpadmin

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Yeah, we're going to have to disagree there. Being black, or hispanic, or ***, or handicapped, etc, those are all things the person can rarely do anything about. It's part of who they are.

Being unemployed? That you can generally do something about, whether it's starting your own business, or taking work you consider 'beneath' you. I am becoming very, very sick of the unemployed wanting to place the responsibility for their lack of a job on everyone other than themselves.

So, it would be better if I just supported these folks with my tax dollars so they can collect welfare, then?

You can't have it both ways....I'm all for people working. If there is anything that can help the unemployment rate go back to low single digits, I'm all for that. Being employed when you have a Ph.D shouldn't mean cleaning toilets.

When I meant that the unemployed should be a protected class, I meant those who have been legitimately looking for work for more than a year, not someone who's been out of work for a few weeks or even months.

Forsaken_GA

erpadmin wrote: »

So, it would be better if I just supported these folks with my tax dollars so they can collect welfare, then?

Forcing business owners to hire unemployed people to avoid frivolous lawsuits just moves the cost of the welfare back to the private sector. If you think that's going to stimulate hiring, you're sadly mistaken. You'll start seeing job advertisements disappear, as no one wants to risk a lawsuit.

You can't have it both ways....I'm all for people working. If there is anything that can help the unemployment rate go back to low single digits, I'm all for that. Being employed when you have a Ph.D shouldn't mean cleaning toilets.

If that's what you have to do to put food on the table, gas in the car, or pay the rent, then that's exactly what it means. I've spent bouts of unemployment mowing lawns, cleaning out gutters, babysitting, and walking dogs. No one is owed a job, and sometimes, you may have to work beneath what you're accustomed to. Whether or not you stay there is largely up to you, but life happens, and sometimes you have to deal with unpleasant and unfulfilling work.

When I meant that the unemployed should be a protected class, I meant those who have been legitimately looking for work for more than a year, not someone who's been out of work for a few weeks or even months.

I know a few folks who were out of work for a year or more. In every single case, they had job opportunities, but weren't willing to accept them, because it paid so far beneath their previous salary. Certainly, working for 40k when you're used to pushing 90k+ is tough to swallow, but it beats the snot out of running up your credit cards while you're waiting for someone to take mercy on you.

This is a wake up call - you are *not* guaranteed a job. There is no checklist that says 'do these things and you'll have a good career'. Your career is what you make of it. Everyone needs to approach employment as if they're self employed, because when it comes down to it, we all are.

If you're presently out of work, and have been for over a year, what are you doing to distinguish yourself from the others who are in the same situation? Are you doing something to set yourself apart? Or are you waiting on someone else to fix the problem, and joining the whinefests on the internet?

powerfool

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

Would be the weakest reasoning for a protected class yet. There are way more applicants than job openings right now, companies can be selective. Once the job market turns around, they won't have any choice.

+1

I am sorry, but going down this road is the destruction of humanity. Protected classes are a load of garbage and do nothing but perpetuate issues in society. By placing people into groups, or classes, all you do it dehumanize people. I am not equating anyone to another person, but every instance of genocide and slavery has its roots in placing individuals into classes. I know that this isn't remotely close to that, but these actions are always a double-edge sword.

There is definitely going to be a negative impact for the very people this is supposed to help... it is called an unintended consequence. I can only imagine that this will further dampen the growth of the economy.

Honestly, what sort of rational logic can be used in interfering in the hiring process of a private employer in the interest of protecting people? I don't like discrimination on the basis of meritless factors, but lack of employment can certainly be merit-based (though that is not by any means a rule).

Put yourself in an employer's shoes... someone comes up to you and says that this certain group of people cannot be discriminated against... and if you are perceived to be in violation, you are going to be sued, fined, whatever... You are already in an environment where regulations and requirements have become onerous.

I would think that I may no longer publish job openings to the general public. Or, maybe I just reconsider filling a position at all. Or, maybe they hire you and then come up with a reason to eliminate you rather quickly... which is easy enough to do and can be done with minimal cost; then they just turn around and hire the person that they really wanted without reposting the job to the masses.

My company, my rules... even if they stink.

Besides, why would you want to be in a protected class? My first thought would be that accepting that label would be an admission of submission or inadequacy. No thanks. I have a brain and I am fully capable of independent thought. Plus, the struggle is part of life.

Human and proud!

tpatt100

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Yeah, we're going to have to disagree there. Being black, or hispanic, or ***, or handicapped, etc, those are all things the person can rarely do anything about. It's part of who they are.

Being unemployed? That you can generally do something about, whether it's starting your own business, or taking work you consider 'beneath' you. I am becoming very, very sick of the unemployed wanting to place the responsibility for their lack of a job on everyone other than themselves.

Yes the unemployed should just create jobs that's the answer. I think they should have no problem selling things when there is no demand which resulted in their unemployment situation in the first place...

I get that there are "people who are waiting for something suitable" for them but the unemployment situation for the past few years is way beyond just "creating your own business or taking a job beneath you".

When I was not working I ran into two problems:

1. Past salary: I got "woah yeah we can't match that". I didn't care about not matching it I wanted to work, actually a few positions would make a better well rounded IT worker vs being a specialized niche which was what I wanted to get out of.

2. Position was a couple of levels beneath me: A few recruiters were trying to get me into positions beneath me where at the interview I actualy once got asked "why are you here??". No amount of creativity would allow me to talk my way out of it that sounded believable.

The big reason I got my current job that I was still able to negotiate salary and benefits was because the HR and CIO actually believed me that I did not want to be a contractor anymore and I wanted to grow in a position rather than stagnate. Got the offer the following week.

The problem is my job was one position that is supposed to grow into more but it was just "one" position. My last two jobs were like that I was one position that might have been three to four a few years ago.

powerfool

tpatt100 wrote: »

Yes the unemployed should just create jobs that's the answer. I think they should have no problem selling things when there is no demand which resulted in their unemployment situation in the first place...

I get that there are "people who are waiting for something suitable" for them but the unemployment situation for the past few years is way beyond just "creating your own business or taking a job beneath you".

Man, that is called: life. It isn't anyone else's job to just make a job for you. Further, the purpose of a company isn't to create jobs, it is to create wealth and satisfy customers; creating jobs is just a nice side effect for those that don't have the will or desire to run their own company. Further, no one on this Earth can truly guarantee anything. Our entire economic system could collapse... how long would you wait for someone to take care of you before you decided to do something for yourself? Are you going to just sit around and starve? Or will you at least try to grow some food, gather some fruits or nuts, and hunt for some wild game? Or would be like others that would not take any initiative and just steal from others?

To be honest, our entire economic system rides on the backs of the people that create companies and innovate. If they were to die or get driven out of that role because of onerous regulation, the entire facade of our economy would disappear. It is a survival of the fittest mentality. We can easily work together freely in a capitalistic society which, despite some folks beliefs, creates a better economic environment for all... or you can have someone centrally planning pulling the wool over people's eyes when they espouse "guarantees".

NetworkingStudent

Excellent1 wrote: »

Yes, it's definitely a problem, but it's not one that litigation will solve. Employers can and do discriminate for all sorts of reasons that they are legally not supposed to and there is pretty much nothing that can be done about it. Given the laws on the books are already pretty much unenforceable, I don't see this changing anything, unfortunately--even if it is successful.

+1
Yes, I think this practice is utterly disgusting. Most of these people didn’t ask to get fired. They lost their job because the economy went down the toilet, and the company had to make cuts to survive. Job seekers need to be persistent to get hired.

I was never unemployed I have always had a job. Currently, I work in printing and I ‘m looking for an IT job. I would love to find or get my break in IT, but yet I haven’t had an offer yet. I get interviews, but no offers yet. I have run into a lot of questions about what I did while I’m looking for work. It’s so hard to find a job even for a person that is already employed, but there are jobs out there. You need to take what you can get and after a few months or a year or two, you can move on.
Here is a link below that discusses discriminating against the unemployed.

Unemployed? 5 Reasons Companies Won’t Hire You | BNET

The preference for hiring the already employed has gone on for years and years. The difference was, it used to be that very few people were unemployed. Because unemployment was low, there was more of a possibility that if you were unemployed, you were at fault. It’s always been easier to find a job when you have a job. This is why I advise people to stick it out at a job until they have a new one, unless the current job is so awful that staying there is a danger to health (mental or physical) or safety.

•Hiring is really difficult so companies use “proxies” to help them. We’re all familiar with a very common proxy–the degree. High school, college, or graduate degree are really nothing more than proxies for knowledge, perseverance, and enough social skills to not get kicked out. Employers assume that your school was capable of telling if you were qualified for a degree, so they trust the school’s evaluation of you. Because it’s really hard to tell how you’ll perform on the job, hiring managers look and see that another company values your work enough to continue to employ you. If you don’t have a job, it’s like not having a degree. It doesn’t mean you aren’t capable, it’s just another proxy.

Zartanasaurus

erpadmin wrote: »

So, it would be better if I just supported these folks with my tax dollars so they can collect welfare, then?

You can't have it both ways....I'm all for people working. If there is anything that can help the unemployment rate go back to low single digits, I'm all for that. Being employed when you have a Ph.D shouldn't mean cleaning toilets.

Making it a law that you can't use current employment status as a basis for hiring would not magically make the unemployment rate go down. I would also doubt very many Ph.Ds are being discriminated against in the workplace because they are currently unemployed.

RobertKaucher

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Yeah, we're going to have to disagree there. Being black, or hispanic, or ***, or handicapped, etc, those are all things the person can rarely do anything about. It's part of who they are.

Being unemployed? That you can generally do something about, whether it's starting your own business, or taking work you consider 'beneath' you. I am becoming very, very sick of the unemployed wanting to place the responsibility for their lack of a job on everyone other than themselves.

I agree in principle, but that is kind of white washing the issue. If you are unemployed for reasons out of your control (cut backs, firm goes under etc) and you should not be discriminated against as this will cause a vicious cycle of not having a job meaning you cannot get a job. And I don't think 3 months of working as a share cropper is going to matter on your IT resume to a company not looking at the unemployed.
They will want people working in the field.

Not everyone or even most of the unemployed right now are unemployed because they are incompetent or mediocre workers. But creating a protected class out of the unemployed is foolish. I would be too weak - nearly impossible to enforce. I think this is a case where shame is the only answer. People need to talk about this and companies who do this need to be stigmatized for it. Companies do respond to this sort of influence.

it_consultant

It is kind of like the unemployment rate for veterans. No one wants to hire veterans, they are often ill-suited to civilian work and employers take a big risk hiring them. This sounds harsh but I know what I am talking about, I am a veteran. Employers also don't like hiring people who have been unemployed for a long time because they don't know if their skills are sharp AND if they have been unemployed for a long time, there must be something wrong with them, right? It is scummy, but very hard to prove.

powerfool

RobertKaucher wrote: »

Not everyone or even most of the unemployed right now are unemployed because they are incompetent or mediocre workers.

While it certainly isn't universally true, I am going to have to disagree with you. I would have to imagine that a good majority of the unemployed are incompetent or mediocre. You have to realize, our unemployment rate isn't even double of what is considered good. 5% is usually good... this means pretty much everyone is employed and a small percentage are in flux. Any of them that remain unemployed are not likely very skilled. Now, take that rate and increase it due to the economy. Some companies need to cut back... some wipe out an IT department (which I went through) and other weed out the waste. The ones that were wiped out, I am sure many of the worthy folks, but not all, were able to find jobs. Also, IT actually has fared much better than the overall employment trends... meaning lower than the national average.

I am not going to automatically assume someone is a bad worker because of remaining unemployed... but if I see a few issues, it isn't going to take much for me to pass on the person given the large selection of folks out there right now.

Also, some of the policies that are out there about unemployed not apply... that is to weed out the folks that are just applying to their minimum 2-3 jobs per week and are not truly interested in finding employment. Those people certainly do exist. I cannot say exactly what proportion of the unemployed that they are, but I have to believe you have a rosier view than reality.

Someone who made a decent amount of money before being laid off and doesn't accept a position because of the low salary... you have to be kidding me. Unemployment has a max. In Indiana, unemployment pays 40% of your salary up to $390 per week. $390 per week doesn't, minus taxes, barely covers my mortgage. If I had an offer earning $20-30k less, I would have jumped on it... I would have been able to handle my bills a lot better than $390 a week. And there are plenty of folks that are unwilling to take that job. They likely were in a dual-income household and decided to "take it easy"... at least they had some money coming to contribute to the bills.

Plus, you have to consider all of the people that have been laid off that are approaching retirement... or at least being able to collect Social Security. Some of these may have been preparing for lower income and have been in a position to just "retire early" living off of some retirement savings withdraws and unemployment checks until Social Security rolls around. I haven't seen any study, but I have heard from people that fell into that line of thought and eventually changed their minds and decided to start looking for work. Honestly, logic suggests that if someone is going to be living off of the system soon anyhow (Social Security), what issue would they have doing it just a little sooner (unemployment checks). I hope I never see Social Security... I hope it is phased out before I get there.... folks approaching retirement really don't have that luxury unless they have been saving like crazy. Folks in their 30s and younger should probably start planning to truly fix things for their children and grandchildren by sucking it up and paying for their parents and grandparents and not expecting a check when they get to that point.

While it certainly isn't everyone... there is a sizable enough chunk of people that receive benefits that are essentially scamming the system. It is a complete WAG, but I am going to say the number is somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 of folks. My wife is currently in school (I am paying her tuition, as we don't get financial aid... and I am not even near halfway to Obama's "rich" $250k/year folks AND I am going to grad school too... a two higher ed student household with three grade school age children), and at least 2/3 of the folks in her class are openly discussing how they are taking advantage of the system in one way or another... getting school completely covered... taking their EBT cards to get cigarettes and clothes... getting utility and housing assistance... while their live-in boyfriends/babies-daddy is raking in decent money... driving nicer vehicles than we do. And no... there is absolutely nothing race related here... skin color doesn't matter when taking advantage of other people... all skin colors are willing to do it. It happens, bottom line and I am sick of footing the bill (because I am not in the 47% of folks that don't pay federal income tax).

erpadmin

Unemployment in the US is a huge problem...and this is going to effect everyone, one way or the other. The more people who are unemployed, the more the stock market drops, which effects everyone's bottom-line.

Whenever I hear of folks getting welfare, my first thought is "that bum should just get a job." However, that's not always so simple, as there may be a myriad of legitimate reasons why "that bum" is on welfare, and I don't necessarily agree with them, but I do understand them.

Perhaps making the unemployed protected might not be a good idea. I'm actually open to hearing that out. However, 9%-13% of the population aren't going to "innovate", or otherwise open successful companies or become the third coming of Steve Jobs. Some of those folks are, but not many.

All I can say is that I am employed...happily. Maybe tomorrow will be a different story. Maybe tomorrow that Nigerian Prince will actually come through and give me a $1000000000000000.00 check that will clear.

However, whatever my fortunes are, this unemployment issue will affect everyone, one way or the other.

Forsaken_GA

erpadmin wrote: »

The more people who are unemployed, the more the stock market drops, which effects everyone's bottom-line.

That's a stretch. While a lower unemployment rate is certainly an indicator of a strong economy, the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator. Proving that it's a direct factor in stock prices is really really hard to prove

powerfool

erpadmin wrote: »

However, 9%-13% of the population aren't going to "innovate", or otherwise open successful companies or become the third coming of Steve Jobs. Some of those folks are, but not many.

I certainly would agree that most of them aren't going to do much of anything beyond either look for employment or sit back and collect a check... however business magazines highlight now large and pervasive companies that were started during slow economic times and by folks that were unemployed.

While it may impact everyone, that doesn't make it a bad thing. Innovation is a product of necessity, it always has been. You don't innovate when you don't have to be concerned about your economic well being, whether that is a person or a company. Further, it may have impacted me... but it has been an overall blessing. I was let go, but fairly quickly found employment... but for less money. Then, I found a job that bested my highest income... I have paid down my debt to mitigate any further negative impact... I started going to grad school and my wife is finally going to nursing school. Plus, this isn't the first economic downturn I have faced... I learned from the last one... that hurt my finances something fierce (but ultimately led to me getting my undergrad degree, so definitely some positives). All in all, I have to say that while it hasn't always felt good, the economic downturns have caused me to grow in so many ways. There will most likely be good times again... and these downturns have prepared me to take better advantage of them and helped me to better appreciate them.

I am sorry, but it is the human condition. Consider the Matrix... they couldn't create a Utopia. While it is a fictional story, it is one that pervades human existence. Regardless of your beliefs, civilizations and religions have been founded on that concept, and whatever the reality of the supernatural world is, the Utopia being essentially impossible seems to be a real factor.

erpadmin

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

That's a stretch. While a lower unemployment rate is certainly an indicator of a strong economy, the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator. Proving that it's a direct factor in stock prices is really really hard to prove

The next time ADP releases a job report with a decrease in payroll job, or some government agency on non-farm jobs, see how the DOW and S&P does that day. Most times, the market is down. That's not exactly a figment of my imagination.

powerfool wrote: »

I certainly would agree that most of them aren't going to do much of anything beyond either look for employment or sit back and collect a check... however business magazines highlight now large and pervasive companies that were started during slow economic times and by folks that were unemployed.

While it may impact everyone, that doesn't make it a bad thing. Innovation is a product of necessity, it always has been. You don't innovate when you don't have to be concerned about your economic well being, whether that is a person or a company. Further, it may have impacted me... but it has been an overall blessing. I was let go, but fairly quickly found employment... but for less money. Then, I found a job that bested my highest income... I have paid down my debt to mitigate any further negative impact... I started going to grad school and my wife is finally going to nursing school. Plus, this isn't the first economic downturn I have faced... I learned from the last one... that hurt my finances something fierce (but ultimately led to me getting my undergrad degree, so definitely some positives). All in all, I have to say that while it hasn't always felt good, the economic downturns have caused me to grow in so many ways. There will most likely be good times again... and these downturns have prepared me to take better advantage of them and helped me to better appreciate them.

I am sorry, but it is the human condition. Consider the Matrix... they couldn't create a Utopia. While it is a fictional story, it is one that pervades human existence. Regardless of your beliefs, civilizations and religions have been founded on that concept, and whatever the reality of the supernatural world is, the Utopia being essentially impossible seems to be a real factor.

The Matrix Trilogy...I found the second and third films to be such utter garbage but that's another topic. If we're going to talk Sci-Fi and utopias, we should look to Star Trek (any of them...from movies, to whatever series you like...even the Animated one...) The Federation was all about the pursuit of knowledge instead of monetary gain...they left that to the Ferrengi, who they curiously made to resemble a bad caricature of another group who's seen as money hungry....but when the Star Fleet isn't fighting some group, they're pursuing knowledge in a very Utopian manner. I guess that's what Roddenberry had in mind.

In any event, we all have stories about how we perservere from adversity. Your story is commendable, as well as mine, and others. I don't plan on suing a company/government entity if they don't hire me...I'd rather focus that energy toward finding one that will. My whole thing with this is that there should be some recourse for folks who are down on their luck that doesn't involve money out of my pocket (unless I will it to be out of my pocket, but that's my choice.) I don't know what the right answer is, but somehow...I don't think I will find that answer on Fox News (even though I do watch it...and the others....so that I may have a pure fair and balanced opinion...

)

Forsaken_GA

erpadmin wrote: »

The next time ADP releases a job report with a decrease in payroll job, or some government agency on non-farm jobs, see how the DOW and S&P does that day. Most times, the market is down. That's not exactly a figment of my imagination.

Any negative event tends to have a negative short term effect on the market. That's why when the bond rating got downrated, the market took a huge hit, but it recovered the same week. Or news of a scandal. So sure, the jobs report can drop the market for a day or two, and it will usually recover. The market, historically, has long recovered before the unemployment rate has, which is why unemployment is considered a lagging indicator. You have to go an awful long way to make any kind of definitive argument that unemployment is bad for the stock market, and about the only context you can make that argument is for the short term. If you're worried about your IRA or 401k, you're not playing the short term investing game

powerfool

Hmm... I guess our unemployment rate must be 0%... because there are 3.2 million job openings out there. Companies just can't seem to fill them.

News Headlines

And that isn't FoxNews...

FTA:
"While still just one opening for more than every four people looking for work, it begs the question of why there are any job openings at all given the huge number of unemployed.The answer is likely a combination of a few factors: long-term unemployment killing skills, a lousy housing market hurting labor mobility—and though it’s extremely unpopular to say, extended unemployment benefits likely having an impact on at least some folks’ choices in what jobs they’ll agree to take and when. "

All from CNBC

powerfool

erpadmin wrote: »

If we're going to talk Sci-Fi and utopias, we should look to Star Trek (any of them...from movies, to whatever series you like...even the Animated one...) The Federation was all about the pursuit of knowledge instead of monetary gain...they left that to the Ferrengi, who they curiously made to resemble a bad caricature of another group who's seen as money hungry....

Yeah, but who is truly money hungry? The folks that risk their wealth and invest it, their time, and their efforts into the creation of value that they freely exchange with others... or folks that are able to work that just want to sit around and collect checks from other in perpetuity? Or how about a bunch of Occupy Wall Street kids that don't actually create value that want to forcibly take their "living" from someone else? Who is it that is the money hungry one again?

EDIT: Oh, check out Star Trek Season 1 Episode 25... The Enterprise encounters a utopia and Kirk breaks free from the allure through reasoning that something is wrong with the whole thing (the idea of a utopia). That's original Roddenberry.

SteveLord

Yay...another protected class...........all we need.

it_consultant

powerfool wrote: »

Hmm... I guess our unemployment rate must be 0%... because there are 3.2 million job openings out there. Companies just can't seem to fill them.

News Headlines

And that isn't FoxNews...

FTA:
"While still just one opening for more than every four people looking for work, it begs the question of why there are any job openings at all given the huge number of unemployed.The answer is likely a combination of a few factors: long-term unemployment killing skills, a lousy housing market hurting labor mobility—and though it’s extremely unpopular to say, extended unemployment benefits likely having an impact on at least some folks’ choices in what jobs they’ll agree to take and when. "

All from CNBC

You have to be careful with labor economics in the sense that an unemployed worker can't just fill a vacant position. There are labor shortages in the US in demand fields and labor surplus in struggling industries. A laid off brick layer (a skilled trade) simply can't pick up and become a computer programmer inside of 4 years. Similarly, a laid off bank manager can't really work as a brick layer. Both of these guys could get a "McJob" (as my economics professor used to put it) but that is NOT a one for one swap in the labor market. In fact, skilled workers taking a "McJob" is a sign of structural unemployment which is a seriously big deal. Structural unemployment, in short terms, means that the skills of the available workforce don't meet the demand of the employers. Unemployment is then "by structure".

There are huge ramifications in the labor market for which long term unemployment is simply a symptom. Everything, from elementary to college education, needs to be retooled. This will take something like 15 years to get straightened out. We are probably headed into something similar to Japan's "lost decade". We should all be thankful we have jobs that pay us well and approach the people who are not so fortunate (military veterans, long term unemployed) with some amount of helpfulness.

NetworkingStudent

it_consultant wrote: »

You have to be careful with labor economics in the sense that an unemployed worker can't just fill a vacant position. There are labor shortages in the US in demand fields and labor surplus in struggling industries. A laid off brick layer (a skilled trade) simply can't pick up and become a computer programmer inside of 4 years. Similarly, a laid off bank manager can't really work as a brick layer. Both of these guys could get a "McJob" (as my economics professor used to put it) but that is NOT a one for one swap in the labor market. In fact, skilled workers taking a "McJob" is a sign of structural unemployment which is a seriously big deal. Structural unemployment, in short terms, means that the skills of the available workforce don't meet the demand of the employers. Unemployment is then "by structure".

There are huge ramifications in the labor market for which long term unemployment is simply a symptom. Everything, from elementary to college education, needs to be retooled. This will take something like 15 years to get straightened out. We are probably headed into something similar to Japan's "lost decade". We should all be thankful we have jobs that pay us well and approach the people who are not so fortunate (military veterans, long term unemployed) with some amount of helpfulness.

+1
This is how I feel, I consider myself lucky to even have a job. It’s not an IT job(trust me I look everyday), however it is a job.

Unemployed shouldn’t be a protected class. There are jobs out there, but it takes a lot longer to find them. There are a couple of facts to consider:
• Job creation in America doesn’t keep up with population growth.
• Employers are looking for skills, more than they’re looking for degrees.
• Since the job market is unstable companies are trying to create as many temporary and part time positions as possible.

The economy needs a huge shock for things change. Maybe a depression or a change in currency, but something needs to happen, so that politicians can see where we are heading.

It disgusts me to see military men and women come back, and they can’t get a job, it’s just sad. Also, after reading how all these postal workers might possibly lose their job is sort of depressing. All these postal workers dedicated their life to the postal service only to be laid off, or fired. There is no easy answer, or quick fix that will solve unemployment rates.

SteveLord

NetworkingStudent wrote: »

+1
This is how I feel, I consider myself lucky to even have a job. It’s not an IT job(trust me I look everyday), however it is a job.

Unemployed shouldn’t be a protected class. There are jobs out there, but it takes a lot longer to find them. There are a couple of facts to consider:
• Job creation in America doesn’t keep up with population growth.
• Employers are looking for skills, more than they’re looking for degrees.
• Since the job market is unstable companies are trying to create as many temporary and part time positions as possible.

The economy needs a huge shock for things change. Maybe a depression or a change in currency, but something needs to happen, so that politicians can see where we are heading.

It disgusts me to see military men and women come back, and they can’t get a job, it’s just sad. Also, after reading how all these postal workers might possibly lose their job is sort of depressing. All these postal workers dedicated their life to the postal service only to be laid off, or fired. There is no easy answer, or quick fix that will solve unemployment rates.

What military folks? Active have a job for practically as long as they want. Guardsmen and Reservists cant lose theirs for being deployed. I assume you mean those who didnt have a job originally? (I believe you...just looking for specifics.)

erpadmin

powerfool wrote: »

Or how about a bunch of Occupy Wall Street kids that don't actually create value that want to forcibly take their "living" from someone else? Who is it that is the money hungry one again?

EDIT: Oh, check out Star Trek Season 1 Episode 25... The Enterprise encounters a utopia and Kirk breaks free from the allure through reasoning that something is wrong with the whole thing (the idea of a utopia). That's original Roddenberry.

Anarchy, communism, socialism...and alas capitalism. Human nature messes up all of those ideas. In a household that pretty much voted Democratic, I was a child in the 80s that grew up believing that communism was bad and capitalism was good. But I wouldn't understand why that was until later in life...coinciding with the fall of the Iron Curtain and all of that. Then I learned that if truly put in to practice, all of those ideologies aren't so bad until human nature gets involved. Then you pretty much have to take the lesser of all them...all things considered, I'll stick with what I know and what's won out...free market enterprise (it does work....

) Personally, I like the idea of anarchy, but you'll never see it turn out well.

I'll check out TOS season 1 episode 25, if you'll check out DS9 Season 3 episodes 11 and 12 (Past Tense I and II). I actually got to both of them yesterday, as I'm watching that series in order since it got available on Netflix. That two-parter made me think of this thread and our conversation.

I really did like the DS9 series, but when it was on, it coincided with my partying stage. Kind of fell off from this series after high school and could only catch it sparingly. Now I can finally appreciate it.