Skip to main content

View Diary: The secret of the so-called "skills gap" (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Used to be, if you weren't getting qualified app- (25+ / 0-)

    licants, you would sweeten the compensation specifically for "qualified applicants" and then re-post the job. That doesn't happen much anymore, except at the very top, where sky's generally the limit.

    Nowadays, jobs are often posted for less than what people in the market are currently being paid and companies complain when the response is tepid that they cant' get enough "qualified applicants".

    Until trickle-down economic theory -- this notion that concentrated wealth is not only a good but a necessary thing -- is thoroughly and definitively discredited in public by "official" "authority figures", the destructive imbalance in wages and benefits will continue, despite any cosmetic alterations that may be made. As progressives, that must be a primary goal: get our elected officials to side with and give voice to the truth: it's about the demand, stupid. That should be a litmus test for a better Democrat from now on.

     

    The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries.

    by Words In Action on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 06:28:49 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Add to this the companies that don't want to hire (16+ / 0-)

      people who are unemployed. When I think about that, it's quite possible that there are some companies complaining that they can't find enough workers willing to jump ship for a lower paying job.

      •  I wonder about the work culture we create. (4+ / 0-)

        In my field (IT) being unemployed for more than 3 months is considered a HUGE, decade-long mark against being hired.

        The implication is that if you were let go unexpectedly, rather than jumping ship before problems arose at your company, you must be in the lowest 10% of employees.

        Think about that for a second.  If you were loyal enough to your former employer that you decided to stay until they let you go--maybe for reasons beyond anyone's control--you're not worthy to hire.

        Yet, once hired by a new company, they expect undying loyalty to them.

        It is an entirely unbalanced system.  And I'm talking about the cushy jobs near the top of the job market.  I can't even begin to imagine the spiritual violation committed against those competing for lower paying jobs.

        In the end, automation is going to reduce the need for many kinds of labor.  Full employment can not remain an achievable goal forever, any more than perpetual economic growth can.  If society want to continuously weed out the least desirable 10% of workers, society must come to terms with the fact that becoming a desirable worker is not achievable by 100% of the population, and some people will have to either be (left-wing approach) supported financially, or (the right-wing approach) taken to the gallows to be killed, to avoid financial drain on society.

        Whole classes of people are in the process of being made eternally unfit for hire, by the arbitrary rules of HR departments.  And in a world where we only need 50% of eligible workers, there will always be a 50% of workers who are artificially "unhirable" because they are not the best of the best in whatever fields they have aptitude for.  This is what we're headed for.  Our current problems with unemployment are just the tip of the iceberg.

        When did it become a sin to be merely average, rather than exceptional?

        •  It's not a sin, but they'd like to make everyone (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Words In Action

          believe it is. It has to be some sort of ultimately damning fault of the person who is having difficulty finding work so everyone can turn their heart away and have no sympathy. Without sympathy, without the ability to imagine one's self in those people's place, any sort of public policy becomes possible. Somehow you can't ever imagine yourself in that place until you are there. Then no one will listen to what you have to say because you've proven yourself unfit.

          It's perfectly circular reasoning. People are unsuccessful because they're bad. How do we know that they're bad? Because they're unsuccessful.

          In my own ideal world, automation should mean that we should be able to work shorter hours, retire early, perhaps take a sabbatical and go back to school or pursue an interest. Only the rare people who have a driving passion about their work would have to work themselves ragged, and that's only because they're internally driven. We should be more comfortable and prosperous on average, not less.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site