Skip to main content

Graph plotting job recruiting intensity against job fill rates, 2001-2011, showing recruiting intensity going down during the recession and not really recovering.
The business owner's version of "the dog ate my homework" these days is "we're not hiring because we can't find workers with the skills we need." Various business lobby groups like the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Association of Manufacturers are pushing that line hard, trying to pin continuing high unemployment on the alleged suckitude of American workers and justify continuing to refer to themselves as job creators even as they create damn few actual jobs. But the facts just don't support it.

Mike Konczal rounds up research showing that job recruitment intensity on the part of businesses is low. During the recession, businesses didn't have to try much at all to get a slew of ridiculously overqualified applicants for any job, and they got used to that. Now that things are picking up a little, employers are still spoiled, expecting to be able to snap their fingers and get what they want. And if that's not the way it works out, they're content to just sit around waiting and lamenting the lack of qualified applicants, rather than actually making an effort to recruit workers:

What does it mean for recruitment intensity to fall? This recruitment intensity, according to the research, "is shorthand for the other instruments employers use to influence the pace of new hires – e.g., advertising expenditures, screening methods, hiring standards, and the attractiveness of compensation packages. These instruments affect the number and quality of applicants per vacancy, the speed of applicant processing, and the acceptance rate of job offers." This margin for trying to fill jobs is ignored, or assumed away, in most of the major economic models of unemployment and hiring.
So basically, it's like this: business puts up a couple halfhearted ads offering $10 an hour and no benefits for a job requiring substantial skill and training, then waits for the applications to pour in. Only now, there are some applications but not thousands of desperate people begging for the job. The business takes its sweet time looking through those applications and getting back to people, some of whom may by now have found equivalently good jobs. Business then complains to reporters that there just aren't enough qualified applicants for the jobs it's trying so hard to fill. Reporter dutifully publishes article blaming unemployment on unemployed people.

Meanwhile, people who really do need jobs are left hanging, waiting for interviews, waiting to hear about jobs for which they've interviewed, wondering why the jobs that are out there pay so little considering the qualifications required. They're waiting, struggling, hoping to hear. But the owners of the companies are too busy explaining that their homework was eaten by dogs to actually hire anyone.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:30 AM PDT.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (153+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, tonyahky, MartyM, trueblueliberal, BeninSC, Unit Zero, Youffraita, kyril, JKTownsend, annecros, OLinda, hnichols, a2nite, dance you monster, gizmo59, MKinTN, cordgrass, absdoggy, jadt65, greengemini, myadestes, zerelda, Robobagpiper, blue aardvark, Naniboujou, jan4insight, 88kathy, banjolele, avsp, Jim R, Lost Left Coaster, SteelerGrrl, kestrel9000, Eileen B, Haningchadus14, klingman, JimWilson, Fury, slowbutsure, camlbacker, rogerdaddy, Egalitare, revsue, sfbob, FloridaSNMOM, OllieGarkey, antirove, JeffW, multilee, reginahny, Assaf, Azazello, Calamity Jean, young voter, eru, Utahrd, Karl Rover, Lefty Coaster, enemy of the people, Mentatmark, mconvente, Hey338Too, mdcalifornia, ManfromMiddletown, cyncynical, stevemb, Angela Quattrano, quaoar, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, boofdah, PapaChach, Farugia, New Rule, ChemBob, zedaker, Mr Robert, Tea and Strumpets, Sylv, ratzo, josmndsn, Jake Williams, blueoregon, fuzzyguy, sunny skies, gloriana, Danno11, profewalt, belinda ridgewood, Spirit of Life, IndieGuy, Mistral Wind, fiddlingnero, Emerson, tytalus, bwintx, Bernie68, Kristina40, Mislead, OrganizedCrime, luckydog, ParkRanger, Simul Iustus et Peccator, AnnieJo, JVolvo, mcd12, createpeace, CJB, ColoTim, LSophia, divineorder, maryabein, Saint Jimmy, Diana in NoVa, BarackStarObama, jds1978, entrelac, uciguy30, Brooke In Seattle, BCO gal, yawnimawke, dzog, means are the ends, xanthippe2, Noor B, Matt Z, reddbierd, rapala, litoralis, Crashing Vor, JBL55, Milly Watt, annieli, Mr MadAsHell, OleHippieChick, happymisanthropy, Herse182, gulfgal98, ArchTeryx, LaraJones, Hastur, cpresley, LuLu, Arenosa, Burned, Horace Boothroyd III, skybluewater, desert rain, Sister Havana, indres, Clues, skyounkin, Kiterea, mjfgates
  •  Umm... couple of points... (21+ / 0-)
    During the recession, businesses didn't have to try much at all
    The recession is over? Sure doesn't look that way from here.

    A big reason not too hire is lack of demand. Right now, nobody's buying.

    If there's nobody buying, why produce goods? To pay to store them?

    If nobody's buying, why pay staff to stand around? Sure, business owners will keep folks on payroll through bad times to hold onto their intellectual assets, but there's no sense in hiring even to counterbalance normal attrition.

    Listen, if there are any two things that we know about R's in this country, we know that

    A.) They're greedy. They aren't going to miss personal income to support a philosophy.

    B.) They're short-sighted. One or two business owners might do this strategically, but most of them don't think about how their actions play out on a macro scale. Take Climate Change, f'rinstance.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    -Robert Hanlon

    The only folks buying right now are the rich and near rich- but there aren't enough of them to keep everybody working. How much bread can one man eat?

    •  This was meant to be a reply to to Jacoby Jonze's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, LSophia

      conspiracy theorizing, not the diary, right?

      Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

      by JesseCW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:27:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not an either/or situation (15+ / 0-)

      Lack of Demand due to mainly to structural income inequality is surely the biggest reason unemployment is so high.  

      However, the attitude companies have taken in regards to hiring is a compounding factor.  It did not start during the recession; companies have created a cycle of decreasing effeciency in the labor market by trying to externalize costs (which is their main goal - that's how you maximize profit).  

      Shifting retirement costs more onto employees and society by getting rid of pensions moved financial, risk mitigation, and overhead costs onto someone else's balance sheet but decreased loyalty.  This raised recruitment, attrition, and retraining costs.  To externalize these, companies changed their base requirements to significant experience doing the exact job they were hiring for, expecting either society or the workers to pick up the tab for skills training.

      The flood of overqualified unemployed workers during the crisis encouraged a wider adoption this view, and employers have not relinquished as things have picked up.  It's shortsighted, in the same vein as slashing payrolls as the first action when conditions go south.

      It's not coordinated malice, it's collective stupidity.

      If you want a discussion, please stick to arguing the point. If you wanted something else...please exit the vehicle.

      by robizio on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:52:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Less staff, same work (13+ / 0-)

      Don't forget that it's not only "no one buying goods"; it is also that those who have jobs are so desperate to hold on to them that they will take almost any abuse. Remember the recent diary about the Blockbuster with one employee working a shift? And Starbucks with one barista? While "no one is buying" is true, it only goes so far and is yet another convenient excuse. I'm working at least 4 times as many hours to make about 25% of what I made prior to 2008-ish. (I freelance.)

      "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -- Einstein

      by reginahny on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:23:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republican Economics Says Economy is Like Drain. (8+ / 0-)

    When we have a recession, it's like the drain is plugged. They say it doesn't help to increase demand by opening the drain outlet wider, since goods and services aren't reaching it in the first place.

    What we need to do is give big tax cuts to businesses so they will jam more and more and more goods into the pipeline until the supply pressure forces the recession to end.

    Admit it. You can't argue with that.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:58:46 AM PDT

    •  They will never relase the goods and services (6+ / 0-)

      while they are scared.  They will continue to be scared until they are rich.  They will always need more and more to feel rich.  Releasing goods and services will make them feel less rich.  That will scare them because it is not more.  They will not feel rich and happy unless 99% are poor and miserable.

      I think I can.

      . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

      by 88kathy on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:52:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So the big business tax cuts are like (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, sethtriggs
      What we need to do is give big tax cuts to businesses so they will jam more and more and more goods into the pipeline until the supply pressure forces the recession to end.
      a plunger?  

      Renewable energy brings national global security.     

      by Calamity Jean on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:25:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So basically, they want to force businesses into (8+ / 0-)

        a cycle of dropping their prices until all that built-up inventory finally moves as businesses specializing in buying up unsold inventory clean them out?  Isn't it clear yet they try to portray Economics as hydraulic systems where pipes and dams burst and benefits trickle down?  The whole concept of ensuring there is money in the hands of those buying and consuming these products, and thus ensuring a fair market value is exchanged, seems missing from Republican thinking.  If you don't have employed shoppers earning a sufficient amount of money to spend, there cannot be a free market.  You can 'incentivize' business a thousand different ways but unless the citizen shoppers can earn and spend real money it's a depression.

        When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

        by antirove on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:10:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JeffW

          You couldn't have said it more perfectly.  

          Renewable energy brings national global security.     

          by Calamity Jean on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 07:20:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  But if there is no money in the hands of consumers (0+ / 0-)

          then why do they all have iphones and ipads?  50" Flat panel TV's?  SUV's?  Vacations to the beach?

          When people want something, or think they "deserve" to have it, they'll do anything in their power to get it - even if that means borrowing out to the max.  There are a lot of trailer parks out there with satelite dishes, SUV's, and quads in the yard.

          Once the Powers that Be decide what the next asset bubble is, and that it's safe to make the president look good, they'll open the flood gates, and unemployment will drop.

    •  So what we really need (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcd12, LSophia, happymisanthropy

      is a big ass plunger.

  •  Wingnut govs, wingnut business owners, crazy (12+ / 0-)

    wingnut politicians...all in cohoots to get the Kenyan out of their whitehouse...  I have never believed the bullshit about not having qualified workers. This was all discussed in the backroom meeting held the day after President Obama was elected that none of them deny happened.  These people have to be put down otherwise we are all doomed.  They could give a shit about helping the country, it's all about helping themselves, making their own rules and feathering their own nests.  It's sad.

  •  Please stop calling them "job creators" (18+ / 0-)

    Theyre parasites or monsters.

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:12:09 AM PDT

  •  Yep! (47+ / 0-)

    I work at a warehouse for a national clothing retailer. (You've heard of them, but I won't reveal the company's name.) We are in dire need for new employees, but management keeps stalling even as the seasonal workload increases.

    At a recent meeting, one of our more vocal people asked point-blank "When are you gonna hire more people?"

    The VP paused for a moment then finally answered, "Probably sometime in mid-November, after we find out how things are gonna go."

    To me--to many of us--this was direct evidence that "job creators" have no interest in actually creating jobs, no matter how desparate they may be, if it means Obama might get some credit.

    Shameful.

    There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.

    by Phil T Duck on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:13:27 AM PDT

    •  Yep X 2 (22+ / 0-)

      The other claim you always hear in the business press is "employers are too uncertain" to take on the expense of more employees.  They claim it's about healthcare, but how much of that complaint is simply that they don't know whether this election and the administration and Congress that follow will give them every bit of everything that they want.  Until they are certain they will get it all, they hold off on hiring.

      Extortion is a business model, after all.

    •  They'd rather pay overtime than bring in temps? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, LSophia, sethtriggs

      Their shareholders would love to hear about that.

      •  Who said anything about paying overtime? (20+ / 0-)

        If they can get away with it, they will convince the gullible to work a few extra hours now for some "undetermined future compensation."

        It is almost undocumented "Comp Time" and I bet that term is all too well known by many of us.

        When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

        by Egalitare on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:16:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Does the local Dept of Labor know about this? (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JeffW, New Rule, LSophia, Noor B, sethtriggs

          On the one hand, I live in the most Republican state there is.

          On the other hand, unemployment is relatively low here and we're close to Wyoming; where unemployment is even lower.

          But even the billionaires' cronies that run our Department of Workforce Services would have to call Shennanigans on "undetermined future compensation."

          It sounds like you could potentially have a lawsuit on your hands.  Is your employer dumb or brazen enough to put "undetermined future compensation" for nonexempt employees in writing?

          •  I worked for a small engineering and surveying... (10+ / 0-)

            ...firm back in the late 70's. The owners were rock-solid Republicans, the firm having been in business since 1890, and they all worked more than 8 hours a day, so they expected us all to do so. Originally it had been 8 hours on the weekdays, and 4 on Saturday. By the time I had come onboard, it was 8.5 hours every weekday, due to complaints from the eldest sons' wives. It was all computed as straight time.

            Field crews were expected to work on maintenance stuff and office cleaning when they were not in the field. Then, they hired a new guy, and insisted after he was hired that he stay late and do office cleaning every night. He carpooled with myself and the chief surveyor, and had no way to get home otherwise. Also he hadn't been told this would be expected of him when he interviewed with them, but apparently they considered it to be "other duties as assigned". He protested, and they fired him.

            Now, I had left the firm by that point, and had gone to work for a larger firm, and then had been let go because of Reagan's cut to public works funding. The field tech had complained to the DoL, and they had forced my old company (the small one) to issue back wages checks to us all for the overtime worked. One of my other former coworkers referred to it as our "dividend". It came in handy at the time, since I was out of work for 6 months.

            Both of these companies are still in business, BTW. I worked for one other small consulting firm, ended up on UI again for 11 months (back when you only got one 6-month extension), and then got two offers from the City of Chicago with one month of unemployment left.

            I retired from the City in 2010.

            Just sayin'...

            Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

            by JeffW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:46:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's not a local problem. (5+ / 0-)

            It's a nationwide problem.  Worse some places, and under some employers, than others.

            Most people working retail or "menial" jobs are at least occasionally pressured to work through mandated paid breaks, to work through all or part of their lunch, and not to clock overtime (supervisors often get in trouble if they allow OT, but a given target has to be met).

            They will often lie to investigators about this, because a shit job where they have to work an extra hour for free every day is a lot better than no job at all.

            Now....for my gut instinct answer

            Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

            by JesseCW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:04:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I only worked for one employer that did that (0+ / 0-)

            And I was never subjected to the practice, in part because I  resigned to take another job where I was fairly certain I wouldn't be subject to wage theft.

            I used to work for a small regional office supply company (about 30 stores in 3 states IIRC), which had the policy of minimizing overtime by simply telling the relative handful of us who were scheduled 40 hours that our week was over when we hit the magic number. About 18 months into my employment, the owners got "an offer they couldn't refuse" from OfficeMax (which at the time was in an expansion/market share war with both Office Depot and Staples for then then still retail office supply "killer category" business), so most of our managers were let go to make room for OfficeMax selected managers, along with a handful of OfficeMax "worker bees" from other stores so the store would be "OfficeMax  culturalized" (my term, not anything officially stated or written by OM HQ).

            I vividly remember being in the shipping/receiving office around 2 in the afternoon a Friday about a month after the acquisition was formalized. One of the OfficeMax transfers exclaimed "Oh, I'm close to 40 hrs!" and got up out of her chair. In the "old culture" she would have gone to a supervisor and explained that she was at 40 hrs so that whatever she still had on her "to do list" could be handed off to someone else in S/R. She got up, punched her time clock and got back in her chair. "Probably in the middle of something that couldn't be interrupted," I assumed and figured I see her leaving in 5 minutes or so. I went back a couple hours later and she was still there. I stayed long enough to see this happening with most of the "new culture people" just about every Friday. I made it a point to monitor my hours and go to my immediate supervisor about 15 minutes before I hit 40 hours so that a proper "handoff" could be done without me essentially giving OM free employment.

            I worked at a market research phone center a couple years later, and I heard similar "war stories" from co-workers who had previously been employed at Walmart and Food Lion (I was in Virginia - a Right to Work for Less state - at the time).

             

            When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

            by Egalitare on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:55:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  We use temps, (6+ / 0-)

          and, once upon a time, would hire from our pool of temp workers. Now, though, our temps "expire" after 1000 hours, at which point we get a fresh replacement. Temps are still being told that "it's possible" to go full-time; after about a month, they realize the truth. We haven't hired anybody in a long time.

          As for overtime, we work that too...on, say, Tuesday through Thursday. Then on Friday, we're usually told that we're suddenly "out of work," sent home early, and are left with about a 38-hour paycheck. The ol' bait-n-switch, y'know.

          There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.

          by Phil T Duck on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:22:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  wait until mid November (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mkor7, jds1978, LostBuckeye, sethtriggs

      so they can see whether the black guy won or lost.

      "I'm not saying that if you have a time machine, you necessarily have to kill Hitler, but this retroactive retirement is the worst use of a time machine I have ever seen!" Jon Stewart

      by Haningchadus14 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:02:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  won't matter (0+ / 0-)

        If (when) Obama wins, the other side will continue to stonewall and stall and try to crash the economy, or at least to make sure that the only people who benefit from it are the uber-rich. Otherwise it's too obvious that they were holding back for political reasons, and the Democrats get credit in 2014 for getting things back on track.

        If Romney wins in November, the financial services sector may celebrate, but other companies won't hire because the consumer demand just isn't there, and they will continue the anti-stimulus dogma that will prevent demand from recovering.

    •  I was in Aaron Bros the other day and noticed (22+ / 0-)

      that one fifty-ish woman was handling both the cash register and the back framing counter, back and forth.  Since five people were waiting at the register I had to ask for someone from the back to help me.  A middle aged man came out, all flustered and stressed.  His hands were shaking.  As I waited and watched I thought to myself "this is why there are no jobs, everyone who is working is doing the work of two or three people...for very little pay".  It's an issue I think we should be making way more noise about.

      Got Social Security? Thank a Democrat!

      by Fury on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:09:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is crazy (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reginahny, LSophia, Kiterea

      I didn't think that really happened at large companies, but I guess it does. Scary.

      Will they really start hiring if Romney wins the presidency? Probably not. Companies are used to just piling more work on their current employees, rather than hire someone else. That is the new normal.

      •  They might hire more in the short-term... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LSophia, Noor B, coffejoe, sethtriggs

        ...just to feather King Romney's nest and increase his chances of winning a 2nd term in '16 (if he wins this November), but it will come at a cost, no doubt, to American workers.

        Picture this, from said "job creator" Romney-ite: "Wellllll, it's great there are more jobs, but now we've got to cut pensions even further, reduce Medicare/Social Security contributions, eliminate those pesky environmental regulations and labor laws...that way the JOB CREATORS (sic) can be "freer" to run the businesses the way they want and keep the economy America™-strong!"

        Once Romney is ushered in for a 2nd term, the companies can then do whatever the hell they want, with consequences owed to no one, and the economy will tank. By that point, Citizens United will have continued to ensure them a permanent Republican majority, and Karl Rove's dream will have come true--even past that fat fuck's eventual demise...

        Seen on Facebook: "Rich people are not the cause of a robust economy, they are the result of a robust economy."

        by boofdah on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:05:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sometimes they advertise just to see what the (26+ / 0-)

    market will bear.

    They want to know what the job market is really like for their particular employees.  They advertise a janitors job for 12 bucks an hour and get 3,000 applications from highly qualified people...

    well, they know they don't have to give any raises to their current janitorial staff, who average 13.50.

    Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

    by JesseCW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:27:12 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't really make sense (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, boofdah, MGross, LSophia

    Companies either need or don't need someone. Toying around maybe-hiring someone is a waste of valuable time.

    Secondly, the fact that employers can't find skilled workers for $10/hr is a good thing, right? What exactly is this diary arguing?

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:31:07 AM PDT

    •  Companies are run by people (7+ / 0-)

      (often Republicans) who believe defeating Obama is more important in the short term than running a maximum profit business.

      I suspect that's why many aren't hiring, and finding excuses for it.

      •  You really believe that? (12+ / 0-)

        Companies are run by people who want to make money for themselves.

        Hedgefunds and investment bankers and private equity whores are the ones who make money whether the economy wins or loses, and they are the ones who are gunning fore Obama because he might take a few more per cent of their obscene earnings.

        •  I KNOW that (6+ / 0-)

          From experience.

          I also have experience with potential clients trying to blackmail me into giving donations to Republicans in order to get work. I say no, but those who get the contracts don't.

          This stuff goes on ALL the time. It's standard business for some corrupt people.

          •  People trying to get you to kick cash to political (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            peterfallow

            candidates in return for work is not evidence of a vast conspiracy to forgo profit making opportunities in order to harm Obama.

            Hiring people, making money from their labor, and spending a small portion of it on attacking Obama is far more likely to succeed.

            No extra-ordinary conspiracies need exist in order to explain why companies are not hiring, and (an equally big problem) are paying increasingly poor wages.

            Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

            by JesseCW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:09:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Unified Theory of Business Behavior (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sethtriggs, JesseCW

              1. Businesses in general are slow to hire because demand levels don't support larger numbers of workers.
              2. It's cheaper, as demand starts to pick up, to fill additional orders using temps and overtime. This is a classic business response. (And interns--see the book Intern Nation.)
              3. Also, and what appears to be happening now, is that businesses are advertising for prospective jobs "if and when." Public entities have long done this, because they need to act before legislatures finalize budgets, but others are getting into the act. They browse around and accumulate a pool of applicants, but don't hire until they are good and ready (ie, the market signals that the upturn in demand is likely to continue--and that's not likely given the uncertainty around the euro and downturns in the EU economies, plus warning signs that China's boom is slackening).

              •  It's cheapest to assign 10% more work per shift (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                verso2, sethtriggs, Kiterea

                than workers can be expected to preform, then threaten to fire anyone who doesn't get the additional work done, knowing that this will simply pressure workers to skip breaks - paid or otherwise.

                Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                by JesseCW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:38:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  They think they'll make more money (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ChemBob

          in the medium term w/out Obama in office.

          So they're running slow right now on purpose.

          It makes perfect sense in their diseased minds.

        •  It really does depend on the owners (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Noor B, happymisanthropy, sethtriggs

          My previous boss sure as hell would put ideology in front of profits.

          He did it all the time. He believed in a revolving door policy. People came and went through the company so fast it made employees at a car dealership look long term.

          The amount of institutional knowledge that was lost, and was relearned though experience was done time and time again.  Experience is gained though mistakes and bad decisions, and boy were there a lot of those!

          Sometimes it was simple things too... When a large number of people at the company are introduced to a new program does it not make sense for at least a few to be trained?

          Nyaa that costs money.

          It could have been simple mismanagement, but it was done with a malice that raised it to another level.

    •  not really (12+ / 0-)

      HR and upper management doesnt always care that joe six pack is killing themselves down on the floor doing 2 peoples job.  

      Joe needs someone desperately, upper management who makes the decision..not so much.

      Bad is never good until worse happens

      by dark daze on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:53:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We have to make the choice to pay a nickle more (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sethtriggs

        to buy from the store with someone at the register.

        We have to honor picket lines.

        We have to reject politicians who think they can reject labor.

        We have to keep walking down the street if we enter a business and see that the people working there are harried and hassled and scared.

        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

        by JesseCW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:12:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Ignoring the other response, I'll take a shot (12+ / 0-)

      The comment directly above yours gives one reason why postings don't necessarily result in a hiring (regardless of how much sense your first sentence makes).

      Another is that many companies have decided that they will only hire the ideal candidate who has all the tangibles and intangibles, has done the job before, and is happy to take it for less than it's worth.  They got away with it enough since the crisis that they think it's a viable hiring philosophy.

      Given the low likelihood of all the qualities they want lining up with someone who actually needs a job at the right time in their locale and finds their listing among all the others (bogus and otherwise), they are making the labor market incredibly inefficient and putting a further drag on the economy.

      If you want a discussion, please stick to arguing the point. If you wanted something else...please exit the vehicle.

      by robizio on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:07:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If the employer is Republicans in 2012 (7+ / 0-)

    I suspect the problem is that the potential employees don't have the following skills:

    1. Not white enough
    2. Not white enough
    3. Not Republican enough
    4. Not white enough
    5. Not male enough
    6. Not white enough

    I know a few people who are employed PURELY because they're Tea Party whacknuts.

    So of course their bosses aren't hiring anyone the Tea Party hates, ie blacks, women, latinos, Democrats, etc.

  •  New York Magazine (18+ / 0-)

    ... I think it was, did an article on this lately.  (I read it on an airplane earlier this month.  One thing mentioned: A recent ad for an engineer got 25,000 applications, but they didn't hire anyone.  The article noted that employers willing to offer any training at all has become largely a thing of the past.

    Grab all the joy you can. (exmearden 8/10/09)

    by Land of Enchantment on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:37:15 AM PDT

  •  It's obvious (26+ / 0-)

    and not sure why more people aren't pointing it out - companies are running record profits while unemployment is at record highs.

    Companies have figured out they can make the folks they have do more for less and they don't have to hire anyone else.

    The employees they do have are so scared of losing their jobs they don't complain and can easily be taken advantage of.

    Also, I can kill you with my brain.

    by Puffin on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:40:57 AM PDT

  •  yeah (17+ / 0-)

    And you left off the other thing the companies do.  They conclude that there are no Americans who want that crap job, then recruit an H1-b who will do the job without complaining about lousy conditions because otherwise they'll be deported.

    •  If 65k people/year (limit of H1b) is enough to (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, Mysteron, sethtriggs

      fill all jobs in this country, that's not a very healthy economy.

      •  Don't forget, each H1-b visa is for 6 years (16+ / 0-)

        So, if there is a limit of 65k (which I think is low - I thought it was at least twice that), you multiply that by 6 to get the real numbers.

        390,000 is a heck of a lot of IT jobs that are being held by non-Americans, espcially when there are qualified Americans and legitimate green-card holders who would really like one of them.

        Oh. From this site, I learn that there are 65,000 "regular" H1b visas each year plus 20,000 master's visas. (Who doesn't have a master's these days? Everybody I know does.)

        So, that mean 85,000 jobs PER YEAR go to new visa holders. Times 6 years gives us 510,000 jobs taken away from qualified Americans who want one.

        I am progressive. I am liberal. I make no apologies. - Kos

        My political compass: - 8.38,-6.97

        by pucklady on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:16:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is it any coincidence (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cordgrass, LSophia, Saint Jimmy

          that most of the people in the IT recruitment industry are Indian now from my own experiences and that most of the H1B viasa going to IT people are going to India as well? I certainly don't think so

        •  Yeah, I forgot about the additional 20k. (0+ / 0-)

          It was twice that when Clinton was President but not since. You have an interesting idea that there is a fixed number of jobs in a given industry in a given country. It usually doesn't work this way.

          •  I don't know what this means (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happymisanthropy

            "You have an interesting idea that there is a fixed number of jobs in a given industry in a given country."

            When did I say anything about a country or a fixed number of anything other than the jobs that we know aren't being held by Americans?

            I am progressive. I am liberal. I make no apologies. - Kos

            My political compass: - 8.38,-6.97

            by pucklady on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:30:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Since you seem to use talking points from (0+ / 0-)

              FAIR, I don't see what's there to discuss. Can you explain how you count each job 6 times? It doesn't matter for how long the visa is.

              •  What's the problem? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pucklady

                Pucklady is talking about the number of visa holders working in the country at any given time.  Do we need to break the math out for this?  You have X number allowed per year, the visas last 6 years so you multiply X by 6 to find out how many are working in the US at any given time.

              •  I have no idea what FAIR is. (0+ / 0-)

                I can do math.

                I am progressive. I am liberal. I make no apologies. - Kos

                My political compass: - 8.38,-6.97

                by pucklady on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 06:25:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And what about other immigrants who are working (0+ / 0-)

                  in US? There are tans of millions of them. Imagine how many jobs they are taking from Americans. You must hate that.

                  •  You realize there's a difference (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sethtriggs

                    between immigrants and visa holders, right?  We're all immigrants on this bus.  Nobody has a problem with immigrants.  They are, in essence, Americans who need jobs like the rest of us.

                    •  No, there isn't for H1B. Most of them end up (0+ / 0-)

                      getting green cards.

                      •  Do you have a reference for that? (0+ / 0-)

                        In any case, the problem that many of us have is with the administration of the visa program at a time when many Americans are out of work and so many jobs are leaving.  The number of visas should be closely monitored and in years like the few we've just had, reduced to nearly none.

                        If these visas were done honestly and properly, then even if it's true that most of these visa holders go on to get green cards, that wouldn't be a problem.

                        •  DOL has annual reports on that. (0+ / 0-)

                          A few recent ones (pdf):

                          http://www.myvisajobs.com/...

                          http://www.myvisajobs.com/...

                          I'm sure they are available on their official site as well. PERM is for GC applications. There are ~5 times more H1B approvals compared to GC approvals but it doesn't mean much as every time H1B needs to be extended or a person transfers to another company/position a new application is generated. As you can see, both GC and H1B applications dropped about 50% in 2009-2010.

                          I'm not sure what you mean by 'honestly and properly'. If you mean actually following the law, I agree with you. There is a lot of stuff going on with these visas, especially in tech.

                          •  Well, in part I'm referring to (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FG

                            the industry that has grown up to counsel big companies on how to write want ads that no one will see and no one can possibly meet the requirements for, that allow these companies to claim they need visa workers.  That was my first thought when I read the diary actually -  a lot of these help wanted ads, particularly in IT, are bogus.  They never intend to hire someone from them.

                            Thanks for the links.  I was a little short of time earlier to ferret out more info on that.

        •  H2-B Visa's are just as big a problem, but (0+ / 0-)

          you won't hear much about them at this site.

          I suspect it may have something to do with the general color of the collars of the American workers losing the jobs.

          Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

          by JesseCW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:15:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  One of the 'Qualifications' is salary range (3+ / 0-)

      And if my past salary or desired salary is $0.01 to high, I get my resume kicked to the curb.

      I wonder how many of the companies who are screaming for H1b employees have (many) qualified applicants that they won't consider because they simply want to earn a decent wage?

  •  Ive said this before (13+ / 0-)

    HR is so screwed up in the country, we laugh and joke at my company that the job I created for myself as a managing partner, if we hired an HR firm to fill it, I wouldnt probably qualify for my own position.

    Bad is never good until worse happens

    by dark daze on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:51:09 AM PDT

  •  I'm thinking things will change soon. (6+ / 0-)

    Like after the 2nd week of November. They can't put hiring off another 4 years, to try to influence 2016 too, can they?

    " You gave your life to become the person you are right now. Was it worth it?" -Richard Bach, From Illusions, The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah.

    by Niniane on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:52:45 AM PDT

    •  It may happen sooner... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jds1978, annieli

      ...when employees quit, or die...

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:24:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, I believe they can (0+ / 0-)

      As stated above, the people who really control this aren't losing money - they are still making plenty of it, just not as much as they could by fueling growth.

      Also, if Obama is telling the truth, and I don't really think he is, then he won't sign an extension of the upper level tax cuts.  If the GOP is telling the truth, and I do think they are, then they will let all of the tax cuts expire if they don't get the upper level ones extended, and will never agree to decoupling.  

      If both sides stick to their guns in the fall, then the economy is going to collapse back into recession in 2013, and Obama's second term will be crippled before it even begins.  Then, it will be even easier to keep the economy down for four more years.

      You see, the GOP wins whether the upper level tax cuts get extended or not.  And, if Obama doesn't cave, then the GOP can campaign for four years on getting poor and middle class tax payers their tax cuts back.  That ought to be good enough for at least 4-5 Senators in 2014, and the White House in 2016.

      That's why I say extend them all for two more years during the lame-duck session, and take the issue off the table for the GOP in the midterms.  

  •  Frankly, as someone involved in hiring (37+ / 0-)

    Businesses really have themselves to blame...

    I work for a very large global company and we've turned to a vendor to do a lot 'initial screening' -- and frankly, the vendor sucks at it.   I've posted - and filled - three spots in the last 18 months, but each time was a utter pain in the ass and took nearly 3-4 months just to finally get to the point where I could actually get the resumes/application -- then another month or so to finally reach the point of actually meeting/interview the candidates.

    The intent of handing off initial screening was supposedly to 'save time' for me internally, but a couple years in - I can say unequivocally that the opposite has happened.  

    The over-prevalent use of key word screening software and a handoff of 'job descriptions' to people who don't understand the concepts is the bane of modern hiring.

    While I manage a technical team, our work is such that I'm not looking for people with specific CS degrees or certificates -- I'm much more interested in people that can understand technical concepts, learn quickly, and aren't afraid to tackle things they don't understand at the outset.  

    I'm betting that a lot of these companies that claim to have trouble finding "qualified candidates" have only themselves to blame -- by layering so garbage in front the actual person making the hiring decision, I can almost guarantee that they're getting a lot of candidates who are good at resume keyword seeding, but are improperly weeding out the truly 'qualified canidates'.

    Too many companies think there's a data mining, vendor, or 'process' solution to things that are best left to simply old-fashioned skill and knowledge.

    Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

    by zonk on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:53:58 AM PDT

    •  Agreed and I'll Add (19+ / 0-)

      Many companies use automated screening software that rejects qualified candidates.  Worse, the way many work, those selected only qualification is including the right meta labels in their resumes and cover letters.

    •  Hi zonk...I have a question that is somewhat ot (9+ / 0-)

      but I have a friend who is very bright, very experienced (IT).  Keeps getting interviews but no offers.  And I mean a lot of interviews.  He is in his early 50's, so that may be a factor, but any other thoughts?

      Thanks/sh

      •  Agism in IT hiring & retention is a major problem. (15+ / 0-)

        If IT people weren't so darned independent & felt so self-made and self-sufficient, they'd put together a class action suit going over the rampant agism.  If you're are under 40, you tend not to even think about this and may be used to moving to a better job every few years.  If you're in your mid-40's and still working, then you should be watching your back.  If you are older than the next 2 levels of management above you, it's highly probable your job will be 'reclassified' and they'll need a 'more junior' person to fill it.  Try to make sure you are on a project that will go beyond November and into 2013 if possible.  Most of the IT people I know in my age group hit walls by age 50.  Some got their footing again in another company, usually through temp agencies. Many had to change careers, er, jobs.

        Older IT people are too willing to state a realistic estimate on what it will take to scope and complete requested work, and 'waste time' designing with software architecture considerations, business analysis, security concerns, building in a fair amount of quality checks, error checking and making sure there's professional level of testing, documentation, user training, and integrate software/hardware life-cycle planning.  Older IT people are more likely to say they'd want certain staff with known skills on the team for a given project.  Older IT people will factor in holidays, vacation time, etc. when setting milestone completion dates.  Older IT people also tend to recognize and say something when stress and pace demands are health-threatening.

        If IT managers are still are pushing 'agile' programming, even though it's become pretty clear it won't necessarily yield good quality, well designed software (and definitely not work without highly competent and experienced design and programming staff who know the business needs very well, and communicate very well with very with those for whom the software is intended) so it's probably because their stated need for 'agile' programmers is basically being used as an excuse to displace older workers with younger ones.

        When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

        by antirove on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:52:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can vouch for all of this and more (7+ / 0-)

          It used to be the choice - have it now or have it correct. Older IT people want it correct, the current crop of Agile and scrum people want it now. Sadly the two options are mutually exclusive. Just finished implementing a project using Agile methodology and its full of holes. Looks good but has zero functionality.

          My experience in looking for work is mixed. I am saddened by what I see as a growing trend - many recruiters on the internet are Indian, pretty much ignore any qualified people that apply for the positions they advertise, then say they can't find anyone and hire someone offshore they can get an H1B for, pay them crap and rake in the profit. Totally unethical in my mind.

        •  Agile can be good (6+ / 0-)

          It's a style and there's no reason older workers can't appreciate it for the right tasks.

          Older IT workers face two other issues:

          1. Their health insurance costs more.
          2. People get weird about hiring people older than them.

          Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

          by elfling on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:21:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I laugh at job ads (8+ / 0-)

            where they want for example 7 years experience in a product that has only been on the market 5. It tells me a lot about a) the company and b) the person recruiting.

            •  I had a client who did that (3+ / 0-)

              I argued until I was blue in the face.

              Gosh, they were unable to fill the job. I could have gotten them a smart young coder.

              Instead, it took 18 months... and they filled it with an H-1B fresh graduate from China. He was a nice guy, and smart. I enjoyed working with him. But he was nothing special in skills, and not as good as the person we could have gotten locally.

              But... he couldn't quit unless he was willing to leave the country. And that's one of the things they loved about that hire.

              Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

              by elfling on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 03:50:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Agree regarding agile-- (5+ / 0-)

            The real problem I've always found with Agile is that executive-level folks who implement it and non-technical Project and Program managers who shepherd agile-based efforts is that they get too tied up in the process rather than understanding the principles.

            I think modern IT is really an exercise in controlled chaos -- too many people think there's a system, a framework, or a development process that can eliminate the chaos... if only we had more LSS black belts... if only we used agile... if only we stuck to our waterfall... blah blah blah...

            Ultimately, there's no substitute for having good people who know and understand what one is actually trying to build and accomplish.  When agile works well - you end up with the best people talking directly and not worrying about silos and processes, but more about what one is actually trying to build.  

            It's sort of like what Gandhi said about Christians -- I like your Christ, I just fear Christ's followers....  I feel the same way about Agile -- I like the process, but I've learned to fear Agile's proponents and (for the most part) its scrum masters and owners!

            Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

            by zonk on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:32:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Agile is a fad and causes much more problems (0+ / 0-)

            than it solves

            To be a Republican, you have to believe that our economic problems are caused by the poor having too much money and the rich not having enough.

            by Tommy Jones the Band on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 01:22:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  In startups, there's a third (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kiterea, elfling

            Older workers may very well ruin the party by remembering the number of times others came up with their own realizations of the founders' Great Idea and discovered there was no market for it.

            If you integrate fantasy with reality, you do not instantiate reality. If you mix cow pie with apple pie, it does not make the cow pie taste better; it makes the apple pie worse. --Mark Crislip

            by ebohlman on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:23:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Agile has its strengths- (0+ / 0-)

          Namely - the more collaborative approach to development rather than the more silo'ed approach that previously dominated, where group A would write business requirements for group B to turn into technical requirements for group C to build software for group D to test to pass results back to group A for approval...etc.

          I think what you say about quality IS often true - but on the other hand, technology increasingly develops so rapidly that I think some manner of quality is worth trading for speed.

          For example, when I started at my current company, we were using an ancient VAX mainframe as a content management system and though this was in the early aughts -- still using a DOS-based authoring suite for creating content.  Our content structure was flat-file based typecodes.  This was true 10 years before I came on board and was still true even 5 years after.  

          About 7 years ago we moved into SGML and a more modern CMS.... Three years ago, that more modern CMS was replaced by a Citrix-based cloud CMS and we're ditching SGML for XML.... Already on the horizon - our transition not even completed - I have zero doubt that our not-even-yet-fully deployed system is going to go by the wayside in favor of a hybrid RDF/XHTML/HTML5 model.

          I'm certainly not anti-quality -- but shelf lives are getting so much shorter for just about everything, that there's real value in trading a bit of stability and quality for faster deployment -- because inevitably, the next big thing is just around the corner.

          Of course, the key is finding that right balance...

          Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

          by zonk on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:26:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  My bet (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Noor B, sethtriggs

        is probably salary considerations and feat that he'll jump ship as soon as something better comes along.

        Ageism is, of course, illegal -- so if anyone is directly asking his age, he might have an EEOC claim if he thinks it played a role in the the hiring process.... the only time/first time a company should be aware of anyone's exact age is when an offer is proffered and accepted.

        I'd suggest trying to find ways to address those two hurdles in the process -- assuring the potential employer that getting to the point of talking salary isn't a waste of time and also that this isn't a 'holding pattern' application until something better comes along.

        The first issue is tough to get through since I'm sure every piece of interview advise under the sun says don't talk salary until an offer is extended (personally, I never minded it -- we might as well see as early as possible if our ranges match up to save us both the time).

        The second issue, though -- I'd focus on highlighting not those areas where he has extensive experience, but rather, actually focusing on areas where he doesn't.... if he's got no/limited experience with say... mobile app development, cloud-based infrastructure, etc -- I'd familiarize myself the technologies and in the interview, focus on how he's interested in learning new skills.  He can weave this together with how he was able to master emerging technologies early in his career --- and above all, I'd be sure to make clear that it took time to truly gain such aptitude.

        The key is make the hirer believe that they've got a potential bargain on their hands -- and also reassure them that they're not going to need to worry about reposting the position in 6-12 months (even if they do).  

        Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

        by zonk on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:15:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I've seen this too (6+ / 0-)

      and the bigger the company, the more prevalent it is.

      The classic is a requirement for 5 years' experience in technology that's only a year or two old, or that is proprietary to the hiring company.

      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

      by elfling on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:17:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

      At my previous firm, we used this process called "Topgrading".  It was a six-eight hour interview process that involved asking questions that delved down into people's personal and work habits going all the way back to High School.  As hiring managers, we were trained to look for "clues", and how to explore those to uncover the things that people didn't want to talk about in an interview.  It was framed as a process to find "A" players (super high competency, work ethic, and attitude), but it really was just a process to find disqualifiers.

      By this standard, nobody I've hired at my current company would have been hired.  Even I, as founder, owner and CEO, would probably not be qualified for my own job.  And, besides, I've found that "A" players are not all they are cracked up to be.  One, they don't like to work for anybody but other "A" players.  Two, they demand constant affirmation of their "A-ness", and three, they expect to be compensated very well for their competency, work ethic and attitude.

      Give me a firm full of good "B" players (good or great in one or more of those categories, but with some minor flaws or weaknesses) anyday.

  •  "sob creators" (5+ / 0-)

    breaking hearts, lives, and making americans cry by shipping their jobs overseas

  •  Capital is on strike (5+ / 0-)

    "We don't need someone who can think. We need someone with enough digits to hold a pen." ~ Grover Norquist

    by Lefty Coaster on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:34:33 AM PDT

    •  Capital is working hard and replicating itself, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      as usual.

      Right now, the fastest way to replicate itself doesn't involve hiring many people.

      Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

      by JesseCW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:18:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Business looks to government to revive the economy (6+ / 0-)

    Right now the market is all a twitter over more QE from Uncle Ben. Republican threats against the safety net will really depress economic activity but it's all in a good cause--delivering more tax cuts to the zillionaires.
    What about the moral hazard of tax cuts for people who don't need them?

    •  I'm looking in GOP dictionary and not finding this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LSophia

      'moral hazard' concept, except perhaps as applied to anything threatening to get in the way of record profits for shareholders or massive bonuses to top management.

      Does anyone have a clear recollection of the last time a pundit or politician properly used the phrase 'moral hazard', in public, to fault in any way how our corporations and banks or fellow politicians are behaving?  My sense is it's become a phrase that's become relegated to usage by some policy wonks and academics or certain legal professionals, but not really used now in 'polite company' or in public.

      When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

      by antirove on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:00:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Another factor you overlook (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elfling, cordgrass, LSophia, ebohlman

    As it happens, a phenomenon similar to the one you focus on--a decline in the vacancy yield (the number of hires per vacancy advertised)--is the subject of an article in the current issue of Modern Labor Review (PDF here).  The authors point out some possible explanations for the gap between job postings and hires. Of course, they mention the possibility of a skills gap. They also mention the possibility (beloved by the Right) that people are happy getting unemployment benefits and don't want to work. But one idea that may have merit and that you don't consider here is the influence of nontraditional, informal job-finding practices.

    Because many workers are hired without the formal posting of a vacancy, the vacancy yield could decline with a change in the composition of hires. If there is a decline in labor demand for jobs that typically are filled through informal hiring, the number of hires per vacancy will decline. This is especially true for jobs in construction, where informal hiring is particularly prevalent. For example, if contractors do not post vacancies to hire craftsmen to work on construction sites but post vacancies to hire bookkeepers, then if there is a lull in building activity and few craftsmen are hired, hires per vacancy will decline because of a change in the composition of hires.
    Economic behavior is often very complicated, with many actors and many kinds of motivation, so I hesitate to blame the whole problem on lazy employers or employers who are hedging their bets on the next presidency.
    •  Note that "informal hiring" is colloquilly known (0+ / 0-)

      as "hiring by word of mouth". Most job openings aren't formally advertised via media channels.

      If you integrate fantasy with reality, you do not instantiate reality. If you mix cow pie with apple pie, it does not make the cow pie taste better; it makes the apple pie worse. --Mark Crislip

      by ebohlman on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 12:18:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The goal of a business owner is to avoid creating (11+ / 0-)

    jobs as much as possible.  It amazes me that people are still being duped into believing a business exists for the purpose of creating job.

    No.  The owners of private companies want to avoid hiring people at all costs.  It is in the best interest of those seeking to make a profit to maximize productivity while minimizing expenses.  And the chief expense for most companies is staff.  Why pay extra for two people when you can get overload one person with the work, knowing his options to find a job elsewhere are limited since other business owners believe the same way you do about hiring people?

    As was recently stated by an honest venture capitalist (summarized), businesses won't create jobs until they are forced to do so by their customers.  They will only create them as a last resort when demand for their services exceeds their ability to provide them without adding headcount.  That's it.  It doesn't matter how much you cut their taxes, how much profit they're making, how much credit is available to them from the banks--it's solely about being forced to expand their employment rolls via demand.

    So let's cut out the nonsense that calls business owners "job creators."  That's not remotely what they want, and the label is pure hokum.  The real job creator is middle-class demand for products and services, which can only be achieved by ensuring a strong, stable and prosperous middle class.  

  •  It's the Job Creators goin' Galt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, sgary

    protestin' socialist policies, dont'cha know.

    "..The political class cannot solve the problems it created. " - Jay Rosen

    by New Rule on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:07:36 AM PDT

  •  Business owners are NOT JOB CREATORS ... (16+ / 0-)

    never have been, never will be.

    At best, they are job PROVIDERS.

    No business owner or investor has ever 'created' a job.

    Only when their products or services are purchased  is it possible for them to hire staff; expand inventory, physical plant, supply lines, etc.

    Jobs do not come before 'demand' for goods and services.

    Where does 'demand' come from?

    CONSUMERS create demand, which allows business owners and investors to PROVIDED jobs.

    The most important job creator is YOU and I when we buy something.

    *Austerity is the opposite of Prosperity*

    by josmndsn on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:08:26 AM PDT

    •  This is a huge point - I wish the Dems would (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      josmndsn

      go after this meme.

      I hope the Obama campaign finds a way to reverse this whole "job creator" crap when the tax cut fight starts up.  The Repubs keep saying that we shouldn't raise taxes on the "job creators," and the response should be that we are cutting taxes for the real job creators - the middle class who need money to create the demand that creates the jobs.

      The most violent element in society is ignorance.

      by Mr MadAsHell on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:13:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Correct, all the energy on jobs is at the wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mr MadAsHell

        end of the economic continuum.

        Bailing out the banks while doing nothing for the housing crisis has done nothing but to continue and slow the recovery from the Great Recession.

        Politicians need to read some history and not repeat the errors of the past.

        There was a housing bubble in the mid-1920's mostly involving land sales in Florida.  When that bubble broke the stock market crashed  in 1929 and gave us the Great Depression.

        Staving off a modern day Depression has worked, so far, with limited success.

        Recovery and jobs will not start to improve until the broad base of consumers begin to feel they have job and housng security and have discretionary income to spend on things.

        *Austerity is the opposite of Prosperity*

        by josmndsn on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:44:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW
    The business takes its sweet time looking through those applications and getting back to people, some of whom may by now have found equivalently good jobs
    if they need somebody, they need somebody. They're not in a position to wait around to fill a need. Seems to me that would jeopardize their ability to provide services or products to their customers.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:22:25 AM PDT

    •  Something not mentioned (6+ / 0-)

      Hiring people is a status symbol.  Those online job ads are posted not for potential employees, but for potential vendors and competitors.  If a company is hiring, it means their business is expanding.  It means they are established.

      At my old company they had a constant set of job ads posted at all the big job websites and online on their corporate website, even while they were laying off half the staff.

  •  Businesses, especially big businesses will help (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, Brooke In Seattle, reginahny

    Republican keep the employment rate down. Why all of a sudden, we have so many unskilled workers? I thought they were laid off because of the economy crashing. Now those same workers are not skillful enough? I don't think they lost their skills.

    Get this, most jobs doesn't require high level skills. Most skills can be obtained through on the job training and don't take long. It's clear to me what's going on. They aren't hiring skilled worker either. Mostly from being "over qualified".

  •  Just looks like a lagging indicator to me. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, Sparhawk

    Invariably, the market is going to take some time to correct for a higher demand for labor.  While that's happening, job offers will go unfilled because they're making uncompetitive offers and don't realize it yet.

    Labor allocation efficiency in a free market is never 100% (Or generally even close)

  •  I've been following trends for over three years (6+ / 0-)

    Several of the largest companies in my region have been posting, taking down, posting and taking down the same job descriptions - over and over.  I even interviewed for one or two of them - I'd do well on the phone screen, be told that I was moving to the next level - and then, zip.

    We have gotten so skewed in favor of the super-rich and the C-suite, it's really scary.  

  •  Until they hire... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sethtriggs

  •  no job openings, just job craters /nt (0+ / 0-)

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:02:40 PM PDT

  •  is there any truth to a pledge (0+ / 0-)

    by tea party business owners not to hire any new workers until after the election

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
    Mitt Romney is not the solution. He's the PROBLEM

    by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:08:11 PM PDT

    •  If I had to bet...... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs

      Let's look at this realistically.  Most business owners and heads of corporations and the like are liberal and most certainly not progressive.  And, it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out that republicans want to use unemployment against Obama.  So, if I had to bet, I'd say that although the business owners may not have a "pledge" per se, but have some kind of unwritten "understand" about hiring until after the election.

      The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

      by commonsensically on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:21:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well it is true... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reginahny

    ...they can't find people who meet thier requirements.  One of thier requirements is you be a miracle worker that works for peanuts.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:13:26 PM PDT

  •  I work for a company that is directly.. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reginahny, cordgrass, sethtriggs, Kiterea

    involved with job applications.  We provide web based application and hiring software to our clients.  One of the big "draws" for our product is that it helps our clients handle the gigantic pile of applications in a way that makes it easier to hire the right person as quick as possible.

    I can tell you, based on the conversations I have had numerous times with client after client, that finding someone to fill a job is not a problem.  They can easily fill jobs.  It's handling all the OTHER applications that is the struggle.  Getting a few hundred applications PER job they have available creates a massive amount of work beyond hiring just the one person they end up picking.

    I laugh and laugh and laugh every time I hear about a purported "job creator" complaining about how hard it is to find the person they want.  The person they want is someone capable and willing to do an $80k a year job for $28k a year with no benefits.  That person simply DOES NOT EXIST.

    They are complaining about the one thing they always demand... "free market" principles in action.  No potential employee is going to take them up on their crappy offer, so they should try to be competitive by bumping up the pay and benefits.  But, instead they go screaming to the government for a handout of some kind.

  •  They will hire people when they feel that doing so (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ebohlman

    will enable them to make money, and not a minute sooner.  What's your point?

    You don't need to firebomb Dresden to prove that you can fly the plane.

    by SpamNunn on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:29:59 PM PDT

  •  This bullshit has been well documented for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cordgrass

    quite some time.  Basically, it's a dodge to justify bringing in more Visa holders and/or outsourcing jobs.  Those ads aren't real jobs, just bullshit.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:31:36 PM PDT

  •  I am working (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reginahny

    but not satisfied in my job.  I have applied to quite a few jobs recently that I am fully qualified for - but I never hear anything back.  Not even a thanks but no thanks.

    I think it is really "who you know" not "what you know".

  •  These are not our father's millionaires. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reginahny, cordgrass

    The Romney's make that point clear.  While George Romney built something and shared his tax returns proving he had nothing to hide regarding how he made his money.  His son, Mittens, destroyed companies, shipped jobs overseas and refuses to show us how he made his money because he knows he is not his father.  

  •  this is certainly a likely scenario. (0+ / 0-)

    it's also possible demand hasn't reached critical mass yet, where they absolutely, positively must hire, in order to keep up, or risk losing business to competitors. forcing current employee's to work lots of overtime will cover that, for a while, until those employee's start making costly mistakes, costing time and money, and the risk of losing customers. and, there's also the possibility those employee's will get tired of being worked to death, and look for work at a more sane company.

    many possibilities.

  •  This Has Been The Biggest Lie Of How (0+ / 0-)

    American graduates are not skilled enough to fill jobs.  It is a lie that democrats and republicans are telliing the American people.  This has got to stop immediately.  Every chance we get Americans should be told that they are being lied to.  Corporations in America are anti-america and Americans need to know.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 05:04:08 PM PDT

  •  The underground economy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ebohlman

    Around here (unemployment rate 11.2%, 2d highest in the country or something like that), I strongly suspect that a lot of people are collecting unemployment and working for a friend/uncle/brother for cash. Those workers don't get picked up by either the household survey or the employer survey, because everyone answers "no" -- so the employer doesn't have to pay payroll taxes, workers comp, unemployment taxes, etc. etc.

    And most positions aren't ever advertised, or if they are, it's just to CYA on affirmative action while hiring the brother-in-law you were going to hire anyway. That's one reason you see the crazy descriptions ("MBA, MPH, and five years experience required; fluency in both Hatian creole and Hmong highly desirable").

  •  Workers Are Job Creators (0+ / 0-)

    The idea that employers create jobs is just bad logic. Employers do not create jobs. They have job openings. They have positions. They have job offers. But it isn't until a worker agrees to do the work that there's an actual job.

    Every time you hear the term job creator, you should think of the worker. We really need to help out those job creators. It's the right thing to do!

  •  It's my fault (0+ / 0-)

    Not a day goes by when I don't think this. See, I'm one of the "ridiculously overqualified" workers mentioned by the diarist. I really am overqualified for my job.
    While kids fresh out of college, mired in college debt, are ridiculed for "occupying", here I am, "occupying" the kind of entry level job they ought to be working at.
    And for the first time in my life, I have a sense that there's a moral imperative to be more ambitious than I've been in the past--that is, move up through the system to make way for others.

kos, Meteor Blades, skybluewater, SME in Seattle, CJB, murphy, zonk, Danno11, Emerson, LuLu, ManfromMiddletown, gjohnsit, hnichols, 88kathy, BlackSheep1, CatFelyne, boadicea, Aquarius40, Clues, antirove, revsue, menodoc, Farugia, young voter, BMarshall, bwintx, Diana in NoVa, zerelda, marina, Tinfoil Hat, NoMoreLies, BCO gal, ChemBob, llywrch, Brooke In Seattle, ratzo, boofdah, eru, cfk, Burned, quaoar, skyounkin, stevemb, Ozymandius, SBandini, coolbreeze, sgary, xanthippe2, Alan Arizona, Sister Havana, Jim R, reddbierd, flying shams, tonyahky, cookseytalbott, kestrel9000, New Rule, luckydog, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, Crashing Vor, JVolvo, el cid, Turbonerd, fiddlingnero, blueoregon, zedaker, Bernie68, cpresley, Noor B, out of left field, BeninSC, camlbacker, LSophia, gloriana, jds1978, profewalt, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, sfbob, glbTVET, cyncynical, bobswern, uciguy30, madgranny, Don midwest, trueblueliberal, Assaf, gizmo59, MKinTN, rogerdaddy, JeffW, fuzzyguy, OleHippieChick, Youffraita, jakebob, Calamity Jean, rssrai, Jake Williams, luckylizard, Karl Rover, Robobagpiper, dzog, JBL55, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, enemy of the people, litoralis, greengemini, divineorder, Mislead, Norm in Chicago, mkor7, JesseCW, winkk, sfarkash, GWinkler, Larsstephens, Broke And Unemployed, awcomeon, Tea and Strumpets, Orlaine, sunny skies, Arenosa, cordgrass, gulfgal98, Kristina40, ericlewis0, slice, annieli, slowbutsure, Mr MadAsHell, robizio, PorridgeGun, sethtriggs, cyberpuggy, BarackStarObama, KVoimakas, greenkrete, SteelerGrrl, jadt65, Mentatmark, annecros, Auriandra, ParkRanger, Azazello, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, Only Needs a Beat, IndieGuy, dance you monster, a2nite, Amateur Nerd, FloridaSNMOM, Horace Boothroyd III, Mr Robert, jan4insight, belinda ridgewood, reginahny, MartyM, OllieGarkey, avsp, Kinak, Saint Jimmy, josmndsn, Thornrose, entrelac, LaraJones, Icicle68, ET3117, CATSASS, mcd12, Will Stark

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site