The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

[Grallon]

The problem is that has already happened. A lot of people do not equate a job with a life, so they live off the governments dime and/or society. We need to change the culture back to one that considers a good work ethic to be something valuable.

So long as greed is the defining factor in the economy this won't happen...




G.

[Admiral Yi]

What's the connection Grallon?

[jimmy olsen]

I guess the next article will be...

The Terrifying Reality of Not Having Any Education When Seeking Employment

The problem is that employers simply are unwilling to hire people who have been on unemployment for too long for no other reason than because they have been on unemployment for too long - and it's not being justified by a presumed lack of skill, but simply because people who have been unemployed for too long are demoralized by the experience of unemployment. So this is a real issue.

If you hired them wouldn't their morale be raised by becoming employed again?

[Ideologue]

I think we should make money spent on servants tax deductible. It used to be a single rich person, in addition to whatever their productive trade was which might employ persons, would employ a staff. In part we've done away with personal staffs because of technology making them less useful, but if salaries spent on personal staff were 100% tax deductible I think a lot of the wealthy would employ more people directly.

Many wealthy people do not need a live in butler or personal chef, but when you can get that and it's the equivalent of making a charitable contribution tax-wise I think many more would opt for it than do currently.

I'd quibble over the percentage, and tie it to a CPI-adjusted minimal wage, but I kind of like this idea--well, in the sense it might have some effect.  Ideologically, it kind of grosses me out, but that's to be expected.

[Martinus]

I guess the next article will be...

The Terrifying Reality of Not Having Any Education When Seeking Employment

The problem is that employers simply are unwilling to hire people who have been on unemployment for too long for no other reason than because they have been on unemployment for too long - and it's not being justified by a presumed lack of skill, but simply because people who have been unemployed for too long are demoralized by the experience of unemployment. So this is a real issue.

If you hired them wouldn't their morale be raised by becoming employed again?

I am not saying this is a valid reason but I heard this reason being mentioned many times.

[Josquius]

If you hired them wouldn't their morale be raised by becoming employed again?

Employers don't look at things that way. They can't be arsed with training anyone for more than an hour these days. They can't wait for the week it will take for someone to become a productive member of society again.

[Grey Fox]

Tyr is right.

[CountDeMoney]

Morale doesn't increase Shareholder Value.  The fuck you smoking, Timmay?

[garbon]

Tyr is right.

I doubt it. My support person on most of my projects now never did market research before. Now it is true that he basically has no one training him...

[Richard Hakluyt]

It is a tremendous waste and, I believe, characteristic of capitalism and the profit motive........it is cheaper to poach off other employers for people with an unblemished record than take a chance on someone. It probably makes sense at the company level but obviously not at the level of the national economy.

But what to do about it  ?

Tax breaks for companies that take people off the dole queue spring to mind, though the devil is in the detail.

[Martinus]

I think the general trend to view employees purely in terms of the bottom line is going to come back and bite us in the ass at the end of the day.

The problem is that this is no longer only limited to repetitive or menial tasks, but becomes a trend in creative industries as well. For example, in law firms, it used to be that firms would hire a lot of trainees to do stuff like basic drafting or document review and such people would, effectively, learn on the job. Now that more and more firms are outsourcing stuff like that to some remote centres (e.g. our lawfirm has one in New Delhi), I am wondering if that would eventually prove disastrous, as we simply won't have the next generation grown up to take over.

[Josquius]

The problem is that this is no longer only limited to repetitive or menial tasks, but becomes a trend in creative industries as well. For example, in law firms, it used to be that firms would hire a lot of trainees to do stuff like basic drafting or document review and such people would, effectively, learn on the job. Now that more and more firms are outsourcing stuff like that to some remote centres (e.g. our lawfirm has one in New Delhi), I am wondering if that would eventually prove disastrous, as we simply won't have the next generation grown up to take over.

It increasingly seems that way. Or worrying in a differnet vein for future society that they might be skipping a generation, writing the current crop of 20 somethings off as a failure and working at reforming the system for the current 10 year olds to graduate with what they want.


Its just ridiculous the demands companies make even in entry level jobs these days. They ask for crazy levels of experience and skill that if you had by definition you wouldn't be entry level and probally wouldn't need to take the advertised job.
There's not a skills gap, there's a reality gap.

It is a tremendous waste and, I believe, characteristic of capitalism and the profit motive........it is cheaper to poach off other employers for people with an unblemished record than take a chance on someone. It probably makes sense at the company level but obviously not at the level of the national economy.

But what to do about it  ?

Tax breaks for companies that take people off the dole queue spring to mind, though the devil is in the detail.

I remember when the dole sent me on that pointless sit in a room and apply for jobs course that they probally paid a small fortune for.
They gave us a crappy sample cover letter, a big part of which said something along the lines of "As a parcipant on the new deal you can hire me for a trial of x time at no cost to yourself, please contact the job centre plus for details"
Now this...as irrelevant as this was for me even for the regular folks it just smacked of mega desperation. I doubt anyone ever used that letter, or if they did if they got anything.
To my mind nothing says unemployable like having to beg for a job with this vein of "I'm not as good as a real person but I'm cheap!"

[CountDeMoney]

I think the general trend to view employees purely in terms of the bottom line is going to come back and bite us in the ass at the end of the day.

I disagree.  The DJIA is still over 14,000.

[dps]

If you hired them wouldn't their morale be raised by becoming employed again?

Employers don't look at things that way. They can't be arsed with training anyone for more than an hour these days. They can't wait for the week it will take for someone to become a productive member of society again.

While I agree that far too few businesses take the long-term view nowdays, this isn't why they don't want to hire people who have been out of work for a long time.  There are basically 2 reasons:

First, they figure someone who's been out of work a long time is probably badly in debt, and that makes the person, if hired, a higher risk for employee theft.  (The assumption that someone who's been out of work for a considerable period of time is likely to be badly in debt is reasonable;  the conclusion that therefore they'd be more of a theft risk is quite questionable IMO.)

Second, the figure if you haven't worked in a long time, either you're a lazy shit who's only trying to find a job because your unemployment is about to run out, or you're just a loser.

[Malthus]

It is a tremendous waste and, I believe, characteristic of capitalism and the profit motive........it is cheaper to poach off other employers for people with an unblemished record than take a chance on someone. It probably makes sense at the company level but obviously not at the level of the national economy.

But what to do about it  ?

Tax breaks for companies that take people off the dole queue spring to mind, though the devil is in the detail.

I remember when the dole sent me on that pointless sit in a room and apply for jobs course that they probally paid a small fortune for.
They gave us a crappy sample cover letter, a big part of which said something along the lines of "As a parcipant on the new deal you can hire me for a trial of x time at no cost to yourself, please contact the job centre plus for details"
Now this...as irrelevant as this was for me even for the regular folks it just smacked of mega desperation. I doubt anyone ever used that letter, or if they did if they got anything.
To my mind nothing says unemployable like having to beg for a job with this vein of "I'm not as good as a real person but I'm cheap!"

In the pottery business, my mother used to hire people off of various government programs that gave tax breaks and subsidized wages. Her opinion: generally speaking, the benefits were never worth it. The employees so obtained tended to be deficient in the basics - like comming to work, on time, and not drunk or drugged; being able to follow basic instructions; etc.

Mind you, that was years and years ago. Perhaps it's different in an economy as skewed as this.