From the "No shit, Sherlock" Dept.:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-terrifying-reality-of-longterm-unemployment/274957/
QuoteThe Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment
It's an awful catch-22: employers won't hire you if you've been out of work for more than six months
Close your eyes and picture the scariest thing you can think of. Maybe it's a giant spider or a giant Stay Puft marshmellow man or something that's not even giant at all. Well, whatever it is, I guarantee it's not nearly as scary as the real scariest thing in the world. That's long-term unemployment.
There are two labor markets nowadays. There's the market for people who have been out of work for less than six months, and the market for people who have been out of work longer. The former is working pretty normally, and the latter is horribly dysfunctional. That was the conclusion of recent research I highlighted a few months ago by Rand Ghayad, a visiting scholar at the Boston Fed, and William Dickens, a professor of economics at Northeastern University, that looked at Beveridge curves for different ages, industries, and education levels to see who the recovery is leaving behind.
Okay, so what is a Beveridge curve? Well, it just shows the relationship between job openings and unemployment. There should be a pretty stable relationship between the two, assuming the labor market isn't broken. The more openings there are, the less unemployment there should be. If that isn't true, if the Beveridge curve "shifts up" as more openings don't translate into less unemployment, then it might be a sign of "structural" unemployment. That is, the unemployed just might not have the right skills. Now, what Ghayad and Dickens found is that the Beveridge curves look normal across all ages, industries, and education levels, as long as you haven't been out of work for more than six months. But the curves shift up for everybody if you've been unemployed longer than six months. In other words, it doesn't matter whether you're young or old, a blue-collar or white-collar worker, or a high school or college grad; all that matters is how long you've been out of work.
Help Wanted -- If You've Been Out of Work for Less than Six Months
But just how bad is it for the long-term unemployed? Ghayad ran a follow-up field experiment to find out. In a new working paper, he sent out 4800 fictitious resumes to 600 job openings, with 3600 of them for fake unemployed people. Among those 3600, he varied how long they'd been out of work, how often they'd switched jobs, and whether they had any industry experience. Everything else was kept constant. The mocked-up resumes were all male, all had randomly-selected (and racially ambiguous) names, and all had similar education backgrounds. The question was which of them would get callbacks.
It turns out long-term unemployment is much scarier than you could possibly imagine.
The results are equal parts unsurprising and terrifying. Employers prefer applicants who haven't been out of work for very long, applicants who have industry experience, and applicants who haven't moved between jobs that much. But how long you've been out of work trumps those other factors. As you can see in the chart below from Ghayad's paper, people with relevant experience (red) who had been out of work for six months or longer got called back less than people without relevant experience (blue) who'd been out of work shorter.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2FLongTermUnemploymentScary.png&hash=58d0d9550058c2d9cc637b307a904a44bd3c132e)
Look at that again. As long as you've been out of work for less than six months, you can get called back even if you don't have experience. But after you've been out of work for six months, it doesn't matter what experience you have. Quite literally. There's only a 2.12 percentage point difference in callback rates for the long-term unemployed with or without industry experience. That's compared to a 7.13 and 8.95 percentage point difference for the short-and-medium-term unemployed. This is what screening out the long-term unemployed looks like. In other words, the first thing employers look at is how long you've been out of work, and that's the only thing they look at if it's been six months or longer.
This penalty for long-term unemployment is unlike any other. As you can see in the chart below, job churn is another red flag for employers, but not nearly to the same extent. Applicants who'd gone through five to six jobs but had relevant experience were still more likely to get called back than those who'd gone through three to four jobs but didn't. And they had about as good a chance as those who'd only held one or two jobs but weren't experienced. In other words, there is no job-switching cliff like there is an unemployment cliff.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fbusiness%2FLongTermUnemploymentChurn.png&hash=e88d48606d1825bbb1449598fa20664133a1c878)
Long-term unemployment is a terrifying trap. Once you've been out of work for six months, there's little you can do to find work. Employers put you at the back of the jobs line, regardless of how strong the rest of your resume is. After all, they usually don't even look at it.
Let's be clear. Ghayad's field study shows employers discriminate against the long-term unemployed. All of the fake resumes he sent out were basically identical. But firms ignored the ones from people who'd been out of work for six months or longer -- even when they had better credentials. Employers look at how long you've been unemployed as a better proxy for skills than anything else on your resume. In other words, more jobs-training probably won't help the long-term unemployed all that much. Even a stronger economy will only help them years in the future, rather than many years in the future.
It's time for the government to start hiring the long-term unemployed. Or, at the least, start giving employers tax incentives to hire the long-term unemployed. The worst possible outcome for all of us is if the long-term unemployed become unemployable. That would permanently reduce our productive capacity.
We can do better, and we need to start doing so now. We can't afford long-term thinking in either the short or the long-term.
Are you trying to make Seedy go postal?
No. :(
I've been working for a year and a half. Where are my callbacks?
Quote from: katmai on April 14, 2013, 12:56:21 PM
Are you trying to make Seedy go postal?
After 6 months, I stopped giving a shit anymore. So it goes both ways. :lol:
I guess the next article will be...
The Terrifying Reality of Not Having Any Education When Seeking Employment
:lmfao:
The terrifying reality is that there are too many people for too few jobs that need doing. That's it. We've got to change the culture away from its equation of a job with life, or have a war, or something.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2013, 01:22:14 PM
The terrifying reality is that there are too many people for too few jobs that need doing. That's it. We've got to change the culture away from its equation of a job with life, or have a war, or something.
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.
Quote from: Strix on April 14, 2013, 01:27:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2013, 01:22:14 PM
The terrifying reality is that there are too many people for too few jobs that need doing. That's it. We've got to change the culture away from its equation of a job with life, or have a war, or something.
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.
Supposing you're right, that just means even more jobs that somehow need to be created. The employed people with poor work ethics are already too productive.
Quote from: Strix on April 14, 2013, 01:27:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2013, 01:22:14 PM
The terrifying reality is that there are too many people for too few jobs that need doing. That's it. We've got to change the culture away from its equation of a job with life, or have a war, or something.
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 if there aren't enough jobs to give to them, unemployed people should develop a stronger work ethic? :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2013, 01:57:27 PM
Quote from: Strix on April 14, 2013, 01:27:17 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2013, 01:22:14 PM
The terrifying reality is that there are too many people for too few jobs that need doing. That's it. We've got to change the culture away from its equation of a job with life, or have a war, or something.
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 if there aren't enough jobs to give to them, unemployed people should develop a stronger work ethic? :hmm:
They should start their own companies!:lmfao:
Actually, Strix' post is 100% an illustration of what I mean. No job = fucking bum. But when there are jobs for only 90% of the population--let's say for argument--10% of the population is going to have no choice but to be a bum. As we advance into this century, the former percentage will decrease, until you get to a point where a sizeable mass of people are neither employed nor employable. What then? Should they work harder? Work harder at what?
Because even if they increase their skills, etc., odds are just as good that they'll displace someone else rather than add a job. Economies are not zero-sum, but they've never been totally modular either. Starting your own company may be additive, but it may crowd out another firm just as easily--especially when demand is likely to be pitiful thanks to all the unemployed people.
Quote from: Strix on April 14, 2013, 01:20:42 PM
I guess the next article will be...
The Terrifying Reality of Not Having Any Education When Seeking Employment
:lmfao:
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2013, 01:22:14 PM
The terrifying reality is that there are too many people for too few jobs that need doing. That's it. We've got to change the culture away from its equation of a job with life, or have a war, or something.
Jobs are potentially infinite, depending on the wages people are willing to accept to perform them.
This is best illustrated if you consider situation of people who have never been employed. For example, during the first hit of the slump, there was a break in law firms here hiring new trainees/juniors - so new graduates would not find a job for one - two years during that period.
After this ended, and firms started to hire again they would prefer to hire fresh graduates rather than people who graduated one or two years ago and did not work since. So essentially you end up with whole groups of people who end up being unemployable in their profession for no fault of their own.
I've never had a problem finding jobs. If you have a solid attractive education and you are bright and likeable what's the problem?
I just look it at from my perspective at work...
I have guys come out of prison and find decent jobs with in a week or so of being released, while I have other guys come out and not find jobs for an extended period of time. The main difference has been work ethic.
If a person is willing to work hard, show up on time, and be reliable, than they are more likely to get/retain a job which will ultimately lead to better paying jobs and/or positions. If a person feels the job is beneath them, want to be hired on their terms, and is unwilling to do what is required, than they are likely to be not hired/let go quickly.
There are always jobs out there but some people lack the work ethic and humility to take what is available and WORK their way to a better situation.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2013, 02:04:12 PM
Actually, Strix' post is 100% an illustration of what I mean. No job = fucking bum.
No, Strix' post is a 100% illustration of what kind of mouthbreathing Steelertard he is. Yins.
Quote from: Strix on April 14, 2013, 02:17:56 PM
There are always jobs out there but some people lack the work ethic and humility to take what is available and WORK their way to a better situation.
Disagree, I think let's say if one spends several years working a McJob that's not going to be a leg up to finding a good position.
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2013, 02:30:38 PM
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.
The *imo* big part you forget is that it became less attractive for people to seek live-in positions.
Well I think if structural unemployment as Ide suggests is such an intractable problem, attitudes would shift once more.
Poor people should not think they're too good to be someone's servant. Most servants historically made good wages and were provided nice living quarters in comparison to others from the lower classes. Not quite say, the American middle class but not the American poor either.
Quote from: garbon on April 14, 2013, 02:29:41 PM
Quote from: Strix on April 14, 2013, 02:17:56 PM
There are always jobs out there but some people lack the work ethic and humility to take what is available and WORK their way to a better situation.
Disagree, I think let's say if one spends several years working a McJob that's not going to be a leg up to finding a good position.
If you spend SEVERAL years working a McJob than you have reached your potential. If you spend 6-12 months at a McJob, you can show a future employer a track record of good attendance, hard work, and a willingness to be part of a team. All attractive things to someone looking to hire.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 14, 2013, 02:20:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2013, 02:04:12 PM
Actually, Strix' post is 100% an illustration of what I mean. No job = fucking bum.
No, Strix' post is a 100% illustration of what kind of mouthbreathing Steelertard he is. Yins.
Don't hate me because it will be a decade before the Ravens are relevant again.
No, I hate you because you're an idiot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 14, 2013, 02:39:22 PM
No, I hate you because you're an employed idiot.
I fixed that for you.
Imagine that. The Admin features work. And look: colors!
Don't be a prick.
Wait so the reason we have high unemployment in every single first world country is because everybody is too proud to work? Surprising to see such a crippling moral failure in so many different cultures simultaneously.
The question is what leads to what. Being unemployed for over 6 months meaning you're less likely to get a job could mean that theres a lot of unemployable saps out there and the length of time they've been unemployed means nothing.
Could even be both, that due to these people being around if you've been unemployed a while you get lumped in with them.
Quote from: Strix on April 14, 2013, 01:27:17 PM
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.
What's the connection Grallon?
Quote from: Martinus on April 14, 2013, 02:04:53 PM
Quote from: Strix on April 14, 2013, 01:20:42 PM
I guess the next article will be...
The Terrifying Reality of Not Having Any Education When Seeking Employment
:lmfao:
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?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2013, 02:30:38 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2013, 08:49:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 14, 2013, 02:04:53 PM
Quote from: Strix on April 14, 2013, 01:20:42 PM
I guess the next article will be...
The Terrifying Reality of Not Having Any Education When Seeking Employment
:lmfao:
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2013, 08:49:25 PM
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.
Tyr is right.
Morale doesn't increase Shareholder Value. The fuck you smoking, Timmay?
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 15, 2013, 10:31:58 AM
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...
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 :hmm: ?
Tax breaks for companies that take people off the dole queue spring to mind, though the devil is in the detail.
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 15, 2013, 10:39:30 AM
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 :hmm: ?
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!"
Quote from: Martinus on April 15, 2013, 10:46:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on April 15, 2013, 09:19:47 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2013, 08:49:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on April 15, 2013, 11:21:58 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 15, 2013, 10:39:30 AM
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 :hmm: ?
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.
Quote from: Strix on April 14, 2013, 02:17:56 PM
I just look it at from my perspective at work...
I have guys come out of prison and find decent jobs with in a week or so of being released, while I have other guys come out and not find jobs for an extended period of time. The main difference has been work ethic a relative with a business.
Fixed.
You should definitely never put on your resume "poor work ethic." I went through 200 USAJobs applications before I corrected that mistake!
I imagine "violently insane", is right out then?
Change to "proactive."
This thread makes me want to become "proactive".
Quote from: fahdiz on April 16, 2013, 01:15:42 AM
This thread makes me want to become "proactive".
Frankie says relax.
Easier said than done, believe me I know. I don't think I've relaxed since early 2002.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 16, 2013, 01:22:11 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 16, 2013, 01:15:42 AM
This thread makes me want to become "proactive".
Frankie says relax.
Easier said than done, believe me I know. I don't think I've relaxed since early 2002.
Frankie can suck my -- oh. wait.
Lol. I can't believe that song gets radio play.
HIT ME WITH YOUR LASER BEAMS.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 16, 2013, 01:14:32 AM
Change to "proactive."
Violently proactive or proactively insane?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 16, 2013, 01:23:46 AM
Lol. I can't believe that song gets radio play.
HIT ME WITH YOUR LASER BEAMS.
What, "WHEN YOU WANNA COME" doesn't mean you're coming over for tea and crumpets?
Actually Raz, just put "Institution X, 2004-2008." Lots of people in hiring positions can't actually read, because they got their jobs when a HSD and a good handshake was all it took, and there's a possibility they'll just think you worked there. :P
You guys did remind me that I need to start putting my volunteer stuff on my resume. Because 50+ hour weeks and mornings at an animal shelter means work ethic, and per Strix' wisdom, work ethic is all it takes, even if you have a felony record and Latin Kings tattoos.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 16, 2013, 01:26:44 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 16, 2013, 01:23:46 AM
Lol. I can't believe that song gets radio play.
HIT ME WITH YOUR LASER BEAMS.
What, "WHEN YOU WANNA COME" doesn't mean you're coming over for tea and crumpets?
I've always also felt that Aerosmith's "Dude Looks Like a Lady" was a weird song to be a hit. It's the only credited rock anthem about fucking a T-girl, at least of which I am aware.
Uhh, Lola...
Quote from: Ideologue on April 16, 2013, 01:32:18 AM
Actually Raz, just put "Institution X, 2004-2008." Lots of people in hiring positions can't actually read, because they got their jobs when a HSD and a good handshake was all it took, and there's a possibility they'll just think you worked there. :P
You guys did remind me that I need to start putting my volunteer stuff on my resume. Because 50+ hour weeks and mornings at an animal shelter means work ethic, and per Strix' wisdom, work ethic is all it takes, even if you have a felony record and Latin Kings tattoos.
If they ask any more questions I'll just tell them that a criminal attorney said to put on there. They'll probably think I meant the other kind of criminal attorney.
I liked Ray Davies' account of how he came up with the idea for the song :
"In the book The Kinks: The Official Biography, Davies said that he was inspired to write this song after the band manager Robert Wace had spent the night dancing with a transvestite. Davies said,
" In his apartment, Robert had been dancing with this black woman, and he said, 'I'm really onto a thing here.' And it was okay until we left at six in the morning and then I said, 'Have you seen the stubble?' He said 'Yeah,' but he was too pissed [intoxicated] to care, I think." "
:lol:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_%28song%29
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2013, 01:43:12 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 16, 2013, 01:32:18 AM
Actually Raz, just put "Institution X, 2004-2008." Lots of people in hiring positions can't actually read, because they got their jobs when a HSD and a good handshake was all it took, and there's a possibility they'll just think you worked there. :P
You guys did remind me that I need to start putting my volunteer stuff on my resume. Because 50+ hour weeks and mornings at an animal shelter means work ethic, and per Strix' wisdom, work ethic is all it takes, even if you have a felony record and Latin Kings tattoos.
If they ask any more questions I'll just tell them that a criminal attorney said to put on there. They'll probably think I meant the other kind of criminal attorney.
:lol:
Better call Saul. :D
That's a palpable hit, man. Good show.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2013, 01:22:14 PM
The terrifying reality is that there are too many people for too few jobs that need doing.
There can be as many jobs as there is demand. If I earn $100k/yr for example, I can "easily" set aside $30k/yr to pay someone to massage my shoulders each day.
But I don't want to right now.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 16, 2013, 01:36:11 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 16, 2013, 01:26:44 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 16, 2013, 01:23:46 AM
Lol. I can't believe that song gets radio play.
HIT ME WITH YOUR LASER BEAMS.
What, "WHEN YOU WANNA COME" doesn't mean you're coming over for tea and crumpets?
I've always also felt that Aerosmith's "Dude Looks Like a Lady" was a weird song to be a hit. It's the only credited rock anthem about fucking a T-girl, at least of which I am aware.
Frank Zappa's "Bobby Brown" receieved some serious air time in Germany way into the 90s. Mostly, because many people probably didn't understand the lyrics.
I got a good chuckle a few months ago, when I was shopping at the supermarket and their "radio station" played "Super Freak". :lol:
Quote from: Phillip V on April 16, 2013, 05:38:21 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 14, 2013, 01:22:14 PM
The terrifying reality is that there are too many people for too few jobs that need doing.
There can be as many jobs as there is demand. If I earn $100k/yr for example, I can "easily" set aside $30k/yr to pay someone to massage my shoulders each day.
But I don't want to right now.
Communism should do the trick. I fondly recall a school visit to communist Russia where one person would take your order, another would pick it up, another put in in a bag, another take your money and a final one hand it over to you.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 15, 2013, 10:39:30 AM
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 :hmm: ?
Tax breaks for companies that take people off the dole queue spring to mind, though the devil is in the detail.
We have that over here, and unscrupulous companies will just start to factor those tax breaks as default stuff, requiring any new employees to sign up as job seekers before getting the new job with them, even if they're not.
A friend of mine worked for a couple of years in a place that had that stuff completely mastered in, their HR guy was an absolute expert at poaching any tax break you could possibly conceive, and almost everyone in the company provided them with some sort of discount. As a result, most employees in the company were women under 30 with little to no previous experience, and the odd handicapped person here and there.
The place I used to work, if we did happen to hire someone we could get a tax credit for hiring, they didn't bother to file for it, because the paperwork was more of a hassle than the tax break was worth.
Of course, the tax break wasn't going directly to the guys in HR who would actually have had to do the paperwork, so that may have been a factor in thier view that it wasn't worth it.