The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/14/2013 5:35:11 PM)
From The Atlantic, some very interesting statistics and a study on trends in people who are out of work. The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment quote: 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. The author goes straight for the knee-jerk default "perfect solution" of the liberal mind in his conclusion, and wants the government to immediately start hiring these folks, where I'm going to disagree (and probably suggest he's kind of a dumbass), but it's a stark look at a real problem all the same.

MasterG2kTR -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/14/2013 6:14:10 PM)
I have heard similar stories about the statistics for the long term unemployed. However, I will say that it is not always true. I am a contradiction to the statistics. I was unemployed for 21 months when I got hired at my current employer. One factor that may have influenced the statistical contradiction is the fact that I was in school full time during my unemployment. I made school my job and worked hard to get straight A's. I finished my degree (with honors) going to school full time and working approximately 30 hours per week for the last six months of 2012. Mostly though, the statistics exist because people are not so willing to change directions or careers. Many also won't accept a job that pays less than they were making previously. It is only the elite few who can start at the top in a new job, with pay and benefits equivalent to what they had.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/14/2013 6:29:06 PM)
I think any discussion needs to honestly address the question of, why do the employers engage in this practice.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/14/2013 6:56:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I think any discussion needs to honestly address the question of, why do the employers engage in this practice. Maintaining current skills. Young kids are still coming up through the ranks. Think about how quickly technology changes. About the time you get a new phone home, it's almost already replaced. I'm betting this is seen more and more the older the person is. I know I might be seeing some of this myself. I have classmates that are getting calls for interviews while I have more work experience, more education and better grades. I don't have their youth, though. One of the reasons I went back to school for new skills is so that I might be able to counter this issue. I graduate in <2 months. If I can't find suitable work in my field, I might have to take any work in my field and continue on in my education. The last thing I want to do, is to rely on Government welfare for the rest of my life. A Government job, though, is not the same thing, if I'm being hired for my skills rather than just so there can be some rationale behind paying me.

Marini -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/14/2013 7:35:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I think any discussion needs to honestly address the question of, why do the employers engage in this practice. Interesting OP, let's see if we find out the answer to this question.

LafayetteLady -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/14/2013 7:40:43 PM)
There was a discussion about this here a while ago. If I remember correctly, LadyPact, who I believe has experience in HR, indicated that the long term unemployed are viewed as less reliable. Also, if I recall correctly, her and I disagreed about the reality of that view.

Owner59 -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/14/2013 7:43:40 PM)
"and wants the government to immediately start hiring these folks" This is the perfect sort term solution.....and would be cheaper and faster than giving trillions of our tax dollars to the 1%ers (that put us into the recession),with the hope that they`ll create jobs.....[8\|] It`s the same either way,but the idiot republicans would rather see us falter than succeed.....just on"principle".

TheHeretic -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/14/2013 8:09:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Maintaining current skills. That's only part of it, DS. There are also the simplest daily skills and habits that are often taken for granted, that may atrophy. Getting up and showing up. Employers get to pick and choose these days, and their cut-off for, "out of work too long" can be very low, with so many people looking. The author thinks the government needs to get busy hiring these people, and, being a sort who thinks of government intervention as the biggest hammer on the rack, I'm inclined to leave that for the tool of last resort. If we can get job creation going, if we can business looking to grow and hire, more demand will start pushing that barrier back. I keep saying that people who are finding it impossible to get a job need to get creative, and reevaluate themselves. This report should serve as further incentive to do that, and also as a warning to those who figure they are doing better on the unemployment check, than they would taking a job they can get.

Level -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/14/2013 8:30:53 PM)
I had a very good job, as a line operator at a plastics factory back in '90s, until I tore my back up. I spent a couple of years out of work, until finding my current employer. I worked here for free, for a few months (living off of savings and help from family, and food stamps for a very short time), until they could actually hire me. Been here for almost 11 years now. It can be done, but I don't envy anyone going through it.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/14/2013 10:02:08 PM)
That's not an easy way to do it, Level, but there are ways to break through.

erieangel -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/15/2013 12:15:20 AM)
GE Locomotive, located in Erie, PA for over 150 years, announced last week that they will be laying off nearly 1,000 workers and moving those jobs to a new plant in TX. GE just spent a few million dollars upgrading the Erie plant. Now they are eliminating more than half the jobs at that plant?

TheHeretic -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/15/2013 12:41:33 AM)
Since your question appears directed at me, Erie, perhaps because a couple million $ in upgrades to the plant is still cheaper to walk away from than to continue doing business in PA?

NotSoNormalGuy -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/15/2013 12:50:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Since your question appears directed at me, Erie, perhaps because a couple million $ in upgrades to the plant is still cheaper to walk away from than to continue doing business in PA? Sounds just about right.. Some relevant quotes from GE Brass... quote: The Times-News reported that GE’s chief competitor, Caterpillar Inc., pays its locomotive assembly workers about half as much as GE Transportation workers earn in Erie. Workers at the nonunion Texas GE plant earn less than their Erie counterparts. Lorenzo Simonelli, chief executive of GE Transportation told the newspaper that higher productivity at the Texas plant was a major factor in GE’s decision. Richard Simpson, vice president of global supply for GE Transportation, said the combination of a new factory and work rules that allow for greater flexibility combine for a productivity advantage of about 20 percent. UE Local 506 has reported that starting wages at the Texas plant range from $16 to $22 per hour. The UE members in Erie earn $26.50 to $36.49 an hour.

Edwynn -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/15/2013 1:31:47 AM)
But yet GE, a MUCH larger company than Caterpillar, with all their allegedly superior 'management expertise' supposedly inherent in that situation ("we have to pay $30 million a year to the CEO to retain the top talent!"), couldn't figure that out before spending so much on the upgrade? I think I'm starting to see the problem with US manufacturing here.

NotSoNormalGuy -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/15/2013 1:35:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn But GE, a MUCH larger company than Caterpillar, couldn't figure that out before spending so much on the upgrade? I can't argue for or against that question.. Perhaps is was a poor decision made by a short sighted management team, or perhaps it was a worthwhile upgrade to the facility for the operations that will be remaining in Erie (Remember, they're not closing the plant, just downsizing it). NSNG

Edwynn -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/15/2013 1:40:38 AM)
There is hardly a decision left in the corporate environment in the US that isn't shortsighted. That was my point. Along with the performance/compensation disconnect here that is far worse than anywhere but third world countries.

NotSoNormalGuy -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/15/2013 1:50:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Along with the performance/compensation disconnect here that is far worse than anywhere but third world countries. Are you speaking of the fact that (mostly) unskilled laborers were being paid a ridiculously high wage (compensation) of between $26.50 and $36.49 per hour AND were less productive (performance) than the laborers in Texas who were being paid between $16 and $22? If so, then I completely agree that the performance/compensation disconnect is terrible. NSNG

DarkSteven -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/15/2013 2:10:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Since your question appears directed at me, Erie, perhaps because a couple million $ in upgrades to the plant is still cheaper to walk away from than to continue doing business in PA? Alternatively, I don't know how much of the millions were paid for by GE, and how many came from the local government. Back on subject: Rich, I'm 58 and was recently (Sep 2012) hired after a ten month bout of unemployment. IMO, us older folks have a longer time finding work than young ones. The study you cited reflects current conditions, but in the past I've found employment after being out more than a year. Ghayad simply calls all positions "jobs". This makes his study of limited usefulness, because a "job" could be several things. It could be a standard W2 permanent FT job. Or it could be a temp 1099 gig. Part time? Nonprofit? I'll assume that a "job", for purposes of the study, is a FT W2 position, with benefits. There are several ways to reduce length of unemployment. One is to start up a one person sole prop, doing consulting work. Another is to do volunteer work. I know of one woman, with solid IT credentials, who's starting up a landscaping firm and developing different skillsets while keeping herself employed. I've found that contract work is a good way to get back into the workforce. Note that the study only addressed "callbacks", which I assume were invitations to interview, from sent resumes. If he were to look at the ratio of offers from interviews, I suspect that he'd find a large bias toward younger applicants. Also, I don't follow his numbers. According to him, someone in a matching industry who's just lost their job can expect a 16% callback rate. I've NEVER had more than a 5% callback rate under ideal circumstances. So I send out hundreds of resumes to get a job, and have always considered that normal. Finally, this statement The mocked-up resumes were all male, all had randomly-selected (and racially ambiguous) names, and all had similar education backgrounds. means that the statement 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. is absolutely untenable. They all had similar educational backgrounds and likely were all going for white collar jobs, so assuming that those factors do not matter is not credible. Bad research.

Edwynn -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/15/2013 2:18:20 AM)
No, I was speaking of, as a sample, Larry Ellison cashing in on stock options to the tune of $700 million in one year, based on earnings which were vastly overstated, by accounting chicanery, whereupon the shareholders took a bath and a lot of people got laid off. He didn't get to quite the level of Skilling at Enron, but close, so he walks free. Angelo Mozilo got paid over $120 million to lose billions for Countrywide, destroying the company, putting millions of people out of their homes, and costing investors and taxpayers billions. How much did those PA GE workers cost their company's investors and the taxpayers? In 1973 US CEOs got 45 times the average worker, in 1991 it was 140 times, in 2002 it got up to 500 times. I fell over laughing when we figured out that after all that we needed to give them two different tax breaks to help them out with their troubles and didn't keep up after that. All I know is that it's a lot more than any other country, by a galaxy. So then, to the performance/compensation issue: AIG, after their management in the Special Products division of ~340 people drove the entire company with thousands of employees into the dirt, paid $280 million in "retention bonuses"! to the people responsible for it. (Let's not go into who actually paid them). That's the idea of "retaining the top talent" in the US, and why the country is in a serious dive. Not so much the money itself but the insanity behind it. The US, population 312 million, alternates from second to third place in any given year with Germany at 83 million, 27% the population of the US, as world's largest exporters behind China. That's total exports, not per capita. The US has ~420 Billionaires. Germany has ~ 55. Their workers have it generally much better than USA workers, far better management being not the least of it.

epiphiny43 -> RE: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment (4/15/2013 2:20:27 AM)
Before using any multi-national as a support for any argument, consider the well informed opinion on Thatcher and on to the corporate led destruction of the Anglo/American manufacturing complex, with particular emphasis on GE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2013/04/14/thatchers-last-wish-another-clunker-from-the-iron-lady/ Somehow the whole culture of obscenely paid business leaders have arrived as a group at the attitude that their fiduciary responsibility to stockholders and themselves requires being in opposition to the long term benefit of Every country they operate in and every community they tap for labor or resources. Working to make Marx right fast as they can?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875