So Many Jobs - So Few Accepted (file, receive, claim)

[Norm Barnes]

Retired. Now seeking a position to keep me busy. Enjoy the free time but enough is enough. Monster.com was my venue of choice. Receive a Job Search list daily detailing about 10 open positions daily. Some employer reps seem eagar others as if they have no need for anybody for the postion advertised. Here's my gripe. Frankly I really don't care about myself but am concerned about others who really need and want a job. If you are a personnel professional I would believe you can basicly determine those who you would like to speak with and I would say you should probably shade to the side of giving someone a chance. (Full employment means more tax dollars and less unemployment paid and other burdens caused by uninsured citizens and benefit a host of other areas i.e. Social Security Pool, Purchases of homes, major appliances, vehicles and a littany of more) I think back at an old phrase that was targeted to politicians "Its the economy stupid" well it goes to those holding positions in Personnel and given the duties of hiring. I'd like to see them awfully busy because then there's a chance someone may get a job. People will stop asking if those in Personnel positions: treat their position as "Godministrators" instead of administrators. Help get US back on track hire the unemployed.

[Meesterjojo]

They are busy- many positions have applicants over 300-500. The lower the requirements, the more applicants. Lower education requirements- even more. Not that such matters these days- companies are very much aware things are in their favor and are hiring those with a BA/BS for $10-$11/hour.

Many whom I've spoken with all say the exact same thing: "we're doing people a favor by giving them a job"...at $7.25/hour.

True, it is a favor, but a dubious benefit, and not one that offers any hope of being self-sufficient and realizing ones goals in life.

While I salute the fact you are retired, I question your wanting to take a job from someone who legitimately needs it. Perhaps finding a hobby would be good? Or starting a support group for the unemployed in your area, something that offers networking, would be better?

In my city we have 241,000 unemployed, with a state-wide ~72,000 jobs available in the last month.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by Meesterjojo

While I salute the fact you are retired, I question your wanting to take a job from someone who legitimately needs it. Perhaps finding a hobby would be good? Or starting a support group for the unemployed in your area, something that offers networking, would be better?

In my city we have 241,000 unemployed, with a state-wide ~72,000 jobs available in the last month.

Back around Thanksgiving, I started a thread about a CNN.com article where a couple with secure high-paying full-time jobs were both going crazy trying to find a 2nd holiday p/t job "so their kids can have better presents". I lambasted this couple saying they are potentially taking a job away from say an "early 99er" (not the term as used, as it wasn't created yet) who was one step away from being homeless just for the sake of "more comfort". To my surprise almost everyone replied that I was crazy and even "unAmerican" to think this way, or that maybe it means I'm not motivated (translate: "selfish") enough myself. Part of our problem as a country is we have too many people who think like this couple whereas in the 1930s we were "our brother's keeper" a lot more.

If you're curious about the thread, here it was: https://www.city-data.com/forum/work-...-year-you.html

I wonder if with a lot more people in dire straits now if it would get a better reception. Thanks for your great post.

[Opyelie]

Originally Posted by Meesterjojo

While I salute the fact you are retired, I question your wanting to take a job from someone who legitimately needs it. Perhaps finding a hobby would be good? Or starting a support group for the unemployed in your area, something that offers networking, would be better?

In my city we have 241,000 unemployed, with a state-wide ~72,000 jobs available in the last month.

Or even volunteering as a mentor with a local AARP work group or similar that tries to assist those over 50 to find employment.

[Norm Barnes]

72,000 jobs and 241,000 unemployed. I find it extremely difficult to understand that out of 241,000 employees more matches can't be made. Maybe these companies lack the skills to train people. The "good old days" had on the job training - granted some jobs require skills that may be difficult to pass on by OJT but many can take a novice and train them. The miltary had several occupational specialties that required a level of skill. Most of these skills had been acquired by 60 - 120 day training for the occupation many times while the person worked in the position. What I'm saying in the original post is that employers don't seem commited to fill these 72000 positions and as a result higher unemployment. There's risk in hiring --
UEC. 72K jobs - 241K Looking - something wrong with this picture. Incidentally my seeking a position is in the sales sector "Real Estate/Mortgages" so competing in the marketplace has always been a factor and me sitting home reading a book or out golfing won't guarantee another a position.

[7 Wishes]

Yes, what's wrong with this picture is that many of the 72K jobs are only hiring people currently employed, leaving the 241K unemployed "unemployable".

[Meesterjojo]

Originally Posted by Norm Barnes

72,000 jobs and 241,000 unemployed. I find it extremely difficult to understand that out of 241,000 employees more matches can't be made. Maybe these companies lack the skills to train people. The "good old days" had on the job training - granted some jobs require skills that may be difficult to pass on by OJT but many can take a novice and train them. The miltary had several occupational specialties that required a level of skill. Most of these skills had been acquired by 60 - 120 day training for the occupation many times while the person worked in the position. What I'm saying in the original post is that employers don't seem commited to fill these 72000 positions and as a result higher unemployment. There's risk in hiring --
UEC. 72K jobs - 241K Looking - something wrong with this picture. Incidentally my seeking a position is in the sales sector "Real Estate/Mortgages" so competing in the marketplace has always been a factor and me sitting home reading a book or out golfing won't guarantee another a position.

Here:

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/pres...1610epress.pdf

This is actually newer data which came out on the 16th and I hadn't seen. NOW the State is claming 166,000 jobs since "the start of the year".

Note- Houston is now 255,200 unemployed for June.

What you're misunderstanding is how things work. In Texas they do not assign you jobs to go to, excepting WIA (2-3 month processing), and some transient sub-min. wage positions.

It's not even an issue of training. It's an issue with our economy. I can't say what that is, or why jobs are being lost. What I can tell you is that the unemployment rate in Houston, Texas has increased 14,000 in 30 days, but the number of jobs STATE WIDE has not.

166,000 since Jan 1. 2010, but 255,200 unemployed IN THE MONTH OF JUNE.

You are free to theorize how wrong I am all you want, the link above is my 'official' source- it's the TWC. 255,200 is just a single city.

1 city. 1 city. 1 city. 1 city. 1 city. 1 city.

Do you get it? It's 1 city.

The military doesn't 'hire' when it can gather kids to do it's work excepting for some specialties which still require enlistment. Cut off age for a normal recruit is 34. I know. I've tried.

What's wrong with the picture is that the state isn't reporting ALL of the unemployed- only the people who file a claim.

There aren't enough jobs in the State of Texas currently to help even a 10th of the people looking for work here. I, like many, are willing to accept min. wage. People simply are not hiring, and when they do, especially for low-wage positions, they look for people without experience- easier to control, they can keep them longer (so the theory goes), plus they usually get a tax credit of $2,500 per hire if the person was a convicted criminal, received welfare, food assistance (unemployed don't qualify here- we make too much), TANF, or social security benefits.

If your proposed job is to go into business for yourself, great. But if you're applying in that market for listed jobs then in effect you could be taking a job from someone who needs it.

I'm really not sure what there is about this one cannot understand? It's a matter of resources: a market can only support so many positions, if they're all taken then those without a post will have to wait.

[Norm Barnes]

Well Stated. I'll go back to the days of easy mortgages and impact. While working with a mortgage company we made many loans which were good and I was not happy when the wisdom of careful lending was abandoned for easy profits. In those days loans were made that were neither good for the people whom they were granted or the company offering the mortgage and ultimately the market investor. All this said here is a theory on its short term benefits. C-D borrowers were granted a new start. Loans that were delinquent had to be brought current and their payment ratios on loans outside the crazy "No Doc" parameters had to be no more than 43% of their gross income. There is many factors that should've, could've and didn'tve been considered like expenses after netting their income. The sum of benefits were that delinquent taxes: County, State, Township and Federal Taxes were brought current and amassed a large amount of monies that could be used for projects within local government even some added positions which meant even more benefits in added income revenue from the newly hired and many taken off the unemployment rolls. Had there have beem a safer approach much of these benefits could have been to the betterment of many. The careless lending led to our faltering economy and a drag on Federal Resources. It is pretty clear to all of us the ripple effect of increased home sales jobs sprout but this has to be done slowly and with a large degree of caution and consideration by all in the loop i.e. if an employer maliciously fires an individual causing him to lose his job and his income many loans and financial obligations of that individual will falter. Done multiple times a segment of the population will suffer.

Let me say it this way if some very astute individuals can determine a way of increasing home sales affordably and with a reasonable amount of caution good things ripple through the economy. Obtaining a job is the first step in my estimation of allowing this to happen. This is why I believe it is important for us to protect our job markets, be interdependent and to not be led astray and ever believe that higher interest rates can ever and I mean never correct delinquency nor be a safe way to control or stop delinquency or even nearly support losses as a result of careless and unsupervised lending. There had been jobs lost based on much value being given to scoring which lightened the employment load of major financial institutions but in the short run mortgage life wise led to the demise of a large part of our financial structure. Jobs lead to home purchases. Home purchases to furnishings and improvements. All these things bring about personal income and personal income brings in tax revenues and other social taxes which help the individual and the economy.

I say again: "Its the economy stupid" -- Get people back to work. There has to be a game plan to get people to work and all of us have to be commited to cause this too happen if we expect to come out of this societal stupor we have fallen. Lets have our politicians cry out "Give them a Chance" and find a reward for so doing and let our corporate buddies realize that jobs at home help them and their offspring and for that matter all of society. "Give them a chance".

[Norm Barnes]

In the youth baseball leagues I learned it was important to develop and encourage your weakest player. I had no desire to terminate our engagement simply because any one of them had some limitations in his/her ability. We played as a team. If a player came back from batting after striking out and cried I felt compelled to sit with them and commiserate. I would tell him/her we can't always get a hit and that's not important. What is important is that each time you do your very best on the field and on the bench. Even those who might judge you will always admire you if you can say I tried my best and its not really important that they even think that it is only important that you know that. There'll be another time and so long as you try your best you are bound to get better. I am going to give you every opportunity to prove to yourself that you can and will do it. That's all I can do is give you a chance. You should be glad of that I am.

We went on to win the title in our division 3 straight years.

Employing someone is something like that and there is more to be gained in giving someone an opportunity and to pride yourself in his success rather than his failure.

I say if you are an employer tell your personnel recruiters be inclined to: "Give them a Chance.

Last Post - can't let go.

[Bhaalspawn]

Originally Posted by Meesterjojo

There aren't enough jobs in the State of Texas currently to help even a 10th of the people looking for work here.

I think people in the rest of the country view Texas as an economic mecca that hasn't been affected by the recession. Haven't people from other states been migrating to Texas to look for work, fleeing other states such as Michigan and Ohio? Have you noticed an increase in interstate immigrants relocating to Texas to look for work?