Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only reason to hire workers in 1st world nations is when it is no longer possible or profitable to instead hire slaves in 3rd world nations or import cheap labor, such as visa workers and illegal aliens. The same idea applies to reducing the work force of our nation to part-time temp workers who are out of work half the year while chained to some BS staffing agency - until the options to exploit people are closed, we'll continue to see crushing unemployment and a bleed-out of decent jobs.
All corporations want the same thing - to minimize employees and pay them next to nothing. Of course, the company will still continue to sell products at 1st world prices to endless "consumers" who will magically get money from some other source since no company wants to be the one to actually pay them enough to buy all those nice, shiny new toys.
So, in the end it's a huge game to offload the costs of having a functional society to "someone else." So long as "somebody else" is paying a living wage, you can sell products to those workers while treating your own employees like trash; the other trick is the Wal-mart tactic - pay your employees so poorly that they need public assistant to live, thus making the taxpayers effectively pay part of their wages while reaping none of the benefits of their labor.
Of course, this concept of passing the buck is no secret - every company is doing it - and thus the rush to find the last remaining pools of slave labor available in the world. Even China is becoming "too expensive" - because they are developing a middle class - so enjoy watching future products be sent to the bottom of the barrel nations where literal slaves will make products for the masses. Just don't ask where all the "consumers" are supposed to get their money to buy these products once their jobs are gone...
As for work ethic, or lack of it, I simply don't buy that. Yes, I've worked with younger people of my generation who are lazy and basically useless. I've also worked with no shortage of older people who are also lazy and useless. Based upon my 10+ years of experience, there is no real generational difference, IMHO. The classic "kids these days!" argument simply doesn't hold from what I've seen. Oh, sure, the young people who are lazy might mess around all day on Facebook or whatever... but the old, useless guy is instead hanging out at the coffee machine or walking around the building while chatting the day away. Both are useless and each is wasting time in a way more typical to their generation, but the end result - the work still doesn't get done - is the same, and suckers like me end up picking up the slack for no real rewards. So, no, there's no evidence that the huge surge in unemployment is caused by a sudden wave of lazy people refusing to work, IMHO.
Last edited by Rambler123; 11-03-2013 at 06:58 PM..
I feel the economy is a take if two cities. For one, it is the best of times, for others it it's the worst. Many have seen their jobs if not hours slashed and little way to recoup these list wages. For finding the "right employees" are all the requirements actual requirements or are they like to haves that are fitting of a purple squirrel? This is what I wonder when it comes to why companies can't find talent. Now do employees slack off, yes. However I think we see more and more do that yet the wrong people are fired for whatever reason...
If unemployment is high, it should be easy to find workers. Why is it that companies make every excuse not to hire, while expecting employees to work more hours? Well, I pretty well know many of the reasons, but just curious what others have to say on the subject, as well as the experiences of others.
Personally, I've noticed how difficult it is to find a decent worker. Most of the ones hired where I work don't last. The core group has been their for 5 years or more. 40% has been there for 15 years or more. Finding people who fit in isn't a very easy undertaking, even if the owner does want to expand. It's just easier to ask current employees to work more hours.
I work 40 hours many, if not most weeks. I've got side projects that keep me busy, so I'm pretty well satisfied with that as well as the income. What I've noticed is many others jump for joy when they get more hours though. I did enough OT when I started working years ago. Not really interested in trading all of my waking hours for work though
What say you? What has to change so it's convenient, or even optimal, for companies to hire more people?
Most employers hate to hire new workers because labor is their biggest expense. They'd much rather squeeze more out of the people they already have for the same money. Most employers will do nearly anything to avoid hiring.
The only reason to hire workers in 1st world nations is when it is no longer possible or profitable to instead hire slaves in 3rd world nations or import cheap labor, such as visa workers and illegal aliens. The same idea applies to reducing the work force of our nation to part-time temp workers who are out of work half the year while chained to some BS staffing agency - until the options to exploit people are closed, we'll continue to see crushing unemployment and a bleed-out of decent jobs.
Your tirades and employer bashing knows no end... It's all the employers fault, every one of them, because, you know, they want to make a profit and stuff...
Ya, there are crooks out there. At the same time, there are also crappy people who are not worth hiring. With higher than normal unemployment, the bar is raised slightly. No secret. What do you expect exactly? Do you expect that they should create charity jobs so everyone can pretend to look useful? How will they compete with businesses that do not create charity jobs?
Obviously, I do not believe the issue is quite that simple...
So, the companies have created a big part of the problem, but they are correct when they say they can't find good people who want to work.
Don
This is the fault of the company most of the time. Maybe they should treat their people better or pay them more instead of a slave wage. A good company has no problem getting good workers. What's happening now in this decade is people are fed up and giving corporate America the middle one.
In regards to companies not wanting to hire due to health insurance - No company is forced to provide health insurance also this is why a lot of companies are going the agency/contractor route. If a company really wants to hire someone they can. Most people would rather work 6 months then get laid off then not work at all. Also another thing companies are doing now - When someone older retires they do not replace them and the work is absorbed by the people that are still working there OR they hire a replacement and pay them significantly less.
I'm a little more ticked off at the companies who lie to the media about how nobody is qualified for the jobs they are offering, when in reality it's just a matter of how picky they are. The whole skills gap thing is more of a myth then anything.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Its a great time to hire IMO. We have paid fellows / interns that do the quality of work and have the education and background of a person we'd have to pay a pretty good starting salary to in a permanent position ten years ago. We brought in junior investment associates at great salaries over the past five years. We lose them when they go to places like UChicago or Yale for their MBAs and can replace them with similar brilliant young minds. Development people, well, we can pay reasonable salaries and get super bright, hard working and qualified people much easier than before the recession.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57821
There are jobs that are very hard to fill, because of a lack of qualified candidates, in specialized work. I had an opening and received 36 applicants, interviewed 10 and had to re-open because none really showed any sign of knowing the work despite their resumes. A huge percentage of applicants don't meet the minimum, lie or exaggerate in the hope of lucking out. No business should "settle" and take the most qualified of the unqualified. The second time around we got another 27 applicants and interviewed 6. Of those only one (who we hired) demonstrated the ability to do the job. This was with two degrees, Economics and Mathematics, and 12 years experience for a job that requires 3 years experience and a BA in anything. Since then a lower position opened up requiring no degree at all, but 3 years experience. In that case there were 45 applicants and we interviewed 12. The person selected has an MBA and just over the 3 years, if he had not accepted the offer we would have started over again because none of the others been acceptable.
I do not know what to say guys. I'm born in socialism and live there for 2 decades. There was "companies" and they was of the market. Socialism broke and hence "companies" become companies at market. Because employee had all possible benefit and easy going way of life companies get shoot down one after another. At first places be happy that you have real companies here.
There are jobs that are very hard to fill, because of a lack of qualified candidates, in specialized work. I had an opening and received 36 applicants, interviewed 10 and had to re-open because none really showed any sign of knowing the work despite their resumes. A huge percentage of applicants don't meet the minimum, lie or exaggerate in the hope of lucking out. No business should "settle" and take the most qualified of the unqualified. The second time around we got another 27 applicants and interviewed 6. Of those only one (who we hired) demonstrated the ability to do the job. This was with two degrees, Economics and Mathematics, and 12 years experience for a job that requires 3 years experience and a BA in anything. Since then a lower position opened up requiring no degree at all, but 3 years experience. In that case there were 45 applicants and we interviewed 12. The person selected has an MBA and just over the 3 years, if he had not accepted the offer we would have started over again because none of the others been acceptable.
You're probably overlooking people that would do fine due to a faulty selection system. The selection and interview process that companies use now is horrible. It's like trying to find a wife going by just how they look on paper and how they answer questions on the first date. Now they juice it up a little and make you interview 3 times with 3 sets of stupid questions which is the "third date". It doesn't work. Corporate America is failing on so many levels.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
