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 evidence is self evident. Show me your proof on your claims other than that unemployment piece you keep dwelling on to back yourself up.
So you have no data, and no sources.
If you have an issue with the formally published UI numbers, please explain what their flaws are in detail. I gave evidence. Onus is on you to provide something concrete (beyond your opinion) to counter. If you want to throw out data points that don't align with your opinion, you need to prove them wrong first.
The facts show this to be more of an employees job market than it has been in nearly two decades.
If you have an issue with the formally published UI numbers, please explain what their flaws are in detail. I gave evidence. Onus is on you to provide something concrete (beyond your opinion) to counter. If you want to throw out data points that don't align with your opinion, you need to prove them wrong first.
The facts show this to be more of an employees job market than it has been in nearly two decades.
You are wrong. The onus is on both of us to prove our points. The data that you presented does not match reality. However, I don't care or need to prove anything. You or I are not on trial here. The people reading here can make up their own minds.
You are wrong. The onus is on both of us to prove our points. The data that you presented does not match reality. However, I don't care or need to prove anything. You or I are not on trial here. The people reading here can make up their own minds.
Reality is that unemployment is empirically lower today than it has been in decades, and the flight out of the workforce is demographic in nature. Reality also shows that white collar jobs have such a low unemployment rate that employees can set their terms moreso than they could in a long time. If you have anything beyond your opinion to support what you say, please give the links to that data.
General advise though, if you start out by calling someone wrong, back up that claim with facts or data. I get it, people enjoy complaining. That doesn't mean what they complain about matches what has been proven to be true.
I don't think employers are demanding too much. The issue is that a lot more is required to compete in the market. We've seen time and time again what happens when companies fell to diversify or keep with the times. The go the way of Blockbuster (who actually tried hard to stay relevant). It's a brutal market for worker, but that's because it's also a brutal market for companies. Companies really don't have time to train thousands of workers, especially now since the average aptitude for a worker needs to be so much higher. The problem is that there is a growing gap between the average skillset of the average American vs the high demand requirements a company needs to stay competitive. So education definitely needs to become better for the average worker, and right now it's getting worse and worse.
I think we're heading more towards an "uber economy" or for academics, agorist society. In which all work is a contract between two parties. Just think of the "uber model" on a large scale. The "gig" economy where no one really works for anyone. People just work for themselves. To me I think that's the most flexible model, but it won't reward laziness. But I can definitely see corporations breaking off and becoming smaller entities in general.
LOL, you contradict yourself! First you say employers aren't demanding too much THEN say MORE is required to compete in the market! Blockbuster is a BAD example as well. I live in BB's hometown of Dallas/Fort Worth. They didn't try hard enough! They didn't secure a streaming platform. They didn't beat Redbox to have Kiosks for self servicing.
Employers used to provide more training but now are too bottom-line, short horizon oriented. They are counting on globalization to secure CHEAP talent, especially when birth rates of the American-born workforce is declining and aging at the same time. This is why many in business don't agree with current administration policies and desire no tightening of access of H1b limits.
BTW, Germany is renowned for its apprenticeship tradition and great workforce benefits. How is it they can be a TOP 5 global economy with an employee friendly government/corporate leadership but the U.S.A. really is not?
And who in his/her right mind wants to work (or even supervise) in "retail and customer service related" functions, where Madison Avenue has conditioned a spoiled, soft public to expect far too much, for far too little?
Collectivized agriculture failed in the Soviet Union because the peasant kulaks gave as little as possible in the communal fields, but paid strict attention to their own small plots. A similar ethic seems to be taking root in much of the post-industrial First World.
I don't know what truckload of turnips the author of this post fell off from, but with the exception of the Panama Canal (since ceded to Panama and redeveloped without American participation), most of the great "projects" of 1900-1930 (utilities and infrastructure) were developed with at most, state and local participation and/or private capital. The exceptions, like the TVA or WPA, often bogged down due to local issues, My parents and grandparents witnessed this with their own eyes. And we've seen the emergence of huge new networks - Internet and cable television -- without the burden of public financing.
And if you want a distinctly American example of the failure of centralized economic planning, you need look no further than California's much-ballyhooed High Speed Rail project.
That is NOT true. Where the hell would states get the money to do all you say the Feds did not? They were BROKE! Unemployment was 25%. The Feds have a money printing press not the states! The TVA and WPA worked out just fine! The Hoover dam and its related projects made tens of thousands of are acres of land habitable. Many of the lakes in Texas and surrounding environs were state/Fed partnerships aided by Texas Congressman like Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson!
I think globalization has helped employers a lot more than employees. I look at where I work, for a global company. We moved to a new building last year and I was able to get a much better perspective on the workforce mix. I was frankly surprised how much of the work force was foreign here on sponsorship! In some divisions, it looks like 70-30 foreign! Imagine if there were more restrictions on hiring via work visas. And within my area, we have had a jail-break of resignations the last 9 months basically because the job market is decent and the work culture has deteriorated to little consideration for staff well-being. This is reflection of pompous or ignorant management and such ultimately needs to be disciplined.
Reality is that unemployment is empirically lower today than it has been in decades, and the flight out of the workforce is demographic in nature. Reality also shows that white collar jobs have such a low unemployment rate that employees can set their terms moreso than they could in a long time. If you have anything beyond your opinion to support what you say, please give the links to that data.
General advise though, if you start out by calling someone wrong, back up that claim with facts or data. I get it, people enjoy complaining. That doesn't mean what they complain about matches what has been proven to be true.
You are using the tired old cliche that tries to discredit a person if they are seen as"complaining". Whether a person is complaining or not does not change the subject matter. As for me, I certainly am not complaining because I am comfortably retired and out of that mess.
Your information is false, pure and simple. It is the only data that you provide. People reading these posts will judge for themselves.
Please do not dictate to me as to what and how I should post. I will post anything I want in a polite and professional manner. You are free to post as you wish and so am I.
Plenty of data in the many unemployed out there. Experienced, accomplished, yet unemployed. That alone is enough. Repeating again that employers take their sweet time to hire means there is a glut of workers. There are too many workers for each position.
Do you have any data that supports your theory other than the unemployment measure put out by the news media?
Here is evidence that things are a farce with employers:
In times like now, employers claim that there is a skills shortage and that they need more foreigners and more federal programs to push kids into certain career paths, etc.
However, during the Great Recession years, with a massive glut of unemployment, they were STILL whining about a lack of talent and demanding more foreigners and programs in schools to push kids toward certain career paths.
This means that their word is mud and that we can't take their claims that unemployment is low seriously.
Here is more evidence: During the Great Recession, employers got really picky, putting people through lots of annoying hoops and made people take a lot of unnecessary tests to get employed.
Now, as far as I know, they STILL have the annoying 2 hour personality tests, they STILL have annoying third party parts of applications where they demand your Social Security number, and they were demanding salary rates from previous jobs as required on online applications (likely to lowball people). Eventually, some states even recently passed some laws against that.
NONE of this should be happening if the unemployment were really at record lows. Employers would be too scared.
Also,I can further tear this farce of things being great to pieces. Sure people could be employed by a guy with a Physics degree could be sweeping floors at a barber shop, a guy who got a CS degree could be an administrative assistant (after giving out his social security number, previous job salary, filling out a 2 hour personality test, having his credit checked, taking a pee test, having five rounds of panel interviews, and having a background check). These are horribly underemployed but still fit as "employed" under your system.
Furthermore, BusinessManIT is correct, they don't count people that have been unemployed for a certain amount of time.
Also, he's right about the training, or, more appropriately, the lack thereof. I've seen that consistently mentioned on both CityData and Indeed.
Last edited by MongooseHugger; 05-26-2018 at 10:00 AM..
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.
