Why is finding a job so much harder than decades ago?

In My Humble Opinion
21

Trust me, I know. My wife was a lawyer for a while, and decided that the pay was too low (most lawyers don’t even clear 100k) for the ridiculous demands, boring nature of the work and horrid office politics.

All I meant is that there were a LOT of people who didn’t really consider what they’d do for a living until they were basically doing it.

To a greater or lesser degree, most of them fell into the “I’m moving to LA and going to be a movie star” type thinking, where they wanted to get some highly lucrative job with relatively low odds of actually getting it, for one reason or another, be they personal or environmental.

Those of us that I’ve kept up with who are successful mostly tried to figure out what reasonable careers and jobs we might get, and worked toward those.

22

That was my opinion until very recently. I keep hearing calls for more mathematicians, engineers, scientists, etc, but I don’t see anything inherent in those professions that makes them any less immune from being automated away as all those call center employees I got rid of in the mid-2000s were, or all the auto workers that used to fill factories in the 1950s were, or all the farmers that used to till the land in the 1900s. Like millions of others, I’m an Excel jockey (it seems like) and there’s nothing about what I do that really can’t be done by a computer - it’s just easier (now) to hire me and tell me what to do than develop a system from scratch and program it to do what I do.

But somebody will. And they’ll be lauded in the press and make a zillion dollars, meanwhile hundreds of thousands of more people worldwide are out of work and we will all be told “more jobs are being created - it’s always happened that way!”

Otoh, “past performance is no guarantee of future results.”

The question is hardly Ludditical, despite your snark. There’s 1.6 million people employed today as long-haul truck drivers. What happens in 20 years after Google perfects their driver-less cars, the things become legal in all 50 states, and automated driving becomes standard (I can even envision a future where it becomes mandatory in some situations)? Are they going to transfer their skills to become mechanics? It’s not as if cars are simple nowadays (and I don’t see them getting simpler in the future), nor is it assured that mechanic jobs will even be available. They surely won’t be able to get a job driving as most jobs involving driving will be gone (mailmen, taxi drivers, chauffeurs, even the guy who drives the long parking lot trams at Disney World).

So, what are these 1.6 million people (and the 250k that are taxi drivers, the 100k that are airplane pilots, the 600k people who drive buses, 600k forklift drivers, etc) going to do? We can easily foresee that, within our lifetimes, these 3+ million jobs will be destroyed, but these families need more than vague assurances that “this is natural” and “other jobs will be created which you can step right into.”

Making silly comments about electric lights doesn’t make the situation go away.

23

Long term unemployment rates have hardly changed in the US, despite a whole gender entering the workforce, current recession notwithstanding.

If I’m being naive, why isn’t unemployment inexorably rising?

Yeah they will have to retrain. That’s modern life. I’ve had to do that, and expect I’ll have to do so again before my working life is through.

And while many people appreciate how automated cars might lose jobs, few people think about how they might gain jobs.
Say I have a business idea that requires hiring 3 truck drivers and 3 admin staff. I crunch the numbers – it’s not feasible right now. But throw in automated cars and all I need to do is hire 3 admin staff. So I hire 3 people and fire no-one.

The cost of just about everything you spend money on would massively tumble under such a scenario.
If that seems far-fetched, the costs of most of the things you buy today e.g. food, clothing, cars have all come down a great deal in real terms in the last few decades.

As for employment, I’ll just simply say it again: while there are useful things for humans to do, the problem will always just be a matter of training. And at the point that there isn’t a useful thing for a human to do, all our needs are being met, cue smiley faces.

24

I think part of why it’s harder is due to the Internet making it extremely simple to apply to jobs, so companies are overwhelmed with applications and resumes. Even people with jobs that they like will apply to jobs on the off-chance that they’ll end up someplace better than they are now. Before the internet, people only applied for jobs in person or via mailing a paper resume/cover letter, which acted as a bit of “barrier” and kept the # of applicants at a manageable level.

25

Really? And you can’t discount the current recession - it exists, doesn’t it?

Don’t put words in my mouth, please. I did not call you naive.

Unemployment may not be rising, but labor participation and full-employment levels are dropping.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

I don’t know if the above site will take you to the chart, but it’s the “Labor Force Participation Rate” data from the BLS. The percentage of people participating in the labor force has dropped from 67.2% in 1997 to today’s 63.6%. Some of this can be attributed to the beginning of baby boomer retirement, but not all.

But retrain to do what?

The problem in the above situation is not the drivers, it’s a business plan that can only sustain 4 people. :wink: Seriously, though - that’s your counter? That driverless cars will allow for more badly-run small businesses? You expect all 3+ million people to open their own business?

True, but the last thing the world needs is a deflationary spiral. And I don’t really understand how the price of things would massively tumble given that transportation is about 10% of the cost of an average product.

Precisely. And it’s this that we should start thinking about - what good is a health-care insurance system based upon employment if fewer people are needed to be employed?

26

First of all JohnT please calm down. I appreciate that my post #17 was a bit snarky but I acknowledged that at the time.

Yes, unemployment has basically fluctuated around the long-term rate of 5%. In your graph you see it drop below 5% prior to the recession.
And of course the current recession exists, but you mustn’t extrapolate from it. It represents a trough, which historically we bounce back from.

My point is simply that it will make some business ventures feasible that are not, right now. And it was a single example; I am not saying every prospective business will be of that format. Finally, where did you get “badly-run” from?

This is not the same thing as deflation. It’s a real terms decrease in the cost of production.

I don’t have time to google around right now but I suspect the 10% of costs figure comes only from final delivery costs. The actual transport costs will be the combination of lots of movement of parts.
Plus of course it will impact where businesses locate. You’d have much more freedom in where you put your business so cheaper land costs and economies of scale would come into play.

27

I agree that the job market has changed. There are also changes in the job application process that everybody hasn’t mastered.

From the employer side, I’m amazed how badly some people present themselves even in the written application. This seems to have gotten worse as more people apply for more jobs without taking time to decide if they’re a good fit for the position. It may be convenient to send off 30 applications electronically, but your application still has to be tailored to the job posting.

I am in charge of reading applications for certain jobs in my organization. They are advertised nationally. We get a large number of applications whenever the ads run. The applicants probably think they applied for the job because they shot off an electronic resume and a generic cover letter. From where I sit, they did something, but they didn’t manage to apply for the job because their materials are generic and incomplete.

If we ask you to fill in a form, fill in the form. If we ask you to fill in a form and not to attach a resume, don’t attach a resume and write “see resume” in the form. If we ask you to explain how your credentials relate to the job, “I am very qualified and interested in the job” is not an answer. If we ask you for references, include references. Not following simple instructions disqualifies most of the applications I receive.

The applicants who follow the instructions and include the information we asked for then get screened for qualifications and fit. If we advertise for a specialty area, don’t apply if you lack all of the qualifications. “I love children” doesn’t qualify you when the job lists a minimum of 5 years experience and an active state child care certificate. “I am naturally a great trainer” might be true but until I see work experience as a trainer on your resume, I can only enter a 0 for this item.

Qualified applicants can still present their materials very badly. Don’t put post-its on your resume. Take three minutes and update it instead. Run a spelling check. Don’t put quotes on the bottom of your email that are full of spelling errors, or give a little prayer or advice with smiley faces and too many exclamations points. Don’t spell the name of the company, my name, or your name incorrectly. And don’t tell me you want to work in the east when the posting is not for a job in the east.

Don’t insult the organization or the position you’re applying for. This happens more often than you’d think, and it can be the kiss of death. If we advertise for someone with experience developing technical training webinars with objective outcome measures, don’t write a cute reply about how you’re sure you’ll pick it up because it can’t be that hard. If you don’t have the experience but think you could do the activity, find a way to describe your transferable skills without insulting the position or implying that the organization is uninformed about its needs. The person reading your application is not your buddy but an employee of that organization. Belittling any part of the organization you’re applying to is not going to help you, and it raises questions about your judgment.

That’s all on the written application side. Interviews have their own pitfalls but I’ll just say that wearing a tee shirt to an interview, or texting under the table during it, are not impressive. If it’s a Skype interview, make sure we can’t see your poster of a mostly-naked blonde sliding down a giant beer bottle in the background.

A lot of people are applying for the job. Have somebody read your application. Do some practice interviews. The way you see yourself may not be how you’re coming off in your application. You may think I’m exaggerating, but I eliminate at least 85% of applicants just for sloppiness and lack of attention to details before I even get to the 10% who don’t have the qualifications or experience listed in the posting. The 5% get moved forward.

28

I agree that the job market has changed. There are also changes in the job application process that everybody hasn’t mastered.

From the employer side, I’m amazed how badly some people present themselves even in the written application. This seems to have gotten worse as more people apply for more jobs without taking time to decide if they’re a good fit for the position. It may be convenient to send off 30 applications electronically, but your application still has to be tailored to the job posting.

I am in charge of reading applications for certain jobs in my organization. They are advertised nationally. We get a large number of applications whenever the ads run. The applicants probably think they applied for the job because they shot off an electronic resume and a generic cover letter. From where I sit, they did something, but they didn’t manage to apply for the job because their materials are generic and incomplete.

If we ask you to fill in a form, fill in the form. If we ask you to fill in a form and not to attach a resume, don’t attach a resume and write “see resume” in the form. If we ask you to explain how your credentials relate to the job, “I am very qualified and interested in the job” is not an answer. If we ask you for references, include references. Not following simple instructions disqualifies most of the applications I receive.

The applicants who follow the instructions and include the information we asked for then get screened for qualifications and fit. If we advertise for a specialty area, don’t apply if you lack all of the qualifications. “I love children” doesn’t qualify you when the job lists a minimum of 5 years experience and an active state child care certificate. “I am naturally a great trainer” might be true but until I see work experience as a trainer on your resume, I can only enter a 0 for this item.

Qualified applicants can still present their materials very badly. Don’t put post-its on your resume. Take three minutes and update it instead. Run a spelling check. Don’t put quotes on the bottom of your email that are full of spelling errors, or give a little prayer or advice with smiley faces and too many exclamations points. Don’t spell the name of the company, my name, or your name incorrectly. And don’t tell me you want to work in the east when the posting is not for a job in the east.

Don’t insult the organization or the position you’re applying for. This happens more often than you’d think, and it can be the kiss of death. If we advertise for someone with experience developing technical training webinars with objective outcome measures, don’t write a cute reply about how you’re sure you’ll pick it up because it can’t be that hard. If you don’t have the experience but think you could do the activity, find a way to describe your transferable skills without insulting the position or implying that the organization is uninformed about its needs. The person reading your application is not your buddy but an employee of that organization. Belittling any part of the organization you’re applying to is not going to help you, and it raises questions about your judgment.

That’s all on the written application side. Interviews have their own pitfalls but I’ll just say that wearing a tee shirt to an interview, or texting under the table during it, are not impressive. If it’s a Skype interview, make sure we can’t see your poster of a mostly-naked blonde sliding down a giant beer bottle in the background.

A lot of people are applying for the job. Have somebody read your application. Do some practice interviews. The way you see yourself may not be how you’re coming off in your application. You may think I’m exaggerating, but I eliminate at least 85% of applicants just for sloppiness and lack of attention to details before I even get to the 10% who don’t have the qualifications or experience listed in the posting. The 5% get moved forward.

29

It is difficult for any person to get a good paying job. When better paying jobs come along the price of things go up. The Big Businesses will be sure to keep amking their profits.

My first job was a mother’s helper to earn my way through High school, I got no money, just room and board. After I graduated from High school I had a job that paid $12.00 a week, a friend and I shared an apartment, our rent was $9.00 a week for each of us, we had all of $3.00 to spend. I bought a head of lettece for 10 cents a head, and a block of blue cheese for 50 cents , she bought a jar of peanut butter, and a loaf of bread 10 cents a loaf at the day old bakery. we shared the cost of a can of coffee that was about 50 cents. It took me a couple of months to pay for a $10 dollar winter coat!

I got a job as a maid near Chicago and felt rich getting $25.00 a week and room and board.

The working poor and middle class in reality support the rich, and when the employee’s get more money or if things are stolen, the companies pass the costs on to their costumers, so in the end the ratio seems to remain the same.

My parents bought a farm with a 3 bedroom house(not in good repair) with a barn and shed for $850.00, and they struggled to pay for that, my older sister worked for a man who did plastering (she got no money, but he plastered the house for her work. Then when the War broke out all the family who were not in service worked in war plants, but the balance of money taken in by the factories etc. went up accordingly , and the practice goes on today.

30

Nobody has mentioned the impact of illegal immigration. There are now over 12 million people in the USA, who are here without valid permission. These people fill many of the entry level jobs. This makes it impossible for many city dwellers to get a job. IOn my city, over 90% of the landscape workers are illegals. They send their money home, and most do not pay taxes. And when a senator or representative is found to be employing an illegal nanny or servant-the public gets outraged…for a day or two. But nothing happens-why? Because underground economy labor is such a good deal for the employer-no SS taxes, no witholding, no benefits. And the taxpayer pays for the healt insurance (local hospital emergency room, etc.). heck, iof the Congress does it, why shouldn’t everybody do it?

31

It also shrinks the labor pool, leading to a shortage of workers. Germany’s unemployment rate has recently been 5.8%, one of the lowest in Europe. As such, they’re highly reliant on imported labor.

To your other point, that “today’s college degree is yesterday’s high school diploma,” I would agree. Heck, it’s worse than that – for an increasing number of jobs, it seems, a master’s degree is an entry-level qualification. To me this reflects two phenomena. The first is the debasement of degrees. You can get a master’s from the University of Phoenix or some such for doing minimal actual work. Diploma mills have just exploded, and many of them are fully credentialed (if you can explain that), cheapening the degree, but putting it within the reach of all.

The second phenomenon is what I would characterize as risk-averseness on the part of hiring managers. They’re looking to hire people whose credentials make them a hire they can justify to their *own *managers… which is a different thing from hiring somebody because you think he or she can do the job effectively. Or they’ll use a recruiting firm. It’s the same CYA strategy: “Well, I hired the *best *recruiting firm there is,” etc.

32

This is nonsense. If landscapers in Eastern Massachusetts even *wanted *to hire legal employees, they’d find practically nobody, or at least nobody good. Talk to anybody who owns a business like that – landscaping, tree care, roofing, that sort of thing – about how hard it is to find good and reliable employees. You’ll get an earful.

33

Cite?:cool:

34

We just pulled three postings because we couldn’t find qualified applicants. Of course, what we listed as qualified was unreasonable. It wasn’t an education thing, it was a breadth of experience thing…you don’t find many people who have deep knowledge across a wide spectrum.

My husbands company took two years to fill a position, eventually just moving the guy who had been doing the job into it. Again, two years and they couldn’t find anyone more qualified than the guy they obviously didn’t want to permanently put in the role.

35

I think this is one of two huge issues in professional hiring, especially in the tech world. Job postings are essentially asking for so much stuff, that one guy in the entire world may be able to do what they ask, and then the company only wants to pay 50k for it.

Or, worse, the job posting is written by the business people, but the resumes and applications are filtered by HR drones who don’t have any idea how to actually read between the lines on a resume and identify qualified candidates, but instead stick with buzzwords and catchphrases to try and identify qualified candidates.

I firmly believe that a huge number of otherwise qualified candidates get thrown out because they don’t have the particular set of buzzwords or overly specific skill sets that the HR person is looking at. I mean, a guy who’s a whiz with C# and who has 10 years experience could probably pick up C++ or most other similar languages easily and without any problem, but when the HR drone is looking for “7 years C++ experience”, the veteran programmer in C++ often gets left in the dust, when that guy may be the best fit for the job in reality, even if he doesn’t have C# experience.

36

I think finding a job is harder because so many of the factory and blue collar jobs are gone. Nobody wants to do a low-skill job for low wages and benefits.

37

May I be the first to say “Duh.”?

Seriously though, of course nobody wants low wages and benefits, but that’s what having low skill or low competence gets you. Why should a company pay you high wages and good benefits if you can do something literally anyone not in special education can do?

38

Definitely computers. People use to have to answer the phone and take a message. People use to spend half a day typing a letter until it was done correctly. People had to search big books to get information.

Now one person on a computer can do all that in two hours, and go home.

39

I question the premise that jobs were easier to get in some mythical past. My father suffered through lengthy bouts of unemployment in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. My blue-collar uncle fared no better, bouncing from one soon-to-be-closed factory to another, afraid to quit lousy jobs with long hours and tyrannical bosses because he never knew if he’d find another. I myself graduated college in 1980 and found no job–zero, zip, nada. I had to go back to graduate school and wait for conditions to improve.

Sure, if you got into General Motors in 1948 or IBM in 1953, you did well. Not every job was like that–never has been, never will.

40

Remember when Alabama passed the harsh laws on immigrant farm workers? They all left, scared, and the crops rotted in the fields because of the difficulty the farmers had in getting replacements.
I’m sure they’d do better if they raised their pay. Illegal immigrant workers are similar to off-shoring - it happens to hold down costs. But conservatives only love one of these things.