|
|
| Re: INTERVIEW: Why Bad Jobs - or No Jobs - Happen to Good Workers (952312) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: INTERVIEW: Why Bad Jobs - or No Jobs - Happen to Good Workers |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Fri Jun 22 00:59:02 2012, in response to Re: INTERVIEW: Why Bad Jobs - or No Jobs - Happen to Good Workers, posted by JayMan on Thu Jun 21 22:17:00 2012. Interesting graphs and accompanying blog post, though I believe the data don't tell the whole story because...I wouldn't be surprised that without immigrants, firms would actually have to train new workers for the jobs that firms need, since that is the only way companies could get new workers. But now, companies don't have to, since if they wait long enough, someone will drop into the spot at the wage the firm wants to pay. ...of this. Indeed, it is true that immigrants (legal/illegal) gained the most from the last decade's worth of job growth, while native-born U.S. citizens continue to struggle. Even if you "shut off the flow," it may not be enough to incentivize employers to offer jobs at higher wages or train new hires. You've already read the OP article where employers masking these problems as a "skills gap" problem...incidentally, since a core problem is finding cats with specific experience, even immigrants may be subject to it (though I'm sure a lower wage barometer attracts employers)... Now, I think you know my position on immigration - definitely agreed on killing illegal immigration (more e-Verify, greater border control, etc.), but I'm still iffy on constraining legal. Methinks one should discourage illegal immigration and hiring of such persons and see if that has an effect before tackling legal immigration. I'd even bet than even in a world with automation (which is a job killer), without immigrants, there would be enough jobs for everyone. But would employers want there to be "jobs for everyone?" Already you have companies who'd rather pay overtime to current staff than hire new staff and who refuse to hire cats out of work despite education/experience. Would the tight immigration controls you propose in and of themselves incentivize hiring of native-born Americans (and even then, would they be hired at reasonable wages/salaries)? Better still, there is a distinct racial disparity in unemployment. The White unemployment rate in America is actually comparable to those in the Northern European countries; unemployment is a (non-Asian) minority problem. For those of lesser education yes, but things get interesting once you consider unemployment by educational attainment. Below is a partial list of the 2011 unemployment rate broken down by the following categories (respectively): Less than HS diploma, HS diploma but no college, college but no degree, associate level degree, and bachelor level degree or higher; pay close attention to the last two: TOTAL (%): 14.1 / 9.4 / 8.0 / 8.7 / 6.8 / 4.3 WHITE (%): 12.7 / 8.4 / 7.0 / 7.7 / 5.9 / 3.9 BLACK (%): 24.6 / 15.5 / 13.1 / 13.6 / 12.1 / 7.1 ASIAN (%): 9.5 / 7.6 / 7.4 / 8.0 / 6.5 / 5.2 LATINO (%): 12.0 / 10.3 / 9.1 / 9.3 / 8.8 / 5.7 (Click here for the complete table, which includes 2010 numbers for comparison; for the record, the overall U.S. unemployment rate as of last month is 8.2%). Hence, for bachelor's degree/graduate degree recipients, the problem is not as pronounced - and for Hispanics, the bachelor+ unemployment rate is comparable to that of Asians. Even more interesting, the unemployment rate for Associate degree holders is higher than that of cats who didn't finish college, which might say something about the utility of such degrees. But my point is this - you're not gonna make much headway on the jobs scene just by altering demographics; changes need to be made in the HR/management culture also. visit my blog! |
|
|
|