Why It’s Bad Business to Hire the Long-Term Unemployed
Those greedy employers are up to their nefarious tricks again. They’re even being overt about it.
If you’re unemployed, many of them won’t hire you. They won’t even talk to you. They don’t want you to waste your time, or theirs, filling out a job application, or submitting your resume. How absolutely awful of them.
Wrong. The “unemployed need not apply” phenomenon is an all too predictable and awful result of over two years of horribly misguided economic policy.
First, let’s acknowledge that employers are mostly acting rationally.
Especially in this economy, perhaps until recently — and that’s a big maybe — the main focus of many, if not most businesses, has been to figure out how to stay in business. In an environment where a serious hiring mistake may mean the difference between keeping the doors open or closing them, employers looking for help cannot afford to take unwarranted risks. Before they go into the hiring market, they ask themselves if the old reliables in their current crew can handle the increased workload caused by staff departures. They may also consider whether some or all of the tasks involved can be outsourced, automated, or even eliminated.
If they reluctantly conclude that they must hire someone new, company managers will go through their own internal networks of relatives, friends, and acquaintances to see if they can find someone — employed or unemployed, but largely prescreened — who is up to doing the work. They may also look at the possibility of proactively recruiting people who have impressed them in their business interactions while currently working at customers, suppliers, or competitors.
When the avenues just described come up empty, employers will let the general job market know that they are looking. It is there where the bias in favor of people who are currently employed comes out, and for several valid reasons.
If a person is already working somewhere else, they’re demonstrating that on a daily basis, not in the recent or sometimes distant past, their work habits and output are more than likely satisfactory to someone else. There’s at least a decent chance that this person has kept his or her skills sharp, and has kept up with technological and market developments in the industry. The effort involved in training such a person in their new job will often be fairly minimal. There will also be a lower likelihood that the person will flunk a background check, credit check, or their drug test.
With the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed, the situation completely flips. Work habits and attitudes, even if once great, become suspect. Skills may have eroded. On the job training efforts are more likely to be substantial, take longer to stick, and are more likely to fail. The chances that the new person will steal because of financial hardship, has gotten into legal trouble while unemployed, or has fallen into substance abuse are all greater.
Does anyone really believe these government statistics? It’s like their “jobs created or saved” mantra. imho the rates were much higher. Dropping the 99 weekers is just one way they put their thumb on the scale. “You have overseen the utterly preventable destruction of human capital that is arguably unprecedented in human history — and it’s your fault.” is exactly spot on. From the massive Gooferment spending, the Obamacare overhang — who’s going to hire employees without any idea what they will cost, the regulatory blundering — gulf oil drilling permits, and on and on. Government is out of control.
Your article does make sense, and thanks for the reminder that it is the government, not the employers, that is the source of the problem and to recognize that kind of spin. But then, there are those like the fiber optics manager who felt himself lucky to get a part-time job at Target as a floor clerk. There are many highly qualified individuals who are out of work because there is no money for expansion or research in a hostile tax and regulatory environment. Those root causes of unemployment have to be pinned on the government.
During the Great Depression of the 30′s (should we call ours the “Greater Depression”?) my father’s high school had Ph.D. chemists as teachers, who were unable to find jobs in industry. This may be a trend in our future, and it would be immensely beneficial to the kids. At any rate, you can’t keep good people down, they will find a way.
During the Great Depression of the 30′s (should we call ours the “Greater Depression”?) my father’s high school had Ph.D. chemists as teachers, who were unable to find jobs in industry. This may be a trend in our future, and it would be immensely beneficial to the kids.
I think you’re making the mistake of thinking that a better-educated person is automatically a better teacher. From my own substantial experience as both a trainer and a student, I respectfully disagree. When I was at university, I had the experience of taking courses from many people with PhDs and some with lesser degrees. To put it bluntly, some of those PhDs couldn’t teach to save their lives. They may have been experts in their fields but many did not have the ability to engage students and communicate with them. Many were far more interested in their research and only taught because it was necessary for them to be allowed to do research. As teachers, they simply droned on for the appointed time and made little effort to ensure that they were even understood.
By contrast, many of the most effective teachers I saw were among the least “qualified” on paper but the most enthusiastic and inspiring.
I do want to point out that most PhDs at the university level are paid to research and bring in grant money, NOT to teach, and hence place little value on it. I’ve been in college classes before where the professor announced on the first day that he was only teaching undergrads because the university forced him to do so.
But there’s a different dynamic at work in middle schools, high schools, and even small liberal arts colleges. Those people are being paid to teach. And it was a good thing for me to have a chemistry PhD teach at my high school. Would that I could have had that in other subjects!
In many ways this was a silver lining of segregation. Many professionally-trained blacks shut out of or not versed in attaining private sector corporate opportunities prior to the LBJ era went into teaching. In the mid-1960s this class of blacks was beckoned headlong into Corporate America. The level of teaching talent in the black-on-black school plummeted at the same time that illegitmacy went up.
I agree absolutely.
WHEN and WHY did it become essential that virtually everyone has a college degree? Not everyone WANTs an academic training, can get value from an academic initiation rite, wants to spend time as an adult child. Requiring college degrees from everyone was a make work project for “intellectuals” and university professionals. With it the postponement of adulthood for many. A college degree as sine qua non for entry into society, many fell into the trap of perennial adolescence. Look at how well that turned out. Young “adults” spending years goofing off, their parents bankrupting themselves to afford their offspring their “chance” and the government could play with employment statistics. Everything was rosy in the garden.
Reflect on how much this cost in taxes, direct and indirect. The growth of the power of the university professionals then volunteered as handmaidens / mouthpieces for their paymasters in the government.
What happened to the vaunted university “education”. Professors and intellectuals sold that for their mess of pottage / tenure / research papers,and place in the elite echelons of society and government. Can look down their noses at lesser folk. A happy ending for everyone.
Especially for the serfs who bought AND PAID FOR the propaganda that a college degree is a must for everyone who wants to “be somebody”.
While I agree that eduction and competence are not necessarikly related or even correlated, the bigger problem is that there is just so much “high level” work to be done in any business, industry or economy. This is what is wrong with the “everyone should go to college” mantra. All that means is that you will end up with a lot of cab frivers with masters degrees.
As always, letting the free hand of the market determine the correct mix of skills and education levels is the best approach. But it doesn’t fit the utopian socialist world view.
Exactly right! The folly of equating education with teaching ability is well documented.
Consider this scenario: You have survived an airline hijacking only to find no qualified pilot left alive on the plane. A teenager who is an airplane buff is flying your 747.
Who do you want in the tower talking him down?
1. A very senior airline pilot, who also happens to be highly intelligent, has many thousand of hours flying 747s, and is a self-centered, egotistical jerk who has very little patience with lesser mortals, and habitually dishes out plenty of sarcasm and deliberately tries to confuse people simply to show his own superiority.
2. A flight instructor with about 1/10th the flying hours of #1, but who is endlessly patient, an excellent communicator, and has a knack for calming nervous students?
Education does NOT equal teaching ability!
I remember in Avionics school in the Marines, one day our instructor told us about a study the military did, which found that the best teachers are “C” students, the worst are “A” students. The study surmised it was because a “C” student understands the material well enough, but can understand why and how students are having trouble grasping it.
I remember my education psychology teaching telling us the same thing; that often the A students knew the “stuff” too well and did not realize they had to use simpler terms to have students understand.
In fact, I remember problems helping my own children with their algebra. I had to thumb through the book to see where they were, as I knew “shortcuts” that they had not yet learned.
Some high schools are bringing in business people – specialists – to help teach in specific areas. This is good. Years ago, a friend who, although her native tongue was Spanish, offered to teach Spanish classes, and could not even use a school room because she did not have a teaching certificate.
There is definitely a skill in being able to relate to and teach young people. You learn as much the first week of teaching as you do in four years of college, A student or not.
I am indeed one of those who are “too old to retire, and too young to retire.” I am a lifelong IT professional. For many months, I have been working as a cashier, part-time, at minimum wage, with absolutely no hope whatsoever of being promoted to a better position or getting a pay raise. This is literally the ONLY job offer that I have received in over three years of diligent searching, and I accepted it instantly.
My story, and that of so many others, is here:
Who are the 99ers?
What our government has done to us is both entirely deliberate and truly evil.
Why It’s Bad Business to Hire the Long-Term Unemployed.
All true, and all because it is so difficult to _fire_ a new hire,
due to government regulations, or better, prohibitions;
Cancel them all, make at-will employment the national standard,
and those people will at least have a chance at reemployment,
if only with a new Temp Agency which makes its money by screening
employees to verify their competence and reliability.
P.S. In the 1st Great Depression, there were PhDs driving taxis
who were glad to get the work; If there are_no_jobs, Dr. Feynman
himself might end up permanently unemployed.
Excellently well put, and terribly depressing for anyone currently on the short end of the economic stick.
Another way of phrasing this would be: Just as a rising tide lifts all boats, a sinking tide lowers all boats…and the lowest of those boats will get beached as a result.
Not just the lowest of those boats, but a goodly number of the other boats that happen to run up on heretofore unseen rocks and shoals.
It will hit many of us who did everything that we were supposed to do: living frugally, investing prudently, upgrading our skills, avoiding dissolute living habits, you name it. The only thing we did wrong was to get older at an inopportune time.
May God have mercy on our souls.
I can clearly simpathise with your perdicament….I’m right there behind you….I’ve been out of work for 3 1/2 yrs., I’m in my early 50′s & really won’t be able to retire. I have worked in warehouse, cust. serv., cable, satellite, auto, deisel, and now trying to run my own business in all aspects of computer (PC’s & laptops). Unfortunately no one can really afford to have their computer worked on so I’m back to looking for work. I put out about 3 to 4 resumes a day for whatever type of work is available. This economy is really brutal in that like you, I get barely any response from perspective employers, or nothing at all, thus getting very discouraged. I watch constantly, the lies that come out of Obama’s mouth. From even before he got into the Senate, he has had intentions of bringing down this great American country….he’s anti American, anti business, & anti Jewish….he hates everything this country stands for…..so this is why the situation with our economy is the way it is. Neither he nor his advisers or cabinet or anyone in Congress or the Senate, are listening to anything the citizens of America are saying or requesting….they don’t care. All they care about is getting rich off of our backs and hard work….the ones that can’t find work..Oh well. With all of our debt liabilities from every sector, we’re well over $121 Trillion in debt. Our future grand and great grand children are already indebted for $50,000.00 each for life, and they still won’t be able to pay it off. Our days are numbered, pray that Christ comes soon to take us home.
The word you intended to use was probably “angry”, not “mad”. Being angry means that you are upset. Being mad means that you are insane.
The second listed dictionary meaning of “mad” is “enraged; greatly provoked or irritated; angry.”
Richard, I’m guessing that you are British. I know that Britain uses “mad” to mean insane but in the United States (and here in Canada), we use the word “mad” to mean angry.
As Winston Churchill once observed, America and Britain are two countries divided by a common language.
I’m mad as a March hare. Fiddle-dee-dee. I’ll think about presidential stuff tomorrow. So, I’m off to Brazil!! Copa Cabana here I come!
Why do you take the time to correct rather than contribute ?
How true. When you get 400 resumes from HR, you make a “first cut” division. Any that do not have ” to Present” go into Pile Reject. You still have another 100 or so for the next pass through for entries into Pile Reject. After the second cut you hopefully only have 5 or 10. Those you may have time to actually read the first page.
The point, as anyone hiring knows, it’s better to reject a resume initally than go through the firing process. Think of it as “pre-fire”.
I have been out of work 14 months. I have gotten some calls but I am in the very difficult position of having been home with my kids for 9 years and back in the work force for just 2 when I was let go. The company that let me go was small and in trouble (they sell software to cities and counties). I am an electrical engineer. I am trying to work through friends but it has been a nightmare. No one wants to talk to me. I am now thinking I may have to start my own business.
My sister is in a similar situation; she’s been looking for work for a couple of years without any success. From hundreds of applications she’s gotten just a couple of calls. As the primary motivating factor for corporations in general, be they ever so small, is fear of loss, the risk of hiring a cipher is just too great, as Mr. Blumer has noted.
I think starting your own business is a great idea. That’s the positive side of long term unemployment and recessions, new businesses come along and change everything. I’m trying to figure out how to get a couple of ideas off the ground with my sister, and it’s no easy matter, I know, but it may certainly be worth it. Best of luck in your endeavors.
Thank you. I needed the encouragement today.
Like you, I have been out of work for a while (7 months). I have a solid resume, but I’m 52. I am doing the LLC with some success. Companies don’t want employees now. Try it & God bless!
That is probably the most succinct response to the situation. In fact, if I may be so bold as to reference history, imagine that was the reason that so many soldiers returning from WWII opened those small businesses that helped define America for over twenty years.
Can’t find work? Make your own.
Go for it !! Find your niche and start your own business. A word of advice though. I have been out of work for over two years. I was let go by a major retailer who hired my replacement who was 20 years younger and $20,000 cheaper. I am 63 years old and when I applied for jobs they took one look at the gray hair and I could tell the rest of the interview was simply going through the motions. So I decided to turn my hobby ,woodworking, into a business. It kept the start up costs low because I already had all the tools. I make small furniture and knick knacks. The problem is that there are so many people unemployed that people don’t have a lot of disposable income so they aren’t going to buy a bench or knick knack if they don’t really need one. Even people who have jobs are hanging on to their money. So look for a product that will sell in your area and start with an absolute minimum outlay of cash. Good luck. With any luck Obama and his bunch will be gone in 2012 and the economy will rebound.
Don’t worry about the long-term unemployed. Given Obama’s big, bloated, budgets, they will all be hired by either the Federal Government or State governments. After all, that’s Obama’s plan, to have almost everyone (or at least the vast majority of the population) dependent on government jobs. It’s the socialist way of doing “business.”
Patomic fever has many consequences, paternalism just one. The ever extended unemployment benefit dulls the neccessity of finding or accepting employment. Add the various aid to dependent children type programs including food stamps it becomes a hand out rather than a hand up. It dosen’t take long for a person to acclimate to “freebies” with no labor involved. Several solutions are available if only the political will existed to inact them. Unemployment should be funded soley by the employed that way the stigma of drawing it would return, its one thing to be taking money from the evil employer who let you go, quite another to take it from your neighbors.
Tom, you’ve provided a fair and accurate description of the realities of business. The longer this lackluster “recovery” stutters along, the more difficult it will be for the long-term un- and under-employed. And it’s difficult enough as things stand today.
The POR team made a conscious but unconscionable decision to implement destructive economic policies that have never worked, and are not working now.
Every time Obama and his crew scold us for not rushing to hire or not shaking loose all that stored up cash (!?), it’s clear they have literally NO CLUE how business works, thinks or behaves – particularly small and mid-sized businesses that drive the economy.
While I don’t watch the job numbers like you do, when I do pay attention, I can’t help but be alarmed by certain trends: increasing government employment, the fast-growing “temp” sector, the inevitable but quiet downward revision of last month’s (or last quarter’s) “encouraging” numbers, etc.
Two more years of the POR crowd might be survivable. Six more years and … what would it take to recover from that scenario?
I was surprised that productivity increased by 34% during the Great Depression but only 21% in the Twenties. New technologies helped but the New Deal pushed it even further by making labor an expensive element. So business owners went for productivity improvements over throwing more bodies at the problem. Bad for the unemployed but one could say it primed the pump for the overwhelming production during the War.
I agree that a business should act in its best interest when hiring and that government has no business in trying to “force” businesses to make decisions that are counter to their best interests. I disagree with the generalization that it is bad business to hire the long term unemployed. In my, opinion, it is the HR management theory “flavor of the month” that the long termed unemployed are bad for business.
In good economic times certain positions, especially those that required highly specialized experience or mid to upper management would take 12, 15 or more months to fill. Example: A director of operations at a company that got acquired gets downsized and finds a new position 18 months later. Using the defintion of long term unemployed this individual would have fit the “definition”. In these bad economic times that search, more than likely, has increased to 24 months or longer. Opportunities for such positions taking that long to find are the norm.
Hiring someone who is currently employed is no sure thing either. They could be “set” in their ways of doing their job and have no flexibility to changing economic conditions or needed expertise and therefore unwilling to change, i.e. I’ve always done it this way so I don’t need to change because I’m employed so I must be doing something right or I did it this way at my old employer and that is the only way I know how to do it so I don’t need to learn new ways to do my job. This is detrimental to a business because inflexible employees unwilling to change can cause missed opportunities, additional costs and lost revenue also. Remember Nardelli, the former GE exectuive, who was hired by Home Depot and caused significant damage to the company, its employee moral and the brand.
Hiring employees has risk in it, just like a decision to enter a new market or introduce a new brand. In today’s bad job market such decisions are more difficult, but to use such broad sweeping “theories”, like the long term unemployed are not worth it, as a one size fits all template to potential employees sounds more like government than business.
When I have a position to fill I want to look at the resumes and decide who to interview, not HR. I know the specific needs, lingo and traits necessary for a candidate to succeed in the position. All HR has is a template to weed out candidates. Allowing a third party, not involved in the daily running of my department, to decide who I interview is detrimental to my department because they may weed out a good candidate based on a generalized assumption like “long term” unemployed need to be weeded out.
Add to this equation the efforts of prior administrations to “engineer” society by steering it towards a service economy, with the loss of diversity in the types of jobs available for Americans without college degrees. Our own government is indeed to blame for our ills by meddling in the market instead of encouraging organic growth.
We may be about to wake up to the damaging effects of too much government. We’ve reached the tipping point: Washington can no longer intrude into what was once the free market without causing further disruption. It’s ironic that these meddling busybodies are busy claiming that capitalism no longer works, when it is they who made it so with their excessive overregulation.
While I agree that government is primarily responsible, business must share the responsibility as well. When you reject someone out of hand, just because they were laid-off (not fired, to be fired is a disciplinary action taken by an employer against an employee for wrongdoing) because the company can no longer afford to keep them, you destroy that person’s humanity a little at a time. You give them a diet of utter hopelessness and tell them they’re lazy. You create a whole new sub-class forced to depend on government handouts to survive, which in turn places more weight on an already overburdened government budget. Eventually the whole house of cards will collapse into massive unemployment (as it has). Employers who do this see people as nothing more than numbers, when in reality, they’re flesh and blood with families to support. It is the employer who forces such a person into desperation when the kids are crying for food, there’s no gas in the car to find work, the bills are getting paid and so forth. Then you wonder why crime goes up.
Too many employers abuse the ‘At-Will’ thing. That literally means an employer can do to an employee whatsoever they like. If the Boss wakes up one morning and decides he doesn’t like brown haired people that day, he can let them all go. Simply make up some excuse and, shazam you’re out the door. There is no excuse. I know someone it happened to. Let go on a trumped up charge of ‘stealing time from the company’, even though that man had called his employer to say he’d be late due to some car trouble. The man forgot to make an adjustment on his timesheet, and there was a disparity in hours. He was humiliated on the job in front of other employees and told to sign a confession in order to receive Unemployment Benefits. When he refused, he went 5 months living on nothing but food stamps. The stress caused him to have a near heart attack and weakened his once controlled diabetes. He was fortunate enough to be able to get SSD (less than $1000 a month) and a mere $16 a month in food stamps. Gee, thanks. All because of an unscrupulous employer. Is this the America we want? I don’t think so.
Token liberal comment here, but isn’t protection from at-will firing a key benefit of unionization?
Unions are one big reason America is going broke……people whine about wanting or getting more money, when they aren’t really doing the work to get it, or don’t deserve it. In actuality, all your union dues aren’t really going where you think they are, they’re actually going toward getting some crooked politician in office to do them unscrupulous favors behind closed doors late at night, and at the expense of the tax payer.
Businesses that routinely fire productive people on a whim do not remain viable businesses for long. As a SBO myself, I can assure you that anyone that makes the margins grow is a keeper. Those who do not are let go. I do not hire out of pity; or out of some altruistic notion of fairness. I hire to add to my bottom line. Apparently this does not offend my staff in the least as they keep showing up, work hard and earn their living. At-will cuts both ways – if they need to move on for greener pastures, I either step up or they leave. Sybiosis at its best and without nary a government peep.
“Too many employers abuse the ‘At-Will’ thing. That literally means an employer can do to an employee whatsoever they like. If the Boss wakes up one morning and decides he doesn’t like brown haired people that day, he can let them all go.”
It works both ways. Word gets around. Brown-haired people stop doing business with the employer. And they go bust.
There are companies out there that I will not work for, for this very reason.
Ain’t Capitalism wonderful?
There’s now close to 30 years of wrongful termination caselaw; even without unions, there are limits to how sleazy employers can behave and attorneys champing at the bit to enforce those limits (and collect sizeable attorneys fees in the process).
I’m sorry your friend didn’t go directly to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Employers do not have a free hand in whether to pay their portion of the benefits. Behavior that looks like an attempt to evade this responsibility gets close scrutiny.
If the threat was to contest Unemployment benefits unless your friend confessed wrongly to deliberate misconduct, obviously the employer was on the hook for his portion of the benefits, and knew it. Your friend had available to him a government of laws, not of men.
OMG – I totally see this happening. That’s why you have to be very careful who you work for – these days it’s not so easy to spot a bad employer, and you often have to take the first job offer you get.
Don’t forget – reverse discrimination against an employer works well for the job seeker- I have refused a job years ago because I watched waht was going on ane them jerking people around. Sometimes though you can’t afford to not take a job – when you have no other choice. For instance you can say: Why would I want to work for you when you lay people off every 2 years? Why is the position open – it must totally suck or the postiion would not be open.. or is there a presonnel problem? Is the boss a totally incompenet person that makes other people want to leave?Sometimes this lands you a contract which guarantees you a 2 year payment no matter what. Your rate is higher and you basically get paid for three years while working only two. You are on your own for health insurance, but you can deduct all your expenses of a home office. Flip the odds in your favor so you get what you need, and turn their own poor project planning against them and use it to your advantage. This can also make a 6 month contract turn into a 2 year contract. Also if you are able to, and are hourly, when you do get a job, and they approve overtime, work as much as you possibly can at that higher rate, and stash the money away. This is good for the company because they don’t have to hire an additional employee, and it makes you look committed to the company as well as getting you additional cash. But, after a while because you grossed a higher amount, sometimes higher than the execs, you will be on the chopping block. Expect it to happen. They look at the bottom line which is cash sometimes, other times they look at progress.
Darn – mistyped a few words and no edit feature – personnel and a few others. I think my keyboard is finally biting the big one – my apologies…!!
“Work habits and attitudes, even if once great, become suspect. Skills may have eroded. On the job training efforts are more likely to be substantial, take longer to stick, and are more likely to fail. The chances that the new person will steal because of financial hardship, has gotten into legal trouble while unemployed, or has fallen into substance abuse are all greater.”
This is cookie cutter bullshit. Many people leave the workforce voluntarily, as they have enough assets to maintain their present lifestyle, desire something else for the time being, and are rational in the sense that they are able to make this calculation. Part of that is knowing that in the future, one can/will re-enter the workforce with a lower income. Big deal. And a person’s core values and not usually determined by their work status
When you shrink the size of the candidate pool, you have less to choose from. Certainly some people will be rejected out of hand as unqualified, but forcing hiring methods into a fear based assumptive decision making process is irrational. Yeah, real smart business move. Maybe it just requires more work sometimes, heaven forbid.
Everybody hires a clunker now and then, and no amount of Quija boardism will change that.
As for Mr. President and his posse, they do have a share of the responsibility, but much of Corporate America is inhabited by those, in principle, with the same mentality. Fear and timidity, and avoidance of taking personal responsibility for one’s decisions.
As an employer for almost 50 years I can say that one rule I have followed religiously is don’t hire anyone that has worked for the government, bad habits and bad attitude.
Everyone I know in business follows one general rule, avoid hiring anyone you don’t have to, they are too hard to get rid of if they don’t work out. You are far better off to stick to part time labor and its drawbacks. It doesn’t take a genius to see why outsourcing is so popular.
@Glass and everyone else,At Will Works! You can fire me, and I can quit,maybe California labor law isn’t so bad after all.I had an ethical problem with an employer many years ago, and he attempted to hold my check, til I sent him the email I got from NLRB,that same day I was handed my pay.
I dont think its the governments fault that employers wont hire people with bad credit histories because of their financial situations in a crumby economy.
Maybe when those folks go out of business, others wont hire them, and then they might be a little less hesitant about throwing some opportunity around to the unemployed.
PS – This article shows exactly why the libertarians need Chrsitians in their coalition. Libertarianism without Christian compassion is a harsh mistriss.
The compassionate thing is to go back to the 80′s and 90′s when a businessman was allowed to make a buck. Labor was in demand and training was readily available.
Libertarians see the world as it is. People expect a return for an investment or a day of labor. Anything else is BS.
What a crock!
Would you care to elaborate?
Or are you content merely to announce your utter inability to understand basic business principles?
It is a crock. The ‘it’s just business’ method of downsizing has as many negative consequences as hiring someone that’s been out of work for an extended period (keeps the peter principle alive and well). It’s self fulfilling to exclude people from work because they’ve been out of work awhile. Anyone with any level of competence can quickly come up to speed and exceed their peers…I’ve done it a few times, but age discrimination and general lack of jobs force those looking for a challenge or just an opportunity will take anything to stay busy, even if it’s a win lose proposition, I’ve done that a few times too. This is where I take umbrage with conservatives that live in the alternative and opposite fantasy universe of the liberals where generalizations rule, and corner cases don’t exist. Then again I live in a liberal state that has literally run jobs out of existence, so I generally direct my disenchantment with them.
I believe little lenin’s “job creation” strategy was developed in about 10 minutes.
His economists looked at the history of the last 10 recessions and concluded that the employment bottom had already been reached by Jan 2009, and that employment could only go up. That was what had happened 10 of 10 times. They told little lenin and his eyes probably got wide as saucers. So he had his henchmen rush though the StickItToUs to provide him a trillion dollar slush fund to payoff and bribe his corrupt and greedy supporters, fully expecting that he would be able to take credit for a soaring job market almost immediately. Those economists have all since left and are probably shocked that there has been no recovery; not because of the StickItToUs, since they know as well as anybody how useless that kind of spending is, but because they thought the bottom had been reached. Roemer would NEVER have predicted an 8% cap on unemployment if she hadn’t believed it.
What they didn’t bank on and probably still deny is that the depression happened and is still happening because business’ and the public’s confidence in government totally disappeared in the 4th quarter of 2008 (and of course, 7 trillion in wealth was stolen from ordinary people to eventually reapppear in the pockets of the crony capitalists who rigged the 2008 financial crisis), and little lenins dictates since then have increased the lack of confidence. It doesn’t have anything to do with monetary policy, trade imbalances, government spending or lack of. It is 100% because the country knows we can’t trust the bastards. The unemployment stats and GDP may improve slightly because they lie and manipulate the numbers, but there won’t be any real recovery until the greatest political criminals in American history are purged from the system. It’s that simple.
And now that inflation is hitting with a vengence, it is only going to get worse. Employers are not going to raise wages as much as inflation, and the lifestyle of everybody on SS is about to decline because the goods that inflate the most are food, fuel and medicine, whereas cpi “counts” the drop in cost of electronics, which seniors do not consume. They’ll rig the stats of course, but the public will know. Of course, other than cpi itself, inflation doesn’t have much of an empact on the official statistics. You can’t measure the impact on people who stop driving because they can’t afford gas or who eat peanut butter because they can’t afford meat.
My husband and I had small business that was doing badly for awhile, we refinanced house to get some cash, pay off debts and do some marketing- Bank promised home equity loan after and then the recession hit and credit dried up- I had to use credit cards to buy groceries and emergencies- I was not frivolous or extravagent- I had high credit limits on many cards and never used them at all- EVeryone said – on don’t worry it will bounce back-Under Obama business totally tanked- took #SS early and applied for jobs- being old and not speaking Spanish in Miami makes it nearly impossible to find work- Hubby did apply for govt job- in Oct 2009- took until now to get accepted- however by now we have bad credit and so they won’t give him the job- we are the honest people who worked all our lives, had good credit for 30 years and good reputation – yet no experience in other fields and now credit rating and language barrier is making it impossible for us to pay our debts- used retirement funds, savings, sold car to pay house-can’t get reverse mortage b/c house value has plummeted- home valued at 360,000 5 years ago I am now told worth 85,000. We played the game by the rules but someone keeps changing the rules so we always LOSE- American Dream? not for us- American Nightmare
I run an employment service. Couple ‘o thoughts:
Unemployment is really about 20%.
Next: Employers no longer have to hire the dregs of the workforce. In general, i.e., not pertaining to businesses or professions very hard hit by the recession, the current unemployed are the walking wounded of the force. Spotty records, bad employment histories, those who have not kept up with even rudimentary technology, etc. When unemployment hovers at 4%, these folks can still find employment because they fog a mirror. Now – not so much. What it means is that even the average worker needs to think carefully about their employment conditions before they decide to quit because someone in accounting looked at them cross-eyed.
So a broad undefined statement like “I run an employment service” gives one the expertise to make such a biased damning statement “….the unemployed are the dregs of the work force…”?
What type of employment service do you run? Exectuive recruiting, Temp., Temp to Perm, Project based, etc….. What industry and areas do you specialize in? IT, Accounting, Healthcare, CPG, Hi Tech, etc….. What part of the country do you serve? Nationwide, NE, Midwest, South East, Atlanta, New York, Boston…
So the 20% unemployed all have spotty records, bad employment records, outdated technology skills? All this to be taken serious based on your running an employment service? Hummm Anyone can say they “run an employment service” then make a biased broad blanket statement like yours and think they are passing themselves off as knowledgeable.
So using your statement that you run an employment service and the 20% unemployed are dregs of society, we can say anyone running an “employment service” makes decisions based whatever the management theory of the moment is and cannot be trusted for giving anything more than broad generalizations with no detail or substantive support for their decisions, therefore no company should use an employment service provider in the employment process.
Sounds like running an “employment service” has traits similar to a politician or lawyer.
Geez – who knew? Know several people who were just hired after being let go over a year ago. One was actually a white man in his sixties! Your column only adds fuel to the fire and shores up anyone who might have read stories here and there about the unemployed as being part of the new undesirables in the employment caste system of Oabama’s America. Repeat something often enough and it becomes acceptable. You did not do your readership any favors with this. You have injected fear and have more than likely demoralized many who are trying to put their lives back together. And the logic of the argument of some of these employers is mind boggling. Never hire anyone who is not working? Eventually you will have to wind up hiring someone who is not working because everyone isn’t. There are many people who were let go because their EMPLOYERS WENT BELLY-UP. Your comments about people returning to work being viewed as more likely to steal, be a substance abuser etc. was also a stinging slap. For all of you who are reading this and struggling to get back on your feet, ignore this latest kick in your groin. That this appeared on this web site is an affront to many who lost their jobs THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. And you wonder why the left has captured the debate when it comes to “caring for people”? Shit like this does not do our side any favors. Or perhaps you thought all those out of a job were…democrats?
Yes sir I do appreciate your post….been out of work since Aug 2008 at 53 with a BS Degree. Was starting to feel like a second-class citizen readibg this CRAP. Had an interview yesterday for a contract job to year end. It went well, please pray for me.
Done brother. Will keep my fingers and eyes crossed too. Good luck and God Bless.
Good Luck, I had a contract position that went from Oct. last year til Feb. this year, then it went away.Be thankful for every day you work for this company, it could be your last, not something you want hanging over your shoulder but boy working felt good
mikey;
I’ll be 52 in Aug & have been unemployed since Aug of ’07′……so that’s nearly 4 yrs of no work. Of course I’ve found odd jobs here & there, only to keep what little gas in my vehicle I can. The last job I had, I was let go for working to many hours…in one paycheck alone, I had 40 hrs of OT.
scythe, I had no idea I had so much power. C’mon.
The “unemployed need not apply story” has been out there for at least 9 months, and has been written up by the likes of Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, McClatchy, CNN, and elsewhere. I was tempted to dismiss it as hype, but there are too many stories from too many places citing real examples.
I’m not happy to bring it up. It is what it is, and as noted, it’s not employers’ fault. I of course wish everyone the best in their job searches. One lesson from this column should be that the unemployed need to relentlessly work their networks so they get considered before companies go public with their job needs.
I think you miss the point…anyone looking for work in this down economy knows full well what the situation is. Articles like this feed the confirmation bias, which makes it all that much more difficult for the unemployed. The process of finding a job has gotten ridiculous, even if you are well connected but unemployed. Many employers are looking for more than your talent…they want your intellectual property your book of business or whatever advantage you can ‘give’ them at no cost to them. Of course there is always Sears…they always need new people. I know alot of highly competent IT folks that are doing contract work when they can get it, while alot of useless twits have kept there jobs and continue to fly under the radar.
I just got off the phone with someone who has been unemployed for a year and a half.
The “confirmation” I got is that the bias, for better or worse, exists, to a significant degree. It’s especially strong if you also happen to be white, male, and in your 50s. Again, it’s not pleasant, but it’s there.
The person with whom I spoke did inadvertently led me to another element in the equation: It isn’t just employers, it’s those they engage to recruit candidates. The recruiters have a powerful incentive not to let an employer down, so they cull the unemployed from the resumes they send onward to minimize that risk, because apparently in their experience doing so does minimize the risk.
One little column is not going to expand on a reality that is already in full gear. I also can’t get my arms around the idea that writing about something that is real is somehow bad.
I happen to fall into your example category. And it’s not necessarily a bad thing to write about it, but some of your generalizations about those being laid off are laughable, and feed the democrap meme. Have you sat in on outplacement seminars or teleconferences? Some of what you say has the potential to be true over time, but that does not make it necessarily so, since most people I know that have lost jobs, do what they need to do to stay sharp (and generally I’m talking about IT professionals ME’s, EE’s and sales execs) or take jobs at 1/3 – 1/5 the salary…my former (but still working) colleagues are no sharper and I would submit are less so. Contracting work is a good idea but the pay generally sucks or it’s only a project away from the street. Early retirement is an option for many, except for the fact that this admin has made the future questionable at best. Success is not the measure for layoffs (with the accompanying layoff age distribution spreadsheet to ward off discrimination litigation) It’s all about CYA. And politics in Corporate America is as brutal as the Public sector kind. Been through several mergers, acquisitions, as both survivor and victim. And have shared war stories with the newly disenfranchised. Currently coming off a 10 month working stint, so calculating my life expectancy may be in order. I won’t presume to lecture you on what you know and don’t know, but I can state categorically, that victims of spreadsheet management have no love for those that spin sell it’s rationalizations.
You need not have given it your imprimatur. The left gives us plenty of examples every day. And then use these “personal narratives” to sway public opinion and change the parameters of the debate. We all know how that one works. So for you to say that there have been too many examples which motivated you to amplify the topic is a bit bogus. As a matter of fact I read all the sources you cite and was aware this was percolating. However.. what you have done is validate this new wrinkle in the worries people have to face when they are at their lowest. You should have selected another topic and not given those who still maintain a modicum of decency an excuse to join in. Didn’t your mother ever tell you that if you have nothing nice (or helpful) to say, just shut up?
I didn’t get the job, but you can’t keep a good man down (for long?)…so I’ll reinvigorate my network starting here:
BS Degree, University of Delaware / Career in aviation support and international business since 1980 / Have worked in small and large companies and self-employed / Target is to remain in the supply chain
end of the industry but am flexible to adapt to other opportunities
in this field or others / Thank you Team!!!!!!
*sigh*
The “unemployed need not apply story” has been true for approximately forever and three days, by my count.
It’s an old, old problem for any employer: Someone who is out of work will usually take any job just to pay the bills.
Once the bills are caught up, they start looking for a GOOD job, which their “I’m desperate so I’ll take it” job is usually NOT.
Once they find that new job, they jump ship, and the employer that hired the unemployed is left in the lurch.
“It’s easier to get a job if you have a job.” has been good advice for as long as there have been jobs.
Prolonged high unemployment rates may exacerbate this, but it’s nothing new.
At age forty, just out of law school with a wife and four children, I moved back to my hometown. While looking for a job, I volunteered with Legal Aid full-time with the understanding that I would take time off for any job interview. I am sure that my volunteer work demonstrated a willingness to work and maintain skills. I always advise the unemployed to do the same.
Just what this country needs, another parasitic blood sucking lawyer. That’ll boost living standards of the nation and the welfare of its people.
Actually, Escape, volunteering is a pretty good way of showing initiative. When I was unemployed in ’09, I did volunteer research at a local university. I’m an EE, but I’m sure that it’s at least worth thinking about for any unemployed techies out there.
very ignorant comment about lawyers-
I would like to thank all the lawyers who do pro bono work- – donating their own time,FOR FREE, when they could be enjoying the golf course or boating, playing with their children, etc.
For the first time in my life I am experinceng being on this side and found myself in need of LEGAL AID attorney-as I cannot afford to hire one- these people have been nothing but generous and gracious to me.
Yeah, we dont have too many lawyers already. Everyone should become a lawyer, then we can all sue each other to death. Wealth transfers are way up. Production of real wealth is non existent….we can of course keep the food and tourism sector going, and visit each other’s towns to create wealth. LOL!
That wont last too long.
Quiet frankly I still don’t understand why it’s good business not to hire long-term unemployed. I understand why it is good in certain instances, but as a general policy…?
I’m totally unconvinced, and I don’t believe that there is any other explanation besides superficial thinking. (For the record, I’m not a liberal).
From my experience long term unemployed raise a number of flags to a prospective employer. Employing anyone is risky if all you can base your decision on is 1. the resume 2. the interview 3. their appearance. It is nearly impossible to get accurate information out of a previous employer because of the laws. And experience tells you that anyone can get thru the 90 probationary period. The biggest question would be “why”? (have they been unemployed for a number of years) In the current economic situation the less risk would be preferred. I never held any medical credit problems against anyone but if your credit is bad you appear to be irresponsible and shifty. Again the current economic situation changes that somewhat however the poster above who said her business was going badly so she re-financed her house made a really bad decision. Of course she couldn’t see the Obama tide coming (who could?) I wouldn’t want to hire her because I wouldn’t want her making that kind of poor decision working for me.
This kind of short-sightedness is part of why Democrats get elected and re-elected.
No economy goes bad in merely months. The seeds of our current problems were sown during the Clinton administration, and well watered by Bush’s bailout. Yes, it’s true that the POR machine has greatly exacerbated the situation, but they did not cause the situation.
I have to disagree with the author on this one. There are many reasons why hiring someone who is unemployed at present could be a BETTER decision!
thx sadistic Tom, hope YOU never have to sleep in your car after 20 years as a professional in IT with two university degrees…
Boy, can I relate to THIS comment re: IT professionals!
After over 30 yrs in IT – top references, cutting edge skills, etc. – I ended up living in my ancient Toyota for 6 wks in the summer of 2009. A combination of factors — a divorce several years earlier (initiated after my ex- disappeared with every dime in assets) and rarely able to find anything “professional” work-wise in the post 9/11 economy — led to the situation.
I had already sold every material thing I owned, and was barely getting by on food stamps and whatever I could scrape together from various short-term retail, factory and waitressing jobs. My rent had been a whopping $410/mo, and I STILL couldn’t cover it – so I got evicted.
If you’re over 50, you are unemployable in IT, period, even for contract work. Age discrimination is rampant and persistent – yet the government continues to allow thousands of H1B candidates to be brought to the US because of an alleged “shortage” of qualified people. The H1B’s currently represent OVER 50% of the current IT workforce.
If they genuinely wanted to reduce the unemployment figures and put Americans back to work, cut the H1B workforce to ZERO in EVERY field. I guarantee there is NO skill today that an H1B candidate can offer that some talented and unemployed American couldn’t provide just as easily.
I think some of us who are un- or under-employed would argue, having had to deal with them, that it is the people WITH jobs (a lot of them, anyway) who seem to be incompetent basket cases. Seriously, how often do you deal with an employed person and come away impressed by their intelligence, professionalism, or anything else? I can understand the “logic” of this article, but it seems to me to be a disastrously narrow logic.
I was “escorted out the door” at one job and told “I didn’t fit in” once for wanting to do the right thing.
When, after two months, I did not find a job, I created my own, starting my own company. If you were to look at the company books, you would think it was a failure. However, I learned a lot that used in later jobs and the fact that I showed initiative, helped me in other job interviews!
I often wondered about this – Am I technically employed if I own a small business that is on the side? While I was unemployed I did some side jobs, doing Audio / Video recording, computer repairs, and a lot of other small jobs. Of course I had to move because I lost my house due to not being able to pay $2100 for the mortgage, $1500 a month for heat, $650 a month for electricity…. Now I am paying much less renting then I was before, but too little too late. For the first time in my life I had to go to a food shelter. I used to make 90K. I am at the end of my rope here and need to find something to keep the phone on at least, and the rent paid. Man this really is the 2nd Great Depression. Wish I could remember everything my grandmother said about the 1st Great Depression. She did say at some point – Any Job is a good job sometimes….
Keep your chin up! I used to make $100K+ as an IT consultant. I also lost everything, briefly lived in my car, and had to wait in line for meals at homeless shelters. My gross income for 2008, 2009 and 2010 COMBINED was roughly the same as I used to make in one month!
In the past, both of us relied on Corporate America to employ us. How’d that work out for us? Living by your wits is extremely tough, but it sure beats trusting your survival to some other entity. Instead of spending time looking for a “real” job, work harder on marketing yourself and finding more self-employment opportunities. The longer you do this, the sharper you’ll become at ensuring your future.
(BTW, no one should worry about having “bad credit” – virtually no one is left that still has “good credit”. Before too long, I suspect you’ll find banks will realize they can’t survive on the 4% of the population who are still “creditworthy”, and will have to use some common sense in their lending practices.)
This article should just be called: “The power company has called to inform you that the light at the end of the tunnel has been shut off.”
I had hoped the employment picture might improve in the next few years and have tried my best to tighten my belt, pay off debts and learn new skills.
I had thought about starting my own business, but my credit tanked, and truthfully, this government’s policies terrify me.
I’ve just been told that even though I’ve been unemployed for over 2 years I OWE the Feds 2200.
But, really, there’s not much hope in this nation any more is there?
I should just declare bankruptcy, convert my assets (hah!) to cash and find a way to die that will leave my wife with some insurance money.
What’s the point in playing the game if you never win?
I know a business that made a killing out of hiring talented people with problems on their resumes, such as employment gaps.
It was a brilliant decision — he got $100k talent for two-thirds the price; got great quality work, put up with their eccentricities, made it comfortable and flexible for them to work there, and focused their energies on mentoring younger people.
Guess what? Most of them were happy enough with their two-thirds and enjoyed the teaching. But he was smarter than most HR folks, who think like bureaucrats.
Change of subject here: My advice to the long-term unemployed is to stop looking for a job and start contracting. Look for what those still working need done in your field. Remember the part of your old job that you didn’t want to do? Guess what … no one wants to do that now. You may be able to get your old rate to do it. Hey, I didn’t say you’d find fulfillment, but you could find your old salary rate.
BTW, don’t sell it too cheap when contracting. I did it twice (1/3 my old salary) and it was devastating to my morale. Figure out what your old salary was as an hourly rate, and stay around there, within your own financial needs. Good luck.
After getting laid off – and having the holy #$@#@ scared out of me, I landed on unemployment. The company went with the ‘younger’ crowd – even though I was smoken’ em performance wise.
Thank God for unemployment, otherwise I don’t know what my wife and I would have done.
However, this article is spot on. Getting hired again was a HUGE challenge. I did some contract work – put it on my resume – and finally – back to work.
Not everyone on unemployment digs being on it – believe you me.
Hate to burst the bubble,but in the 80′s,most companies didn’t do much in the way of background checks or pointless drug tests.Those were products of the later half of the 80′s,and gee whiz,suddenly employers couldn’t find enough people willing to jump through the hoops they never needed in the previous 200 years to help qualify potential employees.Corporate America causes plenty of unnecessary problems for itself.The loons of the government cause the other half.They deserve each other.
This has nothing to do with government. The reason why business is at leisure to discriminate has a lot to do with a rise in productivity enabling them to shed jobs. That rise of productivity is from multiple reasons:
1. Automation and computer technology making many jobs redundant or making entire industries obsolete.
2. Businesses constantly revising their procedures to trim waste and cut hours.
3. Wrongheaded focusing on stock gains through firing workers.
4. Overseas relocation becoming possible for many industries.
5. Absurd skillset and degree requirements designed to attract vastly overqualified people. BA to run a retail store, anyone?
And more. This has for the past 10 to 20 years created a surplus of workers compared to jobs. It’s systemic and it will only get worse as even more industries fall to automation, or become unprofitable to do.
We’ve been constantly told increasing productivity was the key to prosperity when it hasn’t done so at all, and is acting to actually destroy jobs. We need to be less productive and start cultivating redundancy or we wont survive. If conservatives got their way and slashed state jobs we’d be even worse off-for all the abuse, they are the last remaining source of decent jobs for many out there.
The Government is actively discriminating against businesses. Instead of creating an environment that fosters growth they are actively seeking out and destroying business, and all we get are focus groups.
For example, the FDA is on the war path against elements of the medical industry. They have actively persecuted the Company my wife works for with constant witch hunts and forced recalls for products that are on par or better than the competition. The latest missive was that they want to “partner with you in the creation of new products” and if that wasn’t enough they have imposed new and needless requirements for the introduction of product into the Country. As a result, they were forced to short sell to overseas stooges who are pulling it out of the US and going Asian. I lay this at Barry’s feet, he is an enemy to capitalism.
And To Hire the Unqualified: Multiculturalism in Dayton and Midsomer
We’ve all heard of creeping socialism, especially lately when it’s leaping more than creepting in America. We should hear more about creeping, leaping multiculturalism. The mindless quest for diversity is as much of a threat to sanity and nationhood.
For example, what would or should the average person do if he or she were turned down for a job because he or she was unqualified or underqualified or was just deemed unable to satisfactorily perform the duties of the job description?
One option would be to sulk, but that’s not very productive. Another might be to study and prepare better so that next time around you did make the grade, but that takes time and effort. A third option would be to just look for another job, but that would make sense.
The ultimate recourse would be to complain, complain about everything from unfair employment practices to personality differences with the potential employer, to discrimination of some sort. Blacks and other minorities have often resorted to the latter excuse and have won. In the case of the Dayton Police Department’s test for recruits they didn’t have to complain. Eric Holder’s Department of Justice did it for them.
Without citing any specific reason, aside from the fact black and other minority candidates failed to achieve the exam’s modest passing scores of 66% on part one and 72% on part two, the DoJ ordered the results thrown out and new passing standards to be implemented. According to DaytonNewsSource.com, the DoJ “approved new scoring policy [which] only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%.” As DNS observed, ”That’s the equivalent of an ‘F’ and a ‘D’.”
After all, what’s more important to a police department? Quality, qualified, competent officers on the job protecting the citizens of Dayton, or multicultural diversity? Apparently, the answer is multicultual diversity regardless of the consequences.
As Dayton Fraternal Order of Police President, Randy Beane, commented, “It becomes a safety issue for the people of our community. It becomes a safety issue to have an incompetent officer next to you in a life and death situation.” While not calling for higher standards, Dayton NAACP President Derrick Foward kind of concurred by saying, “The NAACP does not support individuals failing a test and then having the opportunity to be gainfully employed. If you lower the score for any group of people, you’re not getting the best qualified people for the job:” http://tiny.cc/6q8ty
Yet, that is precisely what’s happening in Dayton . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3885)
I think that the point of this post is essentially valid, but only in recessions. Neither do I subscribe to the idea that those who can’t get employment are in some great aggregate, less than capable than those still employed. Internal politics do play a part in decision making, not simply the idea of “productive/non-productive”.
I can say that, as someone who has had to be the grinch and lay off people that the first people that get looked at in the turn are usually the newest and the least productive, but that doesn’t hold water when you are going through a massive “re-organization”. Especially when it occurs under a merger or some other form of restructuring.
Under mergers and acquisitions, the dominant “partner” usually has some (or considerable amounts of) existing structures and human assets. that means that the less dominant partner in the merger or the acquired company sees whole departments laid off, despite any productivity, knowledge base or tenure because maintaining the others is redundant and not very cost effective. thus, the idea that all that is let go is the “dregs” or “mirror foggers” is ridiculously over stated.
On the other hand, anyone whose worked in management knows that every company has a “cost of training” equation that is not written on any books or listed as a tangible cost or asset. It is also why companies often have a line item on their quarterly reports that indicated “turns”, not in inventory, but in employees. Depending on the type of business, the accepted percentage can be between 3% and 15%. After that, the company realizes there is a problem that is in fact costing them money, even if it can’t be itemized on the ledger. Typically results in review of management (or managers) and hiring practices.
That is why this story holds water. In a period as we are in with high taxes and lower dividends, every dollar, literal or perceived, must be carefully husbanded. Most tend to stick with the people and things they know so terminally unemployed do become less likely candidates if only because they are the great “unknown”.
However, I don’t believe that would remain true if the economy picked up and jobs became available. At that point, the risk of hiring and training to productivity and market share begins to balance more in the favor of the potential employees. That doesn’t mean that “even the dregs get hired” (even if it is partially true), but that the need to capitalize on potential profit outweighs the risk of potential bad hires.
I believe that is referred to as “risk to benefit ratio”.
To sum all of that up for those who aren’t willing to read the details: It’s the economy, stupid.
I have lost my job over 2 years ago and have been unemployed since. I have severe hearing losses in both ears, though I’m still capable of doing a good job for any employer, skill-wise and with good experiences in past jobs. I have never done any illegal substance or commit a crime, or am not under heavy debts. I’m on disabled income from the government, at least until I get a good-paying job and stay on the job long enough (passing 90 days – probation period) to satisfy the employer, I end my receiving of disabled income from the government. I read with dismay that many other people who are deaf and unemployed have not much luck in obtaining any job since 2008, despite that they have good skills and can do some jobs well enough like people who can hear.
Employers resorting to not hiring long-term unemployed people who still have skills and experiences is discriminatory, unacceptable, and absolutely stupid. This kind of practice would put more people into staying unemployment and ultimately taking up more money from the government in order to survive.
There are few reasonable exceptions that some people shouldn’t be hired because of their illegal or criminal activities in the past. Yes, there are dishonest or disreputable people that employers shouldn’t hire, but the vast majority of the long-term unemployed are honest people who wanted good-paying jobs in order to get off the government dole and become hopefully self-sufficient.
Rob, I’m sorry you are out of work. Been there, done that, didn’t like it.
I’m going to do you a favor, Rob. You probably won’t like it, but if you take heed, you’ll benefit from it.
Your English skills are poor, Rob. If I were a hiring manager, and received a resumé and cover letter demonstrating the same level of writing ability you have shown in your post, I would not hire you for anything much more than a burger flipper or janitorial job. You appear to be poorly educated.
This is not meant to be insulting or demeaning – it’s meant to help. If you want to work, improve your communication skills. I understand that you have a hearing disability, but written communication is critical to any job above the menial labor category.
Let’s face a simple rule of thumb. A good worker is going to find a job within a few months, certainly in a year. So (true or not) most long term unemployed are going to be looked at as losers.
Certainly there are good people who just have the wrong skills for their region. They are the ones who move or seek re-training, etc. They’ll get hired without much problem because they show initiative (a valuable asset).
We have a professional looser syndrome in the US. It is real and growing because the government empowers it by making being unemployed easier. It’s the wrong incentive, so it produces the wrong results.
Looser syndrome? There are alot of factors involved with this issue. Absurd generalizations are what I object to. Calling people losers because they don’t accept a demeaning job alternative, or have short term coincident health issues or underwater mortgages or whatever feeds the liberal theme that conservatives are just plain mean ignorant people. I understand the business side and realize that I will never make the money I once did due to my age. If one has never lost a job due to performance, how do you square that with your loser theory?
It is not true that a good worker will get a job in a few months. It depends on your age, occupation, former salary, skill set, location, and industry. I lost my job 18 months ago, and my industry nearly died.
If I had not started working as an independent contractor, I still would be unemployed or would be working for about 20 to 40 percent of my former salary. My prospects based on the above criteria made my desirability practically nil — the thing I used to do used to bring in a ton of money, and it no longer did. It also faced severe pricing pressure from overseas. And it’s not like HR, in this economy, is willing to stretch itself and see how you can help them — they want exact experience.
What some of the long term unemployed are doing wrong, if I may say so, is looking for jobs. There have been very few jobs out there for several years now. They need to look for work. That gives you the opportunity to learn new skills, remain fresh, keep up with changes in the industry, and maintain your work ethic and morale.
The worst of it for me was only a few months — but there were stretches where, honestly, I kept one last tiny bit of a project on hold until I got another piece of work. That allowed me to keep thinking in my mind that I was still a professional.
My heart goes out to those still fighting. Don’t listen to the naysayers. You can get back into the economy, but the best way is to find customers and work, not a job. Good luck.
I too have been unemployed for over 2 years. I have sent out over 6,800 resumes looking for a job. If I was less qualified I wouldn’t have as much trouble getting a job, or if I was more qualified I would not have trouble getting a job either. I am the “Middle Skilled” worker who used to make about 75-90K two years ago when I got laid off. I have had good credit up until now when I lost the house due to not being able to pay the mortgage, and the repairs alone were exceeding $2,000 per month on top of the mortgage (it was a money pit). Please tell me why I cannot be hired by some company. We need to make this illegal for companies to do.
We need to make it illegal for companies to act in their own best interests?
Should we also make it illegal for companies to fire people, or lay them off? Should we simply require that corporations hire everyone that wants a job?
On what legal or moral principle do you suggest that we “make this illegal for companies to do”?
Have you considered to what infringements of YOUR rights such a principle could lead?
I’m sure you have not. All that matters to the likes of you is, “WAH! I don’t like this! MAKE IT STOP, DADDY!”
It may not be the employers will, but the stockholders demands to outdo the competition. Therefore the HR managers are enticing the “hit the floor running” candidates from the competition to fill their open positions. When you look at the requirements for an engineer encompassing competency in specific software packages of the current release dates that are proprietary to a specific industry; then you know that only those currently working for the competition will be a fit for that position. With the job market being based on the global economy; it is the HR manager’s game to cut costs in whatever way he choices and pads his position in the company.
So I’m to understand from the article and replies that there is no risk involved with outsourcing, overworking current employees and hiring from a “head hunter”? The only risk is hiring a long term unemployed person?
My wife was terminated after 30 years from a manufacturing facility. As a financial accountant she has more skill sets than most CPA’s in the area are utilizing and it has been tough to replace her job, at any pay level. She finally found employment for about 40% of her previous wage, for which we are thankful.
As a pastor I deal with many of these issues as people go through them and it is without question in my area that employers are using the recession to drive down the wage base and cut benefits. All I can say is that while the current administration is not necessarily business friendly to say that you can’t “risk” hiring the long term unemployed because of this tells me that most that are making this claim have very poor assessment skills and/or are just simply lazy. Not to mention the fact that many they are trying to hire from another firm will do most anything (wages/benefits) to get out from under the additional workload placed on them as employers “right size” their work force.
I put little stock in the idea it is too hard to terminate new hires, happens all the time, with no consequences. Realistically you have little exposure to government intervention in the first 90 days.
Just like the tsunami in Japan, our economic crisis has changed the business landscape. If a business is running to tight as to look at long term unemployed people as a risk not worth taking, then maybe you should make sure you still have a viable business plan for the new economy. You may be trying to market buggy whips in the era of automobiles.
I agree with this guy 100%..after working at 1 place for 35 years they closed the doors in 2003.For the next year I drew the basic unemployment plus one whole extension. When I went back to work I had a very hard time getting into the work groove again. I know that my attitude about it had changed imensely. The only thing open at that time for me were labor jobs in sweatshops that had a high turnover of personel & I didn’t care one way or the other whether I did them or not.As a result there were several that I quit after the first day.At that time there were a lot of these 7-8 dollar an hour jobs in my area & I could/would just choose which one I wanted. This went on for a couple years until I started running newspapers & I stuck with that for a year & half ’till I retired..I can attest to the fact that the longer one is out of work,the harder it is to back. I lost my work ethic,lost my incentive,& plain did not care anymore.It’s a bad thing to have happen if you got a lot of years left to work.
Tom,
You have proven once again that those who can’t…Teach. The government is not responsible for the unemployment rate, the boys on wall street are. The economy was toyed with by the greedy wall street money managers who managed to push regulation through Washington enabling them to reclassify themselves as banks as well investment groups enabling them to drink from both ends of the trough. They invented fantom investment vehicles via the mortgage industry and set the country and world into a tail spin the likes we have never seen. Business, in the mean time, trimmed the fastest and deepest way they could, by reducing staff and stopping investments. Holding onto cash starts to look good to owners and shareholders after a while and thats a risk they will dish off by increasing work loads to existing employees as long as they can get away with it. Long term unemployed include CEO’s VP and high payed non-owners that would have beenb responsible for increased revenue, not decreased expenses.
Even if I granted that the “boys on Wall Street” are responsible for creating the conditions of high unemployment (which I don’t), and even if you won’t concede that Democrat crony companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac deserve the lion’s share of the blame (even though they do), there is no argument that the situation would have improved much more quickly had the administration chosen legitimate remedies. They deliberately did not, despite the historical record. The long-term unemployed are paying dearly for these awful and deliberate decisions.
Actually, doing nothing would have been better than what they’ve done.
Have you seen the housing numbers, pal? 2-1/2 years after the so-called financial crisis, the industry is totally moribund. Housing has NEVER failed to come back strong during a “recovery” — until this one. The only difference between previous recoveries and this so-called recovery is that Team Obama is in charge, and its policies are ruining the economic landscape.
…because Obama’s in charge. ain’t that the truth. If I had anticipated his impact on the economy I would have re-positioned all my retirement holdings when I saw the crisis coming, but didn’t, thinking it would be short term. I even shunned jobs I should have taken (in retrospect)not realizing O was going to knock the bottom out. The O factor was/is huge. But that’s not to say the short sighted-ness of corporate America hasn’t contributed to the mess. A five year plan may exist for strategic (marketing)vision, but rarely for execution. Placating shareholders on a quarter to quarter basis kills any execution strategy. That’s how we get cash for clunkers programs.
“Have you seen the housing numbers, pal?”
ROFL! And if you think THESE are bad, wait until you see the ones after ObamaCare kicks in – where there is a 3.8% TAX on house sales!
This article is obviously written by one who has never had their livelihood jerked out from under them. I guess the line between the “haves” and the “have nots” is just getting a little thicker and darker. In essence, it is a bunch of humanistic bull thoroughly lacking in the values that our nation was founded on. So please, crawl back into your German import and drive back to your mcmansion in your gated community, count your gold, and leave us alone. You’re out of touch.
This article is obviously written by one who has never had their livelihood jerked out from under them.
Your comment was obviously written by someone who has no idea of what he or she is talking about — and for the record, you could not be more obviously wrong.
Oh, and shame on you for assuming facts not in evidence. I guess that’s what you have to resort to when you have no arguments.
Tom Blumer, actually he does make an excellent point!
Well, it’s not the first time gov’t has jacked up human capital in the banking industry, at least. there’s this notion of redlining. so banks were required, under Carter, to open branches in unprofitable areas of town. His theory was that they were simply underserved, and therefore, no one could find the profit. What he didn’t think was, half of a banker’s pay was incentive pay. The base pay was minimal on purpose. If the bank wanted to park someone without firing them- they would stick them on the wrong side of town, and then that person had the choice between starving or leaving. My spouse was parked at one for two years while he got his MBA. Now, he’s got an advanced degree, but he has the stigma of working at a low-paying branch. He had to exit the industry he loved for a few years, to do a job that made him near physically ill, before re-entering banking with a clean, new previous job. He’s seen the bank do this on purpose to other people. Starve- or leave.
If the gov’t hadn’t mandated this total loss of productivity- these people wouldn’t be going to sitting and staring at the walls jobs, or trying to deal with third-rate mortgages. They’d be in the hustle and bustle of a good bank, learning good work skills.It’s a soft skill set, but invaluable. The banks that would have eventually opened up would understand these customers better, and have “right-sized” products. Right now, a few banks are doing that, and doing quite well. While the gov’t still sweats full-service banks for their prestige factors.
It’s grotesque. It’s really not often I can name strangers that have actually affected my life negatively. But, dude, two years of beans and rice b/c Carter felt put upon, and these last two years with the mortgage crisis…..I’ve quit being friends with people who vote democratic. seriously. They are eating shrimp and steak and fresh salads every day, and telling me their sensitive conscience is clear.
I do not see Not Hiring the Unemployed as a new phenomenon. There has always been reluctance by Corporate America to accept or hire applicants that have large gaps in their resume. Business moves so fast today; especially in the IT field that any applicant, current employee, or one who has just been laid off, must stay on the “Tools Treadmill” to remain current in their career path. Hard to do when you are not making enough money on Unemployment to support your standard of living and have bills to pay.
I have been in Corporate America for longer than I need to say. There isn’t much you can say about Corporate America to convince me that companies are not run by pure Greed and, they too, are responsible for what is happening in today’s economy. As soon as there was the turn that the “powers that be” in Corporate America were there to please the Shareholders and not to care for the employees who did the work to make the company profitable, Corporate America became the “slime” it is today.
I am not saying that this Administration and its “Three Musketeers” of the “POR Economy” are not to blame for our current circumstances, but over 20 years ago, Corporations made the decision to hire temporary workers in bigger numbers than they ever had before – not just the “white glove” secretaries of Manpower or Kelly Girls, but in every area of the company. They figured out that this would save them large amounts of money and increase their bottom lines.
Companies began bringing in employees for only the duration of the project. They would keep the employee on as a Contractor for the duration of the project, or until the company decided to reorganize and there was no longer a need for the person, or, rarely, as long as a year and use them for several projects; as long as the company didn’t violate any IRS regulations that made the Contractor look like they were an employee this could bring about a hugh savings. By doing this, they didn’t have to offer the Contractor benefits of any kind; there was no paperwork involved other than that required to fill the job requirement.
The companies paid a rate to the agency which, in turn, pays a higher rate to the employee to kind of compensate for the lack of benefits. In the beginning, this seems very appealing to the person seeking work (who needs time off or vacations). If the company decided they didn’t need the Contractor any more, they did not have to worry about giving three warnings, writing up the employee, and creating a paper trail to dispose of the employee to meet Labor Board Standards. In fact, the Contractor was not an employee of the company so they didn’t even have to worry about taking the hit for Unemployment insurance increases due to the employee being let go, they didn’t have to worry about their insurance rates going up due to too many medical issues. The minutia of paperwork was eliminated which probably reduced the number of HR employees required to run the company’s administrative obligations.
Managers no longer lost sleep over letting go someone they had grown to like and they no longer were saddled with trying to find the individual additional work or another opportunity within the company. There was no need for the project anymore – that is a legitimate reason to let the Contractor go. Or, the company reorganized and the position was moved to another division, city, state, not the company’s problem. If there were any benefits, which there usually are not, it fell to the agency that placed the Contractor. The company was in no way obligated to the Contractor; they were not their employer; the agency was and the agencies were in the business of placing and recycling contractors – there is no blame, those are the terms of the job. And two companies are making money off the Contract employee.
This was great for the companies, but was/is horrible for the individual serving as a Contractor. No warning to the job ending, could take months to find a new job, if some of that extra pay was put away or invested, it was needed to live off of until the next job came along and any savings for retirement went down the tube. And, now, the individual could be stuck with a very short-term assignment, which doesn’t bode well on a resume when looking for the next job. Unless, of course, the individual looks for another contract; one can always explain that the contract ended — poof, no work, no job, no further opportunity. And, so the nightmarish cycle of being a Contractor begins – wonder why so many people don’t have enough money in their retirement plans.
In the beginning, not all company’s understood this concept so it made it harder to find a job. The Labor Department didn’t understand this concept and there were issues about being paid overtime when asked to work longer than a 40-hour week. The concept was new to IRS. Unemployment didn’t understand the term Contractor beyond that of a Construction Worker. Today, this has become the general practice in all industries and for all job functions.
Then, the way of doing business changed again. There were two situations taking place. There was a greater influx of people entering the United States from countries other than Europe. These people were used to making lower wages in their country and did not demand, at first, the high wages American Citizens demand. Many of them required that the companies they work for sponsor them (which I am sure provides a tax break to the company.) Also, many of these immigrants moved in together and lived under one roof so their expenses were not as high as those of the “Cowboy American” (I say “Cowboy American” because I am referring to the mentality of US Citizens of reaching the American Dream and having what we have for only ourselves and immediate family members. It is a cultural difference in the way Americans live vs. other country cultures.)
Companies capitalized on this and realized they could sponsor these immigrants, pay them much less, get as good or better talent and most were already educated in their own countries of origin where education is of the utmost importance to the people so no need to spend as much on tuition benefits for employees – another savings. As these immigrants traveled back home and took suitcases full of the latest technology gadgets, the countries themselves upped their knowledge and companies found they could out-source the jobs that were here in America to these countries, and continuously (after immigrants work for a while at one company in the US for a lower rate, they gain their experience, move to another company, and demand the same pay someone born and raised in the US demands) pay much lower wages. For instance, a developer here that pulls $65.00 per hour could be hired in one of the countries that out-sourcing is being done in at $14.00 per hour. That is a hugh savings for a company. It doesn’t matter if the individual’s English isn’t all that good or that they cannot write a clear, understandable sentence. Who needs quality when the work is getting done, the Company is saving money, the bottom line looks good, and the Shareholders are HAPPY.
This scenario we can blame on our politicians for not instilling higher taxes on companies that out-source US jobs overseas.
Growing up, I remember when companies took care of their employees because they understood that it was the employees who made the company profitable. I have acquaintances who have told me their fathers worked for the same company for 50 years. Employees were not numbers just filling a seat pumping out the work to make the Shareholders HAPPY. They were respected, appreciated, and taken into consideration.
When I read this article, I felt the writer was siding with Corporate America. Believe me, there is not anything one can say that will convince me that Corporate America isn’t at fault for what is happening today.
Recently, free coffee was removed from a company. It saved the company $300,000.00. To this company, which is a major player in the Telecommunication Industry, that amount of money is a drop in the bucket. At this same company, a hugh project was started and they ran it for a full year, spending hundreds of millions were spent to develop a particular piece of the project and right after the project was put on hold until the company finds a customer, the Director over the project completely changed the way the development would be done on this particular piece; essentially throwing away the hundreds of millions of dollars that was already spent to develop it. When and/or if a customer is found and the project comes back on the table, every piece of the project will have to change to accommodate this new development; costing an additional hundreds of millions of dollars. But, the employees can no longer have free coffee because it costs the company $300,000.00 to keep the employees happy with one small freebie. Where is the logic? I know – different budgets.
I agree with the first comment in this article – “Those greedy employers are up to their nefarious tricks again.” Large Corporations have been accumulating cash. They have not been spending money.
The problem right now is that Companies still think they should be making a profit to keep the Shareholders HAPPY. They have tightened their purse strings and have current employees doing the work of more than one person, but their projections for their bottom lines have not adjusted accordingly with the economy or with the future. They are still trying to do business as usual, making hugh profits as usual, and catering to the Shareholder. The way business is done and the need for a business’ products in the future is not going to look anything like it has in the past. And I am not convinced that Corporate America has taken this into consideration or really gets it. These CEOs are there for one thing and one thing only – to make the bottom line meet the expectations of the Shareholders. But, I do not feel that they have lowered their sites. Instead, they just continue to hurt the American people.
Based on this article, with the attitude the Corporations have, they are also adding to the problem of Unemployment. There are good people who have lost their job and are doing everything they can to find another one in order to provide for their families. If we cannot depend on Corporate America, who can we depend on for work?
There are 80 million people (give or take for those first baby boomers who have already hit retirement age) going through the system over the next twenty-four years (if they raise the retirement age to 70 – twenty years if they don’t) that will be hitting retirement age. The purchasing power of these people as they get closer to retirement age is going to change drastically with the types of products they will buy and/or need.
Not too far in the future, it has been predicted that there is going to be a shortage of employees for the companies in Corporate America to hire because the next couple generations are not that large and there are too many people in the next generations that are not qualified for the jobs in Corporate America. It is predicted that Corporate America is really going to hurt. And, guess what, I for one will not feel sorry for them.
Actually, this will be very bad for America. It will continue to affect our economy and our standing in the world when this happens. Corporate America has done so much harm to so many US Citizens out of greed and, when they cannot function because they cannot find enough people to work for them, it will be no one’s fault but their own. Is it any wonder that employees don’t have any loyalty anymore? Should it surprise us that employees jump ship the first chance they get for a better opportunity rather than remaining loyal to the company at which they are currently working?
And this and putting more emphasis on educating our citizens so we continue to have the talent and standing in the world market, the Administration and Politicians can do something about!
There is no way that I agree with this Administration and pray that we can undo the harm that has been done to America, but, I cannot find much good to say about Corporate America and some of the antics they have pulled over the last several decades to make the Shareholders Happy and to destroy America and its people.
I agree Griffin. I left corporate America for many of these same reasons. Wages and benefits have stagnated or fallen in the past 30 years for many occupations to the point that many are really just “day laborers”. Guess what, you can never retire making only enough to feed yourself and your family for a day. It’s unfortunate that those most culpable for the current healthcare and entitlement crisis are screaming the loudest to cut the programs their corporate policies caused to be propagated in the first place.
You are right about the “immigrant” and “outsourcing” issues.
What Corp American DIDN’T expect was:
(1) that the immigrants lied on their resumes – not just in minor ways, but in MAJOR ways! Also, I used to assist employers with their hiring needs, and some managers told me that one person would do the phone interview, and a different one would show up for the job!
(2) the quality of offshore work was often horrendous, and frequently had to be fixed by Americans anyway.
The cheapest solution is often not the best. They are starting to learn this, finally.
That being said, there are some quick Federal fixes that could be implemented immediately to discourage companies from using foreigners to do the work:
(1) “Labor Tariffs” – just like foreign manufactured goods, “foreign labor” should be subjected to tariffs to trim Corporate profits. The benefit involved in dealing with foreign workers would be drastically curtailed if companies had to pay nearly the same amount AND deal with the hassle of having offshore workers.
(2) Revoke all H1B (foreign worker) labor permits. Thousands and thousands of foreign nationals are brought over every year to work for lower wages – and it prevents Americans from obtaining the work. Plenty of qualified Americans would gladly work for somewhat lower pay if the positions were available.
(3) Incentives should be offered to companies who transfer jobs they have already moved offshore back to the US. This could be in the form of tax breaks of some kind.
(4) National Telecommute Incentive. Again, tax benefits could be offered to companies who allow their workers to telecommute – not only would this decrease the amount of money Corporations spend on office space & expenses, but reduce our overall dependence on foreign oil by decreasing the amount of daily commuting.
The fact that none of these are being considered proves that the Feds have no interest in (or are simply clueless about) how to decrease unemployment.
I’ve learned something in my long fight with unemployment. Save all the money you would spend on college, and get someone to take you on as an unpaid intern or slave while taking all of the local business leaders out to lunch regularly. Having a friend of the owner recommend you beats a good resume, and experience is the next best thing.
Your article makes some valid points but big government is not just for Democrats anymore as was evidenced by the big spending G.W. Bush administration which Obummer was just too happy to continue. Hopefully the Tea Party will help to turn the tide by casting a pox on both loser parties and start thinking outside the establishment box.
<
Do you mean the “productivity gains” realized from having people who usually worked 40 hour weeks that are now working 70 hour weeks (salaried, of course)?
Or the VP’s that used to be in their 40′s who now ascend to those levels by their late 20′s? Or the highly experienced folks in the 50′s who were replaced by $10 grunts in their 20′s, who make us cringe at having to contact merchants, our banks, mortgage companies, etc.?
Is this the management skills performed by those that even Investors Business Daily and Wall Street Journal point out are running the companies for their own gratification, rather than for customers and shareholders?
What #18 said.
Maybe you haven’t heard about all the people laid off for no particular reasons in the last few years? Or about the chronic situations of STEM workers over the last decade?
Oh, you heard about it, but as long as you can blame it on the government, you don’t want to bother with it, not even think about it?
And, you’re a training guy? Yeah, right.
There are tons of high-qualified and very “motivated” employees in that long-term pool, serious opportunity for sensible employers.
Yes, sure, being out for a few months – or even a couple of years – will take the edge off, but good employees are so rare, you should look everywhere for them and not reject them out of hand with some stupid filter.
This is one of the reasons employers do such illegal acts because people like some of you, including the author, allowed it and support it! I bet some of you are the same people who bash the unemployed by calling them lazy! This is what social conditioning does to you especially when you people sit in front of your TV’s watching and listening to the lies on Fox News! Let me ask you a question. How would you feel when you can’t find a job to hire you, when you cannot afford healthcare, when you cannot afford to keep your home, when you cannot afford to put food in your child’s mouth, etc? I guess you don’t care! This society has gotten so selfish and inconsiderate that it is so disgusting, and you people allowed the Corporate Masters to control you!
The reason this country is in the toilet is simple, GREED. The rich can not get enough money and want even more. All elected officials with influence are targets of the lobbyists who serve the interests of the rich. Corporations serve the interests of the rich. So what do you suppose the outcome is for the long term unemployed? It is going to be filled with suffering, starvation, loss of family and friends, loss of dignity, hopelessness and despair and then death. I am sure that you are all quite comfortable with that provided it does not not happen to you.
I’m truly sick of the misguided and unthinking “analysis” that shows up in these articles, on both the left and the right.
Stop. Using. The. 1980s. Society is completely different from 30 years ago. The internet and computing power in general has so fundamentally changed economic realities that a comparison with previous recessions is an exercise in futility.
Just as a slight idea of how much things have changed:
1.) Tasks are far more easily automated now than they were back then. This makes it feasible to lay off workers without replacement, while maintaining steady output of goods and/or services.
2.) Technology is far more capable of analyzing metrics than it was 30 years ago. So, coupled with the increasing ability to automate certain jobs, we also have increased awareness of how much better profit margins could be if we do so.
3.) Technology has largely negated the effect distance from market has. We get a lot of information and contact with consumers through the online world, now. This means businesses are less reliant on “local presence” to build up their brand, and can therefore outsource more easily.
4.) Americans are no longer better workers. Thirty years ago, it wasn’t just our infrastructure that was superior; our workers were, as well. Our high school systems were robust and better-funded (you know, before politicians of both parties leaped to education as an easily-slashed drain on our budget). Our university system was strong. Our workers also had the unique ability to acquire skills in high-tech industries; opportunities which largely didn’t exist outside the US and some areas of Europe. This is no longer the case.
It is these influences, among others, that are causing the recovery to lag. It has little to do with taxation, or any other government policy. It has to do with a shifting of the scales. Businesses now have increasing freedom to reach outside the boundaries of the United States for profits, and are exercising this freedom. Welcome to the dark side of relatively unregulated capitalism.