how's this for unintended consequences?

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110123/SPECIAL01/101230382/

With three college degrees, including an MBA, a resume boasting volunteer work and a 25-year stint at one company, Linda Keller is devastated by what potential employers see in her.

"She's lazy. She's not doing anything. Her skills are out of date. She's out of touch with reality," Keller rattles off. "That's what hiring people think."

That's because Keller, 53, has one strike against her that's hard to overcome in today's ultra-competitive job market: She's unemployed -- and has been for 19 months.

She's among 4.4 million people nationwide who have been out of work for a year or more. The group makes up more than 40 percent of the total unemployed, the highest percentage since World War II.

Keller and others in that category say there is a stigma that long-term jobless people have been sitting around and don't really want to work. There is the perception that they won't take a lower-paying job -- and if they do, they will bolt as soon as they find a higher-paying one.

On top of that, some companies -- including PMG Indiana, Sony Ericsson and retailers nationwide -- have explicitly barred the unemployed or long-term unemployed from certain job openings, outright telling them in job ads that they need not apply.
Click to expand...

how'd that extension work out for you dems?
 
Just don't see how this is a consequence of extending unemployment bene's.

Is the argument that extending them caused businesses to curb hiring in some way?
 
Onceler said:
Just don't see how this is a consequence of extending unemployment bene's.

Is the argument that extending them caused businesses to curb hiring in some way?
Click to expand...

The only argument I can see is that by continually extending unemployment, you keep the safety net there longer. Thus, the incentive to take a step down to a job that doesn't pay as much as the previous one isn't as high.

It is really a catch 22 though... especially as skill levels increase. Many employers who see an 'over-qualified' individual won't hire them because of the fear of paying to train them only to see them bolt to a better paying job when the economy rebounds.

the higher skilled jobs are harder to come by in a loose employment market as they are fewer in number. Thus the higher your skill set, the harder it is going to be to get hired in this environment.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I don't follow. Are you suggesting that if she were unemployed for 19 months while not receiving unemployment benefits her prospects of gaining meaningful employment in her field would be better? It's the unemployment benefits, not unemployment that are the problem?

That's stupid.
Click to expand...

Yes. She would have had an urgent need to find a job instead of waiting for one that paid more than unemployment benefits. Simple math there. I know it's hard for you, so I'll go slow.

To the employer, she now looks lazy. It doesn't matter if she is or not. The safety net that helped her prolong the condition also hurt her resume.

So, by waiting for a job that pays more than unemployment, she made future employers see her as lazy.

And can you blame them?

Well, I know YOU can, but normal people who understand both people and economics can easily see why this reality persists
 
Last edited:
Hell, I had to start a business to find work, so I lived this issue. Employers out here have an abundance of labor to choose from so the situation is really tough. There's probably over 20% real unemployment in the area. But these are lazy liberals in PDX. Shit, we have teenage panhandlers in droves
 
Superfreak said:
The only argument I can see is that by continually extending unemployment, you keep the safety net there longer. Thus, the incentive to take a step down to a job that doesn't pay as much as the previous one isn't as high.

It is really a catch 22 though... especially as skill levels increase. Many employers who see an 'over-qualified' individual won't hire them because of the fear of paying to train them only to see them bolt to a better paying job when the economy rebounds.

the higher skilled jobs are harder to come by in a loose employment market as they are fewer in number. Thus the higher your skill set, the harder it is going to be to get hired in this environment.
Click to expand...

On that 1st part, the only argument is that it's hurting people who are basically abusing the system.

The whole story is pretty sad, though; it's fairly unconscionable of employers to discriminate in this way, after what we just went through. Dumb, too...
 
Superfreak said:
The only argument I can see is that by continually extending unemployment, you keep the safety net there longer. Thus, the incentive to take a step down to a job that doesn't pay as much as the previous one isn't as high.

It is really a catch 22 though... especially as skill levels increase. Many employers who see an 'over-qualified' individual won't hire them because of the fear of paying to train them only to see them bolt to a better paying job when the economy rebounds.

the higher skilled jobs are harder to come by in a loose employment market as they are fewer in number. Thus the higher your skill set, the harder it is going to be to get hired in this environment.
Click to expand...

Yes it really is a catch 22 ain't it. I guess corporations really are asswipes, eh?

Overqualified, underqualified, they're just looking for reasons to starve americans out of existence.
 
tinfoil said:
Yes. She would have have an urgent need to find a job instead of waiting for one that paid more than unemployment benefits. Simple math there. I know it's hard for you, so I'll go slow.

To the employer, she now looks lazy. It doesn't matter if she is or not. The safety net that helped her prolong the condition also hurt her resume.

So, by waiting for a job that pays more than unemployment, she made future employers see her as lazy.

And can you blame them?

Well, I know YOU can, but normal people who understand both people and economics can easily see why this reality persists
Click to expand...

Yes. we can blame them. They're facist assholes.
 
Superfreak said:
It is really a catch 22 though... especially as skill levels increase. Many employers who see an 'over-qualified' individual won't hire them because of the fear of paying to train them only to see them bolt to a better paying job when the economy rebounds.

the higher skilled jobs are harder to come by in a loose employment market as they are fewer in number. Thus the higher your skill set, the harder it is going to be to get hired in this environment.
Click to expand...

Businesses are in large part to blame for the "out for #1" attitude of many would be employees today.

For decades businesses have cut their workforce, forced employees to take on more responsibilities for the same pay or token pay raises, they've forced out qualified older workers so they could fill the position with younger workers who will do the job for less...and all for the sole purpose of increasing their bottom line while ignoring the fact that employee loyalty can be a great motivator to induce better productivity.

Now businesses don't want to hire older employees they showed no loyalty to in the past might quit prematurely to take a better paying job?
 
Why is it corporations are allowed to look out for themselves, but regular people are expected to have unconditional loyalty despite mistreatment and abuse? Fascists only believe in one way streets.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yes it really is a catch 22 ain't it. I guess corporations really are asswipes, eh?

Overqualified, underqualified, they're just looking for reasons to starve americans out of existence.
Click to expand...

That's not fair to small business owners. Nor is it fair to people who have to make decisions. They have to base their choices on something. I doubt this the determining factor, but tossed into the mix, I can see why the paerson who only sat for X months would seem better than the person who sat for Y months
 
tinfoil said:
That's not fair to small business owners. Nor is it fair to people who have to make decisions. They have to base their choices on something. I doubt this the determining factor, but tossed into the mix, I can see why the paerson who only sat for X months would seem better than the person who sat for Y months
Click to expand...

Life isnt fair. Ever heard that one? turn about is fair play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top