The Permanently Unemployed
5/12/13 10:52![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsFrom the New York Times:
Long-term joblessness — the kind that Ms. Barrington-Ward and about four million others are experiencing — is now one of the defining realities of the American work force.
The unemployment rate has fallen to 7.3 percent, down from 10 percent four years ago. Private businesses have added about 7.6 million positions over the same period. But while recent numbers show that there are about as many people unemployed for short periods as in 2007 — before the crisis hit — they also show that long-term joblessness is up 213 percent.
In part, that’s because people don’t return to work in an orderly, first-fired, first-hired fashion. In any given month, a newly jobless worker has about a 20 to 30 percent chance of finding a new job. By the time he or she has been out of work for six months, though, the chance drops to one in 10, according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
I've so far had three conversations, online and off, with people who say that, when hiring, they either reject out of hand any resume that shows the person is unemployed and/or over a certain age or instruct their recruiters to do this. They look ever so regretful about it. Shake their heads. Furrow their brows. Shrug as though they aren't responsible and some invisible force is making them do it.
So I have a question for any of you employers who do this or instruct your recruiters to do this. If you are going to systematically shut out Americans who've faced long-term unemployment, or have been careless enough to be born before 1964, surely you support some form of public assistance that will prevent the resulting large pool of the permanently jobless from starving or living on the streets? Is that correct? In between tossing into the shredder any resume or application that indicates the person has been out of work for more than a few months, or (horrors!) has a few gray hairs, no doubt you actively campaign for some permanent government system of financial support for the thousands and thousands of human beings you are consigning to permanent unemployment.
Right?
If not, what alternative are you proposing for dealing with this large pool of human resources you are so willing to toss into the dustbin?
*
Long-term joblessness — the kind that Ms. Barrington-Ward and about four million others are experiencing — is now one of the defining realities of the American work force.
The unemployment rate has fallen to 7.3 percent, down from 10 percent four years ago. Private businesses have added about 7.6 million positions over the same period. But while recent numbers show that there are about as many people unemployed for short periods as in 2007 — before the crisis hit — they also show that long-term joblessness is up 213 percent.
In part, that’s because people don’t return to work in an orderly, first-fired, first-hired fashion. In any given month, a newly jobless worker has about a 20 to 30 percent chance of finding a new job. By the time he or she has been out of work for six months, though, the chance drops to one in 10, according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
I've so far had three conversations, online and off, with people who say that, when hiring, they either reject out of hand any resume that shows the person is unemployed and/or over a certain age or instruct their recruiters to do this. They look ever so regretful about it. Shake their heads. Furrow their brows. Shrug as though they aren't responsible and some invisible force is making them do it.
So I have a question for any of you employers who do this or instruct your recruiters to do this. If you are going to systematically shut out Americans who've faced long-term unemployment, or have been careless enough to be born before 1964, surely you support some form of public assistance that will prevent the resulting large pool of the permanently jobless from starving or living on the streets? Is that correct? In between tossing into the shredder any resume or application that indicates the person has been out of work for more than a few months, or (horrors!) has a few gray hairs, no doubt you actively campaign for some permanent government system of financial support for the thousands and thousands of human beings you are consigning to permanent unemployment.
Right?
If not, what alternative are you proposing for dealing with this large pool of human resources you are so willing to toss into the dustbin?
*
(no subject)
Date: 7/12/13 23:52 (UTC)And you assume this is true of most people over fifty?
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 00:09 (UTC)People over 50 don't win beauty contests not because the public discriminates elders, but because they just don't look as good as younger competitors.
Same is valid for the labor market, with plenty of youngsters ready to work double-shifts and do extra job to advance in career etc.
Working hard in 20's is easier than in 50's.
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 00:13 (UTC)This isn't about their looks.
v: Same is valid for the labor market, with plenty of youngsters ready to work double-shifts and do extra job to advance in career etc.
So you've shifted from portraying people people over 50 as technologically illiterate and inexperienced to saying it's a matter of them not being willing and able to work as hard. Sorry, but that's simply ridiculous. I've put in days that go well over 12 hours and qualify as double-shifts and have taken on extra work. So have many other 50 somethings I've known.
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 00:17 (UTC)Straw man argument, as usual.
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 00:21 (UTC)"A person who doesn't know how to use a computer, used to be a clerk in some uber-useless State Department of Something, fired because of paperless workflow introduction. Hobbies are cooking and knitting."?
Was is someone else posting under you username?
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 00:58 (UTC)Statistics, nothing personal.
An _average_ person in 50-s is hardly a match for an _average_ person in 20-s for various low-skill jobs. Health is, in general, worse, as well as ability to learn. No career incentives, comparing to younger people.
Hence the older an applicant, the higher a _probability_ to get a slower, less healthy person.
An HR who receives hundreds of applications can't deal with every applicant, so the CVs are processed statistically, sorting high-probability candidates to the top. If elders can hardly make a good hire for a position, they're sorted to the bottom.
If the top of the heap doesn't produce a good employee (the probability is fairly low), and HR reaches to the bottom, and the 50-er get a chance.
Isn't that obvious?
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 16:52 (UTC)No, it's not obvious how a 50-something job applicant is going to "get a chance" when their resume is being rejected on sight.
Do you support some form of permanent government assitance to this large pool of workers who could be permanently unemployed, not because they are physically weak or incompetent, but simply because of their age?
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 17:13 (UTC)First, read carefully.
_If_ elders are sorted to the bottom.
AND
_If_ the top of the heap doesn't produce a good employee, and HR reaches to the bottom, and the 50-er get a chance.
When rejected - is not the situation described, thus your question doesn't apply to my comment.
What you're trying to do is to portray the situation as if _all_ these resumes are rejected on sight, which isn't true but a hasty generalization.
>>Do you support some form of permanent government assistance
Federal - no.
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 17:37 (UTC)They aren't just being "sorted to the bottom." They are being rejected out of hand.
v: AND _If_ the top of the heap doesn't produce a good employee, and HR reaches to the bottom, and the 50-er get a chance.
IOW, the over-50 job applicant will be considered ONLY if, through some incredible fluke, all the other younger applicants considered first turn out to be unsuitable.
Are ALL applications from over-50 job seekers rejected on sight? Probably not. Nor were ALL applications from African American job seekers rejected on sight for certain jobs before Affirmative Action kicked in. The end result, however, was still a markedly reduced chance of an African American getting those jobs.
v: Federal - no.
So how should society handle this enormous pool of people who are going to be pretty much permanently unemployed? Many of them are going to end up hungry and on the street. Is an even larger pool of homeless in this country an acceptable situation?
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 17:51 (UTC)>> Are ALL applications from over-50 job seekers rejected on sight? Probably not.
Exactly.
>> So how should society handle this
Via local communities: cities, counties, states.
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 17:56 (UTC)So the fact that a small number of employers are considering over-50 workers for fulltime jobs makes the plight of the majority of those older workers insignificant?
v: Via local communities: cities, counties, states.
All of which are already badly strapped for money and struggling. And what happens to someone going broke in an area that does not provide any public support? You do realize that relocating can be very expensive, right?
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 18:09 (UTC)Since you're talking to yourself, keep going - I won't interfere ;)
>> And what happens to someone going broke in an area
And what happens it someone leaving alone hits the head in the bathroom?
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 18:14 (UTC)You run out of gas so fast.
paft: And what happens to someone going broke in an area
v: And what happens it someone leaving alone hits the head in the bathroom?
If there's an epidemic of solitary people getting knocked out in the backroom that's as widespread as what many, many, over-50 job-hunters are facing, then perhaps it needs to be looked into, but you know and I know that's not the case. The first is a household accident that sometimes occurs -- the second is the result of discrimination by private employers.
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 18:43 (UTC)Keep talking ;)
(no subject)
Date: 8/12/13 18:51 (UTC)Run along.