8 ms·

"It's time for the government to start hiring the long-term unemployed." What the fuck? If you measure something you do not like, the immediate response should

"It's time for the government to start hiring the long-term unemployed." What the fuck? If you measure something you do not like, the immediate response should not be to grab a hammer and try to kill it. It probably exists for a reason. Understand the reason. Then take action. It may be that there is nothing you can do -- directly. Only a small few percentage points of the problems in the world go away through direct action. Prima facie, this argument seems to be that if employers don't like an attribute in a job applicant's resume, we should either make it illegal for them to discriminate based on that attribute or "fake out" that attribute in some other way. It seems like anything I'm going to say is blindingly obvious, but I'l say it anyway: we cannot provide "recent experience" in X simply by hiring somebody and giving them a nametag that says "I do X!". It doesn't work that way. Employers want experience, not simply words on a resume. You can't create lots of experience for a job position in a market that simply might not have that many job positions of that type available. In addition, sometimes (not always by any means) companies let go the people who are deadweight first. I could go on. There's a plethora of various speculations I can make about why this measured observation is true. More research, most likely by job seekers themselves, is required to fix this. Politics by correlation, just like management by correlation, is a terrible way of running a ship.

rayiner 14y ago
Eh, there is something to what he's saying. The idea that the labor market behaves rationally is a childish fantasy. Employers are not rational. They do all sorts of irrational things, and discriminating against the long-term unemployed (and also women returning to the work force from motherhood) is one of those irrational things. It's almost a dating mentality. They jump to the conclusion: "well if nobody else wants him, why should I?" In reality, people can be long-term unemployed for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with them being a bad potential employee. Maybe they have really specialized skills or want a really specific kind of job--the nature of such situations is that there is going to be gaps in how long it takes to find the next employer looking for those very specific skills.
- marknutter 14y ago
  Well if they act irrationally they will be sufficiently punished by the market (no childish fantasy required). There aren't enough jobs? Then create more jobs. Starting a company, at my last check, is incredibly simple to do. Of course, turning a profit is hard, which is why people turn to the government to provide them with work rather than take the risk of starting a company. The government doesn't need to turn a profit, it collects taxes. Therefore it's a very attractive alternative to the cold, hard realities of the market. Of course, there's only so much tax money to go around..
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The market doesn't punish the companies for irrational behavior when everyone engages in the same irrational behavior.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      Why don't you engage in rational behavior and get rich?
      - jarek 14y ago
        "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"
        yummyfajitas 14y ago
        Please go learn what this quote actually means (hint: it refers to speculation, not consumption).
        jarek 14y ago
        I know what this quote refers to (and it's not particularly kind of you to suggest I don't, if I may say). I meant to point out that engaging in "rational" behaviour when it comes to hiring in a market you perceive as behaving irrationally is no guarantee of becoming rich any more than engaging in "rational" behaviour when it comes to speculation.
danielweber 14y ago
Honestly, some real skills do disappear with long-term unemployment, like getting up on time every day. Even working a made-up job is probably better. But real job skills do disappear, too. If one person has been working with machine tools 40 hours a week while the other hasn't used machine tools for six months, hiring the first is the rational thing to do. Personally, as a software engineer, I've enjoyed my bouts of unemployment, because I've had the chance to deep dive into new things I never had the chance while working full time, and I've come out of them more employable. (Although I'm in the job hunt now while still employed, and recruiters and employers seem to be giant flakes, maybe because I'm not calling them twice a day, or maybe because they just suck.) But this isn't the norm.
- arscan 14y ago
  > If one person has been working with machine tools 40 hours a week while the other hasn't used machine tools for six months, hiring the first is the rational thing to do yes, but the point is that companies would even prefer hiring people that have been doing work in a different industry recently than someone who is 6 months unemployed but with experience in the same industry. I think it simply comes down to employers automatically assuming that you have some sort of major flaw if you've been unemployed for so long.
- el_fuser 14y ago
  * I've enjoyed my bouts of unemployment, because I've had the chance to deep dive into new things I never had the chance while working full time, and I've come out of them more employable.* It follows that staying in one job for a long period would tend to make you less employable... And indeed I've witnessed this very thing.
michaelochurch 14y ago
Here's a solution that doesn't require the government to hire long-term unemployed: lying on a resume or in an interview to conceal unemployment is now legal. (Well, technically, it was never illegal; just considered unethical.) You may: * Expand dates of any job by up to two months or 10% on each side, whichever is larger. * Bump an educational degree forward by up to 5 years if under 40, and 10 years if older. * Move any employment engagement translationally by up to three years. * Inflate title as long as it does not involve falsification of a professional credential (e.g. "Senior VP" is OK, "Physician" for a non-doctor is not). Anyone who is fired for such now-legal falsification must be given six months' severance or there is a wrongful termination claim. How does that sound to you? (I don't think it's a good idea, but it is an improvement over the system that exists now.)
- mcherm 14y ago
  I think it sounds like a terrible idea. As an applicant, I would never take advantage of it. As an employer I would never WANT to hire anyone who took advantage of it. A side effect would be that I would begin to distrust resumes and would therefore hire more by word-of-mouth instead, which would reduce opportunities for minorities and those less well-connected.
  - lutorm 14y ago
    I would begin to distrust resumes You mean you now trust resumes?
    - mcherm 14y ago
      Um.... good point. I would trust resumes even LESS than I do now.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- sib 14y ago
  If a candidate would lie about those things, they'd lie about things at work too.
afterburner 14y ago
Long term unemployment is intrinsically destructive, both to the individuals losing careers and money and to the economy as a whole. While understanding why it's happening is important, it's also important to compensate for it, for the good of society (and the economy) as a whole. Government is one of the few agencies that at least theoretically has the care of society as one of its goals; private corporations aren't going to give a sh*t, they're not going to "take one for the team" and hire less experienced people, even if the long term effect is increased consumer spending. It is after all why things like welfare exist. So peoples' lives aren't ruined, and the secondary effects of that happening on a wide scale.
larrys 14y ago
"It probably exists for a reason. Understand the reason. Then take action." Exactly. You can't defeat the "enemy" (for lack of a better way to put it) unless you understand what they are thinking, motives weaknesses etc. More typical that people want to put no effort into research or understanding and just have something work out. Laziness. The good news is that by putting in the effort you can easily take advantage of a typical shortcoming like this.
malandrew 14y ago
I absolutely do think that employers should only be able to ask how long you worked somewhere and not how long you worked there. Sites like linked in should give you the ability to only publicize tenure and not approximate dates of employment. I'm employed but but an issue like this is worrying for other reasons like the decision to take a break from the labor market and travel. What if I want to dip in my savings and travel for a year. I'm unemployed for greater than 6 months in such a situation but voluntarily so.
vec 14y ago
The reason here is that the interests of employers are misaligned with society's interests at large. Individual employers are clearly demonstrating that they have a disincentive, rational or otherwise, from hiring potential employees with large gaps in their resumes. This obviously will tend to feed back on itself, making long gaps longer and unemployable applicants even more unemployable as time passes. Society, on the other hand, has both economic and humanitarian interests in minimizing the number of unemployable individuals. Since the market has inadvertently began creating a large pool of these unemployable people, and it shows no sign of changing in the short to mid term, then society can and should apply non-market forces to advancing its interests. Honestly, I'm not sure if direct employment is the best solution; I'd probably prefer some variation on tax incentives for employers. But reaching for the hammer, as you put it, is not always a knee-jerk reaction and seems like a pretty rational instinct in this situation.
snowwrestler 14y ago
During the Great Depression, the government did exactly this, and it worked out extremely well. A lot of parks still use the infrastructure created by CCC employees, and the employees learned valuable work skills, earned a living, and were more productive in the economy and military once the spending boom of WWII began. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

rayiner 14y ago

Eh, there is something to what he's saying. The idea that the labor market behaves rationally is a childish fantasy. Employers are not rational. They do all sorts of irrational things, and discriminating against the long-term unemployed (and also women returning to the work force from motherhood) is one of those irrational things. It's almost a dating mentality. They jump to the conclusion: "well if nobody else wants him, why should I?" In reality, people can be long-term unemployed for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with them being a bad potential employee. Maybe they have really specialized skills or want a really specific kind of job--the nature of such situations is that there is going to be gaps in how long it takes to find the next employer looking for those very specific skills.

marknutter 14y ago
Well if they act irrationally they will be sufficiently punished by the market (no childish fantasy required). There aren't enough jobs? Then create more jobs. Starting a company, at my last check, is incredibly simple to do. Of course, turning a profit is hard, which is why people turn to the government to provide them with work rather than take the risk of starting a company. The government doesn't need to turn a profit, it collects taxes. Therefore it's a very attractive alternative to the cold, hard realities of the market. Of course, there's only so much tax money to go around..
- rayiner 14y ago
  The market doesn't punish the companies for irrational behavior when everyone engages in the same irrational behavior.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Why don't you engage in rational behavior and get rich?
    - jarek 14y ago
      "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"
      - yummyfajitas 14y ago
        Please go learn what this quote actually means (hint: it refers to speculation, not consumption).
        jarek 14y ago
        I know what this quote refers to (and it's not particularly kind of you to suggest I don't, if I may say). I meant to point out that engaging in "rational" behaviour when it comes to hiring in a market you perceive as behaving irrationally is no guarantee of becoming rich any more than engaging in "rational" behaviour when it comes to speculation.

danielweber 14y ago

Honestly, some real skills do disappear with long-term unemployment, like getting up on time every day. Even working a made-up job is probably better. But real job skills do disappear, too. If one person has been working with machine tools 40 hours a week while the other hasn't used machine tools for six months, hiring the first is the rational thing to do. Personally, as a software engineer, I've enjoyed my bouts of unemployment, because I've had the chance to deep dive into new things I never had the chance while working full time, and I've come out of them more employable. (Although I'm in the job hunt now while still employed, and recruiters and employers seem to be giant flakes, maybe because I'm not calling them twice a day, or maybe because they just suck.) But this isn't the norm.

arscan 14y ago
> If one person has been working with machine tools 40 hours a week while the other hasn't used machine tools for six months, hiring the first is the rational thing to do yes, but the point is that companies would even prefer hiring people that have been doing work in a different industry recently than someone who is 6 months unemployed but with experience in the same industry. I think it simply comes down to employers automatically assuming that you have some sort of major flaw if you've been unemployed for so long.
el_fuser 14y ago
* I've enjoyed my bouts of unemployment, because I've had the chance to deep dive into new things I never had the chance while working full time, and I've come out of them more employable.* It follows that staying in one job for a long period would tend to make you less employable... And indeed I've witnessed this very thing.

michaelochurch 14y ago

Here's a solution that doesn't require the government to hire long-term unemployed: lying on a resume or in an interview to conceal unemployment is now legal. (Well, technically, it was never illegal; just considered unethical.) You may: * Expand dates of any job by up to two months or 10% on each side, whichever is larger. * Bump an educational degree forward by up to 5 years if under 40, and 10 years if older. * Move any employment engagement translationally by up to three years. * Inflate title as long as it does not involve falsification of a professional credential (e.g. "Senior VP" is OK, "Physician" for a non-doctor is not). Anyone who is fired for such now-legal falsification must be given six months' severance or there is a wrongful termination claim. How does that sound to you? (I don't think it's a good idea, but it is an improvement over the system that exists now.)

mcherm 14y ago
I think it sounds like a terrible idea. As an applicant, I would never take advantage of it. As an employer I would never WANT to hire anyone who took advantage of it. A side effect would be that I would begin to distrust resumes and would therefore hire more by word-of-mouth instead, which would reduce opportunities for minorities and those less well-connected.
- lutorm 14y ago
  I would begin to distrust resumes You mean you now trust resumes?
  - mcherm 14y ago
    Um.... good point. I would trust resumes even LESS than I do now.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
sib 14y ago
If a candidate would lie about those things, they'd lie about things at work too.

afterburner 14y ago

Long term unemployment is intrinsically destructive, both to the individuals losing careers and money and to the economy as a whole. While understanding why it's happening is important, it's also important to compensate for it, for the good of society (and the economy) as a whole. Government is one of the few agencies that at least theoretically has the care of society as one of its goals; private corporations aren't going to give a sh*t, they're not going to "take one for the team" and hire less experienced people, even if the long term effect is increased consumer spending. It is after all why things like welfare exist. So peoples' lives aren't ruined, and the secondary effects of that happening on a wide scale.

larrys 14y ago

"It probably exists for a reason. Understand the reason. Then take action." Exactly. You can't defeat the "enemy" (for lack of a better way to put it) unless you understand what they are thinking, motives weaknesses etc. More typical that people want to put no effort into research or understanding and just have something work out. Laziness. The good news is that by putting in the effort you can easily take advantage of a typical shortcoming like this.

malandrew 14y ago

I absolutely do think that employers should only be able to ask how long you worked somewhere and not how long you worked there. Sites like linked in should give you the ability to only publicize tenure and not approximate dates of employment. I'm employed but but an issue like this is worrying for other reasons like the decision to take a break from the labor market and travel. What if I want to dip in my savings and travel for a year. I'm unemployed for greater than 6 months in such a situation but voluntarily so.

vec 14y ago

The reason here is that the interests of employers are misaligned with society's interests at large. Individual employers are clearly demonstrating that they have a disincentive, rational or otherwise, from hiring potential employees with large gaps in their resumes. This obviously will tend to feed back on itself, making long gaps longer and unemployable applicants even more unemployable as time passes. Society, on the other hand, has both economic and humanitarian interests in minimizing the number of unemployable individuals. Since the market has inadvertently began creating a large pool of these unemployable people, and it shows no sign of changing in the short to mid term, then society can and should apply non-market forces to advancing its interests. Honestly, I'm not sure if direct employment is the best solution; I'd probably prefer some variation on tax incentives for employers. But reaching for the hammer, as you put it, is not always a knee-jerk reaction and seems like a pretty rational instinct in this situation.

snowwrestler 14y ago

During the Great Depression, the government did exactly this, and it worked out extremely well. A lot of parks still use the infrastructure created by CCC employees, and the employees learned valuable work skills, earned a living, and were more productive in the economy and military once the spending boom of WWII began. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps