You say companies lack incentive to train b/c workers don't stay at one job anymore. Well, and whose fault is that? I believe workers on the whole prefer the security of job-for-life to the gig economy. It's their employers' outsourcing and denying responsibility to their workers that has workers going from one job to the next. Offer training and reasonable pay and perks -- you can keep 'em on the job, I'm sure.
36
I didn't see teachers on the chart but I know a lot of teachers that want to get out of that profession. I did get out a little over a year ago and have never been happier. I was lucky in that I had some previous business experience so was able to parlay that into a new job that I love with better pay to boot.
7
it amazes me that neither the UK or the US look at the way Grmany has developed non-university apprenticeship education - it is not an education for one menial job but it is a step by step program if the person wants or needs to be mor skilled in their fleld - as point of fact the Russian atomic energy and space program was populated mostly by people skilling up over a life tiime
why is it thought in these two countries that there should be no skill growth planned from the beginning?
why is it thought in these two countries that there should be no skill growth planned from the beginning?
14
I cannot speak for other states, but In California, it is not considered age discrimination to fire someone earning a relatively high wage to replace them with someone at a lower wage, even if the fired person is older and got his or her raises by proving his or her value. So even when a job is not automated out of existence, holding on to an existing job and one's current salary level is hard. Changing careers into a position where one has not proven their value is even harder and more insecure. Maybe the article's chart can suggest some options to laid-off workers, but it would only be helpful if employers followed it as well.
17
There are two problems with the current system:
1. Solely for corporate greed and to satisfy Wall Street, companies no longer pay to train or re-train workers. They now expect the taxpayers or the workers themselves to foot the bill. This is just another form of corporate welfare.
2. HR "gurus" have convinced their managements to hire only people whose skills match the exact specifications of the job descriptions, ensuring that folks who are adaptive and creative enough to quickly learn the tasks are disqualified. I can still remember a time when employers would hire some with the appropriate general skills and then let them "grow into" the job. Because of these ridiculous current policies in which companies refuse to take a chance on applicants, a lot of highly qualified people are being discarded.
1. Solely for corporate greed and to satisfy Wall Street, companies no longer pay to train or re-train workers. They now expect the taxpayers or the workers themselves to foot the bill. This is just another form of corporate welfare.
2. HR "gurus" have convinced their managements to hire only people whose skills match the exact specifications of the job descriptions, ensuring that folks who are adaptive and creative enough to quickly learn the tasks are disqualified. I can still remember a time when employers would hire some with the appropriate general skills and then let them "grow into" the job. Because of these ridiculous current policies in which companies refuse to take a chance on applicants, a lot of highly qualified people are being discarded.
27
This article has a great graphic. It would be even better if average salaries and the number of people employed in these jobs could be layered on, and if one could filter by geography. Plus some way to tie it to training required. It's a really useful canvas for showing young people what their choices are, in a meaningful way -- and helping workers who have lost jobs to come up with a list of new directions they can go in.
10
Everyone everyone agrees that those over 40 have a much more difficult time finding full-time, permanent employment even if they have great skills and experience. But why? Health insurance. A big part of why older workers are unattractive to employers is the cost of insuring them, and the possibility of an expensive health problem arising that will cost the employer both in money and in sick leave.
If we are serious about decent jobs for older workers, extending universal coverage (whether Medicare or Medicaid, with premiums on a sliding scale) is critical. Perhaps such coverage should be extended to all over 40. If we did that, younger people might actually be able to buy reasonably priced private insurance (taking the older and often sicker out of the market would lead to reduced premiums for the young and healthy) and older people could be judged on their skill set rather than their insurance cost.
If we are serious about decent jobs for older workers, extending universal coverage (whether Medicare or Medicaid, with premiums on a sliding scale) is critical. Perhaps such coverage should be extended to all over 40. If we did that, younger people might actually be able to buy reasonably priced private insurance (taking the older and often sicker out of the market would lead to reduced premiums for the young and healthy) and older people could be judged on their skill set rather than their insurance cost.
22
Hiring realities and skills aside, the worker also needs to be flexible and adapt to conditions which might not be as ideal as previous jobs, or to one's dream job.
I recall meeting an out-of-work computer system administrator Harvard alumn (thus presumably with skills in demand) who didn't want to work in the corporate world, even as jobs in the non-profit sector shrank during the recession. His disdain, whether due to personal ethos or workplace environment, prevented him from finding a new job
Sometimes compromises are required, esp compared to having no options at all.
I recall meeting an out-of-work computer system administrator Harvard alumn (thus presumably with skills in demand) who didn't want to work in the corporate world, even as jobs in the non-profit sector shrank during the recession. His disdain, whether due to personal ethos or workplace environment, prevented him from finding a new job
Sometimes compromises are required, esp compared to having no options at all.
5
I've made a pretty serious research project out of my own career transition, years in the making. Here's some observations from the front lines: much of career advice today suffers from a false assumption that jobs and work exist in some kind of steady state, that nothing really changes, that what was true a generation ago, or even 5 to 10 year back, must still be true today. Consider what's happening in retail today. Articles like these fail to account for the disruptive influences from technology right now. Jobs of medical doctors are being utterly transformed as machines today can use pattern recognition upon hundreds of millions of medical images to detect diseases like cancer better than a team of doctors. This is not science fiction but the reality of today's labor force.
6
Hiring organizations are partially culpable in many cases using automated software to scan resumes for keywords instead of reading resumes and applications. Good hiring managers understand the skills needed and can see the rounded peg that can be fit into the hole. Instead many are like the prince walking around with a glass slipper trying to find the perfect foot. This punishes both parties, the viable job candidate and the organization which is deprived of the human asset and its productivity during the prolonged search.
19
Excellent point! I was not contacted for two good jobs at the same company because of hiring software. My friend, who worked in the company's Human Resources, had my resume "pulled". I interviewed and was loved by the managers and directors. As a mater of fact, I was their favorite candidate. All their other candidates had been selected through the automated software. How insane. There I am, their best and favorite candidate, but not even considered due to some computer program! How many more like me out there?
19
See above. @ AusTex.
HR on the whole is any job seeker's biggest opponent.
Further, actual personnel replace themselves with scanning software.
How lazy and unproductive is that?
Further, actual personnel replace themselves with scanning software.
How lazy and unproductive is that?
9
If companies were to offer traditional defined-benefit pension plans instead of 401Ks, they could solve the problem of employees jumping ship after getting all that nice free training.
Invest in your people, and they will invest in you. The problem with today's capitalism is that investment is not for the long-term growth of either people or companies. It is for the short-term greed of Wall Street.
Invest in your people, and they will invest in you. The problem with today's capitalism is that investment is not for the long-term growth of either people or companies. It is for the short-term greed of Wall Street.
29
This is example of where unions could be helpful. By restricting employees ability to move around, the union gives the company an incentive to invest in people. Now unions also cost employer more in terms of higher wages, but you can see how both sides can benefit from a union. The problem comes in when unions get too militant like they were back in the 1950s and 60s where they are extracting too high a price. The reality now though is that free trade places limits on the unions power. Just look at Germany for an example of a country that seems to get the business - union power balance right.
7
I switched careers just before I turned 40, nearly 20 years ago. The only reason then that I retrained was because a friend, not the labor department in NY, told me about the retraining programs. Now I'm 58 and looking for a job for the 4th time in 4 years. I was downsized from a job 3 months before I turned 55. I can't afford to go back to school. The retraining programs in NY state require you to prove that you can benefit from retraining, only set aside 3K per person and it's a one time offer. Most of what they offer isn't quality training. It's fly by night and, unless you're lucky, won't lead to a new job.
In this country at this time and for the past 40 years, employers have not invested in employees. Nor has the country. It has protected employers rights to fire anyone for any reason, to treat potential and actual employees like criminals, to intrude into our private lives, and to require us to give up our civil rights at the door step of our job and sometimes beyond. There are no offers to help people relocate. Older employees are discriminated against because of age, cost, and experience. Jobs are reclassified as entry level but with requirements that indicate 3-4 years experience is necessary.
There's no shortage of Americans willing to fill jobs. There's a shortage of employers willing to hire and train. And after a certain point switching careers doesn't make sense, particularly when the problem isn't skills but age discrimination.
In this country at this time and for the past 40 years, employers have not invested in employees. Nor has the country. It has protected employers rights to fire anyone for any reason, to treat potential and actual employees like criminals, to intrude into our private lives, and to require us to give up our civil rights at the door step of our job and sometimes beyond. There are no offers to help people relocate. Older employees are discriminated against because of age, cost, and experience. Jobs are reclassified as entry level but with requirements that indicate 3-4 years experience is necessary.
There's no shortage of Americans willing to fill jobs. There's a shortage of employers willing to hire and train. And after a certain point switching careers doesn't make sense, particularly when the problem isn't skills but age discrimination.
121
Actually, on the experimental side machining skills are very useful in physics.
The necessary work is of a custom and not routine nature, however.
The necessary work is of a custom and not routine nature, however.
7
This is so typical of the misleading and often false conservative narratives spewed out in The Upshot. "Switching careers doesn't have to be hard"? Did you write this with a straight face?
The real world says older workers are not going to get decent jobs. The real world knows that older workers, burdened with mortgages and tuition costs for children, can't afford to "retrain."
I would suggest the authors put away the glitzy charts, and get a clue about the real world.
The real world says older workers are not going to get decent jobs. The real world knows that older workers, burdened with mortgages and tuition costs for children, can't afford to "retrain."
I would suggest the authors put away the glitzy charts, and get a clue about the real world.
81
And so much age discrimination it isn't funny; now I guess only millennials can do the jobs!
27
Sure, except you need 4 years experience for every job...The reality is employers have been spoiled beyond belief by an oversupply of workers due largely to our generous legal and illegal immigration system and also trade deals that eased the way for outsourcing. So the real solution is for them to stop being so picky and hire people willing to learn and then train them. In short the governments response to employers complaining about a skills gap should be a big shrug instead of more coddling. Though the government should definitely help potential employees deal with the system wrought by their actions.
14
I appreciate the comprehensive analysis that Claire Cain Miller and Quoctrung Bui have done of the "skills gap" in the U.S. We face a serious challenge moving workers from "fading jobs" to "growing jobs." Clearly, workers need many different options to fit their particular situations: further post-secondary education; apprenticeships; workplace training programs; job counseling; job boards; cash grants for taking classes; wage insurance; relocation grants; etc. However, missing from this national conversation about the skills gap is an examination of the workplace experience that makes many employers unappealing to job-changers.
Most workplaces are unpleasant places to work and most managers are not very good at managing people. Why would people want to work in a company where they are not respected, where they are not trusted, where they do not have an opportunity to apply the knowledge and skills for which they thought they were hired, where there is little opportunity to learn and grow, where the performance goals are not clear, where they are chastised for trying something new when it doesn’t work out, where they are discouraged from collaborating with people in other units of the company, where they receive feedback only once a year at a perfunctory performance review meeting, and where pay and benefits are awarded unfairly? It isn’t enough to get people into jobs; we should also be helping them stay in their jobs, be successful, and develop career competencies.
Most workplaces are unpleasant places to work and most managers are not very good at managing people. Why would people want to work in a company where they are not respected, where they are not trusted, where they do not have an opportunity to apply the knowledge and skills for which they thought they were hired, where there is little opportunity to learn and grow, where the performance goals are not clear, where they are chastised for trying something new when it doesn’t work out, where they are discouraged from collaborating with people in other units of the company, where they receive feedback only once a year at a perfunctory performance review meeting, and where pay and benefits are awarded unfairly? It isn’t enough to get people into jobs; we should also be helping them stay in their jobs, be successful, and develop career competencies.
38
I have a Masters in Music from a well known Conservatory. I had no idea at age 17 that this was a dead end. I thought that at the very least I would be able to get a teaching job, but I graduated during a recession (in the 70's) and even those were not available. So I worked part time as a receptionist and went back to school part time to study computer programming. Then got a job as a trainee. The timing could not have been better for that career. This was a valuable lesson in the laws of supply and demand.
I have many friends that have degrees in music, or double majors, that have been forced to find other jobs. All have been quite successful. One recently got a library science degree in her 50's and is now a head librarian at a community college.
I believe that, since we were all forced to find careers in fields that were not our first choice, we became more flexible and resilient and are better able to handle adversity. Perhaps other workers could learn from our experiences.
I have many friends that have degrees in music, or double majors, that have been forced to find other jobs. All have been quite successful. One recently got a library science degree in her 50's and is now a head librarian at a community college.
I believe that, since we were all forced to find careers in fields that were not our first choice, we became more flexible and resilient and are better able to handle adversity. Perhaps other workers could learn from our experiences.
27
One thing that is not often mentioned is that automation is not just about physical labor. In fact, automation of certain kinds of knowledge work is becoming easier with the rise of cloud computing and deep learning systems like Google's TensorFlow and IBM's Watson. Anything involving pattern recognition like radiology or stock trading is ripe for automation. This is happening now.
Contrast this with physical labor where a machine must be designed and built for a specific task. Humans are good general-purpose robots, and we are still a ways from androids. Some high-employment physical jobs like "driver" are ripe for automation in the near future, but I advise people to look for work that has a physical or social component (engineering, welding, home care, high touch sales). These will have longer lifetimes.
Contrast this with physical labor where a machine must be designed and built for a specific task. Humans are good general-purpose robots, and we are still a ways from androids. Some high-employment physical jobs like "driver" are ripe for automation in the near future, but I advise people to look for work that has a physical or social component (engineering, welding, home care, high touch sales). These will have longer lifetimes.
6
About "physical", while there's a lack of truck drivers, I've seen "physical" manufacturing jobs that require basic, repetitive movements become automated.
4
"[E]mployers have less incentive to invest in training workers in new skills, because they might quit and take those skills to a competitor . . ."
True, but causation runs the other way. If an employer invests in training a worker, the worker becomes more valuable. If the employer wants to keep that more valuable worker, the employer should pay the employee more. If the employer doesn't, the employee will leave. It is employer reluctance to pay the employee what the employee is worth that causes the employee to leave.
After a decade or more of a slack labor market and stagnant wages, employers have become accustomed to getting the skills they want in the labor market instead of investing in human capital in house. That is about to change as labor shortages develop. Get used to it.
True, but causation runs the other way. If an employer invests in training a worker, the worker becomes more valuable. If the employer wants to keep that more valuable worker, the employer should pay the employee more. If the employer doesn't, the employee will leave. It is employer reluctance to pay the employee what the employee is worth that causes the employee to leave.
After a decade or more of a slack labor market and stagnant wages, employers have become accustomed to getting the skills they want in the labor market instead of investing in human capital in house. That is about to change as labor shortages develop. Get used to it.
26
Perhaps the most important quote in the article: "...go back to school and figure out some other type of profession." This is good advice for anyone.
Thus in 1973, about one-third of the occupations listed in O*NET required less than a high school diploma. By 1992, that fraction had dropped to 10%, and by 2016, less than 5% of occupations can be done by someone with less than a high school education.
Mathematics has become increasingly important. Thus in 2002, the O*NET survey of job analysts and incumbents concluded that about 13% of the occupations required a mathematical knowledge level of 4 or higher, corresponding to the ability to analyze data to determine the areas with the highest sales. By 2014, that level of knowledge was required in at least 30% of the occupations. Of even greater importance is the fact that many occupations with minimal mathematical requirements in 2002 saw a substantial increase in those requirements by 2014. Thus, of the 341 occupations that, in 2002, required only a level 2 of mathematical knowledge (just above that required to add two numbers), 151---nearly half---now require more. Consequently a person whose mathematics education qualified them for a job in 2002 might be unprepared for the same job in 2014!
The bottom line: Unless you are continuously upgrading your education, you WILL become unemployable.
Thus in 1973, about one-third of the occupations listed in O*NET required less than a high school diploma. By 1992, that fraction had dropped to 10%, and by 2016, less than 5% of occupations can be done by someone with less than a high school education.
Mathematics has become increasingly important. Thus in 2002, the O*NET survey of job analysts and incumbents concluded that about 13% of the occupations required a mathematical knowledge level of 4 or higher, corresponding to the ability to analyze data to determine the areas with the highest sales. By 2014, that level of knowledge was required in at least 30% of the occupations. Of even greater importance is the fact that many occupations with minimal mathematical requirements in 2002 saw a substantial increase in those requirements by 2014. Thus, of the 341 occupations that, in 2002, required only a level 2 of mathematical knowledge (just above that required to add two numbers), 151---nearly half---now require more. Consequently a person whose mathematics education qualified them for a job in 2002 might be unprepared for the same job in 2014!
The bottom line: Unless you are continuously upgrading your education, you WILL become unemployable.
9
I read Jeff Suzuki's comment and thought to myself that he likely works in higher education, and is part of the "take out loans, put yourself in more debt, and go back to school for something that may be completely useless and may never get you a better job or more money" scam.
Then I noticed it says "Brooklyn College" right next to his name. I was right.
The entire higher education industry endlessly promotes the idea that "education" is the key to success in life. And that "education" means enrolling in one of it's appallingly expensive programs, usually via loans that are non-dischargable in bankruptcy court.
Luckily it seems that many Americans are starting to recognizing the "education" industry for what it is: a money grab.
Then I noticed it says "Brooklyn College" right next to his name. I was right.
The entire higher education industry endlessly promotes the idea that "education" is the key to success in life. And that "education" means enrolling in one of it's appallingly expensive programs, usually via loans that are non-dischargable in bankruptcy court.
Luckily it seems that many Americans are starting to recognizing the "education" industry for what it is: a money grab.
24
I also work in higher education, but I think the truth is somewhere in between RFB and Jeff Suzuki. We do need to be constantly learning and upgrading our skills, but the opportunities to do so through informal education have never been greater. "Going back to school" is the right choice for some, and can be tremendously valuable. I myself have done it twice with big payoffs in salary and job quality. But I have also been diligent about growing my skills through things like professional associations, Toastmasters, volunteerism, and adult education.
I think what has been exposed in our economy is that some workers' education stopped short of learning how to learn. If you can read and write competently, the Internet is a tremendous gift. If you can't, the internet has given everyone else in the world a huge advantage.
I think what has been exposed in our economy is that some workers' education stopped short of learning how to learn. If you can read and write competently, the Internet is a tremendous gift. If you can't, the internet has given everyone else in the world a huge advantage.
11
You can educate yourself online today for free. Start with https://www.khanacademy.org/ Then take some standardized test that will demonstrate you have mastered the subject. That might make a potential employer fairly confident you know your stuff, even if you lack the degree, and take a chance on you. It would demonstrate initiative and self-motivation too.
1
I guess I should be happy that my job (industrial-organizational psychologist) is ranked #2 as the "least automatable" but I'm more thankful that I'm self-employed as switching careers even to a related profession at 53 years old would be extremely difficult in the best of circumstances.
14
Many new jobs need math. Japanese factories learned 50 years ago that ordinary workers can grasp plenty of necessary math. As long as it's applied to what they know, people learn. Math and algorithm intuition is not restricted to high IQs. The Qwerty system lasts because of people who know it and want to keep it, and inertia resists change, Coders will promote obtuse computer languages for the same reason, and systems won't change. Or they will, if people recognize need and do something.
5
This scenario sounds great for this guy in the article but this is not the "norm." The NYT would have been better off to look at the older workers who are being laid off at 50 due to their age, cannot find work, have no health insurance, are too young to retire and find themselves working at Wal-Mart because that is their only option. This is happening everywhere! Who is going to retrain the 55 year old white male? No one.
52
Anita, employers don't want to retrain or hire anyone over the age of 45, who has more than 10 years experience in any field, who has ever held a responsible job, who has a family, who has a life. Employers like to think they own us and the US government, with the way it sides with employers, encourages that delusion. Furthermore, employers and politicians encourage working age people who are unemployed and can't find jobs for whatever reason to consider themselves worthless failures. America offers plenty to big corporations and big corporations routinely pay their CEOs and other executive level people enough in perks and salary to own a small country. We get the rest which isn't enough and we're blamed for that.
In America it's not the minimum wage or workers salaries that are too high. It's executive level pay and perks that are too high. They have the money to reinvent themselves. We don't.
In America it's not the minimum wage or workers salaries that are too high. It's executive level pay and perks that are too high. They have the money to reinvent themselves. We don't.
39
When you are in 50s, you have to factor in these things in your career options: 1)investing more than a year in retraining is both expensive and risky, 2)even if you obtained this special skill, unless it is very rare, there's still a good chance you'll be overlooked because your work history is "complicated" or unusual, 3)medical careers are fraught with uncertainty right now, 4)a higher percentage of jobs are in "gigs" rather than 40 hour professions. With gigs or contract work, you need to market yourself a lot, it takes a while to get rolling and the income may not be sufficient enough to justify the investment in new skills. Finally, I wish to state that the social pressure (from family and friends) to settle for a low-paying retail job in the meantime is just too overwhelming -- even though almost none of them pay a livable wage.
47
Try, as a former executive, to get ANY job. We are not "credible" and expected to lie on resumes. A LOT of iterations on paper or online just to get employment and work to maintain dignity. I know how to answer a phone as I answered my own. Yet without experience specific to same, Ii am "not qualified." The number of references related to same? The onus remains upon the Job Seeker.
"Because people rarely spend their entire careers at one company anymore, employers have less incentive to invest in training workers in new skills, because they might quit and take those skills to a competitor, said David Deming, a professor of public policy, education and economics at Harvard."
And yet there is a significant body of research showing that training, development, and other forms of investment in people increases the likelihood that they will stay or at least stay longer.
Yes, there is a risk that the employee who is well-trained and invested in may quit thus helping the competition, but the greater risk is that the under-trained and under-invested in employee will stay, thus REALLY helping the competition.
And yet there is a significant body of research showing that training, development, and other forms of investment in people increases the likelihood that they will stay or at least stay longer.
Yes, there is a risk that the employee who is well-trained and invested in may quit thus helping the competition, but the greater risk is that the under-trained and under-invested in employee will stay, thus REALLY helping the competition.
23
Yes, its interesting that Germany, where companies invest in apprenticeships, and where unions and management work together, doesn't have problems with employees bailing.
When companies invest in workers, and are loyal to them, workers are loyal to the companies. In the US today, companies treat workers like disposables. Its no surprise workers look out for themselves. They have to.
When companies invest in workers, and are loyal to them, workers are loyal to the companies. In the US today, companies treat workers like disposables. Its no surprise workers look out for themselves. They have to.
7
What’s the latest on the employment-affecting areas of non-cash-paid overtime, noncompete clauses, globalization, measuring worker performance, Amazon’s retail automation efforts and prospects, artificial intelligence, people self-automating their jobs, and the effect of e-commerce on geographic worker distribution? All that is at http://worksnewage.blogspot.com/2017/07/one-off-responses-to-nine-weeks-....
5
38% of American workers made less than $20,000 last year
51% of American workers made less than $30,000 last year
62% of American workers made less than $40,000 last year
71% of American workers made less than $50,000 last year.
If you lose a decent paying job, you're very unlikely to find another. Income Inequality is a feature of capitalism.
51% of American workers made less than $30,000 last year
62% of American workers made less than $40,000 last year
71% of American workers made less than $50,000 last year.
If you lose a decent paying job, you're very unlikely to find another. Income Inequality is a feature of capitalism.
78
It's difficult enough changing jobs within your own field due to many employers' imposition of non-compete clauses in contracts, which reduce the latitude people looking for work have, and bind them to their employer. If, like CA, state governments were to see these clauses as restrictions on both trade and individual rights, the US would have a much more liquid labor market, and job-seekers would be able to demand the remuneration they deserve from their employers - which is precisely why employers will fight tooth and nail to prevent this.
25
The biggest obstacle is HR. They care more about paper than skills.
31
Agreed. Too many HR websites screen out candidates who could be suitable.
19
As someone well past her 20s, I am very familiar with the realities of how ageism and the corporate desire for cheap over experienced makes this an awful time to be over 40 and un(der)employed.
I made it through a voluntary career change (initiated before the 2008 bust, or I probably wouldn't have had the nerve). But my new location puts me in close touch with a lot of family members in their 20s -- nieces, nephews, second cousins etc. They are, for the most part, very bright, hard workers, dedicated -- good students and hard workers who pursued work experience aggressively and have good resumes. And they are all underemployed in terms of salary, security, and job promotion potential, even those who have landed in and done well in professional jobs. They may be getting the jobs, but no one wants to commit to them and no one wants to raise their salaries to the kind of range that will let them live like young, independent adults.
It is very scary to think of growing old and being underemployed. But it strikes me that with the exception of the very top percentiles, the 20 year olds are getting screwed even as they get the jobs. Our corporatist, hedge-fund driven, short-term-profits-and-bonuses-are-next-to-godliness capitalism does not make for a healthy democratic republic or a healthy society. Then indirectly telling both the old and the young that they are to blame for not being more flexible or forward thinking etc. seems like blaming the victim to me.
I made it through a voluntary career change (initiated before the 2008 bust, or I probably wouldn't have had the nerve). But my new location puts me in close touch with a lot of family members in their 20s -- nieces, nephews, second cousins etc. They are, for the most part, very bright, hard workers, dedicated -- good students and hard workers who pursued work experience aggressively and have good resumes. And they are all underemployed in terms of salary, security, and job promotion potential, even those who have landed in and done well in professional jobs. They may be getting the jobs, but no one wants to commit to them and no one wants to raise their salaries to the kind of range that will let them live like young, independent adults.
It is very scary to think of growing old and being underemployed. But it strikes me that with the exception of the very top percentiles, the 20 year olds are getting screwed even as they get the jobs. Our corporatist, hedge-fund driven, short-term-profits-and-bonuses-are-next-to-godliness capitalism does not make for a healthy democratic republic or a healthy society. Then indirectly telling both the old and the young that they are to blame for not being more flexible or forward thinking etc. seems like blaming the victim to me.
92
It helps to have an education, as I had. I went from electronic sales to electronic purchasing to contract negotiation to unemployed. Eventually finding a low paying job, I went to law school at night. Then into the best career of my life, at age 50. For a person with little education in a low level job, the chances for success are slim.
23
Gee a retraining program. I wonder who offered that 6 years ago.
14
Of course you can change careers. You're free to do it if you want.
But there's a little problem with this: workforce is a commodity, you sell it to your employer in exchange for a given quantity of money, called salary or wage. That means the employer buys the workforce from the worker, who sells it to the employer.
Let's put it another way: since capitalism is the society of commodities, which you need to buy in the market (hence the term "market economy"), that means the employer goes to the workforce market and buys the workforce he or she needs. The fact that the most usual is for the worker to phisically dislocate in space and time (both to get education and to meet the employer him/herself in a job interview) to meet the employer's need doesn't change this basic economic transaction: ultimately, it is the employer who decides which to buy and how much.
As with any kind of commodity, the employer will use any quantity he or she wants (salary) for the time he or she needs it (employment time). This is beyond, on a macroeconomic sphere, the workers' will or power. The employer goes to the workforce market in order to buy, the cheapest and the best, workforce he or she needs for as long as he or she needs it.
Long story short: the demand for workforce will always come from the employer, never from the worker (employee). A worker (as a seller of workforce) will never, as a whole (a class), produce his or her own demand.
But there's a little problem with this: workforce is a commodity, you sell it to your employer in exchange for a given quantity of money, called salary or wage. That means the employer buys the workforce from the worker, who sells it to the employer.
Let's put it another way: since capitalism is the society of commodities, which you need to buy in the market (hence the term "market economy"), that means the employer goes to the workforce market and buys the workforce he or she needs. The fact that the most usual is for the worker to phisically dislocate in space and time (both to get education and to meet the employer him/herself in a job interview) to meet the employer's need doesn't change this basic economic transaction: ultimately, it is the employer who decides which to buy and how much.
As with any kind of commodity, the employer will use any quantity he or she wants (salary) for the time he or she needs it (employment time). This is beyond, on a macroeconomic sphere, the workers' will or power. The employer goes to the workforce market in order to buy, the cheapest and the best, workforce he or she needs for as long as he or she needs it.
Long story short: the demand for workforce will always come from the employer, never from the worker (employee). A worker (as a seller of workforce) will never, as a whole (a class), produce his or her own demand.
15
I realize everyone is different and in different circumstances. However, I changed my career by doing a masters degree at UC Berkeley while still working full time at the age of 53, and finished just before my 55th birthday. I'm up against lots of younger people, in the tech industry and in the SF Bay Area. Yet I have had no problems finding a job in a new career. Yes, I'm making a bit less than I was, and that's OK. Yes, I incurred student loan debt which I paid off as fast as possible. It's been very hard and very challenging, to say the least. People actually look to me in interviews and on my team as someone who is steady and experienced (in life if not in the tech) - and what seems to really have an impact is that I completed a masters at an institution like UC Berkeley while working full time more than anything; it gets me noticed. If we decided we needed to move for a better job we'd have no problem doing so even though we leave friends and family behind; we've done it before and we'd do it again.
I am completely behind better funding for retraining programs and matching people to programs but I also think that there is a measure of personal responsibility involved.
I am completely behind better funding for retraining programs and matching people to programs but I also think that there is a measure of personal responsibility involved.
27
You were lucky enough to have the kind of intellectual ability to flourish at Berkeley. That has nothing to do with personal responsibility. True, you made the most of the gifts God gave you, but there is something dreadfully wrong with an economy in which only a small fraction of people can aspire to a stable job and financial security.
23
@ Adam Smith - I agree with you. All 3 elements of motivation, personal responsibility, and planning go into a successful job/career change. I give you a lot of credit for making a switch in your 50s. I think if you're a certain type of motivated, charismatic person, it's easier to get a job and/or start your own business. But there is also no mistaking that the job market has become increasingly challenging (less pay, less benefits, retraining on the individual's dime, etc.) despite the fact that we have full employment. We have shifted to an automated, global economy where the ordinary worker will have to remain extremely competitive to get ahead.
4
Nope, the ordinary worker is still going to be ordinary--even in the 21st century. They're not trying to get ahead, they just want to get by.
7
While we're all concerned about the rights of transgendered people in the military, there are at least a few million people out of work because of being over 50 years old. What about the rights of those who are discriminated against because of their age? Yes, there may be laws but are they ever truly enforced?
People over 50 still have to eat and keep a roof over their heads too.
People over 50 still have to eat and keep a roof over their heads too.
98
Today's employers typically want employees who meet the rule of 24s: They are twenty four years old, willing to work for $24,000 per year, and can work 24 hours-a-day. Older workers in today's marketplace don't stand a chance, even if they have a degree or special training.
And what are the jobs that have the most openings today? According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the top 5 are retail salespersons, cashiers, food prep and serving workers, waiters and waitressess, and registered nurses. Only one of those occupations pays a living wage and the rest will probably be obsolete in several years. There may be a lot of unfilled jobs in this country, but for the average Ameican above the age of forty, the long-term prospects are not good.
And what are the jobs that have the most openings today? According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the top 5 are retail salespersons, cashiers, food prep and serving workers, waiters and waitressess, and registered nurses. Only one of those occupations pays a living wage and the rest will probably be obsolete in several years. There may be a lot of unfilled jobs in this country, but for the average Ameican above the age of forty, the long-term prospects are not good.
63
Age discrimination is illegal, but the law is never enforced.
Housing laws were enforced using testers, pairs who asked about the same homes with different results.
Testing employers could be done without leaving the office. Just apply on the company web site with only age differences. However, the will to deal with violators is sadly lacking. As a result, job changers over about 45 have no shot at true professional jobs regardless of retraining.
Housing laws were enforced using testers, pairs who asked about the same homes with different results.
Testing employers could be done without leaving the office. Just apply on the company web site with only age differences. However, the will to deal with violators is sadly lacking. As a result, job changers over about 45 have no shot at true professional jobs regardless of retraining.
38
In my particular business situation, we had to set up a formal training program because none of the community colleges or even proprietary schools train people for the jobs we have. In other words, we had to create an apprenticeship program at our own expense. It has worked quite well for both younger and older people in career transitions. Most of our apprentices have been successful and have stayed on with full time jobs. The pay level is definitely not the highest, but we really, actually do pay for about 90% of the health insurance premium, match the 401k, and give a bit each year in profit sharing whether people contribute to the 401k or not. I would love if the feds would give us money to help support the apprenticeships we have and that others might create.
A point missing from the article is that many good jobs with high pay are still dirty jobs. Welding and auto mechanics come to mind. There is a huge shortage of qualified applicants. The jobs now require higher cognitive skills than in the past but they still are dirty. No-one wants to get dirty, yet a recent article which I believe was in the NYT said that a good auto mechanic can make $125,000 a year. That is well above most 4 year college graduates. and even many with graduate degrees. If you have some technical/math aptitude and are willing to get dirty, you don't need a degree. You do need technical training at the community college or trade school level.
A point missing from the article is that many good jobs with high pay are still dirty jobs. Welding and auto mechanics come to mind. There is a huge shortage of qualified applicants. The jobs now require higher cognitive skills than in the past but they still are dirty. No-one wants to get dirty, yet a recent article which I believe was in the NYT said that a good auto mechanic can make $125,000 a year. That is well above most 4 year college graduates. and even many with graduate degrees. If you have some technical/math aptitude and are willing to get dirty, you don't need a degree. You do need technical training at the community college or trade school level.
41
My stepson was not academic and not doing well in high school. At 15, he got into the automotive vocational ed program -- it was fantastic for him. He graduated the top of his class. He was recruited right out of high school at the largest Ford dealership in our state, which gave him paid time off to get his professional licensure at the local community college. They were willing to pay for 2 years of community college towards an AA degree, but my stepson (as I said) was not academic, so he just got the certification.
He started at $19 an hour at age 18, and by 21, he was making well over $30 an hour and getting regular raises -- PLUS health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance and a good 401K plan. He also got discounts on Ford automobiles and bought his first new car.
But I'd have to say $125K is probably the absolute tippy top of auto mechanic pay -- it would mean working 70 hours a week, and getting overtime pay. Brutally hard if you are over 35 or 40. It is hard, dirty work done in all kinds of weather -- very hot in summer, bitterly cold in winter.
It is not for everyone.
He started at $19 an hour at age 18, and by 21, he was making well over $30 an hour and getting regular raises -- PLUS health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance and a good 401K plan. He also got discounts on Ford automobiles and bought his first new car.
But I'd have to say $125K is probably the absolute tippy top of auto mechanic pay -- it would mean working 70 hours a week, and getting overtime pay. Brutally hard if you are over 35 or 40. It is hard, dirty work done in all kinds of weather -- very hot in summer, bitterly cold in winter.
It is not for everyone.
13
Yeah, really. The guy who installed my new oil burner made $3,000 in one day. I, with my two Masters degrees, will never come close to that. If I had kids I would tell them to become plumbers or electricians, those people make serious bank and don't spend a fortune in student loans to get there.
3
What new skills do you recommend to the one million H-1B Visa holders who will soon be returning to their own country?
9
They'll be among the best educated people in "their own" country. Meanwhile, in our own country ... Just maybe, employers might break down and offer a decent wage to somewhere towards a million native-born and naturalized immigrant workers who supposedly couldn't be found before.
13
Obviously, it's time for a "Marshall Plan" for re-educating the US work force. Why have we never had a government commitment to this?
Because our politicians are owned by the wealthy, who couldn't care less about American workers.
And this is bipartisan: Schumer proposed a jobs training program along with a corporate tax cut. I guess we're not supposed to pay any attention to the fact that corporate America is already awash in money.
Nothing will get better for workers so long as big money controls Washington.
Because our politicians are owned by the wealthy, who couldn't care less about American workers.
And this is bipartisan: Schumer proposed a jobs training program along with a corporate tax cut. I guess we're not supposed to pay any attention to the fact that corporate America is already awash in money.
Nothing will get better for workers so long as big money controls Washington.
30
The reality is far more complicated than the article presents. As some commenters have noted, it is difficult and expensive to retrain past a certain point in your career. I have a friend who's 60. He's been out of work for 1.5 years. I have made many suggestions to him, but he has ignored them all. He wants another job making 6 figures. To him anything else is a waste of time. IMO, it's not likely he'll get a job like that unless he knows someone, which, unfortunately, he doesn't. I've encouraged him to pursue other possibilities, but he won't. In today's market, you need to be flexible and sometimes you need to be willing to work for less than your previous job. And even then there's no guarantee, especially if you're older.
I used to be an accountant and retrained to be an occupational therapist. It took me 7 years to make this transition. I still have over $50K of debt from grad school. Re-training is not as easy as 1-2-3. At the age of 48, I certainly couldn't retrain like this again. I can't afford it.
When it comes to relocating for a job, be very careful if you don't have family and financial support in the new area. I relocated to Sacramento from NYC for a new job and it wasn't anything like what was discussed in the interview. I quit after 10 weeks and went though a series of bad jobs till I got in with some decent employers. But not everyone can do this. In some fields, it can take a year to get a decent job.
Sadly, there is no stability in the workplace.
I used to be an accountant and retrained to be an occupational therapist. It took me 7 years to make this transition. I still have over $50K of debt from grad school. Re-training is not as easy as 1-2-3. At the age of 48, I certainly couldn't retrain like this again. I can't afford it.
When it comes to relocating for a job, be very careful if you don't have family and financial support in the new area. I relocated to Sacramento from NYC for a new job and it wasn't anything like what was discussed in the interview. I quit after 10 weeks and went though a series of bad jobs till I got in with some decent employers. But not everyone can do this. In some fields, it can take a year to get a decent job.
Sadly, there is no stability in the workplace.
59
Retraining or better. going back to school for allied health profession costs often 100k these day and programs are highly competitive.Sure, right now the job market is good but what is going to happen after the new health bill is pushed through. Owing $$$$ in student loans for an older adult needs to be very carefully considered. IMO the government needs to support and create these retraining programs.
15
@ Karen B - I'm not advocating retraining in allied health. I'm just stating it takes a long time and $$$ to do so. Just like everyone else, we are being asked to do more with less. It's stressful and IMO, it puts patients at risk. I wouldn't advise an older adult to go into healthcare. It can be very physically and emotionally demanding.
11
I second all your cautions, but I'd say that not only do you need to be willing to work for less than your previous work, but that even then you'll face massive age discrimination and find it difficult to get a a job doing anything that's noticeably above minimum wage. If you're older than, say, 28 or so, that is. Yes, even if you have a college degree or two. Every day on the car radio I hear more ads from a tech company that promises to help employers hire only "the perfect" employee so they don't (presumably) waste their time with the rest of us. And this is despite a low official unemployment rate, when you'd think employers would be happy to find even halfway-decent employees still available for them to hire.
7
You could start a new business, but .... Trumpcare!
You could go back to school, but .... where are you going to get healthcare after the repeal?
You could temporarily work a couple of part time jobs, but .... what if your kid gets sick and there's no more Medicaid money left in your state?
You could start over again in a new state, but will it have an health insurance market?
This has got to be the worst time in modern US history to think about switching careers. Health care uncertainty makes employment mobility a non-starter for many Americans.
You could go back to school, but .... where are you going to get healthcare after the repeal?
You could temporarily work a couple of part time jobs, but .... what if your kid gets sick and there's no more Medicaid money left in your state?
You could start over again in a new state, but will it have an health insurance market?
This has got to be the worst time in modern US history to think about switching careers. Health care uncertainty makes employment mobility a non-starter for many Americans.
161
Tone, I hear you. At 40 years old I changed careers 8 years ago, going back to school and starting all over. It was was the hardest thing I ever did. I was lucky enough to have insurance thru school, but after I graduated I had 2 part-time jobs and no coverage. This was pre-ACA and I was denied coverage for $10,000 deductible plans from many companies because of pre-existing conditions. Thank goodness, I lived in Maryland a qualified for subsidized insurance. I once went four weeks w/o coverage and I was scared to death something would happen to me. I was lucky cos of geography. I know it and pray every day that ACA remains and is improved on. Also, it was hard, but changing careers was the best choice. I am so much more happier. Make less money, but my life is so much better.
11
That is a valid and important point. One more reason to call our representatives and ask them what the Trump they are thinking. They do not address the underlying structural problems that hobble the US economy and labor market, they perform window dressing because they are all totally detached from reality.
So, of course, is Trump, although he is telling his supporters otherwise.
So, of course, is Trump, although he is telling his supporters otherwise.
1
In my working career, admittedly here in Silicon Valley, I switched jobs 6 times (over 50 years). All were in the computer, hard science and communications field. Worked for myself and for several start-ups, went through a couple of acquisitions and my last company went public, which changed things A LOT! But, in this period, changing jobs was probably easier than today. As an aside, I had to work at it to continue health insurance coverage, which is why I really really thought Obamacare was a terrific step forward. A major medical problem could have put us under; it never happened, but it could, and STILL could. Nowadays, we're on Medicare, for which I've paid in about $1Million, so I consider this an PAID-UP "entitlement."
19
'' he couldn’t find a stable new job of the kind he had trained for, because all the oil and coal mining companies in the area were shutting down. ''
I don't know. I am not attacking anyone that wishes to stay where they are ( where they grew up ) when they suddenly become unemployed and don't wish to move. I just have thoughts and visions of wagon trains and people moving across the country in search of a better life.
I can only speak for meself, but I was in a similar situation ( a couple of times ) and had to move to find employment. One of those times, I was apart from my family for an extended period to reorganize and put food on the table for all involved. I went to where the work was.
Aye, it is not easy, but if there is one major component that is available now, that wasn't before, is that the ACA ( Obama\Cares ) allows mobility of health care from job to job. No longer, are you wedded to a job due only to the benefits.
The powers that be would have you stay put and work for less ( subservient ) at another job in your locale. ( with no training for another as well )
I don't know. I am not attacking anyone that wishes to stay where they are ( where they grew up ) when they suddenly become unemployed and don't wish to move. I just have thoughts and visions of wagon trains and people moving across the country in search of a better life.
I can only speak for meself, but I was in a similar situation ( a couple of times ) and had to move to find employment. One of those times, I was apart from my family for an extended period to reorganize and put food on the table for all involved. I went to where the work was.
Aye, it is not easy, but if there is one major component that is available now, that wasn't before, is that the ACA ( Obama\Cares ) allows mobility of health care from job to job. No longer, are you wedded to a job due only to the benefits.
The powers that be would have you stay put and work for less ( subservient ) at another job in your locale. ( with no training for another as well )
21
It is likely you have an adventuresome personality streak. Some just don't.
But more importantly, there are limits to moving to where work is. If you try to move internationally, the world says, "economic migrant--no".
But more importantly, there are limits to moving to where work is. If you try to move internationally, the world says, "economic migrant--no".
7
@mjb
I wanted to run away and join the circus ( but I don't like to talk about that ..sigh )
You are more than right about how people don't want to move and there are limits, but ( at least in the oil and gas industry ) there are jobs which are highly mobile\fluid.
I speak from experience, since me other half works in that industry ( Norway ) and we have actually discussed\researched moving to far away places. The job opportunities were plentiful .
Each situation is different and there are no right or wrong answers. ( just degrees I suppose .)
Good luck to all regardless.
I wanted to run away and join the circus ( but I don't like to talk about that ..sigh )
You are more than right about how people don't want to move and there are limits, but ( at least in the oil and gas industry ) there are jobs which are highly mobile\fluid.
I speak from experience, since me other half works in that industry ( Norway ) and we have actually discussed\researched moving to far away places. The job opportunities were plentiful .
Each situation is different and there are no right or wrong answers. ( just degrees I suppose .)
Good luck to all regardless.
6
I agree wholeheartedly with you, FunkyIrishman. Our nation has a long history of economic migration.
Earlier this week President Trump gave a speech in my hometown of Youngstown, Ohio -- a declining rustbelt city which was formerly the heart of the US steel industry. (We are a shrinking region, with many vacant factories/homes, high unemployment and a mounting heroin epidemic.)
He told those that gathered (largely the working poor, former reliably democratic blue collar union members) to "not sell their homes" and stay put, that their old jobs would be back and the area restored to its former glory. It's a cruel thing to do -- telling those most down on their luck what they want most desperately to hear, especially when the promises are not realistic.
My patience is waning, however. Those that were laid off by plants had large buyouts and money they could have funneled into retraining or a relocation. I know many proactive individuals that pressed through trying times to learn new skills and jobs and found success. Many others just sat on their hands, wasted the money away, and now complain about the lack of good jobs. They're looking backwards, living in the past, and the nation is moving on without them whether they will acknowledge it or not.
These are the people that Dem's the election...
Earlier this week President Trump gave a speech in my hometown of Youngstown, Ohio -- a declining rustbelt city which was formerly the heart of the US steel industry. (We are a shrinking region, with many vacant factories/homes, high unemployment and a mounting heroin epidemic.)
He told those that gathered (largely the working poor, former reliably democratic blue collar union members) to "not sell their homes" and stay put, that their old jobs would be back and the area restored to its former glory. It's a cruel thing to do -- telling those most down on their luck what they want most desperately to hear, especially when the promises are not realistic.
My patience is waning, however. Those that were laid off by plants had large buyouts and money they could have funneled into retraining or a relocation. I know many proactive individuals that pressed through trying times to learn new skills and jobs and found success. Many others just sat on their hands, wasted the money away, and now complain about the lack of good jobs. They're looking backwards, living in the past, and the nation is moving on without them whether they will acknowledge it or not.
These are the people that Dem's the election...
5
Tell it to the 50-and-over crowd who've planned their entire working life to be employed past 60 and had that assumption at the center of their retirement planning all along only to get the boot once we've worked our way into a decent salary. Tell it to every single one of us who is at the top of our game and have years of skills and experience to bring to any job we're given, but are instead viewed as useless has-beens by a culture perversely obsessed with youth (its many attendant shortcomings apparently invisible). Tell it to the millions of us reduced to despair by the indignities of Internet job boards and searches. What a waste of time THOSE are. The oligarchs who now own and operate America had better figure out that people stripped of their jobs have no money with which to buy cars, houses, and refrigerators. Have none of them heard of Henry Ford?
174
Was Henry Ford related to Elon Musk? If not, then no... They haven't heard of him.
6
Its unfortunate, but companies don't necessarily rely on the domestic market the way they used to. If a business is selling globally, or is selling to other companies, it doesn't particularly care about regular Americans having a sufficient income to buy their goods.
The world is way different now, and we need a collective major rethinking about work and income and how regular folks can be okay. Neither political party has even begun to recognize how essential this is to social stability and well being.
The world is way different now, and we need a collective major rethinking about work and income and how regular folks can be okay. Neither political party has even begun to recognize how essential this is to social stability and well being.
What strikes me in some examples is that what people spend years learning for a university degree, isn't what is being identified as the work skills that can be transferred to another field. Those are skills that people either already have:precision in communication, communication skills, warmth and empathy, attention to detail, etc.
But while those human attributes may be transferable to other fields, there is still the need to acquire the specific knowledge needed for the entire new field, so I fail t see how that is particularly helpful...
But while those human attributes may be transferable to other fields, there is still the need to acquire the specific knowledge needed for the entire new field, so I fail t see how that is particularly helpful...
3
@AG: And intelligent & curious person can acquire all kinds of specific knowledge for different jobs. People are more multifaceted than employers realize.
For example, I know a person who has, in the course of adult life, successfully held the following jobs (and has a liberal arts degree): Coordinator for international shipments of heavy industrial materials; sales of computer equipment; proofreading for law firms; and licensed massage therapist. Not one of those jobs "required" what was specifically learned in college, yet the experience of succeeding at college provided an excellent foundation for all of them. The common denominators of those jobs were: a good basic education, attention to detail, good interpersonal skills, and curiosity to learn a new area of endeavor. Yes, learning of each specific job's details required varying amounts of time, but the biggest issue is taking (or being given) a chance to try something new.
For example, I know a person who has, in the course of adult life, successfully held the following jobs (and has a liberal arts degree): Coordinator for international shipments of heavy industrial materials; sales of computer equipment; proofreading for law firms; and licensed massage therapist. Not one of those jobs "required" what was specifically learned in college, yet the experience of succeeding at college provided an excellent foundation for all of them. The common denominators of those jobs were: a good basic education, attention to detail, good interpersonal skills, and curiosity to learn a new area of endeavor. Yes, learning of each specific job's details required varying amounts of time, but the biggest issue is taking (or being given) a chance to try something new.
5
Of course! Employers DON'T WANT to train anymore, that's one problem, the problem is employers not willing to take a chance on someone maybe not quite the right fit... They hire the same oh, same oh, same oh...
Even the arts/culture community that you would think would be more creative/out of the box, won't take a chance on someone without the PERFECT background...
Even the arts/culture community that you would think would be more creative/out of the box, won't take a chance on someone without the PERFECT background...
41
"same old" is the expression, Susan.
23
Every economics student, many of whom go on to careers in business, knows what a free rider is. It's someone who takes a good, or service, without paying for it, because they can (and can't be effectively excluded if they don't pay). It seems every business today is run by free riders who want all of their training paid for by someone else, perhaps taxpayers but preferably competitors, while they reap the advantages for free.
8
Thanks Lee for the grammar correction!
It scrambles the way many think about the stages of work life. It means that a person is always pre-career even when employed, because post-career doesn’t mean retirement.
4
There are literally millions of people who want to work and have transferable skills, but employers are so tunnel-vision about hiring that they only want the perfect candidate. Employers are, IMO, not smart enough to realize that they're depriving themselves of some pretty terrific workers.
108
So this doesn't happen only in countries where it's difficult to fire people. Hum. We should tell that to our (Brazilian) Congressmen. More business friendly laws won't necessarily mean more jobs for less than perfect candidates.
7
My husband is an engineer. His degree was in Reliability Engineering but he also did Quality Engineering.
He would go to interviews, and be told "sorry, we really need a Quality Engineer". WIth 30 years experience, of doing BOTH...they could not see past his DEGREE from 1976!!!! It had to be absolutely specific, or no job.
BTW: both fields are extremely similar and have many overlaps.
He would go to interviews, and be told "sorry, we really need a Quality Engineer". WIth 30 years experience, of doing BOTH...they could not see past his DEGREE from 1976!!!! It had to be absolutely specific, or no job.
BTW: both fields are extremely similar and have many overlaps.
11
"Many of the skills needed in fading jobs are more applicable to growing jobs than it might first appear. " states the article
are these words intended as satire?
If you tell them to an employer in an interview you will, literally, be laughed at!
Even the perversely educated (i.e., PhDs, graduate degree holders), beyond a certain age and # work years, find it very difficult to switch careers, never mind a lesser mortal. This is the reality.
are these words intended as satire?
If you tell them to an employer in an interview you will, literally, be laughed at!
Even the perversely educated (i.e., PhDs, graduate degree holders), beyond a certain age and # work years, find it very difficult to switch careers, never mind a lesser mortal. This is the reality.
79
Regardless, it's harder for older workers. A person can have the transferable skills and the training but if he/she is an older worker, employers will likely pick a younger person instead. Age discrimination is a fact of life.
173
I encourage anyone who is unhappy with their career, at any age, to seek out he help of a career coach. Talk to friends and get recommendations. Some are much better than others. Good ones can help you understand your strengths, the types of positions that can use you, and how to position yourself with prospective employers. Whatever you do, don't sell yourself short.
5
More cost-free programs should be available to workers wanting/needing to make this change. And all high-school students should be advised on how to go about doing this because they might need to do this again and again.
24
Lack or skills and lack of mobility are the two big barriers to employment for the unemployed. Employers will not consider applicants for jobs unless they are fully trained and credentialed. It used to be companies had training programs for liberal arts graduates and apprenticeship programs for high school graduates. There also seems to be void in schools and colleges when it comes to vocational guidance and job placement. Government could also get better results if they invested more money in helping unemployed workers relocate to areas with jobs instead pumping millions of dollars into local economies that are dying.
44
"Employers will not consider applicants for jobs unless they are fully trained and credentialed"
the reality is that employers want experience and credentials beyond belief, much more than can be found in most cases in the real world. This fact makes a "normal" amount of experience or training just about worthless. This is the reality of the job market.
the reality is that employers want experience and credentials beyond belief, much more than can be found in most cases in the real world. This fact makes a "normal" amount of experience or training just about worthless. This is the reality of the job market.
61
@Yoda: Yes, proving again how stupid most employers are! They are missing out on a zillion good employees with their narrow-minded hiring practices.
13
A professorial colleague has told me of his student, trained in music recording technology, who found employment as a nuclear power plant controller.
11
and how old was this student? do you think the plant would even think of hiring, for the same position and same salary, anyone in their 50s? 40s? late 30s?
19
yoda, I should have added that they won't hire anyone much over 35, period. They don't have to. Every year, the Navy produced plenty of trained nuclear tech for them to hire -- in fact, it is a solid pipeline.That is how it works. You can't just go to a nuclear plant and get a job otherwise -- unless you are a secretary in the office, or a janitor or something.
5