Middle age unemployment rate unprecedented in modern US history?
~ The Rebel ~
2012/06/24 23:47:31
Much of the attention during the prolonged U.S. employment crisis has been on high rates of joblessness among young people. Less noticed, but no less significant to many economists, has been the plight of the middle-aged.
More than 3.5 million Americans between the ages of 45 and 64 were unemployed as of May, 39% of them for a year or more-a rate of long-term unemployment that is unprecedented in modern U.S. history, and far higher than among younger workers. Millions more have quit looking for work or, like Mr. Daniel, have taken part-time jobs to get by.
Read More: http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/247662.html
Most would argue that the computerization of the hiring task gives the employer, greater choices and therefore better employees. This creates a great disadvantage for the many people who in fact are not the best at anything. Should they be excluded from the market just because someone else is "better" than them?
In fact many if not most employers prefer to hire someone who already has a job doing the same thing somewhere else. They are pretrained and haven't quit, why not exclude everybody who doesn't have a job at the moment? Then there are those who only hire new graduates because, they are mold-able and can be gotten for far less money.
The sad truth is the person who gets the job is the one with the prettiest resume. Beyond that add in the advancement of the newest popular form of discrimination, "Computer generated discrimination" Many if not most companies now require that you apply for jobs on line. Thousands of people apply for any given job and the computer selects the top ten to move on to the interview process. This obviously discriminates against the computer illiterate; those over 50 years of age, poor people, uneducated people and people who are unable to type. ...
Most would argue that the computerization of the hiring task gives the employer, greater choices and therefore better employees. This creates a great disadvantage for the many people who in fact are not the best at anything. Should they be excluded from the market just because someone else is "better" than them?
In fact many if not most employers prefer to hire someone who already has a job doing the same thing somewhere else. They are pretrained and haven't quit, why not exclude everybody who doesn't have a job at the moment? Then there are those who only hire new graduates because, they are mold-able and can be gotten for far less money.
The sad truth is the person who gets the job is the one with the prettiest resume. Beyond that add in the advancement of the newest popular form of discrimination, "Computer generated discrimination" Many if not most companies now require that you apply for jobs on line. Thousands of people apply for any given job and the computer selects the top ten to move on to the interview process. This obviously discriminates against the computer illiterate; those over 50 years of age, poor people, uneducated people and people who are unable to type. All of which already have a hard enough time finding work.
So they can learn, and they can use computers at the public library right? Most public access computers limit you to an hour at most each day and most applications take an hour to fill out, if you can read quickly enough and type well enough. I filled out an application recently where the instructions said; if you took longer than five minutes on any page, you would be booted from the system and your application canceled...
If you can struggle through the application, then they have you take a "Voluntary" assessment test, where they ask personal and trick questions, trying to find out if you are old, moody, depressed, tired, of a criminal mind, chronically unemployed, lazy, or suffer from low self esteem.
When we add these exclusions to the corporately accepted, of smokers, alcoholics, felons, sex offenders, non English speaking, drug users, marijuana smokers. Then the interview process rules out the bald, ugly, over weight, bearded, tattooed, long hairs, those with speech impediments. In total some two dozen reasons to say that you are not qualified to work any job anywhere any time again. How much of the population can get past all these exclusions. One may value the day when jobs were posted in the front window and given to people who live in the neighborhood.
Part of what set the most recent recession apart from the milder downturns of the 1990s and early 2000s, argues Steven Davis, an economist at the University of Chicago, is that this recession didn't primarily strike young workers, or those with erratic work histories. It also hit productive, steady workers in the prime of their careers-people who are ordinarily the backbone of the economy.
http://www.presstv.ir/usdetai...