Yes, You’re Getting Screwed



[If it's so 'easy' to get a crappy minimum wage job, then why can't I get hired anywhere?]For example, I went to an open interview and I was dressed up nice, well groomed, prepared and organized. Everyone else look like they just rolled out of bed. Guess who gets the job offers? Not me..but everyone else was offered a job.I do a lot of babysitting and take care of my grandma who has trouble getting around by?cleaning?her house, running errands for her, taking her places to get her out of the house, etc. I have some volunteer experience. I worked the concession stands (sell popcorn, nachos, candy, beverages, etc.) at home basketball and football games during high school, sold tickets and suckers to raise money for prom junior year.I think I'm a hardworking person and try my best in everything I do.What do you think I'm doing wrong?? Why is that I want to work but can't get a job? At an interview I was just told that I sound more interesting in person than on paper. They really liked me. Perhaps that is your issue - you don't sound interesting enough either way. It's a harsh reality, and even I was a bit surprised at what they were saying.How do you sell yourself either on paper, on the phone, or face-to-face?sadanddepressed in Wherever I May Roam, Arizona said:?For example, I went to an open interview and I was dressed up nice, well groomed, prepared and organized. Everyone else look like they just rolled out of bed. Guess who gets the job offers? Not me..but everyone else was offered a job.What do you think I'm doing wrong?? Why is that I want to work but can't get a job?It could be that you are doing nothing wrong. It does seem for most positions it matters 1) who you know, 2) that you have the EXACT same experience (2-5 years) as the position, 3) you will work cheap.I know fully how frustrating it is to be well qualified for a position, but not be considered because....well the playing field is not level.?Keep your chin up and keep applying, it was their loss.You don't say what the job was. Perhaps the interviewers were expecting the sort of applicants who looked like they just rolled out of bed. In this case, you looked too good.Andromeda Rising in Rockbridge, Ohio said:?You don't say what the job was. Perhaps the interviewers were expecting the sort of applicants who looked like they just rolled out of bed. In this case, you looked too good.We can't win.We're talking minimum wage jobs here. Probably some restaurant or retail store something anybody can do. And I feel you, it just doesn't make any sense to me anymore. I don't know what it takes to get any kind of job anymore.youdontkillmoney in Los Angeles, California said:?I was at a retail store (but could be?fast food, etc) and a guy came in to turn in an application, who was just wearing street clothes. He handed the manager the application.The conversation went like this:?Manager: so what position are you interested in??Applicant: AnythingI said to myself, the guy applying will not get a call back.Why?As a manager I am assessing you, if you say "anything" that means you do not care, if you do not care what you do, what makes me think you will care about the work you do, the job.I want to hear you say: I want to be on the sales floor because I can sell anything, and I like interacting with people. That's what my strength is. By saying this you are telling me you know yourself, your strengths, etc. Or I want to work the cash register because I'm good with numbers, and I am friendly so I like working with customers. Or I can do both because I am good with numbers and sales.Not: what position are you applying for? "Anything"So ask yourself if you are portraying yourself in a way that will get you hired.The only response "I've" ever gotten when trying to apply, was them getting a piece of register paper and telling me to "apply at this website", or "Sorry, but we're fully staffed.". :-/ All the while they're looking at me as if thinking "Why are you applying here?? Can't get a regular job?". I no longer aim in their direction. :-/After rethinking over everything I'm actually happy I didn't get most of the jobs I had interviews at. The only job I was disappointed about not getting was the job at the movie theatre.I know you have to settle for 'crappy' jobs when you first start out but I want a job that fits my personality and interests.I'm just hoping something that interests me and makes me excited to be there will come up and I will get the job.You have to know somebody. I see people with jobs who have half a brain. Then I know really smart people out of work.cIt sucks when you go for an interview and the interviewer leaves out 3x then is talking about you within earshot so you already know your not getting the job. Yet, she keeps coming in torturing you with questions an unnecessary banter. Then she takes almost 7 long grueling minutes to fill in her "input box" that you can't see..after this she then proceeds to tell you "we have a great benefits package but we only have 2 positions open; both are basically float times between 5am-745pm"..now this is NOT the POSITION I applied for btw. I applied for a standing 730-430 position. As a matter of fact, that morning BEFORE I came down for the interview I made sure it was for that position- the recruitment confirmed. Nonetheless, I was told it wasn't open by this interviewer. It was torture.Note to self:Just quit trying!I remember I to partake in a group interview for?facilities?associate?position at a Uniqlo late last year. There was this one older guy who was kinda hood, like untucked shirt and baggy Dickie's hood. He was chewing on a pen cap, and browsing through his iphone-ipod-digital media player-whatever through out the whole interview. Needless to say I didn't get the job but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.Since I shop for work tops there frequently I couldn't help but notice that the fitting room floors always have dust bunnies....hmmm....[Spending hours on apps with NO RESPONSE]Does anyone else feel the frustration with spending hours filling out applications and doing online submissions and getting zero response?I can't tell you how many times I have been up all night doing my 900th online application...filling out all of the repetitive information, answering all of their questions, re-designing my resume, writing up a flawless cover letter, and then sending my information off into oblivion to get no response? Then the applications have the nerve and audacity to ask for your social security number, what race you are, what sex you are, whether you have a disability??? I even had an application ask me if I was "queer" or not? Are you serious???? Then I have had to do online tests to test my skill levels and my reasoning. Some of these tests have literally taken me hours or days to complete. I agree to all their terms and conditions and provide every ounce of my human existence besides my blood type and first born. Then either get a corporate e-mail weeks later saying, "thanks but we never wanted your stupid a** anyway" or get absolutely no correspondence at all whatsoever!!!!It's like, the whole process is just to get your information and that's it. I just feel super frustrated because I am an educated, intelligent, and experienced individual who feels like I am being lured into a dark room and taken advantage of every time I submit my information. It makes me want to totally lie on an application just to see what happens. Next time I submit an application, my resume is going to say that I work for a secret society, I am a hit man on the weekends, I have my PhD (but yet i'm using a job board to find my next job), I am native American, Chinese, white, Alaskan, black, and Calico mix. My sexual preference is "melting pot", I am a drug addict whose drug of choice are D vitamins, I am a veteran who was NEVER in the service, and I'm not available to start work until January of 2023. Maybe then i'll get a response.OnayThe "Frustrated Job Seekers Rant" has literally years worth (probably 5 plus) of the same type of frustrations. Many folks have experienced the exact same thing.You think that's bad...try applying to a government agency or law enforcement....fill out twice the application along with your life history only to be denied among 5000 applicants.At least to private compAnies you might have a shotWhat kind of jobs are you applying for? I don't think that there are 900 jobs to apply to online. Not counting all the staffing agencies fake job listing that will all be "filled" when you call at 9am tomorrow morning.Poll in Lake Forest, California said:?You think that's bad...try applying to a government agency or law enforcement....fill out twice the application along with your life history only to be denied among 5000 applicants.At least to private compAnies you might have a shotFederal government is the worst.[Taleo Question]gixerkiller in Gardena, California said:?I had this same experience with PetSmart.The job was filled, but, came up again later to which I was told I had already applied.I am finding allot of interesting facts about?electronic?applications lately.Seems the program has a set limit of apps and then it closes the file on that code. Someone then dumps the file into another file and the job code comes back up.Happens with AAA all day long. The question is what happens to the submission.?One person at the local workforce?development?center told me is was a way to?data?mine the public. Don't know if that is true, but, she did have 20 years as an?HR manager?for Toyota......?Your "app" just might be that, a data mine that lands you in a "talent pool"Or, as AndyRising said, the job was filled before they had a chance to remove the listing.A few years ago Oracle paid 1.9 BILLION for Taleo and while companies love it, applicants for the most part hate it. It really is designed for large companies that get a ton of submissions. Personally, the minute I see the Taleo logo, I pass on the job. You really have to have a 98% skill set match in order to be considered.My sister's company uses Taleo and if they get 100 submissions, they might look at 20 of them and then call in 10 for interviews. Its pretty brutal.JobSeekinginAdelaide in Adelaide, Australia said:?I am guessing Taleo is a online survey/test?Taleo is an "applicant tracking system," or ATS. It's software that automates the job application process. Maybe it isn't being used in OZ (but I expect other ATSs are.) It's not intrinsically bad, it's just soul-less.Large employers use ATSs like Taleo to "weed out" applicants who don't match the criteria they want. You enter your contact info, previous employment history,?education?history, etc. on the various pages of the Taleo application. The software then looks for keywords in your application that match keywords the employer has defined.While surveys or tests may be attached to the ATS process, they're really separate.Taleo gets a bad rap from job hunters (including me) because it takes quite a bit of time to fill out a Taleo application and it feels pointless... you can assume that dozens or hundreds of other people are doing the same thing, and there's no human contact.Ruby Slippers in Las Vegas, Nevada said:?A few years ago Oracle paid 1.9 BILLION for Taleo and while companies love it, applicants for the most part hate it. It really is designed for large companies that get a ton of submissions. Personally, the minute I see the Taleo logo, I pass on the job. You really have to have a 98% skill set match in order to be considered.My sister's company uses Taleo and if they get 100 submissions, they might look at 20 of them and then call in 10 for interviews. Its pretty brutal.The best way to pass the taleo resumee scrubber is to look at the job description and make that your resumee. Just reverse?engineer?it word for word but past tense.Why do online applications waste time? (credit, applying, interview, unemployed)I absolutely hate these 10 page applications that make you take tests, ask personal questions like>>> what is your salary now<<<<<<<<<<< ISNT ANYONE'S BUSINESS.... sorry but what does what I make NOW have to do with it... I know you all say its because if you earn 100,000.00 and are applying for a 35 k job your OVERQUALIFIED ... and thats a bunch of CRAP!!! I know a few that made well over 100 grand but got chopped due to reorganization, BUT............. they can easily live on 35 grand because they were SMART and saved about 3 years pay !! but in my opinion employers have no right to ask?I went on a interview and was asked that and I was a smart ass and asked the interviewer the same thingwhat sir do you make.................. needless to say I did not get the job!!I am sick of redundant applications asking for stupid things like 5 references??? wtf???????anyone that gives references will tell a employer nothing but great things even lies!!! so why even ask for references?????? STUPID!!!!How bout the application that asks things you have on your resume that you also included like list your experience well DUHH LOOK AT MY F&&KING resume its included with my applicationand salary requirements?? why not tell me what you offer and if I think its good then I will proceed.and then there are a few that want to check my credit.................?the application process is such a damn waste of time... I can hear many reply now and say with a attitude like mine I wont get a job... well maybe so, but so much that is asked is NO ONES BUSINESSI GOTTA SAY IT WAS WORTH PUTTING ON A 3 PIECE SUIT, SITTING IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC AND FINALLY ARRIVE AT THE INTERVIEW SEE THE LOOK ON THE INTERVIEWERS FACE WHEN I ANSWERED HIS QUESTION ABOUT WHAT I EARN NOW........... WHEN I SAID WELL SIR WHAT DO YOU EARN.... HIS LOOK WAS PRICELESS!! HAHAHAHAANice vent! ?? The psychological tests, ridiculous! They ask the same questions 15 different ways to see if you answer any differently. They say you can't answer it wrong...well....obviously you can.Originally Posted by?Stacey27520?Nice vent! ?? The psychological tests, ridiculous! They ask the same questions 15 different ways to see if you answer any differently. They say you can't answer it wrong...well....obviously you can.Yes you definitely can answer it wrong. Some places even send you an email saying you passed the assessment.Even then though, online applications still suck. I did an application recently and it said that I passed the test but I haven't got any word back. You are put in a black hole and it seems like you can't do anything about it because if you try to follow up they might get annoyed. Anytime they haven't picked me to do an interview and I tell them I did an application they're often not interested.As to the references even paper applications can do that now though. I did one recently that wanted 3 references that were NOT friends or family members. I struggled to put someone down and I hated that because I basically lied. I hope they don't catch me on it in an interview because I'm the worst liar in the world. I even have trouble spinning the truth positively sometimes because my filter does not work like it should.The whole process of getting a job is just bull and I cannot take it anymore!! The more I have tried to find work the angrier I get because it's like rocket science these days. I don't like to admit it because I have thanatophobia but it is so frustrating that this crap makes me literally have suicidal thoughts at night because there's just no end to the suffering of being unemployed so it sounds like you are handling it better than me (you probably haven't been looking as long as I have that might be why) I hope employers are happy they are making me have thoughts I don't want to have.Originally Posted by?mdc1022?I absolutely hate these 10 page applications that make you take tests, ask personal questions like>>> what is your salary now<<<<<<<<<<< ISNT ANYONE'S BUSINESS.... sorry but what does what I make NOW have to do with it... I know you all say its because if you earn 100,000.00 and are applying for a 35 k job your OVERQUALIFIED ... and thats a bunch of CRAP!!! I know a few that made well over 100 grand but got chopped due to reorganization, BUT............. they can easily live on 35 grand because they were SMART and saved about 3 years pay !! but in my opinion employers have no right to ask?I went on a interview and was asked that and I was a smart ass and asked the interviewer the same thingwhat sir do you make.................. needless to say I did not get the job!!I am sick of redundant applications asking for stupid things like 5 references??? wtf???????anyone that gives references will tell a employer nothing but great things even lies!!! so why even ask for references?????? STUPID!!!!How bout the application that asks things you have on your resume that you also included like list your experience well DUHH LOOK AT MY F&&KING resume its included with my applicationand salary requirements?? why not tell me what you offer and if I think its good then I will proceed.and then there are a few that want to check my credit.................?the application process is such a damn waste of time... I can hear many reply now and say with a attitude like mine I wont get a job... well maybe so, but so much that is asked is NO ONES BUSINESSI GOTTA SAY IT WAS WORTH PUTTING ON A 3 PIECE SUIT, SITTING IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC AND FINALLY ARRIVE AT THE INTERVIEW SEE THE LOOK ON THE INTERVIEWERS FACE WHEN I ANSWERED HIS QUESTION ABOUT WHAT I EARN NOW........... WHEN I SAID WELL SIR WHAT DO YOU EARN.... HIS LOOK WAS PRICELESS!! HAHAHAHAAThe one on the Buffalo Wild Wings website is the most ridiculous. They have us answer their questions with the options being 'extremely disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, neutral, slightly agree, agree or extremely agree' with them asking for everybody to not put answer positively?Unlike the mid 1990s when employers were desperate for qualified help, they can now be more selective, so they are. I agree that those psychological and personality tests are way overrated, and asking previous salary isn't even necessary since it's easy to get a good idea from the duties and employer listed. I have actually hired overqualified people after they explained their reasons for wanting the job I offered. We only ask for 3 references, and only to ensure getting 1-2 who are available to talk. We would only call 3 if the first two gave different reviews. Difficult as it is for applicants, the employers have all the power. Failure to answer their questions and play their games just means they go on to the next person, and most of the time there are far more than one meeting the requirements. I interviewed for a a a a position last week to replace a retiree, and any of the top 4 interviewed would have been fine, but only one could be selected. That's where fitting in with the rest of the team comes in. That is another source of frustration for applicants, but it does make a big difference having people working together that get along.We need to seriously change the way we interview... What happened to the days when you sent a resume, as interviewed and if they liked what they heard then had you fill out a application. If I see long applications I pass because I KNOW I wont get called backI was thinking recently of applying for a job as a substitute teacher in our local school district. I have a BS science degree and figure I can sub for math and science classes. First off I'd need to get a 3 year substitute teaching certificate from the state, that costs $90. Then I need to get a background check and fingerprinting, $40. Getting my official transcripts costs $10. Then I need 3 references, plus 3 letters of recommendation from people other than the references. OK, working with students, I guess states have to hold people to a standard. Then I looked up the pay rates. $94/day. That's if you get hired after wrangling together all that paperwork (and paying $140). That's a lot of hoops to jump through for a $11.80/hr. For a p/t, no benefits, no job security job that requires a BS/BA degree. Now I'm thinking that it hardly seems worth it for that low a pay.Its nonsense. A Resume should suffice. One shouldn't have to fill out a 100 page application form when the damn info is RIGHT ON THE RESUME!!!!Its just hoops to jump through for job thats may or may not be filled for the candidate to waste their time and spend way too much time on POSSIBLE job openingsAnd its even worse when its just some entry level lower paying job and you're overqualified for it because you have to find something sooner or later which many recent graduates have to deal with today.?Theres no need for these lengthy application procedures. None at allOriginally Posted by?sheerbliss?Having candidates complete an online application gives them some skin in the game. They can't just click and send resumes for jobs they have no qualifications for. When that was the case some years ago, you could get hundreds of resumes from people with absolutely no qualifications--we're talking about people with a background in yardwork where a CPA is required. Just as candidates don't want their time wasted, neither do employers.Yeah but you might not get the best candidates if you insist on having the 500 textbox application that takes 1-2 hours to fill out because it is not user friendly at all. Usually when I see the ultra-involved applications with the textbox fill-ins and the survey elements, I know that I'm probably never going to hear a thing. That's the case even if I am qualified for the job. Usually I just abort after I see what type of application it is and how long it will take to fill out.?I have seen easy application processes that just allow you to upload a resume and then answer a few questions about whether you have a license and/or the relevant experience. Most gainfully employed people have limited time available to be filling out applications and don't necessarily have time to spend 1-3 hours on a single application. I tried to apply for one job recently that said it had an email application option but then it wouldn't actually give you the email address for the application packet. When I had time to go and fill in the textbox application a mere 4-5 days after the job was posted, the listing was no longer available.Originally Posted by?RamenAddict?Yeah but you might not get the best candidates if you insist on having the 500 textbox application that takes 1-2 hours to fill out because it is not user friendly at all. Usually when I see the ultra-involved applications with the textbox fill-ins and the survey elements, I know that I'm probably never going to hear a thing. That's the case even if I am qualified for the job. Usually I just abort after I see what type of application it is and how long it will take to fill out.Yes, employers need to be reasonable and not make applying too much time and effort. But it should take some time and effort so they don't have to sort through hundreds of useless applications. Someone with a serious interest in the job shouldn't mind spending ten minutes or so applying for it.Originally Posted by?eastcoastguyz?1-3 hours? Can you or anyone provide a link to job applications online that take this kind of effort? Or is this just a gross exaggeration?I've seen plenty which you end up copying and pasting from your resume so it is in their format. I can't imagine what is there that would take you 1-3 hours unless you didn't already have your resume written.Many apps I complete have sections where they want free form answers typed in, almost like interview questions. I just did one yesterday that asked 10 questions and I typed probably 2-3 paragraphs for every answer. This is of course in addition to tailoring your resume for the specific posting so one can easily take 3 hours or more from tailoring your resume to getting all the info filled in and submitting.Originally Posted by?eastcoastguyz?1-3 hours? Can you or anyone provide a link to job applications online that take this kind of effort? Or is this just a gross exaggeration?I've seen plenty which you end up copying and pasting from your resume so it is in their format. I can't imagine what is there that would take you 1-3 hours unless you didn't already have your resume written.Many don't have text box fill-ins but have drop downs. You have to pick from numbered lists for colleges, college majors, licenses, etc. These lists have hundreds if not thousands (for colleges) of options and it can take quite some time to find yours from among the list.?Then a lot of the text boxes where you have to put in the name of the employer and whatnot have limited characters, so you get 20 characters to describe your employer that has a 40 character name, so you have to figure out how to best abbreviate your employer name. Many of the other blanks are also like that, so your application is just this sea of incoherent abbreviations and numbers.?Then the text boxes themselves are limited for describing the job, which in my field means that every single applicant sounds exactly the same. It isn't when you get into slightly longer descriptions or the more narrative questions that you can actually find out what a person did in the job, so most job applications also include narrative questions that have to be answered.?In my field, they don't really even use HR much to screen applicants. It just goes straight to the hiring manager most of the time because they don't know how to tell who is qualified other than does the person have a license and appear to have the amount of general experience. When it comes to specific experience, a subject matter expert has to look at it. There's just no way around it. Most jobs that are for my field only still do the resume/cover letter/writing sample option instead of the application because they know that is the best way to get the relevant information. When using a system built for other fields, it tends NOT to get the information that is the most useful for the field.Originally Posted by?mdc1022?I absolutely hate these 10 page applications that make you take tests, ask personal questions like>>> what is your salary now<<<<<<<<<<< ISNT ANYONE'S BUSINESS.... sorry but what does what I make NOW have to do with it... I know you all say its because if you earn 100,000.00 and are applying for a 35 k job your OVERQUALIFIED ... and thats a bunch of CRAP!!! I know a few that made well over 100 grand but got chopped due to reorganization, BUT............. they can easily live on 35 grand because they were SMART and saved about 3 years pay !! but in my opinion employers have no right to ask?I went on a interview and was asked that and I was a smart ass and asked the interviewer the same thingwhat sir do you make.................. needless to say I did not get the job!!I am sick of redundant applications asking for stupid things like 5 references??? wtf???????anyone that gives references will tell a employer nothing but great things even lies!!! so why even ask for references?????? STUPID!!!!How bout the application that asks things you have on your resume that you also included like list your experience well DUHH LOOK AT MY F&&KING resume its included with my applicationand salary requirements?? why not tell me what you offer and if I think its good then I will proceed.and then there are a few that want to check my credit.................?the application process is such a damn waste of time... I can hear many reply now and say with a attitude like mine I wont get a job... well maybe so, but so much that is asked is NO ONES BUSINESSI GOTTA SAY IT WAS WORTH PUTTING ON A 3 PIECE SUIT, SITTING IN RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC AND FINALLY ARRIVE AT THE INTERVIEW SEE THE LOOK ON THE INTERVIEWERS FACE WHEN I ANSWERED HIS QUESTION ABOUT WHAT I EARN NOW........... WHEN I SAID WELL SIR WHAT DO YOU EARN.... HIS LOOK WAS PRICELESS!! HAHAHAHAAYour attitude is warranted and understood by those of us who have spent countless hours going through all of those processes. The two things that annoy me the most are personality tests to see how agreeable I am to being bent over backwards or how pro-snitching I am. I'm neither of those things. The other thing that annoys me is the loaded question you've already tapped on about salary. It's a simple way to drain the pool of "overqualified" applicants. Most companies are looking for low rent types of individuals. Well, those companies get what they pay for, because quality people don't stick around for crap pay.Originally Posted by?mdc1022?and then there are a few that want to check my credit.................?This is the main reason I have freezes on my credit with all three reporting agencies, fear someone will try to use the information on an application to steal my identity. The basic employment application should ask the bare minimum information when applying for a job. If they are interested in your resume, then they can ask you to do psychological tests, ask for references, permission to check your credit, etc. It been awhile since I had to do the job application circus, but now at my level, I wouldn't provide my salary or SS # on my application, if you want to trash my application, so be it.Honestly, I don't bother with very long job applications. They tell me right off the bat this probably is not a place I want to work at. Let's not waste each other's time.?Almost every job I have gotten, including the megacorp one I am working now, required no more than submitting a resume and then filling out a short, relevant application if they liked you.Originally Posted by?Seahawksfan33?The one on the Buffalo Wild Wings website is the most ridiculous. They have us answer their questions with the options being 'extremely disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, neutral, slightly agree, agree or extremely agree' with them asking for everybody to not put answer positively?HAAHAH.. try samsung, ATT and TWC application.. Same thing.. I just ignore those and move along, and get email me asking me to finish those. I reply back say nope, my resume and regular application should sacrifice enough. Personality test are joke and not needed, nor IS A CREDIT CHECK. WTF need to know my credit score for a job? They are soft hits, but hits non to less.. Im not applying for a loan, its J.O.B.I feel for the OP.. i been in his shoes and ask me self the same questions. Been to great interviews only to learn "Over qualified" for the position. Find out they are just testing the waters and spot already been filled. That is were I draw the line.. If your opening has already been filled, than CLOSE THE application process or stop interviewing for the job.?Originally Posted by?longneckone?Those on unemployment are required to be able to prove they are trying to find employment. An email acknowledging receipt of the application does that.?Yep and if you were making $60/hr before you were laid off and apply for $10/hr jobs and actually get one the state will make you take it so its better to apply for positions you don't qualify for if there are no jobs available with your specific specialty otherwise you could be screwed.I am willing to bet a lot of people are holding their breath trying not to sell their home at a loss and uproot their entire families either out of state or out of the USA for better opportunities. But once the bread winner starts hitting 3-4 months into unemployment then if it were me the out of state/country resumes would start going out and the house listed.Once that house is sold at a loss/short sale there is no going back and I don't think companies are figuring this out until they cant get people back. People are not pieces of equipment you can put in a ware house until you need them.Is the US economy getting better?I know the stock market has risen. But there are many different stats you can go by.?What do you think?Some things have improved, but a lot of things have stagnated. One stat in particular that never recovered is single family housing starts. Even all these years into the "recovery" and that number is still in recession territory.?Incomes growing at a sad 2-2.5% a year and a larger share of our work force in part-time work adds to the malaise.For me, what makes the stock market opinion so special is that the traders are willing to back up what they think with money (whether it's to buy and sell stocks or whatever).Overall yes, much better, but because some areas are picking up the rest of the country, doing far better. There are still areas being left out of the recovery and booming economy. Our little city has over 300 new housing starts underway, unemployment is at 3%, median personal income is $108,000, household income $165,000, and 13% of residents are self-employed.We are still suffering from a depression caused by the credit bubble that Robert Rubin and Bill Clinton created. GW Bush tried to reinflate the bubble. It was temporary. Obama and his henchmen tried the same stunt. This too will fail.?It's all a bunch of lies. Our government claims unemployment is under 5% yet wages are stagnant. They should be skyrocketing. They claim things are great, yet the Federal Reserve can't even take rates back up to an average 7% interest rate. The bond market would do it themselves if it were true. And how about inflation? They insist it's been 2% or less, yet during the last 8 years most of our daily essentials have doubled in price. Add in the ten trillion we added to our debt. The trillions the Fed has printed, and our GDP is actually negative. And the real estate bubble has priced people out of the market again. All thanks to Obama tellking Fannie Mae to bundle up their foreclosures and sell them in bulk to his hedgefund buddies for pennies on the dollar. The only condition was they can't tell anybody how low they paid. Now they rent them section 8, colluded the market and jacked up rents. And "mark to market" is still suspended, yet everything has been fixed?...?Trump is an idiot for patting himself on the back. He now owns the horror our economy is about to face. The DJIA at 20,000 is an extreme bubble. It will burst, regardless of what Trump does. But he now gets blamed since he's taking credit for it. Gas prices are up 15% in a month. Interest rates up a wee bit. ACA premiums up double digits. Property taxes soaring. Things got too hot and are sure to cool off. If not for the fudging of numbers to make Obama's legacy look good, we would already be in an official recession. Now they will wait 8 months to call it and blame it on the new guy...Originally Posted by?Happiness-is-close?Some things have improved, but a lot of things have stagnated. One stat in particular that never recovered is single family housing starts. Even all these years into the "recovery" and that number is still in recession territory.People have been delaying marriage and fertility rates are at historic lows. Even so, housing starts have more than doubled since bottoming out in 2009.?Quote:Originally Posted by?Happiness-is-close?Incomes growing at a sad 2-2.5% a year...Real median household income was up by 5.2% in 2015.?Quote:Originally Posted by?Happiness-is-close?...and a larger share of our work force in part-time work adds to the malaise.Put on a cardigan. The number of those working part-time for economic reasons is at its lowest point since June 2008.Better than it was 15 years ago. Not as good as it was before then.Here are some Nick Corcodillos articles.In the?May 24, 2016 Ask The Headhunter Newsletter, we dispense with the Q&A and explore some bad news about who’s hogging the profits.Yes, You’re Getting ScrewedWhile the price of fuel has dropped and airlines and their shareholders run to the bank with higher returns, you pay more to sit in smaller airline seats and to arrive at your destination later.Your stock broker gets rich off the higher fees you pay on your investments, while the value of your portfolio stagnates or declines.The trend is hardly worth debating — you pay more to get less. And now we know for sure that it’s hitting your paycheck, too:?As corporate profits soar, you get paid less for your work.I love capitalism, but this isn’t capitalism — it’s greed, and it’s putting our economy and our society at risk because it’s devaluing the work you do and killing your motivation to be more productive.A banker’s storyThe irony is that a guy at JP Morgan Chase — a big bank making big bucks — has spilled the beans. Bloomberg reports that JPM’s chief economist, Michael Feroli, recently published a research note that reveals — Ta-Da! —?“workers’ slice of the economic pie is getting smaller.”It’s doubly ironic because JP Morgan’s first-quarter profits beat estimates — while the firm slashed bankers’ pay. Even the bankers that are screwing us are getting screwed!Feroli sharpens the point and explains the connection: As big business gets bigger, there’s a clear link between increasing concentration of ownership and “labor’s declining share… of the value a company creates.”Which is the long way of saying, you’re getting the shaft while The Man gets richer. The owners of those industries make out while your paycheck gets smaller.Sheesh — I never thought I’d find myself talking like a workers’ rights nut.It’s worse than unfair paySo I’ll make myself clear: While I worry about workers, I worry far more about the gross imbalance between the value of work and what people get paid to do it. Even more than I worry about tired employees’ families going hungry due to stagnant wages and salaries, I worry that American productivity and ingenuity are at risk — because who’s going to be productive and inventive if that behavior is not going to pay off?It’s worse than you getting paid less. Our entire economic system is at risk because the concentration of ownership and wealth has reached such critical mass that it seems it’s going to destroy itself by ignoring a basic tenet of capitalism — at least according to?my?definition:?Profits spur motivation to do more profitable work when those that create profit enjoy the rewards.What happens when workers — at any level and in any kind of job — see where the profits are going? I think it spells trouble.Is Feroli right?Rather than discussing the regular Ask The Headhunter Q&A column this week, I’d like to ask you to please read Peter Coy’s short article about Feroli’s work in?Bloomberg Businessweek:?Rising Profits Don’t Lift Workers’ Boats.And then, if you dare, skim a report written by Jason Furman, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers:?Benefits of Competition and Indicators of Market Power. It’s dense, and one of Furman’s conclusions will seem obvious:“When firms take action to impede competition, through anticompetitive mergers, exclusionary conduct, collusive agreements with rivals, or rent-seeking regulation to restrict entry, their profitability may increase, but at the cost of even greater reductions in consumer welfare and societal benefits.”Feroli used this report to map where the value created by various industries goes — and to draw the troubling conclusion that…“…industries with more concentrated ownership… pay out their extra profits to shareholders, or to the government in taxes, but not to workers.”He notes that between 1997 and 2012, in transportation and warehousing, the “share of business accounted for by the top 50 companies rose by 11.4 percentage points,” while in health care and social assistance, it fell 1.5%. What’s telling is that between 1999-2014, in transportation and warehousing, the share of profits paid to employees fell 7.6% — the biggest drop of any industry in the study — while in health care and social assistance, employees’ share of profits rose 1. 8 percentage points.Draw your own conclusions. Then let’s talk about whether you’re getting paid less — and whether it’s because a concentration of ownership and wealth doesn’t reward the people who come up with the ideas, do the work, and create the wealth.This week’s takeawaySince this is Ask The Headhunter and my purpose is to give you a takeaway to help you be more successful — here it is, based on the sources I’ve discussed above:?It seems you’ll earn better pay working in an industry where there’s more competition and less concentration of ownership.?So pick your job targets wisely.Feroli’s and Furman’s work suggests, for example, that the healthcare industry pays more of its income to employees, while the transportation and warehousing industries (which includes airlines and railroads) pocket more of the profits and leave workers in the lurch.Here’s how various industries stack up in terms of the revenue share controlled by their 50 biggest players. According to Bloomberg, Feroli’s analysis suggests “the share workers got tended to decline in industries where there’s more consolidation.” That is, when more revenues are controlled by a smaller number of firms (“consolidation”), the less that industry is likely to pay to its workers.Of course, being the smart little community you are, you already know which industries are the problem…And here are some comments:Last line of the Bloomberg article: “The share of national income going to wages and salaries has rebounded since 2012, erasing about 30 percent of its post-1997 decline.”So next time you boss asks you to work (uncompensated) overtime, tell him you cannot afford to subsidize him.Nick, great column. Again. I’ve wondered how long it would take for you to use your platform to start zeroing in on pertinent political/economic issues affecting your readers. Keep on keeping on. I’ve stopped wondering.@John: This isn’t political. This is truth from data. But thanks anyway :-). My goal is to make sure my readers understand what affects their ability to profit from doing the work they want to do, so they can make good choices.Fabulous column! You expressed the issue perfectly in terms of employment opportunity and lack thereof. But unlike you, I don’t love capitalism just for the contradiction you note: it’s good business to eliminate competition. I sought shelter in the nonprofit world –not Heaven either– but we’re not eliminating competition, and we demurely hide our greed. Fabulous column! You expressed the issue perfectly in terms of employment opportunity and lack thereof. But unlike you, I don’t love capitalism just for the contradiction you note: it’s good business to eliminate competition. I sought shelter in the nonprofit world –not Heaven either– but we’re not eliminating competition, and we demurely hide our greed.Thanks Nick….Just goes to show that current profits aren’t a result of innovation, but just squeezing every last bit from current employees.This is why people need to learn to be entrepreneurial. One can never make the same amount working for other people that they can make entrepreneurially for themselves. Be the owner of things, not the worker. Sure, some will say that not everyone can do this. But the way things are right now, there is little upside to trying to get ahead by working for others when the profits aren’t being shared out— at all. There is little to lose. Wages need to go up, or this system will topple eventually. The GINI coefficient is already looking dangerous for the USA. Unfortunately, the mega-wealthy are blinded by greed. They will not know what hit them, and that works for me. Make it work for you.To me, the most telling line is the one about “rent-seeking regulation to restrict entry.”Every time we ask the pols to create a new law to “protect” us from “evil corporations” they make it harder for new companies to enter the market. Thanks, Obamacare.The same is true for employees: The more letters are needed after your name to get the job, the fewer people will be allowed to do it, and the lower the quality of the employee. I assert that there will be lower quality because lack of competition leads to complacency.There’s a column for you, Nick: Do certifications really prove value? Or just the ability to take a test prep class and pass the test? I have had 5 certs for financial services, which I was not very good at, and one for biomedical equipment, which I was already very good at before I go the cert. In each case, I took a prep class and scored very high on the certification test. There was no link between having the cert and my ability to do the work (in the case of financial services, I did not want to push the product of the month on my customers just to meet quota).Ultimately the pols have no interest in opening up competition by rationalizing the regulatory landscape. They do everything they can to limit competition in their own industry – look at all the shenanigans they pull to limit the number of candidates and prevent the “wrong” people from getting on the ballot.@Addie: I view capitalism very simply, and I don’t like how complex a rationalization it has been turned into, to excuse horrible behaviors.To me, capitalism is the investment of capital to produce value, with returns uncertain. In other words, it’s all about risk, but more important, it’s about faith in the investment. And the investment is not just capital=cash. Capital is your work, your ideas, your enthusiasm, your motivation. Capital is you!But to me, faith is the biggest part of it. You invest because you have worked out the risks, then you take the risks, and you let your faith drive your behavior with the hope of petition is just a small part of it. It’s no different than competition in the natural world – some succeed, some fail, some live, some die. Success comes from an iterative process — but it should be honest and forthright. Capitalism is not a zero-sum game, where I win, you lose — it’s a system that creates new value from nothing by applying work and brains.Like capitalism, competition is often a cynical excuse for bad behavior. When I compete, it’s to produce the best product or service so my customers will buy it and reward me for making what I make. I don’t compete to put the next guy out of business — he puts himself out of business if my product is better. If he’s smart and capable, he moves on to a product that he can make better than anyone else.My reference to capitalism in this column has to do with being a good worker who produces value and profit — and it has to do with the importance of making sure you enjoy the rewards of your work and of the value you produce. If you’re producing value for a company that hogs the rewards, you need to leave and work with better people in a better industry.I think one of the most unethical things we can do is to work with jerks, in an industry that steals value from those who produce it. That’s anti-capitalistic, because it means throwing capital (yourself) at a corrupt business that drains value. A healthy business or industry puts profits back into production — in this case, into paychecks. But I want to be clear: Workers who take paychecks as their “right” are draining value, too. My pay should motivate me to be even more productive and inventive. The rewards I get for my work should make my industry healthier and more productive. If I take my pay and do a rote job without figuring out how to enhance that job, I’m no better than the carpetbagger who steals value from his industry — and from his employees.Feroli and Furman are onto bigger issues — like how involved government should be in keeping markets honest and competitive, to avoid killing people’s motivation to produce value. I believe in free markets, but I also believe we cannot live in a society with others without rule of law. Only suckers try to live together without cops to keep the peace — because there’s always someone who’s mission is to take advantage of others. Without rules and laws, we cannot prosper together. The problem is, I think, that the laws and cops can become as corrupt as those who rise up to take advantage of us. The systems we create to ensure a healthy, safe, and productive society can be turned against us. Our job is to maintain rule of law so we can be productive and enjoy the profits we produce.It gets complicated, doesn’t it? I think it’s important to avoid becoming cynical, and to be as involved as we can be, both in producing value in our society, and in managing our rules so we can get along well together.That means you should vote, and if you can, you should run for elected office to make your society better. By doing that, you help ensure that your motivation to produce value grows, because you’re enjoying the rewards of your work.@EEDR: “This is why people need to learn to be entrepreneurial.”Folks, please read that again and again. It’s critical today. What EEDR says does not just apply to starting your own business. You must be entrepreneurial at any job you have. If your employer does not want you to behave entrepreneurially at your job, your employer is not likely to be in business for long — so find a better employer, for your own good.It’s mystifying how “jobs” have become a commodity to workers, just as workers have become a fungible commodity to employers. You’re not a replaceable cog, and jobs are not replaceable sources of pay.If you can’t do your job like you’re an owner of the business — even if you’re not — then it’s the wrong job and it’s a bad company. If your job is not paying you commensurate with the profit your work yields, it’s no place to work. It’s unethical for employers to pay you unfairly (that is, without sharing the value you create), but it’s also unethical for you to work with employers who behave badly — all you’re doing is encouraging them and contributing to the demise of the society you live in.Please think about EEDR’s advice.So it sounds like Teddy Roosevelt was right a hundred years ago — it’s about monopolies and oligarchies which stifle innovation and exploit labor, and the financial pressures that lead them to that state of affairs.We have identified the problem — how do we fix it? Strengthen and broaden anti-trust regulations? Reward long-term investments to offset the corrupt influences of short-term profiteering? Anybody have any ideas?The answer is simple, and proven to work over 100 years ago: workers need to unionize.Of course, TPTB have convinced us working stiffs that Unions Are Bad, when in fact the opposite is true. Weekends, the 8-hour workday, lunch breaks, sick days, safe working conditions, etc. were all obtained by folks unionizing, striking and getting beat up. They fought for rights we take for granted today.Thank you for pointing this out. Unions have become universally demonized… and if you look at the facts, they are actually good for society. I wish they were better at educating the public about the benefits that union membership offers.I wonder if Mr. Feroli’s preconceptions of market dominance vs. employee welfare may not create a causal link that doesn’t hold up less sinister factors.Mr. Coy shares the example of transportation and warehousing where “The sector includes both railroads and airlines, industries where a series of blockbuster mergers concentrated ownership at the top. Lee Klaskow, who follows railroads for Bloomberg Intelligence, says they have become “extremely profitable.” Workers tend to be well-paid, but there are fewer of them, reducing labor’s share of income, he says.”Can one assume that mergers/market dominance -> reduced employee welfare?Looking at this particular industry one might note that it is typified by low value-add from the perspective of knowledge and manual dexterity. Thus it is an industry ripe for leverage via capital investment in artificial intelligence (logistics software), physical manipulation (mega-ships and warehousing), and automation (rail control and robotic pick/pack/ship). All of these technologies have high fixed costs, but low variable costs (unlike workers).Could it be that mergers and industry consolidation facilitate high capital investment? Might one infer that capital investment in automation has a higher causal relationship to “employees share of profits” than company size?In a June 12, 2013 article in MIT Technology Review How Technology is Destroying Jobs, David Rotman posits that improved industrial robotics and intellectual automation are largely behind sluggish employment growth over the last 15 years. Rotman cites work by Brynjolsson and McAfee suggesting that technological change is destroying jobs faster than it is creating them, contributing to a stagnation of median income and inequality growth in the United States.So while Feroli’s assertion that “‘…that industries with more concentrated ownership can charge higher prices. They pay out their extra profits to shareholders, or to the government in taxes, but not to workers…” may be true, the real villain may be automation and economy of scale.Indeed, Feroli’s example of enhanced “employee share of profits,” healthcare and social assistance, is an industry that requires complex intellectual acuity, manual dexterity and social interaction. Precisely skills that cannot be leveraged (automated) through capital investment in fixed assets. Not yet at least…So the “…corresponding increase in the share of the value added in the industry going to labor…” might be more of a factor of the industry structure, rather than corporate greed.Finally, paying out “extra profits” to shareholders is precisely what an enterprise has a fiduciary responsibility to do. Shareholders include individuals saving for retirement, retirement funds generating income for pensioners, along with capital investors seeking a return on their assets. It is the corporation’s responsibility to maximize this return, even if it means doing so with fewer highly paid workers. Klaskow’s point that “Workers tend to be well-paid, but there are fewer of them…” is well noted.Nick’s caution to pick your industry wisely is good advice. However, I would argue that rather than concerning oneself with company size and concentration, the employee would be better served choosing a vocation based upon industry and social trends.——————————MIT Technology Review How Technology is Destroying Jobs? and demand is a BIG part of this as well IMO. There is a greater number of bodies in the job market, but companies have had to look to doing more with less, due to added federal and state costs of operations.@EEDR: I totally agree and tell anyone who complains about “not getting paid what they are worth” to either find a position elsewhere or start their own business. The cost of running a business is NOT as simple and with all the new governmental regulations coming down each week (newest is Added Sugar label requirements) from the current Administration.@Michael Enquist: I have worked with multiple PhD’s during my career and found the trend is….the higher the level of education, the less common sense the person will have. Another example is, we have two new employees that were hired around the same time. One has a masters degree and was able to negotiate a higher starting salary than the other who only has a bachelors. As it stands now after several months, the employee with a bachelors has been more productive and more receptive in learning SQL and other skills. The one with the Masters degree has put out inaccurate data multiple times and repeatedly shown poor judgment and a lack of initiative to learn SQL. What erks me is we specifically said we work in SQL every day and he would be expected to learn. He agreed in the interview that he could and would learn it. So far, he has proven himself to be unreliable and not worth even the initial starting salary he was first offered, let alone his hired rate. If it were up to me, I’d give him a 3 month review (just passed) and a performance improvement plan. At 6 months I would reevaluate his performance and progress towards meeting our standards/expectations. At 9 months, if he hasn’t met our expectations, then I would wish him well elsewhere. Some positions/jobs are just not suited for some people. IMO, He loves designing in Tableau, but has shown little initiative/concern regarding the accuracy of the data he has put out. Sure it looks nice, but it’s worthless as far as making any decisions on. His lack of attention to detail has put our offices reputation at risk and is a poor reflection on the office and staff IMO.I have found that a degree or certifications do NOT necessarily equate to a Superstar employee or even a team focused employee. Aptitude and attitude DO.Hire tough, so you don’t have to manage tough IMO.@EEDR and @Nick are right.Self employment , or even just a more entrepreneurial mindset to one’s effort is the way to go. Three years ago I remember seeing how much my old boss billed me out and how little I got. What was worse was that I didn’t even have a good salary. He totally mopped the floor with me.Two years ago I went solo and even though things are not great, I’ve had to force myself to grow muscles in areas in which I was deficient –marketing, networking , learning what my niches are, etc.I’m still not making what someone in a ‘velvet sweatshop’ is making in a large organization –for 60 hour weeks at the wheel, but I’m close to hitting a new gear where I can make traction in my own vehicle. (And I don’t have the paid vacations!)Yes, there are those who will sneer at me for being solo (HR departments, esp. and those who always say “but who are you with after I explain 1-2 current projects), but I still get hiring managers calling me (on their own-w/o HR blessing ) about regular“Jobby-jobs”I’m at the cusp of the critical mass of solo client projects /and magical number of years’ experience (10 years post my final degree) that opens me up to a higher gear. I can’t give up now.As Eric Thomas , aka the ‘Hip Hop Preacher’ says , “Rise and Grind” every day!Here is a personal anecdote:At my old employer, they wanted to believe that they ran a meritocracy, so that what they considered “average” employee would be considered “higher than average” employee elsewhere and that if you met/exceeded your goals, you would be rewarded in kind. In other words, the claim was that they “set the bar high.”But the benefits were very average at best, and probably below average and so where pay raises. For the pay raises, They’d also play games on when they would give it to people – “high performers” would get theirs first, which could still be up to 6 months from a review, while others it could be longer.It was very demoralizing for morale when HR/Management tells you that they have high expectations for people and then when it came time to pay up, you were no better off for any efforts you put in.Keep in mind that this was also a F500 doing $billions in revenue and making $billions in profit.HR had sent me a survey when I left and I answered somewhat frankly, that the number 1 reason I left was money – that there was a feeling that it would take an Act of God to get any type of meaningful raise and that you’d have to basically leave the division I was in or company to get any sort of promotion/raise.This totally reminds me of Nick Hanauer’s epic TED talk about pitchforks. When it’s no longer profitable to slave (and I use that word advisedly) eight, ten, twelve hours a day, people put down the keyboard and the pen and the presentation laser pointer and pick up… *pitchforks*. There’s a fine line between depressed and mad as hell and not going to take it anymore, and a very strong tendency to come storming over it., I agree that unionizing would improve many workplaces. Unfortunately, many professions don’t have a union. If the rich people who profit off us tell us something is bad, it probably is in our best interest. The crap they pull sure isn’t.@Nick, Thank you for beautifully written wisdom.@Larry Kaplan, Well it won’t be by rewarding those loud advocates of individual initiative resting on their hindquarters doing nothing but collecting $50,000/hour in unearned income from Granddaddie’s efforts.@SK_AusTX: Good insights on the limited amount of information I was able to find about Feroli’s work. (I could not track down his actual “report” referred to in the Bloomberg article – I may go digging again.) I like your question about whether the impacts on workers is due to greed or just the march of technology.“Finally, paying out “extra profits” to shareholders is precisely what an enterprise has a fiduciary responsibility to do.”“It is the corporation’s responsibility to maximize this return, even if it means doing so with fewer highly paid workers.”I’d argue that rewarding shareholders is not a corporation’s primary reponsiblity. It’s to ensure the long-term success of the corporation. And this goal is often at odds with the short-term rewards the stock market seems to demand for investors. I’d argue that a company’s long-term business objectives are more in line with the well-being of employees than with the interests of investors. I think companies put themselves at great long-term risk when they focus on returns to investors at the expense of other, more important objectives. As far as I’m concerned, investors are along for the ride – they do not manage a company, nor should they. Consider the rules for boards of directors: “Nose in, fingers out.” That is, a board should carefully observe and guide a company at top level, but must not do the day-to-day management. I think many companies are border-line in violation of this important rule — because investors are in it for the share value, not for the value of the business. See? H: I don’t disagree with you in principle about unions, but unions have created their own problems over the past few decades. Their corruption has set back workers’ rights dramatically.@Dave: I think you mean “talk is cheap” and “HR sells PR!”@Nick: Thank you for this week’s post.At a job I had two jobs ago, a benefit for all employees (full time and part time) was profit-sharing. When the company’s profits went above a certain threshold, everyone got a temporary, one-time bump in their paychecks. At that time, that was their way of rewarding the hard work, because it was the workers who ensured that the shareholders made a profit.I recently ran into a former colleague from that job, and she told me that not long after I left in 2002, the company decided to eliminate the profit-sharing benefit. She said that she noticed that people were less inclined to work harder, but new management was convinced that workers should be grateful that they’re even working and doubly grateful to get a paycheck. They also stopped overtime pay, choosing to bring in non-benefitted temp. workers when needed to complete projects. She said that morale went downhill very quickly, that many of the high performers left, and those that remained, well, work but don’t bother to try to innovate or streamline–they clock in, do what is required, and clock out.But the owners and shareholders are very, very happy as all of the profits now flow to them and they don’t have to share them with the workers.I think capitalism is the best system, but only compared to the alternatives. But I think that what we have now isn’t capitalism but capitalism drifting towards feudalism.@Bryan: I completely agree with you that unionizing would improve many workplaces. There was a PBS show on a few years ago about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911, which is interesting not only for its historical background, but because it took a tragedy to bring unions into the garment industry. I think too many have forgotten that lesson, or never heard of this tragedy at all (even worse). It would not be remiss today as I think we are reverting to those times. And somehow, the richest of the rich have convinced the masses that unions are bad. Sure, unions are bad for the owners.It really is all about balance, as the article in the link Glenn posted illustrates. When the peasants of late 18th century France were starving and no opportunities, no hope of improving their lives, and when the peasants of Russia were starving in 1917 with similar lack of opportunities and hopes, they did resort to the pitchforks…and the guillotines….and the bayonets….and the outcomes were not good for the ruling classes in either country. We’ve always been more stable because we had a middle class and opportunities, but that doesn’t make us immune to revolution if things continue.I believe in reasonable, sensible regulations, and that is the role for government. But not for a government that is bought and paid for by lobbyists for the ruling class.Really? I’m shocked that it’s taken so long for us to recognize the obscene level of greed that exists in our flavor of so-called capitalism. Best of luck to anyone who thinks they know how to reverse the momentum of this established mentality as we’ve been living in denial for a long time.Nick –Thanks for this.I am nearing retirement (from a large financial services company) and I’ve been thinking about how lucky I am to have had a good income, a generously matched 401(k), a pension (that was frozen in 2009 – but still has a few bucks in it for me), and fantastic health insurance. (Also, it sure helps that the housing market, at least in my area, has fully recovered and then some!)As I’ve been looking over my financial picture, retirement looks pretty good. I won’t be living in luxury, but I never have.But I’ve thinking about my kids. I never worried much about having money or retiring, but they do and will. And part of that, I think, is what you’re pointing at here. It won’t be easy for them, as it was for me. Just in the last couple of days, I’ve been thinking about writing them a letter – now I’ll just begin by forwarding your post, for starters.This isn’t the whole story, as you pointed out, but it is a big problem. For my kids and others. And, indeed, for the country. I guess it’s more than obvious how this is shaping politics these days.Jon B.From marybeth:“But not for a government that is bought and paid for by lobbyists for the ruling class.”This “bought and paid for” phenomenon is in large part because of how we fund political campaigns. Political campaigns are hugely expensive. Both parties are each likely to spend more than a billion dollars on the presidential election. Senate races could cost almost $10 million; House races $1-2 million. Lobbyists are an important part of the fundraising process. When a lobbyist talks to a politician, the lobbyist doesn’t need to rely on the strength of the argument, campaign funds speak LOUDLY. Issue One () is working on fixing this problem. Check them out if you’re part of the more than 90% of Americans from both parties who think we need to get big money special interests out of our elections.Couldn’t agree more Marybeth. The road to economic security for the masses runs straight through a broken political system favored by the few in the ruling class. The Republic is at-risk. Big time.Of course, the USA does not truly have capitalism, nor have we had it, for a very long time. We have socialism for the rich, and too big to fail, anti-competitive practices, Citizens United equating money and speech, monopolies, and lobbyists who buy and pay for political results and kickbacks. We have juicy subsidies, and tax breaks resulting in zero taxes paid by tremendously profitable corps, and offshoring of profits, and corruption made okay, but only for the “right” people and groups. Even when the courts call the clique on their excesses, they kick a little money back to the gov and all is made clean. Victims are never reimbursed. The gov takes their cut. No one in the clique ever goes to jail. This isn’t Iceland. However, anyone NOT in the clique would go to jail for doing the same and they would rightly be called thieves. We have oligarchy — NOT capitalism. Have we forgotten the difference? Who knows how well capitalism works or would work? We don’t have it, so we can’t really evaluate that which we don’t even have.Oligarchy is how 95% of Latin America runs–and even in nominally free market countries, that’s what you have. Mexico is the main example. (I’ll except Chile and Panama from this broad brush as their economies run pretty clean). Of course you descend from there into the hot mess that is Venezuela, the socialist disaster that is Brazil, the continuing crisis of Argentina and crypto-fascist states like Paraguay.We are trending towards that, and near-unfettered immigration from those countries doesn’t help keep us on the straight and narrow. It introduces their norms.FYI–my father was an Italian double immigrant–first to Buenos Aires where he was born, back to Italy, then to Connecticut. It took his family several tries to become US residents and then citizens.@EEDRS@NickAt the risk of sounding repetitious:This goes a long way toward explaining the number of innovative mom-n-pop (or 1-man) restaurants, coffee shops, charities, book stores, sewing machine & fabric shop, pet care, etc operations that you hear about being run by someone “formerly in IT” or “formerly in corporate life”.Maybe the problem of employees getting decent, if not entirely fair compensation for their labors goes back to that point in history when we ceased to be “These United States” and became “The United States”.marybeth: “But I think that what we have now isn’t capitalism but capitalism drifting towards feudalism.”Exactly. Your wisdom is exactly on point.There are those ‘rulers’ who want exactly that.Re the drift….What happens when feudalism and serfdom are the norm? Not a lot of progress or happiness except for the few. A Malthusian world where the wealthy are sheltered in private enclaves and guarded by private security. Where those who are at the top because of blood and connections, jealously guarded. A bloody, unfair, static and mean world where laws, ideas and hard work mean little and privilege everything.And not much changes for the better.I’ve always been uneasy with the fascination many have with ‘Game of Thrones’ and other medieval ‘worlds’–perhaps they capture the zeitgeist, perhaps they are promulgated in the media to make us accept this life.Normally, I try to read through the comments carefully before commenting, but this particular subject has held a couple of thoughts I’d like to try to articulate before I go back and pay careful attention to the people who have taken the initiative to post their thoughts. I promise to come back and do my civic internet duty to carefully consider the other points of view.When I lost my nice job circa 2010 and was forced out into the wild for nearly two years, I noticed one thing and suspected another.As I tried to regain my previous level of employment (which, of course, never did and never will happen), I noticed that the laundry lists of the alleged skills needed to perform at acceptable levels continued to increase while the pay for those skill levels decreased.I was too much in shock at the time (clinical depression soon followed) to fully absorb the implications of my 85K salary dropping to the 35-50K range.My field is transportation and distribution.As the years went by, and I watched the positions that I was passed over for continually re-open, a couple of things came to mind.The first was that you really do get what you pay for. I survived my position for thirty years. Most of the positions I applied for didn’t stay closed for thirty months, often for less than the iconic 90 days. As I saw the pay range slowly increase, I saw things settle down. In the latest salary survey in my favorite professional pub (I still follow my field though I no longer lead) the salary for my level of management was almost precisely what I had projected had my job not been wiped out and my yearly increases not been tampered with.At least I know now that I wasn’t “overcompensated” for what I did, just competitively paid.This knowledge probably shortened the trajectory of my post-traumatic job-loss disorder. Now that I know that I was competent in my field, I can handle the systematic silliness of the present employment atrocities just a tad bit better.As a few years passed since my job loss, I came to name the trend I spotted as the “two levels up, two levels down” phenomenon, though now it is probably at the “3 levels up, four levels down” position.Basically, the laundry list increases while the pay decreases, or stays stagnant. For while the pay report I spoke of regained course, almost 40% of the respondents noted that their responsibilities had increased significantly.My basic perception of the alleged “skill-set” gap that is related to this problem of proper compensation is that what actually exists is a “mind-set” gap. When you pay for experience, you not only ensure that valuable time will not be wasted reinventing the wheel, you increase the odds of successfully completing projects because patience and stubbornness (determination) come with maturity. You are not only paying for emotional intelligence; you are compensating a mind-set of effectual intelligence.I suspect that this mind-set is alive and well, and holding itself hostage in the form of discarded, forgotten, and marginalized 50+ aged workers who know what they’re worth, and are holding out until compensation begins to adequately reflect their hard-earned mind-set.They are not “discouraged job hunters” who “don’t have the stomach” to face repeated rudeness and rejection from HR: they are holding their talent hostage, patiently waiting for corporations to understand that the mind-set needed for success comes with a fair market value, and that that value is currently being undervalued.And because they were tossed out of the corporate plane without golden parachutes, or more often, with no parachutes at all, they’ve learned in the last half-decade that they can weather financial hardship better than they thought. Which makes their bargaining chips all the more valuable.They’ve done the math. Now it’s time for the corporations to re-do theirs.@Citizen X: “They are not “discouraged job hunters”…they are holding their talent hostage”Really? Because that’s not what I’m seeing. I see another comment left by an “old person” on the Over 50 and Out of Work page every single day, and at least once a week one of them says they’re debating suicide,? you see the comments on the above-referenced TED talk,?? Not much positive outlook to find there.Even this article from three years ago continues to attract recent comments by angry and frustrated unemployed “old folks” still waiting for things to get better,??(I particularly like the comment calling out the banks with “Why are mortgages given to people that won’t have their homes paid off by age 40? If you are deemed unemployable at 40, and can’t keep a job because of this, the mortgage companies should be held accountable for writing bad loans, right?”)If you’re an “old woman” it’s even worse,? you heard about the rising suicide among adults aged 40-64 years??“Why Some Still Can’t Find Jobs As The Economy Nears ‘Full Employment'”’d wager the 46yo tech worker mentioned here back in March still hasn’t found work (doesn’t look like he’s just holding out patiently),? Wall Street is kicking out “old” folks — “Wall Street is gripped by something called ‘juniorization,’ and it is freaking some people out”? you for the incredible list of links.Actually, I was 58 when I lost my job circa 2010, and fell into deep depression only weeks after.I had known that suicide goes up during bad economic times, but this is the first time I have seen the numbers in my age group.I knew my age was decreasing my callbacks to my job applications year by year. I actually am one of those discouraged workers, because I seldom apply for anything anymore. Just short of two years after I was tossed out of my thirty-year gig, I was “accidentally hired” into an entry-level position I still hold five years later.I know that I have been incredibly fortunate to stay continually employed at a slightly higher rate than minimum wage.I also know that a lot of people in my age group have not been so fortunate.Thanks again for the links. I’m glad there’s still a few people reporting on these things.@Nick: I agree with you that capitalism isn’t (by definition) a zero-sum game, but unfortunately that is how it operates here. I think competition is good–for everyone. It gives consumers options, and forces businesses to innovate, to strive, to try to improve their products, services, etc., which in turn improves the businesses. But that isn’t what we have with the current version of capitalism. It is very much a zero-sum game, where competition is viewed as a threat, a danger, something to be eliminated. Teddy Roosevelt broke up the big trusts and big conglomerate corporations because he could see the danger they posed to the economy and to the country. Fewer monopolies = greater competition = better for the economic, social, and political health of the country. We need another Teddy Roosevelt!@Peter: Regarding your comment about Ph.Ds, there is some truth to it. When I worked at a large state university (all of the faculty had doctorate degrees), the joke was that Ph.D means “Pile (it) higher and Deeper”! That said, I was fortunate to work with some who had a great deal of common sense and who weren’t afraid to work and to try to get things done, but some, well, they couldn’t match their socks and I wondered how one in particular managed to make it to school. I am convinced that his wife got him up, dressed, fed, shoved him out of the door, told him to turn left and go along until he got to campus.@BL@JohnI agree, and I’d go further. I think “Citizens United” has been an unmitigated disaster for ordinary Americans and for our political system on the whole. If I were writing the dissent, I would argue that money does not equal speech, money equals access. Access to politicians, who can bought to vote the way those with deep pockets require. They can write laws (such as the banks and insurance companies writing banking and insurance laws) so they are beneficiaries, not the people. I read somewhere (I’ll try to find a link) that politicians vote the way those who donate the most want them to vote, regardless of how the majority of their constituents vote or feel about the issues.I also remember watching an interview with Barney Frank (MA Congressman) several years ago. He wasn’t against inequality, stated that some inequality is good and necessary, but what we have now is dangerous because it is so out of balance.@marybeth: I don’t think we can call what dominates American business “capitalism” at all. It’s speculation. What passes as capital investment is actually short-term gambling.RE: Citizens United. I think the single biggest issue in America (sorry, folks, I know many will raise other worthy issues) is campaign finance reform. I’m with Bernie Sanders on this. Until big money is taken out of politics, there can be no democracy of any kind. I’m not against big money (I wish I had some of that kind of money). I’m against big money in elections and in government.@Linnea: I agree, and if you think back to the kinds of labor abuses common in the 19th and early 20th century (long workdays, unsafe working conditions, low wages, child labor, and more), unions did a great deal of good (8 hour work day, 40 hour work week, sick time, vacation time, safer working conditions, banning child labor, etc.) But the balance can tip in the other direction, too.@Nick: Yes, that’s a good way to think about it (not true investment but short-term gambling). Your comment mirrors Al Capone’s statement about stocks and Wall Street in the 1920’s. He thought it was “a racket–those stock market guys are crooked.” His sentiments are particulary apt today as they were during the roaring 20’s. And you’re absolutely right–we don’t have capitalism. If we did, the banks, the auto industry, and others should have gone belly up in 2008. If I remember my econ 101 correctly, capitalism is Darwinian–the market rules, and the principle of survival of the fittest determines which businesses make it and which don’t. That isn’t what happened, because the government aka us taxpayers bailed out Wall Street, banking, etc. If it were truly capitalism, they should have failed. Even worse is that none of the people whose reckless behavior crashed the economy were indicted, much less went to jail. MA Senator Elizabeth Warren pushed for it, but without cooperation from the rest of Congress and from the administration, her efforts went nowhere. We’ll put the kid who sells an ounce of pot in jail and he gets a criminal record that impacts him for the rest of his life, but the people who sucked pensions dry, who sucked all of the equity out of businesses, etc. faced no punishment. And this goes back to big money in politics. We have the kind of government that big money bought, and it doesn’t help the average person.@Dee: thanks for your comments. You’re right about oligarchies and plutocracies. I haven’t decided whether we’ve become oligarchical plutocracy or a plutocratic oligarchy. It might be the same difference. I’d forgotten about Central and South American countries, but remember a former supervisor saying years ago that the difference between us and Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua, and other such countries is that we have a solid, stable middle class, with opportunities for the poor and working class to move up the economic ladder. The other countries (she lived in many of them and witnessed their problems first hand) have a tiny group of people (aristocracy, military huntas, etc.) who own 99% of the wealth and have all of the political power. There’s no opportunity for self-improvement, and you remain in the social class in which you were born no matter how hard-working, how intelligent, how talented you are. And when too many of the poor starve, that causes revolutions and unrest (which are often put down bloodily by the military). At the time, she joked that if we followed Reagan’s philosophies to their logical conclusion, we would become Mexico, with a small group who control all of the wealth, benefits, opportunities, and political power, and rest barely making a living. She joked about it because she never thought it would happen here because of the safeguards in our systems.I haven’t seen “Game of Thrones”, but agree with your comments. Maybe it is popular because it reflects more or less where we are, and despite the medieval trappings, you could change the clothing, the dialog, and drop the characters in Congress, big business, etc. and you wouldn’t have to change the basic concept. We’ve already seen that the privileged, the wealthy, the well-connected operate by one set of laws and rules (no consequences for their bad acts) and another set for everyone else. We’re already there.FYI…my great-grandparents emigrated from Russia, Poland, Germany, and Austria in the early 20th century, and had long lived under autocratic rule in their home countries. Those monarchies were swept away during and after the carnage, chaos, and political, economic, and social upheavals of World War I. The Kaiser lost his crown but escaped with his life, living in exile, but Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family were brutally executed by the Bolsheviks, who realized that the only way to ensure that there would be no claims to the throne was to kill anyone who could claim it. Nicholas thought the military would be loyal to him, but he was wrong, because the war wasn’t going well, and they and their families at home were starving and dying while the Tsar and the aristocracy in their gated estates lived lives beyond the imagination of majority of Russians. They had nothing to lose by revolution. If our political leaders have any sense, that lesson is one they should remember.@marybeth and @LinneaI think a century ago, unions were needed much more than they are now. Now that many things actually got codified in law, people tend to think that unions tended to get “too greedy.” I don’t think it’s demonetization; it’s just their usefulness has been questioned especially in the Western/developed world. In some locales, like France I believe, it is very hard to fire/lay off workers so many employers are over-cautious when it comes to actually hiring people – some say it’s essentially getting married ;). I believe this is even reflected in unemployment rates/labor participation rates.@Dave: I think unions shat in their own soup pots, just like companies have. Unions became as corrupt as the management they were supposed to serve as a balance to. Today, no one serves employees but employees. It’s why just today the jobs report revealed that over 400,000 people left the workforce in the last month.@marybeth: The tell-tale sign that there is no real capitalism is the same sign that there is no real rule of law: No one went to jail for the 2008 bank crash.@NickI heard that jobs report this morning. Fortunately our local morning radio crew took a shallow view of the “Unemployment Rate Dipped to 4.7%!!” and dug a little deeper to find it was largely due to some 400,000 people just giving up on the job market after (or coincidentally with) the U.S. economy only adding 38,000 jobs in May.It didn’t use to be this way.Here is a great Nick Corcodillos article that should win a Nobel Prize for telling it like it is:WTF is going on with employment in America?Why have I written and published 500 weekly editions of the Ask The Headhunter Newsletter? Because America’s employment system still doesn’t work.The emperor still has no clothes, and that’s why over 25 million Americans are unemployed or under-employed. (According to PBS NewsHour, that’s how many Americans say they want but can’t find a full time job.) Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, there are about 3.9 million jobs vacant.HR executives have a special term for this 6:1 market advantage when they’re trying to fill jobs today: They call it a?“talent shortage.”Gimme a break.Personnel jockeys run around in their corporate offices with their eyes closed, throwing billions of dollars at applicant tracking systems and job boards like Taleo, , and LinkedIn — and they pretend no one can see they are dancing in circles buck naked.WTF is going on??We’ll talk about a talent shortage when the HR talent shortage abates — and HR executives learn how to match up the 3.9 million with work that needs panies don’t hire any moreEmployers don’t do their own hiring, and that’s the?#1 problem. Employers have outsourced their competitive edge — recruiting and hiring — to third parties whose heads are so far up The Database Butt that this little consortium should be investigated by Congress.Taleo, Kenexa, LinkedIn, , CareerBuilder, and their diaspora — you know who I’m talking about. Monster and LinkedIn alone sucked almost $2 billion out of the employment system in 2012. These vendors tout fake technologies and cheap string-search routines masquerading as “algorithms” for finding “hidden talent” and “matching people to jobs.”So, why are almost 4 million jobs vacant?Because?these vendors sell databases, not recruiting, not headhunting, not jobs, not hires, not “matchmaking.”Somewhere, right now, the chairman of the board of some corporation is pounding the podium at a shareholders’ meeting, exclaiming, “People are our most important asset!”Meanwhile, HR executives are blowing billions out their asses, mingling their companies’ most important assets in databases shared with all their competitors via a handful of “applicant tracking systems” that can’t get the job done.Heads-up to boards of directors:?Where is your competitive edge any more? Take control of your hiring again — like it matters!Employers don’t know how to recruitHere’s how human resources departments across America “recruit.” They put impossible mixes of keywords about jobs into a computer. They press a button and pay billions of dollars for a chance that Prince Charming might materialize on their computer displays. When the prince fails to appear, they pay to play another day. (Last year, companies polled said 1.3% of their hires came from and 1.2% from CareerBuilider. Source: CareerXroads.)Meanwhile, in the real world, over 25 million people — many of them immensely talented and capable of riding a fast learning curve without falling off — are ready to work.Employers need to get off their butts, remove the Taleo straps from around their necks, and go outside to actually find, meet, recruit, cajole, seduce, and convince good workers to come work for them.The employment system vendors are lyingThe big job boards and the applicant tracking systems tell employers that sophisticated database technology will find the perfect hire.”Don’t settle for teaching a good worker anything about doing a job. Hire only?the perfect fit!”“We make that possible when you use more keywords for a job!”“The more requirements you specify, the more perfect your hire will be! The database handles it all!”Except that’s a lie.?Job descriptions heavily larded with keywords?make it virtually impossible to find good candidates. But every day that an impossible job requisition remains unfilled, the employment system vendors make more money while companies keep advertising for the perfect hires.WTF? How stupid can anyone be? At the roulette wheel, the house always wins.3.9 million jobs are vacant, thanks to the empty promises of algorithms. If the U.S. Congress wants a solution, it should launch an investigation into the workings of America’s employment system infrastructure, which is controlled by a handful of companies.Employers have no business planWharton researcher Peter Cappelli has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the quality of the American worker pool has not diminished. Rather, American companies:Don’t want to pay market value to hire the right workers.Don’t want to train talented workers to do a new job.Don’t have any problem using applicant tracking systems that don’t work.Cappelli points out that employers believe they save money when they leave jobs vacant, because their accounting systems track the cost of having workers on the payroll — but cannot track the cost of leaving work undone.Employers run the?junk profitability?numbers in their sleep:Fewer Employees=Lower Costs=Higher ProfitsEmployers that believe this are idiots. They should stop regarding workers as a cost, and start treating them as investments, and ensure that each worker pays off in higher profits. They should get a business plan.America counts jobs, not profitable workThe federal government tracks the number of people who have jobs and the number of vacant jobs. But that’s no measure of a healthy economy. We all know the weekly employment figures are a fraud. The definitions of jobs and “who is employed” are so manipulated that no one knows WTF is going on.It’s time to re-think how companies find and pay people to do work that produces profit. A better indicator of economic success would be the measure of how profitable all the work in America actually is — and how much profit is left behind on the table each month when work is left undone.People must stop begging for jobsIt’s time for people to stop thinking about jobs, and high time to start thinking about?how — and where — they can create profit.If I run a company, I’ll hire you to do work that pays off more than what I pay you to do it. Today, virtually no employer knows whether hiring a person will pay off. That’s why you need to know how to walk into a manager’s office and demonstrate, hands down,?how you will contribute profit to the manager’s business. That’s right: Be smarter than the manager about his own business. Stop begging for jobs. Start offering profit.Because if you can’t do that, you have no business applying for any job, in any company.Think you can generate lots of profit without working for someone else? Then bet your future on your plan, and start your own business.WTF is going onHere’s the simple truth that’s buried in the employment system, which is controlled by a handful of lightweight database jockeys who are funded by HR executives who have no idea how to recruit or hire:There is no business plan in any applicant tracking system, no profit in a job posting, no future in federal employment metrics, no solution in HR departments, and no answers in databases or algorithms.WTF is going on is this:?American ingenuity starts with the individual who has an idea, blossoms with a plan that will produce profit — for yourself and your boss and your customer — and results in more money for everybody.WTF is going on is that you must do the hard work of figuring it out yourself, each time, and every time. American business can’t outsource recruiting and hiring, and American workers can’t afford to let someone else find them “a job.”WTF do you think is going on??Is there a way out of this mess? How do we change the way work is defined, and how people earn money for their work?And here are some comments to said article:Amen Brother! Its sad but true the formula corporate leaders apply to ensure they make their numbers (and bonuses) is: Fewer Employees=Lower Costs=Higher Profits. As you note this leaves a lot of money on the table thats ripe for an opportunity for some creative type with a plan to make a profit. Thanks for writting this as its so true!Nick–I think you’re pointing to a more systemic issue here: the financialization of everything. Companies now are more focused on making money with floating their cash flow than they are with making products and providing services. Financial managers have taken over most of the key decision making roles in big companies, and for them it’s a better proposition to make money with money while the cashflow is still there than it is to invest in “human capital” where the return is over too long of a time horizon for it to be rational in today’s capital marketplace.Of course this is a deal with the devil, as this strategy surely hollows out the firm’s capacity to produce anything effectively. I offer the airline industry as the prima facie evidence of this–the whole industry has turned into a big cashflow, commodity hedge, and asset play, and the level of service keeps spiraling downward. In the current condition, there’s no way out.The Deloitte Center for the Future produced a study a few years back about the trend of the return on net assets of big companies. Since the mid 60’s, the return has declined 75 percent, and is still declining DESPITE rising labor productivity. It’s burning both ends of the candle and points to some kind of cataclysmic collapse.Look at the Gallup engagement reports. Historic and accelerating drop offs in the key measures of human capital productive capacity. The result of financialization on the humans in the companies has finally come home to roost. And as Nick points out, comapnies have vaporized their capacity to attract and retain talent. Today they incent for people who thrive in cut-throat, zero sum game environments, making the default corporate culture a shark tank. All the people with fungible skills have pulled up stakes, and almost all entrepreneurial and technical edge has bled out. Again, look at the airlines as the canary in the coalmine.Deloite/Edge study:? the ‘but cannot track the cost of leaving work undone’ I would add ‘until the entire system comes crashing down because necessary work was left undone’I have a feeling what you’ll hear in reply is a woe-is-us wail of victimhood on the part of HR and corporate powers that be. The really good “talent” in their view is hidden like diamonds in the rough, and only technology can root it out– if they don’t, their competitors will, etc.The other unmentioned symptom which those of us who do consulting will notice is an increased reliance on third party “body brokers” to source in project based assistance at discount rates. Management wants no part of the early phases of direct meet and greet and demonstration of know-how or acumen to do a job in the way this column promotes. They will cite overwhelm and understaffing as their defense and get the brokers to winnow the field to those who will work for a song and forgo negotiating. Employers will then settle for the one eyed man to serve the land of the blind on an interim basis as their most thrifty and sensible alternative. The consultant-interim worker will not even meet his prospective boss until the day he arrives to earn lunch money.Those of us who refuse to play this game, I fear, will find ourselves on an ever shrinking ice floe as the decade wears on and 45% or more of the work force is relegated to contract help with crazed broken systems of matchmaking that will leave more true talent on the sidelines than you can even imagine now.Nick,I agree with 99% of what you say, but here’s where I disagree: your emphasis on the employee’s profit contribution is excessive.Specific jobs exist for many valid reasons and contributing to profits is only one of them.Take me, for instance. My last “good” corporate job was as a financial writer for a mutual fund company. The job is much more about maintaining legal / regulatory compliance than it is about increasing sales. In fact, any piece of written communications that is persuasively effective is also illegal.This is a real problem in resume writing. There are no measurements of profitability that can actually be attributed to the financial writer.Even measures of compliance, such as meeting regulatory deadlines for issuing client reports, are so far beyond the control of the financial writer that it’s a joke.An honest resume for a financial writer is a description of features, not measurable benefits.This problem demonstrates the value of your approach to the job search. But I’d like to point out that the written resume could support your process more effectively if applicants didn’t feel compelled to twist explanations of what they did into irrelevant or untrue profit measures. Anyway, the manager who hires the financial writer knows better, even if HR doesn’t.-Diana employer who subjects job prospects to Taleo’s HR system should ask themselves whether anyone would want to work for a company that offers up a user hostile experience with the Taleo online application process.Why is it that firms that want to attract top talent out of their way to make a terrible first impression with a broken hiring process and a nightmarish online application web site. My first response when I see Taleo is one word, “run.” I suspect others might do the same.I have three criteria for a job (1) interesting work, (2) nice people, (3) a reasonable shot at making a buck. A “no” in the check box on any of these is a “walk away” signal. Taleo hits #2 every time.I wish this column was sent to every HR department and Board room in the country.The hiring system is completely dysfunctional and a broken system produces nothing worthwhile.AAAAmen Nick! You have hit the nail right on the head. The software business (developing and marketing it) that drives this insanity is a multibillion dollar industry, run by charlatans. I have personal stories i would love to share.Yep, you are stating the obvious for those of us that have experienced it.When filling out one of the Q&A forms in Taleo for a job, the questions were worded in such a way that I could not succeed. For example, “have you ever sold products to XCorp?” My answer had to be “No,” but I had worked at XCorp and knew many of the people that this company was hoping to reach. The answer was a choice of button selections, so there was no opportunity to explain my value, and, being an ethical person, I could not honestly answer “Yes” even though I knew that could at least get a call from them and I could then explain my answer. But, would they then feel I had lied to get the call and then not hire me?Regardless, I reached out to my contacts at XCorp, who then contacted the people at the hiring company. I got a call from the hiring manager and he was so excited to find me that he immediately called in their VP to talk to me on the phone.The problem was, I already had an offer, which I had informed them of, and they were unable to get their paperwork completed by the time I needed to commit to the other company (where I now work). They easily lost 2 months of my working with them because Taleo asked the wrong questions (which I am sure were created by the hiring company’s HR department).Nick:I would love to argue with you – with any of the points you’ve made – but I can’t.You’re right. You’re on target across the board, what you say is precisely correct.This really needs to be a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor, or more accurately, a guest editorial. Powerful stuff, the truth.I work with a Between Jobs Ministry, trying to help those out of work find work, and this article is going to be the basis of a teaching presentation. I’ve made similar points many times, but I’ve never done it as well (or as pointedly) as you have in this blog. We drive job seekers to sell their ability to contribute to the employer’s profitability, preferably through demonstration of past profitability contributions to previous employers. It’s sound advice and it works but it’s difficult to sail against the wind of the “application” based systems so prevalent today.Again, bravo, congratulations on a terrific blog. I can’t say enough about it.@ Diana–‘Anyway, the manager who hires the financial writer knows better, even if HR doesn’t.’ Unfortunately, many times it’s HR that controls who the hiring manager is allowed to talk to.Another issue is that what we are involved in is not a hiring process, it’s an elimination process. HR has a problem (largely of it’s own making) with the sheer volume of applications. They are buried in a crapalanche of boring, junky resumes and focus on getting rid of people not finding them. We tend to get good at those things we do a lot, so HR is really good at eliminating. I can almost hear them say ‘Wow, the ATS eliminated all 600 applicants, must be a talent shortage.’Every word, so true. Who would have thought the ‘keyword madness’ would worsen in the face of a surfeit of jobs and so many talented job seekers? It has.The sad thing is that it makes no sense. I recently found a position I was perfect for me with the State of Texas. The bar was high, but with over 25 years of experience as a writer, I actually met all of the requirements, except one: I don’t have a BA. I do have an AA and another year of college, honor roll all the way.I have a contact who talked to me about the job. That person told me ” they (the state) would not even ‘look at me’ because you don’t have the degree.” I met every single job requirement *about the actual work* but they wont talk to me?No wonder employers of all kinds, including government, can no longer compete on the world stage.Like greedy kids at Christmas, companies continue to make outrageous lists of ‘wants’ for Santa Claus that no one could ever fulfill. And our economy and jobs are paying the price.@Jersey Joe: I think it’s too much focus on short-term financial results. Too much concern with the speculative stockholder at the expense of the true investors in a business. Whether we’re talking product development or headcount, companies are creating “junk profitability” in the short term while shooting themselves in the foot long-term.Kent Vincent: “The really good “talent” in their view is hidden like diamonds in the rough, and only technology can root it out”Yah, HR doesn’t want to don the overalls and go to work in the field. They want to buy applicants. There goes the competitive edge.As for the body shops, I think companies use them to avoid fixed overhead. This creates more junk profitability. But look at the results: Workers who are at arm’s length are not so invested in the business.I still think the most talented people can do well. The challenge is to get past your lower-cost competitors. Prove your value. That’s not easy.Nick,I enjoyed your read. You use many of my old phrases; WTF and a person must be ready to sell themselves to their employer, ” I add to your profits…”. The major problem with the large number of people in the unemployment lines stems to the simple fact that the companies do not owe you a “job”. People with more than 7 to 10 years experience are in the crosshairs of every employer. They must keep their skills above average and their attitude focused on the bottom line of the company. They must think of new ways to add to the getting the job done or the product out the door. Good attitude keeps you employed. No one owes you a job with benefits.@Diana Schneidman: I understand your frustration with trying to calculate the profit in the work you do. Try what I did long ago (and this is what gave me the ideas I have about individual profitability): Go talk to your company’s CFO. Ask him or her to discuss how your job contributes to profit, directly or indirectly. I did this once, and learned a great deal. And the CFO did, too. It’s time we all made this assessment.@George: I’m getting lots of inside dope about Taleo and the other main applicant tracking system companies. What’s astonishing: No one really knows how they operate or how personal data is handled. Employers just smile and take what they are given. Big mistake. I think this is a huge bubble that’s going to make a big noise when it pops. I really mean it when I say Congress needs to investigate these vendors — they are the lynchpin in our employment economy.Nick, great article, great comments.In keeping with your theme, it seems to me another important aspect of WTF is going on is that these “HR Systems” (hardware, software, and work processes) help A LOT of people avoid accountability for not doing their respective jobs. For example:HR: “We get so many resumes. It is impossible for us to review them all manually. These HR systems are absolutely necessary.” Is it possible that part of “the reality” is that HR folks don’t want the responsibility of having to review resumes and then make a decision, a decision for which they could be held ACCOUNTABLE.Hiring Manager: “Its HR’s job to send me quality applicants.” (translated “Its not my job.”) Is it possible that just maybe the hiring managers really don’t want to review resumes (for whatever reason, “no time”, “more important or pressing things to do”, etc.) and then make a decision, a decision for which they could be held ACCOUNTABLE.Applicant/Job Seeker: These HR Systems make it incredibly easy to “apply” for a position. Is it possible that some applicants are not really applying, but merely submitting a resume so they can “say” they’ve applied for x number of jobs this week? Do the HR Systems actually help some job seekers rationalize their avoidance of the hard work (that you’ve written about so many times) of studying an industry, identifying target companies, identifying the key people within the company, etc., etc., etc.).?And the folks in the corner office – when they say “we’re having trouble locating the skilled employees we need, so we’ve redoubled our efforts, investing $XX in our HR Systems”…are they not saying “hey, its not our fault”?Bottom line is: “The System” isn’t going to change, at least in the short-term. The good news is, we job seekers don’t have to play by ALL of the HR Industry’ rules. Find a way to get to the hiring manager and show that person how you can help them. Then HR can do their job….helping you fill out the paperwork for the firm’s retirement plan, Health Insurance, etc, etc.I read about an engineering firm in California that was puzzled why they weren’t getting very many applications through their web site. They submitted what they thought was the perfect resume for one of their open positions. The ATS rejected it, giving it a score of 60 when an 80 was required to move forward. The company is in the market for a new vendor, this time with eyes wide open.I am a career counselor working in a non-profit career center. I see many, many qualified good people who don’t have jobs because they lack that one non-critical skill or because their network isn’t as strong as the next person’s. It’s too bad that none of these employers in a “talent shortage” are willing to physically come to our center to meet with our members. I guess it’s too hard to get off a chair and really search for the amazing people that exist.I also work for a non profit such as yours… We even offer employers on the job training dollars if they would hire good people that lack a few specific wanted skills. We pay half their wage for up to 6 weeks if they agree to hire and train them in the lacking skills. No employers want to participate.I have been trying to get my career “back on track” after relocating for my husbands job. Also, I took some time off to care for family members, kids and parents. Almost out of desperation, I recently took a seasonal job at a major distribution center for a large retailer. With 2 degrees, I have never had to work in a warehouse, but am finding the job very interesting. I have heard that in the past this company used temp. employment agencies, but had too many problems. Now, their HR dept. does a lot of advertising and hires the employees themselves. They offer all kinds of perks if you bring in friends or relatives and they stay at least 3 months. This company is projecting a lot of growth with their Omnichannel shopping. We have been promised that after the holidays there will be some permanent jobs. Basically, they test out their employees during the busy times and then keep the best most reliable workers. I have already been trained in 2 sections and will soon train in a 3rd. This is the first employer that has treated me with respect since our move. I hope it continues in 2014!Nick,Accurate as always sir. The problem with the employers is not the only problem. It’s also in the way job seekers go about the business of finding a job. But it’s not all their fault, they just don’t know any better.I know this from my own experience as a volunteer helping people find jobs. Every month, I hear speaker after speaker come in and spew the same garbage about how their way of writing a resume is the best, how to network, how to interview, etc. What a load of crap. Especially since almost none of these “experts” have never hired anyone, or been in a position to.If I hear one more HR person explain how to apply for a job online, or another resume expert explain how this months preferred format will help them, I think my head will explode.There’s so much crapformation out there no wonder people give up.That’s doesn’t excuse the fact that employers have problems and managers are trained in all the wrong ways to hire, if they are trained at all. And if they are, it’s on how to eliminate candidates, not to on how to find the right one.I recall an interview with Bill Gates of Microsoft many years ago. If I recall correctly, he was asked what gave him the most satisfaction?“Hiring good people.”It seems that the American hiring, recruitment and training model is inversely proportional to the degree of difficulty of the job. Because we do not ask the person who has arguably the most difficult job in the world, President of the United States, to have any previous experience, specific training or a track record of quantifiable results that he or she is qualified to do the job profitably.A great and enlightening post, Nick. You always see things that others miss.Nick,You are always a good read and have an interesting way of sharing your ideas and opinions, but your perpetual railing on HR as the source of all poor hiring practices in all of the universe is getting old and disingenuous. There are too many hiring managers who are real jerks, who refuse to look at candidates, screened or otherwise. With the bureaucracy still imposed by the government, and the volume of openings assigned by companies with too few experienced workers, all you get at best is a bunch of coordinators who have little to no chance to do the job that they would like to do.@dlms: A lot of HR folks subscribe to the newsletter and share their thoughts with me, right in line with your friend’s. But many won’t post for fear they’re upsetting the applecart. And they feel powerless, too. I know I rap HR pretty hard, but the reason I keep referring to the Employment System is that the problem is much larger than HR alone. The money is huge, and the game is complex. Many good HR folks are locked into a system they cannot control any more. The only way it’s going to change is externally — either government, or industry groups, or boards of directors, or stockholders must step in and blow the lid off this joke. America is unemployed not because of the economy. Our economy is booming! It’s largely because the Employment System keeps people and jobs apart while it milks the corporate coffers.@Tom Nosal:I had lunch today with the founder of a good software company that does unusually good work. He takes hiring very seriously and very personally because it’s how he’s built such a great little company. I asked him what he thinks is the problem with recruiting and hiring in companies in general. He said, “Managers think candidate selection is a crucial function, and it’s something they’d really rather avoid doing themselves.”What a contradiction, eh? We both laughed over this, but we both realized just how enormous the problem is. It really does start with lazy, scared managers.@Phil: I didn’t create HR or put it between job seekers and hiring managers. HR is an enormous profession and interest group. It’s long past time that as a group it faced these problems and started taking action to correct them. You’re right: Hiring managers share a lot of the blame for the problem. But in small companies, where HR does not exist, you don’t find this problem, because managers realize they have to buck up and handle recruiting and hiring. When you take HR out of the equation in such “in vivo” situations, the problem disappears. So, what does that tell you?I have to agree with Diana Schneidman: There are many positions that I have had over the years that were “hit your marks, say your lines, keep the heat and lights on” type of positions. All necessary, some rewarding, none that could be jammed into the square hole of “how much profit did you bring in?”Nick, I’ll go you one beyond “Employers have no business plan”: The average company’s strategic vision extends no further than this coming Friday’s conference call with the analysts and “air talent” at CNBC. No wonder they attempt to hire someone to parachute in and provide instant profit rather than build for the future.If they built for the future, HR would be spit in two, with a couple people in “salary and benefits” keeping those necessities working, and the rest would fan out across the country like the scouts for a baseball team, looking far, wide and deep for talent.This is the nation that put a chicken in every pot, won WWII, put a man on the moon, and computer within every resident’s reach. Whatever your company needs to have done, there is an available person who can do it.You just need a real method of finding that person.Aaaaaamen!And the problem is even worse when it comes to federal government hiring–much worse. The US government online hiring system is so dysfunctional that a lot of people don’t even bother–despite the obscene benefits and job security that come with government jobs. Guess who the government hires to create and run that system. Monster, among others. The federal government, too, complains about the lack of qualified employees.I’d love to see Congress investigating this, but that would also mean taking on the federal civil service bureaucracy (where the decision-makers have presumably already been bought by the hiring-systems industry), as well as resisting the, ah, blandishments of the lobbyists hired to protect the industry in Congress.One point I don’t recall seeing fully made: If HR people using hiring systems like Taleo (ATS, applicant tracking systems) really wanted to maximize the number of qualified applicants responding to job postings, they would offer basic guidance for applicants about the format of their submissions (order of information, date formats, character limits, all the other little details), so that the ATS systems can “parse” the applications. (In many cases, a majority of applications are rejected merely because they don’t parse.) They should also tell applicants in advance just what information is wanted, so they can prepare it properly before applying, rather than improvising while filling out an online application. (They should also make sure that the online applications actually work–many don’t, or don’t work if the applicant is using certain widely-used browser/OS combinations. At very least, post the system requirements.)I’ve never seen that sort of information provided by HR. I take this as proof that the real purpose of ATS systems, in the mind of HR, is to minimize the number of resumes that HR has to consider, however arbitrary the means of selection. HR’s answer is probably that they would be overwhelmed otherwise. But that answer makes sense only on the assumption that there is a talent surplus, not a talent shortage. Otherwise, they couldn’t afford to blow off qualified applicants.In fact, the suckers who write the checks at large corporations are paying for ATS systems that have no purpose but to make HR the mentally undemanding job that it is. (They’re also paying the salaries of a lot of incompetent hiring managers, but that’s a separate problem.)Nick: Each of those 3.9 vacant positions could likely be filled six times over by people ready, willing and able to do the job.The reason why there are 25 million job seekers and 3.9 million person vacant positions is that most of the job seekers also want a wage that would allow them some taste of a lifestyle beyond got to work, come home, sleep, repeat. They want a living wage, whether that is market rate, union scale, dependent on experience or (shudder) ability.CxO’s for many companies lie awake at night in an ice-cold sweat that accompanies the fear of paying U.S. market wages. Put another way, when you hear a financial guru talking about “shareholder value” he is speaking code for “destroy the U.S. middle class”.Which is why many talented people give up and form their own company doing whatever (coding, project management, coffee shop … the list goes on). If for some reason large corporations needed everyone and needed them now, there would be a real and substantial shortfall as people who own and work for small businesses looked on and thought “fool me once …”WTF is going on?Welcome to the welfare state. Wait till the populace runs out of bread and they will kill you for a candy bar.Doom and gloom? I suggest you prepare for the worse and I am sincere about that.This is how America is transformed. Slowly at first and then it all comes crashing down in an instant.One very, very short short story that lingers long in my memory was written in the late 1960’s—early 1970’s, and concerns the second coming. He really did come, and, with His angels, He began canvassing earth for His followers.None could be found.Finally, a great stone was found. Upon turning it over, an inscription read: “We were here—where were you?”In my heart of hearts, I truly believe corporate America is heading down the same path. The ‘talent shortage’ will only grow worse. I myself have been frustrated for nearly five years, and will most likely ride out a survival job until retirement. I look at the job descriptions and the pay levels, and have come up with “two levels up, three levels down”. The responsibilities have risen two levels, while the pay has dropped three levels.When I lost my job to a buyout, I didn’t stop the meter on my pay scale. I’ve increased it by 5% annually since 2009.How I came by this “fair market value” is the topic of another post, but the number rings true.I only hope this number will triple in value once the ‘talent shortage’ comes to a head.Please permit me to ramble a bit more.The people corporate America is messing with are not dumb. One guy several thousand above my pay grade remarked in AARP: “I didn’t grow stupid just because I lost my job.”My daughter the lawyer continually remarks: “When stupid people get angry, you have a revolt. When smart people get angry, you have a revolution.”Corporate America demands skill-sets, when what they desperately need are mind-sets.I lasted 30 years on my last “gig”. Most front-line managers don’t last three years. I now work in an operation that I once directed. I’ve had 3 bosses in two years.If Dr. Phil was investigating current corporate behavior, his main question would be, “How’s that workin’ for ya?One day, corporate America is going to ask, “Where is the talent we need to create more wealth?”The answer will be: We were here—where were you?Nick –Excellent article.Three points:1) I’m not sure I’d want Congress trying to fix this – the cure might be worse than the disease.2) I’m wondering what the statistic means, that < 2% of companies hire from Monster and / or CareerBuilder. Whatever it means, it seems that, at some point, employers will start to notice that statistic, and, one would assume (and would hope) that the market (i.e., the employment market) would make a correction.3) It seems that the job seeker who unplugs from this dysfunctional system, and who approaches potential employers in the way you and selected others recommend, primarily through networking and offering true value to targeted organizations, will be successful in finding meaningful and profitable work.Good read!As the CEO of a small recruitment system vendor myself I see this all the time. That HR wants to get rid of one of their most important processes. I even think the term Applicant Tracking System should be retired. What if the sales staff used a Client Tracking System and let the prospective clients apply to do business?If you see recruitment as an administrative obstacle that a system should take away from your daily chores. Well then you’re not doing it right. I agree with your point that more companies should prioritize and “insource” these processes.There is of course a big difference between what type of talent your after. Supply and demand for different skillsets vary and so does the need for selection in different stages of the process. The computer might be of help here. But…We’re not selling a solution as much as a tool. Those vendors stating otherwise wont help you in the long run. To be successful in talent aquisition you need to buckle down, learn the craft and grind. As long as the talent you’re looking for is a human, you must be human yourself.Nick,You have outlined what most do not want to face, facts. You point out what the social media addicted public do not want to see, harsh reality. You are one who has spoken the truth.I tested all these sites years ago and swiftly got off them. I saw them for what they were worth. They were a total waste of my time. I have been saying the same for years now.In light of this, I feel most of the unemployed, underemployed or even employed and frustrated are largely the same who fell lock, stock and barrel for the social media BS and to this day live for it, which is all tied to related monitoring and social media and database selling. They have no one but themselves to blame.They do not get the fact if they would get off this crap and their dead arses and follow what you have been saying for years on end their situations would change. Yet, the system does not want this it would lose them. Hence, why they have been brainwashed to believe they have to be on this, that and the other thing of the moment. This is why we see adults, both women and men, acting like 12-year-old girls pinning pictures, posting ridiculous one-liners that fall out of their mind, and gossiping to strangers online.I just wonder if people will ever understand they are being used. This is why social media sites want people to post as much of their information on these systems because it makes them money. In my opinion, I do not see them nailing six-figure jobs out of this social media/career media garbage; it’s a personal waste of time and a personnel waste of time and money.I cannot believe how many executives over 45 who have fallen for this ridiculous shite. The minute I see it I cringe.From my experience finding a job online it goes something like this:we need an entry level programmer that knows a full web development stack, has experience managing a database, knows five other programming languages at expert level just for fun, can implement Fourier transform algorithms on the spot, likes both dogs and cats, and wants to get paid 30K.@Thomas – You are spot on. The scope creep of online job listings is amazing.@Chris Hogg“3) It seems that the job seeker who unplugs from this dysfunctional system, and who approaches potential employers in the way you and selected others recommend, primarily through networking and offering true value to targeted organizations, will be successful in finding meaningful and profitable work.”While Nick’s suggestion is spot on (I’ve tried it) it doesn’t necessarily mean one will even grab the gatekeeper’s attention (read: Hiring Manager). We’ve become a country of walls. Even though, in some ways, it’s never been easier to reach out to hiring managers (because of email) it’s also been more difficult (automation makes it easy for employers to IGNORE job seekers — even those whose skills and background match a job description).And not everyone has access to strong networks of people in a company that hold the job you’re seeking. I am sick of reading career advice with regard to “networking” within your own network.I am in a creative field in which I have few friends, and I’ve already TAPPED those friends for resources. The Assumption that EVERYONE in one’s community can serve as a lead to someone in your field is simply hogwash!!!Additionally, part in parcel to this problem is the fact that in the last 30 years employers, for middle class workers, are no longer willing to pay to relocate people. So people, like me, who were once living in a city of their dreams — until my job was eliminated due to mismangement of company funds — may now be living elsewhere because of financial circumstances.Hence, it makes it more difficult to get back to living, and working, in a city where I desire to be, that offers more opportunity for my specific career, and discipline.As always, Thank you Nick, for being the voice of reason and TRUTH. I wish you would consider running for president in 2016. You’re one of only a few trusted voices in America who understands, and tells the truth, about what’s REALLY happening in America with regard to the economy.I’m late as usual, but it’s as someone said an interesting & well said read which covers a lot of ground that I feel compelled to weigh in. Books can be written about the whole scenario and it looks like this is one. Sorry for the lengthThis struck me as having an overly rich tone of HR Flogging, which begs the issue, which I think is better centered around Nick’s point that Employers have no business plan. While HR as part of a management team shares the problem, they aren’t the problem. The buck stops with Management, and particularly Executive Management. They are supposed to be running the show. As Nick alluded to, I had a saying when you hear an executive say… “People are our most important asset”….run like Hell.The irony is that the homily is dead on. People are THE most important part of their business, yet finding the right people, getting them on board, helping them to ramp up to help fuel a profitable venture and keeping them on board gets little attention and particularly priority from Executive Management. They throw that over the wall to HR. Instead they foster, & default to, an unholy alliance of their own managerial laziness, HR “best practices”, the recruiting industry and it’s supply chain of tool providers, government and academia, and the job seekers themselves. Over time this has evolved into a dysfunctional process. The # of people on the street, makes the point.All the above players are trying to make something that takes a lot of concentrated and ongoing effort easy for the hiring manager and the job seeker. Management is dumbing down what should be of the highest priority into a numbing routine. But sorry, it’s not easy and it’s not low priority. Acquiring top producers demands quality time and effort. You can weave and dodge, but if you’re a hiring manager, and want great people, you’re going to have to spend a good chunk of your time and attention to recruiting and training. And ditto to the flip side of the job seeker. You are going to have to treat your hunt as top priority, consuming a lion’s share of your time. It’s a full time job. You both need to communicate, and right now the tools, the process, habit and the process is a Gordian Knot of obstacles in the way of that one/one communication. .Management needs to put some meat into the homily, by embedding it into the strategic and tactical planning that drives and governs their growth via a HIGH priority hiring plan that emphasizes managerial accountability on plan execution. And when results stink, find out why, and quickly effect corrective action.HR (other than their own needs) can’t do the planning, define the need or hire the people. That’s line management’s job. They can help by Marketing the company (lead generation), take ownership of the plan, develop a results oriented recruiting process, including some QA aspects (e.g. no more BS job descriptions) and track results. They can make it their mission in life to drive the process back to the basics of a process that centers around advocating people who get results/doing the job and equitably bring them aboard, instead of proliferating mindless job description checkoff exercises.I’m all for degrees when possessed by, and which demonstrate someone developing a professional passion, But a degree is just a clue suggesting potential, it doesn’t equal ability. Ideally both are there but sorry, ability to a high degree exists sans degree. Marketing campaigns that suggest one’s degree is a ticket to success don’t help, because in the real world, they are only a ticket to play and when you get to play you better ernment programs that support increasing #’s of work visas based on employer pleas that there’s a shortage of skilled labor simply succumb to the siren song that a degree = ability, and shortages of certain degrees then = a shortage. This is appalling in the face of the kind of unemployment we face today.To me the essence of Nick’s post was his final shot…”American ingenuity starts with the individual who has an idea, blossoms with a plan that will produce profit — for yourself and your boss and your customer — and results in more money for everybody. “This describes the core of a start-up. Start-ups don’t burden themselves with the shoot-myself-in-my-foot labyrinth inside a rut, inside a box of bad habits that established firms have fallen prey to. They don’t have the time, they are in a hurry, they work like fiends and they don’t give a shit about credentials. The only thing that counts is can you do what needs to be done…period. Everything else takes a back seat and they don’t throw body blocks on people who aim to show them that they can do the job. They got “show me” embedded in their hiring process.Nor is what Nick is suggesting off the mark or that a pragmatic approach is idealistic. Let me give you an example. I grew up in the Computer Industry, Hi tech so to speak. And I go back a long way. When computers emerged from scientific obscurity toward a commercial proposition, there was a serious gating factor. For computerdom to be a viable industry, it needed programmers. Software people. These were virtually non-existent. Forget academia, no such degrees. Forget a wealth of trained and experienced people. Non existent. So the budding industry simply was forced to look for people with potential, with a “knack” and those people looked for them. They got programmers from musicians, Electrical Engineers, chess players, math wonks, truck drivers, etc etc. And it worked. Then they got picky and as the companies aged, they forgot their roots and played the game that we have now…except for start-upsJob seekers are in the same rut, playing by the “rules” seldom challenging the system, seldom preparing themselves to find & take advantage of some hiring maverick who will do much of their own recruiting, communicate, and offer them a chance to show their stuff. They troll for jobs, instead of seeking companies, they train themselves to interview, instead of performing, and they forget the definition of insanity.Sorry for the length. To me even if I believed that there is a skills shortage which I don’t, it’s all about the ability to employers to find and cultivate potential. Hire smart people, and that includes street-smart, people smart enough and confident enough to move out of their comfort zones and successfully adapt. Smart people ramp up quickly and are productive as they ramp. Employers need to keep in mind that if the length of your search exceeds ramp up time, you’re doing something seriously wrong and wasteful of time, and money.I agree with Nick…give me a break!. The sheer number of unemployed people today means there’s a treasure trove of smart adaptable people out there. You don’t even have to get elegant and do the math. Talent shortage claims are just the whining output of a employers using a poorly integrated employment system comprised of a bunch of bad habits devoid of ingenuity.An employer who wants an edge, only needs to differentiate, by getting their start-up mojo back, put some energy back into their hiring, make it top priority and they’ll blow past conforming competition by bringing aboard people who can get things done, and want to get things done with them .xcellent rant!But there is a talent shortage – as long as you define talent as someone who knows all your tools and procedures and can jump in with no training and will work for nothing – kind of like @Thomas said.We’ve managed to fill all our extremely specialized openings, and are working on the next batch. I have no idea of what a Taleo is, which might be one of the reasons we can do it.American companies these days are extremely profitable, and many are sitting on loads of cash. I don’t buy that they can’t afford training and can’t afford relocation. Tiny startups maybe – but they should be located where the talent is, so they don’t have to pay relocation.We have a friend who is a headhunter, and she complains about bringing perfect candidates to client companies only to have the companies make the candidates go through five rounds of interviews spaced over months, apparently absolutely petrified that there might be someone better out there. Then when the candidate takes a job at a sane company they complain about how hard it is to hire. Have you seen this craziness?Loved your article! You hit the nail on the head. Now if companies would wake up and go back to the old ways of interviewing and forget about the “key words.” I’m wondering how many great applicants were lost because they didn’t have the “key words” in their resume?@Frustrated American –You say, “And not everyone has access to strong networks of people in a company that hold the job you’re seeking. I am sick of reading career advice with regard to “networking” within your own network. I am in a creative field in which I have few friends, and I’ve already TAPPED those friends for resources. The Assumption that EVERYONE in one’s community can serve as a lead to someone in your field is simply hogwash!!! “I have to agree with you, because of the way you have defined networking. Effective networking may start with our own network and our own friends, but it quickly moves out and beyond to brand new fields and brand new people. If we confine our efforts to people we already know, you are correct, it quickly degenerates into hogwash.If you have not already read them, the books, What Color is Your Parachute? by Bolles, and, Cracking the Hidden Job Market by Asher, might prove helpful.This article brought a tear to my eye. It seems to hit the nail EXACTLY on the head. I have been looking for > 18 months now and while I occasionally get an interview, NOTHING further happens. Frequently, the recruiter NEVER gets back to me. I have to pester them to get further information.My question is. What do we do about it?The entire problem in my opinion is so multi-layered so riddled in fraud and abuse from top to bottom it is disgusting and entirely out of control. People are so messed up mentally and socially now I often look around and do not know where I am. I often feel as thou I am no longer in America or Europe, but that I have landed on an alien planet.The addictions to whatever some people say is the new thing or what you must be doing and today that relates largely to phones, social sites and key word garbage. It is largely the fact that too many firms have hired too many of these simpletons first in HR (which I have found the vast majority of HR people are complete morons programmable idiots looking at key words and playing yes-men (or more often yes-women.)Then there are the sad excuses for managers and executives that they hired on the dirt cheap, why? Well, out of greed of course. Why pay someone 500K a year if you can get the basic paper pushed for 90K, business has faltered in the process. This is my experience cheap means lower quality …always, and in all ways.I will go out on a limb and state precisely what I see there are too many scared, under-qualified people (so-called degrees or not today that means little when any dope can get through a degree) running firms. Do you see how many once great firms are falling? It is all around from retail to publishing, etc. etc. Do you see what has happened? At the same time of all these changes. All straight down the sewer and just look at the people running the show. Look at the decisions they make it is hard to believe boards of directors allow such working is a limited game. The issue, as one stated, is clear if your circle is limited, (mine is also) if you are not part of a circle of what is today composed of cheap, low-class idiots only looking to hire their cheap idiotic friends then your network is useless. On the surface, this may appear horrid to some, but to others it will ring true, sorry the truth is often hard to swallow, but it is simply fact.The key word social crap appeals to simpleminded people and if you are not in that circle, you scare them, intimidate them you are not going to be called because you are a threat to them.The bottom-line to all this is quite simple. It was in my opinion very well stated by a good British friend of mine, he a Princeton graduate said, “The Barbarians are not at the gate old man …they have crashed it.”My response, the entire mess is entirely out of control from top to bottom in all sectors.It is time to distance oneself from it as much as possible until it all comes crashing down upon them, and it will. Gather like people and resources, and let the rest fail. Until this hideous mess washes out … nothing is going to change. The fact is talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words, what are your actions and reactions to what is being done to you?ou nailed it, Nick!What drives me crazy is going to recruiters’ conferences and hearing the presentations and active discussions about 2 things:1.) The daily battles in the “The War for Talent!”“WAR for talent?” Eh? Just look around!2.) The preference for “passive” job seekers (currently employed) vs. “active” job seekers (unemployed).What!?! Hire someone who is UNemployed? What a unique concept!AARGH!Hiring managers blame HR and job seekers. HR blames hiring managers and job seekers. Job seekers blame HR and the ATS. The ATS vendors blame the job seekers, HR, and the hiring managers. So, really, it’s nobody’s fault. Or is it…WHO IS REALLY AT FAULT? I blame top management at all these employers for not understanding how important good, well-treated employees are to the success of the organizations. I also blame them for not paying attention to this critical management/success issue, for not measuring employee satisfaction and performance, and for not training their managers to be better at hiring, whether using corporate job listings, social media, job boards, or ATS.We had a very appropriate term for this in the military, which I won’t use it here, but it starts with “flying circle cluster-” for those who may know the term.Fifteen months ago I wrote in my blog about a position announcement that required 21 different skills. TWENTY ONE!To read the announcement go to WeezerWords:?: I read the post on your blog. The position description is hilarious. Makes you wonder who runs a company like this and why.@Susan: I thought that expression came from the tech industry. I suppose the clusters all have something in common :-). Top management is indeed the culprit. The buck stops there. And that’s where the cluster forms.@nick:Thanks for mentioning my Perfect Fit column again! Getting some good mileage from that…=====@Kathy:Going to employment centers and networking groups makes sense… but it’s easier to carp about a shortage.=====@L.T.At a conference about ten years ago I heard two “suits” discussing offshoring white collar jobs. One told another “I can get two Indians for the same prices as an American” (paraphrased). And then they wonder why nobody in America can afford to buy their products any more.=====Shameless self-promotional plug of my blog essays: 25 million un- and under-employed in the USA, we could shut down the H-1B program, yank all the previously issued visas, and I bet American Business would not skip a beat. Oh, there might be less “shareholder value”, but I’ve already defined that term more honestly for you.Nick,Your comments are so right on the mark!I was at the “recruiting” end for 26 years and had my own staffing firm until 2 years ago. I have seen hundreds of truly skilled, intelligent, ethical and all-around wonderful candidates stay unemployed because companies (my clients) were too narrow-minded to hire them. Now I am on the other side of the table. Quite frankly, if I had been my own candidate, I would hire me in an instant! I have also seen candidates have all the right “buzz words” on their résumés, and they were total losers. Yet they got hired – go figure.Here I am, 2 years after selling my small business, looking for a full-time job in communications. I have been writing, editing and translating professionally for 16 years. I have been dealing with senior executives, salespeople, suppliers, and people from all walks of life, but somehow, that doesn’t count as “real” experience. I am blessed to have a very nice contract right now, but that too will come to an end soon, and I will joining the rank of job searchers again.It is no different here in Canada, sadly…PierretteWhen I read this last week I thought long and hard about ATS systems (proprietary ATS and job boards) and our career coaching field. I’ve talked to HR recruiters by the hundreds, HR directors and from directing the programs at a center for professionals I started over 22 years ago I know the upper range of talent IS out there but are those in need of the talent just buying into the talent shortage way of thinking? It could be if you only think ATS but what about networking, cold calling, temp to perm work… etc.A couple of the 68 people responding to Nick’s article agreed that HR recruiters search for candidates somewhere around the 80% qualified number (the more technical the position the higher the “cull rate”), your application may “pull” in the 70% range and you are totally ignored, your résumé is filed away electronically as a bunch of Xs and Os (data bits) never to be seen again because it is “assumed” that when the same position opens again that you are working… in today’s economy that is not true, as you know! All ATS software claim they match well – but they are not perfect and in some cases not even close and the business owner who purchased this system in 1999 can’t understand how it doesn’t work and decides there is no talent out there, so they turn to external specialized recruiters who are using ATS software Hmm!The issues with automated matching systems are many, here are just a few items to consider:? Is the parsing software up to date? are the job announcements/descriptions up to date,? company HR recruiters tend to move from job to job about every two years in attempts to advance their careers – so we get either “newbies” or those who are just earning their salary and are not invested in their work and ATS systems aren’t updated as frequently or at all and top management isn’t aware this is a significant problem?do the job descriptions contain proprietary terms and phrases that only an insider would know?are those seeking employment or HR recuiters for that matter, aware of how the systems parse a résumé and that software designed in the period from 1996 – 2010 doesn’t have all the capabilities of SOME of the current systems?has the applicant had any training on TODAY’s résumé design or are they relying on résumé writing software or books that were published 2-5 years and earlier?Remember – the oft repeated term “Garbage In — Garbage Out” sometime it just isn’t the software.So we came up with Tag Clouding both the résumé and the job duties and matched all of the key words perfectly and our customers still don’t match. The same happens on Job Boards. The top 20% of matched candidates are printed out and much of the time the recruiter sees a document with much of the same information but is full of upside down question marks and numerous pages because the candidate didn’t know to submit a plain résumé or want to take the time to produce one. The reader tries briefly to put the information together and says the heck with it and goes to the next candidate, hoping that they will get a more readable document. And so it goes – like a great meal “presentation” is very important!At the soul of success is knowledge! When you are employed and working you don’t need the type of knowledge our coaching system system is based around. But when you are unemployed you need the services of trained professionals in the areas of career management who know it isn’t just for emergencies but it must be in the DNA of the Readily Accessed Memory of every American that reminds them “how do I remain employed and make the moves I want to make as I gain knowledge, skills and expand my abilities”. Until that day arrives when every American thinks that way, my fellow professionals, our jobs are really important to the fabric of America – helping others succeed is our singular goal be they businesses or individuals.Nick you hit a nerve and the career coaches twitched but did the employer community?It is incredible that all of just accept the conclusion (from US Department of Labor statistics)that 3.9 million jobs are being “lost monthly or yearly). This statistic is ‘jobs open at the end of the month” not jobs lost. This figure is an artifact of the system processing time. In August of this year, for example, there were 4.5 million hires and 4.4 separations. If it took on an average of 2-months to process (fill) each opening, there would be about 9 million jobs open at any one time (4.5 million/mo times 2-months) and so what? Instead, the average time to fill a job (for those jobs that were filled) was around 1.15 (4.9/4.5). To be accurate, that number would have to corrected to consider the number of jobs that go unfilled for more than a month, i.e, one really needs to do a job-cohort analysis to get the the best estimate of the average time to fill a typical job but no one is really interested in that number anyway. The point is that, if next month the same statistic had risen to 5.5 million, it would be a good thing not a bad thing. ‘Jobs open at the end of the period is determined by the actual time to process all applicants and fill the job-opening. According to one of the analysts at DOL who answer questions from the public: “We do not directly measure the number of unfilled jobs due to a mismatch in skills.”You all ought to be duly embarrassed for opening your mouths about something you no so little about.So, let me get this straight, sixtiesman. Jobs are opened and filled on an ongoing basis. The market is swamped with talent – 25 million looking for full-time jobs. I agree that time to fill is an important metric. But the hue and cry among employers is that they can’t find people to fill vacant jobs. Anecdotal evidence (from researchers like Cappelli, readers of this blog, and many who comment on other venues) tells us that enormous numbers of highly qualified people are rejected by ATSes. While I agree it’s a good thing when more jobs open up, the mechanisms employers rely on to fill them quickly are failing miserably. I find it interesting that the workings of the infrastructure system used to fill jobs doesn’t even play into your analysis. Do you think it warrants a close look? Amazon can deliver a box in two days, using state of the art tracking technology. American employers can’t fill a job for weeks or months?I have been consistently sending out resumes to the entire Bay Area as well as LA area. I have had MANY interviews. This is what irritates the crap out of me.1. I seriously question just how serious any company really is when they allow HR reps who have NO clue what the job function is to actually do the screening.2. After interviewing, even though I am extremely well qualified, I will then see the job reposted on LinkedIn. I think either companys do not have the job to begin with (and are just mass posting to waste our time) or they are really not that serious about snatching up well qualified candidates.I get really cranky when I hear companies state “they cannot find good candidates”…that is a load of BS…either FIRE HR or get serious about the hiring process.I am going to add to my comment:3. How about the companies who repeatedly post the SAME job over and over. I have been notified numerous times about a few jobs at Amazon and Lo and Behold! it is the same job I applied to 15 months ago. Which tells me they are really not that serious to begin with.Nick, you are so right about this. With so many people still unemployed and underemployed (I’m now in the latter group), you’d think employers would have no problem finding people to fill vacancies. What I’ve found is that they either have unreasonable expectations (expect applicants to be able to do the job perfectly from day one without any training), don’t pay enough (salaries are too low), and rely totally on a computer (ATS) to do the hiring for them. For example, earlier this summer I applied for a job at the community college where I currently work. I’d done a variation of this particular job before, but my students had been online, graduate students, most of whom were mid-career professionals who already held terminal degrees. The open job was advising undergraduates. Granted, some of the duties were different–the advisors don’t run programs (like I did in my previous job), don’t handle admission (ditto), but academic advising is academic advising. You learn about the programs, you learn about the various requirements and regulations and deadlines, you become familiar with the institution and systems, and most importantly, you learn about your students. I had contacted the hiring manager, was pushed to the website and the online application. You know where this goes next…down the rabbit hole, into a black hole, take your pick. I was rejected by the computer, but later I saw one of the academic advisors, and he said that they had a real hard time filling that position (which paid better than my previous job, was full time and had benefits) because they couldn’t find anyone with at least 5 years of academic advising experience. I politely reminded him that I had applied, that I had 8 years of experience (albeit with graduate students), and was used to dealing with non-traditional students. He was surprised, and told me to contact their new boss. It turned out that I got rejected because I wasn’t a perfect match–the computer distinguished between undergraduate and graduate, and rejected me out of hand. Yet the position went unfilled for a long time, and I recently learned from Kamari that the remaining advisors have taken on more students because the college can’t find anyone. My conclusion is that they’re not hurting enough–if/when more advisors leave and the remaining ones can’t keep taking on more and more students (there are over 7500 students enrolled at this college), maybe they’ll stop looking for a computer to make a perfect match.Sigh. They’re not alone….I’ve seen other jobs, researched the organization, found out who the hiring manager is, only to be directed to HR and more often and worse, to go to the website and apply online. Then the same jobs will pop up again, and HR and hiring manager will continue to complain, as Nick noted, that there’s a talent shortage.@Nick: you’re so right about this–the problem IS systemic, and try as I might, employers are worshiping the ATS god instead of using their common sense. I’d tell employers–kill your ATSes. Go back to reading résumés (if you MUST have a summary of candidates’ experiences) and more importantly, get out and talk to people. There’s far more unemployed and underemployed talented people out there, and you’re relying on a computer. And don’t be dumb; you have to exercise zee leetle grey cells (you think that someone who spent 8 years as an academic advisor to graduate students couldn’t be an academic advisor to undergraduates? Really? Really?!). Pay more. Don’t expect a new hire to know and do the job perfectly from day one. Stop looking for the perfect fit for all 499 criteria; that person is like a unicorn (doesn’t exist, and if he does, don’t expect you can get him for intern wages, i.e., free).Last Friday on C-Span, I watched a segment of their “Washington Journal” (runs mornings from 7-10) that discussed this problem. There were a couple of “experts” on the segment, and one of them mentioned the problem of ATS and computers in the job search and hiring process, stated that employers now require new hires to know the job perfectly from day one with no training and no investment on their part, which is making it very hard for job seekers. But neither of the guests nor the moderator followed up, and I don’t recall any of the callers/twitterers following up with this either.Nick, I know that you’ve been on PBS, but I think you need to go on C-Span (Washington Journal), CNBC, CNN, 60 Minutes, 20/20 and any other show that is going to get the word out. A mere 15 minute segment isn’t enough, and I’d really like to see someone (maybe Frontline) do an in-depth episode about this problem. There are too many good people out of work and/or underemployed/not employed in their field and too many employers with jobs that go unfilled for too long. As long as employees manage to keep things afloat, management has no reason to change. Only when the vacancies start to affect their bottom line (profits or goals) will they change.This all sounds good but reality is reality and the way this system isn’t working is what we in the job search market have to work with. I wish it was different but after 3 years of searching, applying, networking, and doing everything short of hiring a search firm (because I know they are a scam) I still have only had 3 phone interviews and 6 replies via email. That is less then 1 contact per quarter over the past 3 years.I wish I could get to hiring managers but in my present company nobody can get hired unless they go through HR first. The decision is completely out of the hiring managers hands as HR is screening the first 2 to 3 layers. Because I live and work in China people in HR assume I am not authorized to work in the US, not knowing I am a natural born US citizen who moved to China to get real global experience.People are refusing to continue the conversation when they find out I am not in the city the position is in. Even in my present company and 4 years of trying to transfer the best advice I was given was to quit and move then apply in the city with the most offices. Sure, I have narrowed my skills down to project management and lost most of my technical skills but what are people like me, or those who have not worked for 2 years supposed to do?I applaud the rage against the machine rants and agree the hiring world needs to be more idealistic but come on, how does that pay the rent, put the kids in clothes for school, and keep the utilities on? I decided to be a professional verses a skilled worker after the military and lucky for me I moved just as the economy tanked. I love working in Asia but I really need to come home. Too bad there are hundreds of openings for project managers I see every week and apply for 30 to 50 per week and get next to nothing or the silence on the phone when they learn I am out of the country. I have to have a job before I move else I really risk putting my family into the hell millions of job seeking drop outs live in today. In the end when this is the way the game is played it is all you can do. You have to play it else what else is there?I am working a survival job for a company trying to survive. As a former hiring manager, I have to give this company kudos for not being silly interviewers. Not great interviewers, but at least not silly.The holdup here is background checks. It’s just a simple warehouse entry level position, so the skill test is quite rudimentary, but it appears that many Americans have not been skillful at staying out of trouble.In its defense, as I remember the Walking Dead that ran my operation for nearly two years out of thirty (yes, in real life, the inmates sometimes do run the asylum), I can appreciate a drug-free and violence free work environment.But let’s side-step that for a moment, and just let the assumption that what we’re discussing here (fear of not finding the perfect candidate; demanding on qualifications not needed for the position; using the wrong definition of fit [they really should be just like us]) provides the locus of most hiring.When I did real hiring, I noticed something quite interesting: when the perfect candidate came on board, he or she quickly became bored, and wandered off, leaving us in the lurch while the “questionable” candidates I hired with the expectation that they might have a 40-60 chance of “meeting and exceeding” work expectations, or surviving basic work rules went on to become top performers and long-timers (14 year average tenure for a front line crew).I noticed a similar pattern in the non-profit religious operation that I held a leadership position in for 35 years.I call this phenomenon emergence, and have not studied the concept, but hold it dear to my core beliefs.I was quick to hire, and slow to fire, which is the environment you need for emergence to happen.When employers say that they need someone to “hit the ground running”, I’m reminded of the scene in Parenthood when Jason Robard’s wayward son rolled out of a car onto his lawn. Without seeming overly concerned, he asked “What was that all about?” The son replied, “Oh, just some friends dropping me off!”Without batting an eye, the father responded: “Friends stop the car.”As our friend Mr. Hunt points out, the perfect fit isn’t, and the talent corporate America needs for its endeavors is hiding in plain sight, not hiding in algorithms that reject rather than capture.I still bounce Nick’s recollection of the way thingz were in my head: It used to be that someone with a brain read between the lines of a resume and made an informed guess that this particular applicant might be worth talking to.I fell into clinical depression nearly five years ago because I believed that this would never be true again.It looks like I just got a head start on the despondency curve. Sometimes it helps to know that twenty million other Americans are going through this; sometimes, not.@citizenThe big problem with “perfect” candidates is that their in front of the line voting on who’s perfect. And unmodestly they point out it’s them.I agree with your emergence observation. The perfect one’s are HMU’s (High Maintenance Units) who constantly need to be stroked, and who avoid work that mere mortals do. What they define as worthy, is often useless because it’s not needed. I used to say that if you give me a crew of people who you can depend on to simply do their job or a bit above it you’ll rule the world. A viable organization can’t afford to have too many (more than 1) HMU around@Citizen X, you nailed it! It’s no such thing as a “perfect hire” and those with grit and steam to work and learn are the ones you want. You’re absolutely, positively, undeniably correct in assessing that the perfect fit to the according to most hirer’s unconscious biases is “one who is just like me”.When will people ever learn that diverse thinking amongst unlike individuals with varied skill sets gives your company the edge and allows you to see things in a different light you may not have seen before. Like you said, Emergence. That is a whole blog waiting to happen…Great observation @Citizen X- you’re a true intelligent and poignant thinker.Nick:Thank you for once again articulating the open secret of what really is going on: There is no talent shortage in this nation!!!Ask the unemployed. Ask the underemployed. Ask the college graduates across the nation. Ask the immigrants with PhDs. Ask those of us employed who seek better opportunities. But please: do ask not the employers.The uncertainty in unemployment at the employee level is a wound being inflicted on the part of employers to the standing of the nation as a beacon of hope and freedom. This has nothing to do with regulations or taxes. I believe employers are playing very dangerous games with people’s hopes, aspirations and commitment to contributing their best efforts to the betterment of the nation. I see fake postings (i.e., the same job posted every week, for 2 years). I see job postings describing what formerly were 4 – 5 different jobs, now consolidated. That person does not exist! I see an unwilligness to bring someone with 80% of the quaifications and train them on the other 20%, which is content specific to an opportunity. So, if there is a talent shortage, is because of these games employers are playing. And they ought to be asked to render an account of these practices! And stop them!In response to this article, I have contacted both of my Ohio Senators, in an extended communication; I have provided them with a link to this article and requested they challenge the “talent shortfall” myth and launch the investigation you have called for or incentivize individuals to individuals to stop looking for a job and focus on becoming entrepreneurs themselves, the ones creating opportunities that leverage and deploy the talent, not the one that is coming, but already abundant in this great nation of ours.Brilliant commentary. Thanks for your voice!@ Citizen XI am one of those people in an entry level warehouse job! I had the dream job out of college, as a staff illustrator at a university. Few of these jobs exist anymore because they can contract out projects to self employed people cheaper than keeping someone on staff with benefits. I got married and have moved 4 times for my husband’s employment. I’m fortunate that I have health benefits from his position, so I have been freelancing for the past 20 years. I have a big art related project now, so I decided to try this warehouse postion on the side to supplement my income. I have found the majority of these down to earth people good to work with. I am meeting people from all over the world. I’ve had two raises in the past 6 weeks. Most of my fellow employees are hard working people just trying to survive! (one young man told me he had been living in his car for 2 months) And speak of HMU’s, in my last two part-time positions, I was actually supervised by college students (I’m now in a small college town). I had to leave the one job, because I just couldn’t take the rude attitudes. Yes, just give people a chance.Nick, it’s too bad you haven’t been interviewed by CNN, but then – I think employers know the truth but won’t admit it. As Peter Cappelli reported, there’s no talent shortage. I think it’s the opposite. We have an abundance of talent but employers don’t want to pay. They’re searching for the elusive purple squirrel. It’s clear that HR can’t extract pertinent information from resumes therefore relying on all those silly applicant tracking systems or using employment agencies with a checklist. What drives me crazy is having to create a resume with “key words”. As Diana S. pointed out, not everyone’s career contributions have a direct measurable benefit that can be listed as profit statements on a resume to be slected by Taleo etc.Not only are the applicant tracking systems part of the problem, but there are also automated reference checking systems to be aware of. Gone is the human element. This can’t be good for job seekers.An internet search of “automated reference checking” reveals:…just to name a couple.How the hell do you check references without talking to someone? A reference check used to be a brief conversation between the person making the hire and the person giving the reference. With automated systems like these, there is no way to listen to how the candidate’s reference is answering the question (tone of voice, hesitation, etc.), but more importantly, it removes the ability to ask follow-up questions for clarification. It also leaves the door open for a reference to inadvertently disclose information (religion, orientation, married, age, children, etc.) about a candidate that should not be discussed, which can be used against the candidate. The systems also allow anonymous responses.Apparently, gone are the days where the hiring manager picked up the phone and called the candidate’s references and engaged them in a conversation. Seems like a back door way to get information about a candidate that the employer is not privy to.An interesting article on this subject: of luck to all those who are searching right now.Well Nick, what did we expect?We live in an era of rampant fraud in WallStreet that goes unpunished, even rewarded, by the state/federal governments. At the helm of this financial debauchery are a select few who manipulate the whole market through a counterfeit operation courtesy of the Fed. With so much criminality going unchecked, resulting in increasing costs and phony profits, who would have the confidence, let alone the integrity, to “invest” in a worker…when they could just sit tight, outsource…and/or follow in Wallstreet’s footsteps?As far as the suggestion for a Congressional investigation goes; not that I don’t think the online application-trackers are frauds in themselves, but that’s just the symptom of the main problem: easy money…at your expense.Great article! There is no such thing as talent shortage. It’s a matter of interpretations, abusive practices and been hijacked by employers, HR and/or Hiring Managers. It’s like a budget. The goal post can be shifting all the time to prevent great employees earning bonus except for top executives who lower the bars for themselves. It’s all self-interest driven.Not surprisingly, many employers/HR do not indicate the reasons for rejecting applicants except for generic reason – “does not closely match our ….” or even offer no reply at all. Many reasons for this. High percentage of HR has no idea what they are doing equivelant to “WTF is going on…” Many also feared job security, therefore engaged in convoluted hiring process. Some HR are collecting resumes as a hobby, if you know what I mean. HR background can be easily checked in this internet age – their education level, past employers and even family members. Very high percentage have lower education levels than applicants and pose difficulty in assessments of very high caliber applicants. Including Hiring Manager. Others want to boast they have the largest database and therefore can help employers find the “best” candidates. Some employers are on “espionage” activities seeking “trade secrets, salaries history and competitive edge” to beat the competitors. Yet we accused China of doing this not knowing we exported this trade strategies to China. Some Hiring Managers are comparatively have lower experience and qualifications than the applicants and for obvious reasons will not hire these applicants. One excuse – “talent shortage”. The whole of America?? Whoa, who are you kidding?3.9 million jobs currently unfilled – ha! Given the number of jobs I personally know that are, technically open but there is no budget currently, open but not advertised, or simply using too few employees. By the time I left my last employer, I was back filling 5 open positions. Companies are pushing people too hard, stuff is getting missed, and customers are getting pissed off.How true it is, by the time you apply for a position, along with thousands of others, you are only a “bit in the byte”. If you do not have someone with a connection in the job you are applying for, it’s a waste of time. The worst process I’ve seen so far is applying for a job with a government contractor. They want to know everything possible about you up front, and then you never hear back.Lots of talent out here, but companies are too far removed to be able to connect. They are leaving their recruitment efforts in the hands of babes!!Great article and one that strikes accord with more than a few. I’m going to agree w Rose %100.I’m a tech professional w high clearance that has years of top exp and outstanding track record, and I’ve been unemployed and looking aggressively for over 6 mos after leaving my overseas contracting job. I have suspected that my resume is not getting to a person that would even understand it, or that has authorization to hire, or even a human at all.I’ve read the article and comments on the theme of, ‘walk into a manager’s office and demonstrate, hands down, how you will contribute profit to the manager’s business’. Umm sorry? Exactly where am I walking and whom talking to? Am I even supposed to be able to reach someone on the phone? No.Not sure who has what ideas about how things are, but unless you have an ‘in’, it’s just the giant wall of automated blow-off. This is not monster or careerbuilder, these are the corporation websites.There are 100’s of positions I am qualified for, but nothing. What is one to do?1998, the high tech hiring manager coworker said he was looking for “asses in the seats”. Even back then the employers demanded new hires sign a non-compete agreement that they wouldn’t leave for a competitor company.It wasn’t about qualifications then and it isn’t about qualification now. It’s about cheap and captive.Nick, Nick, Nick. It’s not a database issue, it’s about cheap and captive and the perfect match is visa’d labor. Hitting the visa cap allotment (over 800K H1B in 2015), they bitterly complain, “skills shortage” and advertise, advertise, advertise, “unfilled positions” they say.F1 visa/foreign student, restricted where they can work, they end up ultra cheap on campus, billed out for $240 an hour for university research, paid close to min wage. (I’ve not researched what other fiscal perks to colleges like no FICA, unemployment insurance, etc.)OPT visa/new grad foreign student, 3 years of no FICA, no federal unemployment insurance tax for the employer, no prevailing wage requirement, in some cases no income tax. (Who do you think is paying for the food stamps, housing assistance, etc. for this ultra low wage worker?)H1B/foreign college grad, 3 year visa given to employer. Supposed going industry rate, but usually lower and captive to that employer/rate for at least 3 years. Carrot is “stay and we’ll put you in for a green card”. Visa is renewable once, but annually renewable if visa expired and company applied for a green card for this person.In total,– F1 – up to 4 years– OPT – 3 years– H1B – 2 three year visas, up to 6 years– H1B awaiting green card – up to 4 yearsfor a total of 17 years as a much cheaper worker than any US citizen or permanent legal resident.L1 visa – don’t know what the time span is for one but the company gets to pay them the wage rate of their home country.There is no way you’re going to educate yourself into the cost advantages of foreign labor. It’s been gamed that way.Presidential candidates, both of them, less illegal labor, more visa’d labor. Clinton worse on this than Trump. Currently. But Trump policy is moving.Great article, Nick! I too am sick and tired of the ATS programs. My last two positions were submitted via a generic H/R email address where an actual human reviewed them. Now, why can’t more H/R departments do something like that? But, maybe they can’t because there are all of these new forms at the end of the ATS programs that ask your gender, race, are you disabled, or are you a protected veteran.I had a phone interview for a terrific job last week. Today, the H/R Manager wrote me an email and said the job is on hold and will not be filled in the immediate future. How did they determine that all of a sudden?These companies are really missing out. I’m an Executive Assistant and what grinds my gears is these corporations who want me to come in and interview with 5-7 different people. Seriously? I’m not interviewing to be the CEO of the company. I had another company who wanted me to do a 15 minute PowerPoint presentation about myself. Again, seriously? I’m not interviewing to be a sales person.It’s even become this bad for temporary positions. I’m in the process of interviewing for a $10/hour admin assistant job to fill in for someone going on a medical leave. It’s for 8 weeks. 8 weeks! But, they have already had me come in person to interview and did a phone interview with me today. For goodness sakes, this isn’t rocket science!Here is another Nick Corcodillos article:In the?January 22, 2013 Ask The Headhunter Newsletter, reader John Franklin (who appeared with me on a PBS NewsHour segment last September) says recruitment advertising is often deceptive and asks how widespread I think?the problem?is:Hi, Nick — Happy New Year. I was one of the other folks featured in the PBS story?Is Applying for Jobs Online Not an Effective Way to Find Work??I’m writing to follow up on one point that I made but which didn’t get addressed due to the time constraint: companies running advertisements to update their talent pools and databases vs. actually doing any recruitment.From my experience, this is an extremely common and rather deceptive practice that contributes to a great deal of the frustration experienced by so many job seekers. They see an ad that fits them perfectly, but it turns out to be nothing more than an invitation to submit so you can become a file listing as opposed to a candidate. In your opinion, how widespread is this practice?(Thanks in advance for your input — great job on the piece!)Nick’s ReplyHappy New Year to you, too! Thanks for writing to follow up on an important point you made to PBS NewsHour that didn’t make it into the program.The practice you describe is as old as job ads. It probably seems innocuous to most people, but it’s an insidious practice that I believe contributes heavily to America’s jobs crisis.When employers published jobs primarily in newspapers, they’d create what we used to call “composite ads.” To save money, they’d run one ad rather than five, and that one ad would include requirements for perhaps five different positions. It was the proverbial kitchen sink of recruitment advertising. The hope was that they’d get enough resumes with enough of a mix of skill sets that they’d fill at least one job, hopefully more.Fraudulent job adsAt the same time, employers were doing exactly what you’ve noticed: filling their filing cabinets with resumes. I’m sure employers bristle at the suggestion that this is deceptive. “We’re soliciting resumes for jobs! So what if that includes jobs that are not open yet?”It’s worse than deceptive. I think it’s fraud. A job ad is a solicitation that implies there is a current, specific, open job to be filled. This creates anticipation in the job hunter, and the reasonable expectation that the job will be filled in short order — not that the resume will be filed, to be used later and who knows when. Job hunters reasonably expect a timely answer when they submit their resumes. But we all know what really happens: usually, nothing at all.If employers want to gather resumes to stock their databases, that’s fine, but they should disclose what they’re doing. I’m sure they’d nonetheless rake in lots of resumes, but at least people would know the difference between applying for a job and applying to have their resume stored for later use.Fresher stale jobs and resumesHow “fresh” can stale jobs be? The games employers and job boards play with resumes don’t end there. You’ll find that employers “update” their job postings with a few minor changes to keep them high in the “search results” — even though there’s no material?change in the position. And the job boards encourage this practice. They remind employers to “refresh” their postings as a way to make the jobs databases appear “up to date” with “fresh jobs daily.” It’s a racket and a conspiracy. It allows a job board to claim it’s got X millions of “fresh, up-to-date job listings!” when all it’s got is stale bread with a new expiration date stamped on it.The job boards tell job hunters to do the same thing with their resumes. “Keep your resume high in the results! Update it regularly!” Translation:?Keep visiting our site so we can report high traffic to employers, who are so stupid that they not only “refresh” their own old listings, they pay us even more money for “refreshed” stale resumes!HR funds the jobs crisisCorporate HR departments?are funding and propping up the job boards in an epic scam that has turned real recruiting into a bullshit enterprise that has nothing to do with filling jobs. The con is enormous. I believe it’s the source of “the talent shortage.”After creating this fat pipe of resume sewage, employers complain they can’t possibly handle all the crud it delivers to them every day. “We received a million resumes yesterday! We can’t find good hires! And?there’s no time to respond personally to everyone who applied!” Of course not. If you had to dive into a dumpster of garbage to find a fresh carton of milk, you’d complain, too. The trouble is, it’s HR departments themselves that are paying job boards to gather, store, and sell that drek back to HR. It’s incredibly stupid, but when’s the last time you saw the HR profession do anything smart in recruiting?A billion dollars worth of nothingWhere does the jobs crisis come from? Why can’t good people get jobs? Consider , the world’s biggest job board. In the last four quarters, the world spent?$1.05 billion?to fill and then dive for resumes and jobs in this dumpster. Yet year after year since 2002 employers have reported that Monster was their “source of hires” no more than about 4% of the time. Is there anything to call this but a conspiracy between HR departments and the job boards? Is it anything but a racket? Is it fraud?When a company publishes a job solicitation that’s intended only to stock a database, that’s deceptive. When employers publish jobs on a website?that they know doesn’t fill many jobs, I call that systemic recruitment fraud.The most stunning outcome is that recruitment advertising is choking the very employers that pay to prop it up. You’ve nailed the problem: Job ads — no matter what their form — are often deceptive. They’re not used to fill jobs. They’re used to build deep databases of old resumes. That’s what the jobs crisis floats on.Billion of dollars spent on databases to find and fill jobs — while employers cry “talent shortage” and record numbers of talented people can’t get hired.Yet another rant about job boards?and HR practices? Yep.?Is there a board of directors out there?that realizes it’s funding the jobs crisis with its investors’ money??Contribute your stories and comments below.?Nothing will change until the purveyors of this sludge get their noses rubbed in it.And here are the replies:There is an employer here in MA who has advertised for over a year and their tag line is “we have 200 jobs open”. Same tag line for over a year!I have seen this happening but didn’t realize just what was happening.I was laid off LAST February and posted my resume ONCE on 3 sites (Dice, Monster, CyberCoders. I have gotten NUMEROUS emails from various people, most of them with names that lead me to believe that they’re NOT from the US. I frequently get NO RESPONSE from these folks.While I was working, I’d continually get emails about jobs even though I had not posted a resume for 2 years. Again, in responding, I frequently received NO response.We have jobs that remain open for months while “recruiting” occurs. We’ve had more mismatches between jobs and those hired to fill those jobs. My company uses Careerbuilder and key word searches to find new employees. More often than not, this leads to the wrong person for the job. So many people have come and go, I can’t keep track anymore.timely article for Wall St Journal that hits into this discussion’m a recently graduated nuclear engineer with a MS from a top 20 university, and a BS from another top 20 university. Yes, one of those “elusive” STEM people that you’d hear our nation’s great corporate, military, and political leaders complain the country needs and can’t find. Yet somehow my classmates who graduated with me have extremely hard times finding a job in any of the engineering and scientific fields. A majority of them have left the field completely and went into “business consulting”, (but at least they have jobs). The worst I’ve heard is someone who spent a year out of school trying to find a job.It took me approximately 4 months to land a job, and it was a good thing I got started before graduating. I’ve probably applied to over 100 “job openings”, before getting 3 offers from small engineering firms, and all of which were from employers who found me instead of vice versa.Of course this was before I saw Nick’s piece on PBS. Now I realized that most of my resumes, be it with government agencies, large corporations, or any other employer probably ended up on some database that no one will ever read before it becomes deleted when they will probably change to a new system. So, if I ever hear another Admiral or CEO go on NPR complaining about how we need more “STEMs”, I think I’m going to apply for one of those “business consulting” jobs as well!Some companies, like Google and Lockheed, are completely up front that you are creating a resume (really a profile) that is going to be filed and then then searched.@dlms: Thanks for revealing what’s going on inside your company. It’s frankly insane. Employers complain they can’t find good hires while they continue to plough billions into the job boards that can’t deliver hires. Then they hire someone and fire them because there wasn’t a fit. The level of desperation in HR is palpable — but no one holds them accountable. I’d love 10 minutes with your company’s board of directors.@don: What’s mystifying to me is that anyone would feel wronged when a company hires someone it knows, rather than a blind applicant that came in through an ad. The challenge is to be the “known” candidate yourself! And not to waste time with blind applications.In this context, of course, your point is dead on: Companies that post ads when they’ve already got their hire should be tarred and feathered for fraud. HR’s complaint that they are somehow “required” to post the job anyway is nothing but crocodile tears, and further proof that HR as a profession is bereft of any integrity. There’s a “policy” excuse for every one of HR’s stupid behaviors. “Not our fault.”Gimme a break.Nick, great blog subject. I absolutely agree with your opinion on this. An offshoot of this issue is the scam, or “bait & switch” job ads, where there is no job and never will be, but the reality is that the “hiring” company is looking for suckers for their very-expensive career services. They bait the market by posting multiple, generic, executive level jobs on a job board. When you submit your resume, the high pressure sales effort begins. There is one company that has even changed their name several times, but continue to post the exact same ads. They now go by Execujobs and advertise numerous CEO/COO/CFO/CIO positions (in varying locations) on Careerbuilder every day. Careerbuilder has a “REPORT THIS JOB” function when the display a job posting on their website. I have submitted reports many times on Execujobs and nothing is done by Careerbuilder, obviously because those postings are a good source of revenue for them. Shame on them.Ray,I also have a couple of these STEM degrees in the physical sciences from prestigious universities and I completely agree with all you have written. I am so sick of hearing that we need more H1-B visas when there are loads of unemployed scientists and engineers in the USA who are perfectly capable and qualified. It is as if simply being born in India or China automatically makes one more intelligent or employable even when people here achieve the exact same things. Another issue is pay and benefits. I am just amazed at how companies want to pay a STEM grad with a MS or PhD less than someone with a BA who works in accounting, HR, or marketing. This is why they are “business consultants!” Call yourself that and your pay magically doubles. Another disturbing trend is that of permanent benefit-less “temps.” Oh joy! The reward for 6-8 yrs at university studying the most demanding curricula is to be without health insurance. No wonder STEM grads are leaving the profession. If any senior exec who hires STEM grads is reading this, I want them to understand that pay must increase and benefits must be generous. On the off-chance that any legislators are reading this, REDUCE H1-B visas and require companies to fulfill the mandates of supply and demand here at home. PAY MORE and all kinds of scientists and engineers who now work as “business consultants” will come out of the woodwork.Here is an article which is related:Home Depot Syndrome, The Purple Squirrel and America’s Job Hunt Rabbit Hole:: We’ve covered the bait-and-switch “career services” you refer to before:? of them post “jobs” and prey on desperate people. In early 2012 I worked with CBC TV in Toronto on an expose:: Thanks for posting that link to the article about Peter Cappelli. Here’s another, to a NewsHour segment he and I did last September on the same subject: can actually see Peter talk about the problem!All the replies above are great. One thing that struck me was the statement:Yet year after year since 2002 employers have reported that Monster was their “source of hires” no more than about 4% of the time…I gotta wonder what’s happening the other 96% of the time. Surely they can’t be smart enough to network and shake the?Kevin Bacon?tree in order to get candidates.What else are they doing? Posting “jobs” on their own websites? Hiring from (ugh) their Job Fairs?I’m curious?not?because I’m trying to find a job one of those crazy ways, but because I like to keep up on the ways companies stumble…so I can help them improve. :)Good points, Nick. I recall a previous post I made about the false “talent shortage” in a previous thread of yours. As far as I’m concerned, there are three legs of this chair regarding the unemployment situation, each of them connected with the other.1) Rampant fraud, as you rightfully point out, is crippling the ability of labor sellers/renters to find each other. It is also permeating throughout the education establishment. All this is no thanks to an ineffective state apparatus, which often enables the fraud to begin with.2) Costs of production, resume fraud, and legal barriers to industry are rising fast (not all at the fault of employers, at least most anyway), but neither the MSM nor the big industry players consider this honesty to be politically correct. You see, telling this truth doesn’t just invite attacks from culpable politicians, but it also disturbs the American consumer whom all industries cater to. Even though the truth is vitally important to a genuine recovery, everyone is crazy-scared about the painful (but necessary) consequences.3) Additionally, since Americans are largely ignorant of economic fundamentals (thanks to the education establishment), they are easily bamboozled…which means industry players can profit more from a lie than the truth itself by (you guessed it) allying themselves with the same elements that hinder the economy.So, in a nutshell, we have a situation where the rule of law (not arbitrary law, mind you. That’s going strong) is being shattered. All the aforementioned spheres are just a manifestation of this fact.Haven’t you noticed that it’s really certain college/university professors who are lamenting the lack of STEM people? (“Professor keep thy classroom full and thee shall never want.”) The politicians are just parroting them.As for STEM, I suspect the problem is that companies these days don’t want to train anyone, but want someone with exactly the right qualifications for the job. They don’t want to train someone who’ll leave to go elsewhere. And that comes from them destroying loyalty by laying off people at the first sign of trouble.As for the main topic, I’ve never worked for a company that did this, but I have been responsible for ads for candidates with H1Bs, where you need to advertise the position even though you have someone for it. At times we would have been happy to find someone with the same qualifications – we’d hire him or her also – but it mostly adds to clutter. I don’t know about today, but back when I was doing it you could tell these ads because they had insanely detailed requirements.Nick–I wish you could spend 10 mintues with our board of directors. I think the scales would fall from their eyes.We had two internal job openings, both of which I applied for. I talked with the hiring manager for one of the jobs to gain clarification about what was expected, told him I outlined a plan about how I would approach the work, use my skills in project management and business analysis to bring about the goals and objectives outlined in the job descrption, in addition to my years of experience with the company.I just received the “thanks but no thanks” reply and understand they are going to interview outside the company. This is a common practice where I work and then they scratch their heads wondering why their seasoned employees leave for greener pastures.Also, I’ve heard through our grapevine that HR “directs” the hiring manager to the internal applicants they think should be interviewed instead of letting the hiring manager decide who she or he wants to interview. This bias against internal candidates leads to a revolving door where I work, even in this economy.@Bryan: Depending on what study you look at, 40%-70% of jobs are found and filled through personal contacts. Employers fill jobs in spite of the ridiculous “recruiting methods” they spend most of their money on. (It’s roughly the old 80:20 rule in action.) Certainly, some jobs are filled through employers’ own websites, but so many of these are outsourced to Monster and other job boards that it’s hard to track.In any case, no one in HR stops to consider the ROI from actively applying “personal contacts” to the other 30%-60% of hires they need to make. They just plough the bucks into job boards.The point is, use methods that makes sense to you to find a job. Don’t worry about how stupidly employers are behaving. Well, maybe you should worry about it a bit — who wants to work for a company that dumps its entire recruiting budget into a method that barely works?Excellent post as usual. I suspected all that was written, but now I have a confirmation.So how do we mobilize people to eductate the board of directors out there to realize it’s funding the jobs crisis with its investors’ money? Maybe it’s also about finding a way of going after the investors’ to make them understand the waste of money to the company. Social media???Unfortunately, at least from my experience, most employed individuals I encounter don’t give a hoot about people who have been unemployed for the short or long term. They are mostly only concerned about themselves and keeping their own job. So while networking is the way to a job, not too many folks are really open to real networking. There’s a conversation in one of the group’s on LinkedIn concerning the issue of one’s Elevator Speech. It’s an eye opener to read the responses of some people. Heck, you almost want to remember their name in case you ever run into them — so you can run.@Scott: “I suspect the problem is that companies these days don’t want to train anyone, but want someone with exactly the right qualifications for the job”That’s precisely the problem Peter Cappelli (Wharton) talks about. Search his name on this blog to learn more. Why would anyone take a job that she’s done before and for which she’s an exact fit? Isn’t one big reason for job change to do something new and different?We’re talking about a case of employers and HR managers walking around with their heads up their asses, looking for yet another white paper about “best practices in recruiting.” Pardon me. I used a bad word.Thank you very much for your site. I always wanted to ask, why this is happening to me.I was laid off for budget cut on the 31st of May 2012 and since then I receive emails and calls from companies who make me fill tons of personal information and fax things to them and it costs me money to fax them. I take tons of tests, which I pass. However i never get the job and they give me strange reasons. When they had contacted me in the first place, they made it sound that I will get the job for sure, and then every time I got sad and frustrated. This had affected my well being in a very negative way. I know people who know someone at those companies and they were taken in spite of not being very qualified. However, I am not part of any group. I became very hopeless. Please, does someone has an answer to this situation and what is going one, since I don’t understand what is the problem. Thanks in anticipation.Nick,I’ve seen it in the context of CIOs saying that universities are not doing their job because they don’t graduate students expert in the packages they need right now – with the implication that when they change packages, they’ll fire all the current experts and hire new ones. But I can answer your question – the kind of person who does not want to move outside of their comfort zone and learn anything new. I guess that is the person these HR types are looking for.It is scary to switch to something you don’t have experience with – I’ve done it. You can more easily fail – I’ve done that also. But when you make it you bring something that those who have always done it don’t bring.Excellent article! The more clearly the causes of these problems are described and sorted out, the more chance that glimmers of light will descend upon management.There’s one other factor which I strongly suspect is at work to generate job ads with no jobs behind them: “equal opportunity” regulations and lawsuit fears. In order to protect themselves from charges of discrimination, employers may want to be able to show that they’ve “considered” a certain number of applicants of various racial/ethnic groups. In some fields–including STEM–it could take a while to gather enough resumes from the desired categories.Like many others, I have applied to countless job board and corporate job postings with little to no response from the hiring companies. The few contacts I’ve had with HR people have left me wondering how in the world these fools get hired. They lie as they breathe – it’s mindboggling.I’ve finally found a way to work in rewarding roles, get paid well, and develop new skills…all without having a single contact with the worthless HR machine – contracting.I’m in the Seattle area where, likely due to the tech industry, contracting is widely used to bring on talent for short term (three to 24 months) assignments. I landed in a role in which my initial “good-fit” skill set quickly evolved to be a great fit, thanks to the vision of the awesome manager who hired me. An HR person would NEVER have put me on their short list if this had been an FTE hire position. My skills would not have fit into their lazy algorithms or met every single requirement of a job description.Although I don’t get the volume of perks that full-timers at my client company receive, my agency provides my computer, pays for health insurance and holidays; additional time off is, and has been, paid at the discretion of my client. The higher pay of my contractor salary will more than cover me when I take off for three weeks’ vacation later this spring.Although contracting comes with the ambiguity of the role being project based, and potentially falling to a budget cut, it has given me the opportunity to prove my worth and build important connections. My network now includes strong relationships with at least five potential hiring managers, and many more fellow contractors and FTE peers. I strongly recommend this path to others who have had their fill of job boards and corporate HR.@cindy: In the end, the best solution for those who can do it is self-employment or starting one’s own business. Contracting is next on the ladder. As for “ambiguity,” consider that in a FTE gig, there’s uncertainty. You could get laid off tomorrow. Nothing is perfectly safe today, so if you get a lot of what you want, and the terms are acceptable, you’re ahead of the game no matter what the deal is called.Frankly, I think contract jobs are safer than FTE jobs because being limited, I think contracts are more well thought out by companies. They plan them more carefully. So I think you may be less at risk on a contract.Hi, Nick –Thanks for taking the time to post such a detailed reply and for launching this discussion. I concur with everything you’ve outlined.Just a few follow-up thoughts of my own:1. Companies that post online advertisements simply for the purpose of soliciting resumes to keep their talent banks updated are no different (in my humble opinion) than retailers that use the old “bait and switch” approach to advertising when they list a discontinued product just to get customers in the door. Once customers show up, they tell them that “that model has been discontinued, but we do have this one over here for just a few dollars more…” It’s the kind of thing that at one time got companies that practiced it a quick letter to the Better Business Bureau and some difficult publicity, but maybe times have changed.2. I have seen a growing practice over the last few years of consulting firms listing descriptions with “contingency position” in the wording. I confess I find this a fair approach to letting prospective applicants know in advance that they may not be applying for an actual job, but these are still far more often the exception than the norm.3. My beef – to continue with the food analogies (stale bread, half burgers, etc.) here – is not so much with the big job search sites (CareerBuilder, Monster, etc.) but with companies that list jobs on their actual Web sites and then make no move to change them during a hiring freeze or after a position is filled or discontinued because they simply want to keep getting resumes. To cite just one example from my own experience, I applied to a firm in 2010 that was advertising for a job almost identical to my previous one. I went through two phone screens and a face-to-face interview only to be told at the end that they would not be filling the position after all due to budget cuts. That was rough enough, but they left the description online for more than a year because they wanted to keep getting fresh applications in case they ever DID decide to resurrect the job. When you stop to consider how many hundreds (if not thousands) of potential candidates probably chased that position – among what I’m sure were many others on that company’s Web site – it makes one wonder.On the positive side, one thing that I’ve tried to point out to employers in seminars I’ve taught is that this practice is not only highly unethical – and fraudulent – but it is also increasingly risky in the era of social media. Candidates who get burned in this manner by companies are not without recourse. Many of them can (and will) take to job research sites and vent their frustrations to an online audience. And while a few disgruntled crackpots might be easily dismissed, a pattern of deception and shoddy treatment will, at some point, start to impede a company’s ability to attract and retain key talent if its online reputation says that they mistreat their candidates and / or deceive them. As more Millennials enter the workforce – these would be the kids who have grown up in social media and know the online social world better than their interviewers – this shift is going to affect hiring practices significantly. In that respect, there will be a “talent shortage,” but it will be a direct result of companies’ practices rather than something to be blamed on poorly qualified candidates or misguided education system.Just my two cents!I lost my job of 30 years early in 2009. It was tough, of course, and I had survived a brutal takeover for several months before offered my walking papers. I had successfully looked for work midway through my career, and even had a job offer that I turned down. I had every confidence that I would have similar success in finding work now that I was released into the wild.However, I made two mistakes I would like to steer people clear of today: (1) paying attention to the news, and (2) believing that I would never get a job again because on-line mania had circumvented what once was a human process.It only took me three weeks to fall into deep clinical depression. Six months of meds and therapy later, I did find work, which I lost, but found again without becoming more deeply depressed.I have now been happily underemployed in a deficit survival job (meaning my funds drain more slowly than they would if I was totally unemployed), and am beginning to have hope that I will one day find work closer to my abilities. But I am spending less and less time with job boards, and will soon drop them completely.At thirty and twenty years ago, the process for work search was the same: update everything, answer ads in the paper, work with a recruiter or two. In both cases, I landed the position within a dozen interviews. Far cry from today’s environment in which the phone will never ring (which is the title of the longer version of this story).While that’s not entirely true, it did take nearly four years to get one phone call (just a few weeks ago) for a position even worse than the one I hold now. I’m not a math whiz, but if I get only one phone call every four years, and it takes four or five calls to generate one interview, and it takes a dozen interviews to get one job, I’m pretty sure that if Dr. McCoy stumbles over me, he’ll look up and say, “He’s dead, Jim!”.In the next ten years, the joke will be on corporate America for squandering the lives of millions of talented people because key words cannot capture the essence of their true and necessary talents. Entrenched prejudices will complete their failure to hire the people they so desperately need to continue their enterprises.To get back to my two points: Nick has always said, ignore the statistics unless you want to become one. A study in 2010 (Manpower) demonstrated that the jobs available in 2009 were actually less than zero, and yet I found a job that year working with a recruiter.And for those of you who think online job boards may aid you in your time of greatest need (when your unemployment benefits are about to or have run out), remember: In cyberspace, no one can hear you scream.Thank you very much for answering my questions. I felt the same. Companies have been closing all doors in my face and I feel that I will never get a job again, so I am worrying about what I will do with my life. I believe that the person in the company who is misleading people and making them get depressed should be punished and anyone hiring people only because he or she knows them or for personal advantages, should be punished. It is not fair to other people, like us. This should be stopped in all companies. To whom should one complain?The attitude of companies reminds me of spoiled children, who lie down on the floor and scream:“But we want the perfect candidates! You are studpid! The world is stupid if we cannot get the perfect candidates!!!”Daddy needs to tell those companies that they cannot get all they want. The world just isnt’t full of 25 year olds with master degrees and 20 years experience in that particular, narrow field.@Scott“As for STEM, I suspect the problem is that companies these days don’t want to train anyone, but want someone with exactly the right qualifications for the job. They don’t want to train someone who’ll leave to go elsewhere. And that comes from them destroying loyalty by laying off people at the first sign of trouble.”It goes even farther than laying people off at the first sign of trouble…Companies do little to nothing to keep people from leaving. For example, “you worked hard and met and/or exceeded expectations. Here’s your 2% raise.” Or they are hostile to promotions/moving to another department after a long tenure.There are 100’s of valid reasons people leave where the employer could have made it less likely.@Nick“Why would anyone take a job that she’s done before and for which she’s an exact fit? Isn’t one big reason for job change to do something new and different?”This is the crux of the matter, and what I think the biggest problem/hurdle many job seekers face.Many people that are worth hiring love learning new things and love new challenges. They want to move onto new, more interesting things. They also want to move up the salary ladder.I don’t want a job that I’m well qualified for, I want a job that I am barely qualified (i.e. don’t have everything on their “lists” but have the smarts to figure it out) for, and grow into it.@John Franklin: Thanks for chiming in. I don’t think HR departments realize the damage that they do to their PR and Marketing departments’ branding efforts. Those dissed job applicants are all potential (or existing) customers… and their comments are amplified via social media. It’s pretty stunning how siloed HR and PR and Marketing are.See:? (and everyone else who is in a similar boat)- I once heard from a former Cancer Survivor that being laid off was far harder than dealing with his diagnosis. The “new” work world is unfortunately broken but there is no good feedback mechanism for it, especially in this economy, so it remains that way. You can try to fight it and get emotionally invested in every interview or you can find a better way (which is what ATH is all about) and grind it out.You will be back and be better. At 35 I’ve been laid off 3 times in my career. I’m a STEM with a top 30 MBA to boot (that I’ve made peace with whereas before I thought something was owed to me). One time I was promoted and given a raise and then 2 weeks later I got a call and was out the door. When “life happened” and I had to fight get back, a couple of times, I can tell you, you will be BETTER. Wiser. The game for you right now is to find something to keep the lights on while also looking for the ideal gig.Hang in there.@Dave: “How is one supposed to get paid full time experience if you will not hire/consider people without paid full time experience”I get what you’re saying, but I think there’s a bigger problem. (Besides, employers don’t care what you need or want.) If we just make this about them and their objectives, WHY DON’T THEY TRAIN TALENTED PEOPLE to do a new job? Thinking purely in economic terms, that means they can hire less costly workers who are willing to take part of their “pay” in training and experience. This is the approach that gives employers an edge and new hires new skills.Answer: Employers are too stuck in “just in time everything” to think straight. It’s really stupid. Meanwhile, the federal government is dumping enormous grants into “helping job hunters learn to suck up to the idiocy that employers practice” in order to get hired. Give us all a break. These grant programs don’t just fail job hunters; they waste tax dollars.Here is another Nick Corcodilos article:In the?November 24, 2015 Ask The Headhunter Newsletter, a reader questions the lunacy of the training gap.QuestionI am responding to your question asking whether or not we, your readers, agree with employers that there is a “skills gap.” I am not sure I can really answer your question, though I will tell you that I have my doubts that there is a skills gap.I think what there may be is a training gap.What I can tell you is this. Back in 1986 I was hired by an insurance company as a computer programmer after having completed four years of college (linguistics major), followed by a six-month program in data processing. While?I did have training going into the job, the company provided me and my co-workers with a lot of on-the-job training. They had an education department, and we all went through hours, and hours, and hours of?paid on-the-job training in computer programming.My understanding about the reason the company did this was because they wanted to train us to do things the way?they wanted them done.My question to you is, do you find that kind of thing to be true anymore? Are companies willing to invest in training their employees after they have been hired? Or are companies no longer willing to do that?Nick’s ReplyYou’re hitting on one of the key issues behind the so-called?“talent and skills shortage.”?Who is actually responsible for brewing talent and skills? Job seekers? Schools? Employers themselves?It seems clear in today’s economy that most employers believe they should be able to acquire skills ready-made. Despite the fact that the nature of a job depends a lot on a particular company’s business — jobs are not one-size-fits-all-companies, after all — businesses expect that the exact constellation of skills they need is going to walk in the door just because they advertised for it.The training gap is realConsider the embarrassing contradiction: Any company will tell you that it is the most competitive one in its industry, that its products are uniquely the best, that what they deliver isn’t available anywhere else.So, why is it they expect the unique talent they want to hire already exists, as if it comes in a can to be purchased on a job board — or that it?already exists at a competing company??They might as well admit that their products are the same as everyone else’s.If you admit you can get your new hires wholly-made from another employer — your competitor — then you might as well tell your customers to buy what they need there, too. If a company wants the skills and talents it needs to be unique and competitive, it had better take responsibility for creating them.I don’t believe there’s any talent or skills gap. At least in the United States, talent abounds. There’s arguably more talent on the street, looking for work, than ever in history. But to make a worker an element of its unique, competitive edge, the company must make that worker in its own image. It must cast the worker as unique as its products or services. It takes the same kind of investment to brew talent as to brew a competitive product.We know for a fact that employers have indeed cut back enormously on training. It’s been confirmed by Wharton researcher Peter Cappelli. He’s shown that, adjusting for time, technology, and other factors, American workers are no less skilled or educated than they’ve ever been. However, employers have all but stopped training employees. Employers own the problem – they created it. (See?Employment in America: WTF is going on??and?Why Companies Aren’t Getting the Employees They Need.)Cappelli writes in the?Wall Street Journal:“Unfortunately, American companies don’t seem to do training anymore. Data are hard to come by, but we know that apprenticeship programs have largely disappeared, along with management-training programs. And the amount of training that the average new hire gets in the first year or so could be measured in hours and counted on the fingers of one hand.”Bye-bye, competitive edge!Your 1986 story confirms Cappelli’s finding that, not very long ago, employers considered training important. Today, it’s pathetic. It’s embarrassing. It’s shameful. HR departments think they can buy off-the-self workers who don’t need or deserve training or skills development, while their marketing departments claim the company’s products are unique, state-of-the-art and without equal. This training gap is the pinnacle of corporate hypocrisy.Then there’s the industry that aids and abets it. LinkedIn and other job boards successfully market the fraudulent notion that “we have the perfect candidate in our database – just keep looking!” (See?Reductionist Recruiting: A short history of why you can’t get hired — Or, Why LinkedIn gets paid even when jobs don’t get filled.) Employers buy that bunk sandwich in bulk, and stuff it into their recruiting strategies and hiring policies. They behave as if they can hire “just in time”?the “perfect candidate”?who has been doing the same job for five years already — at a lower salary.What job seeker wants either of those two “qualities” in a new job?When companies fail to educate, train and develop their new hires and existing employees, I think they say goodbye to any competitive edge. Their customers get cookie-cutter products and services. What this state of affairs tells us is that there’s a talent shortage in corporate leadership. (See?Talent Shortage, Or Poor Management?)As long as employers treat people — that “human resource,” that “human asset” — as a fungible commodity or interchangeable parts to be bought and sold as-is, their products and services will be no better than interchangeable parts sold at the lowest possible price.Take a look at?another article?by Peter Cappelli, where he slaps management hard upside the head with this apt analogy:“Imagine a car manufacturer that decided to buy a key engine component for its cars rather than make them. The requirements for that component change every year, and if you can’t get one that fits, the car won’t run. What would we say about that manufacturer if it just assumed the market would deliver the new component with the specifications it needed when it needed it and at the price it needed? It would certainly flunk risk management. Yet that’s what these…companies are doing.”I think Cappelli answers your question, and I don’t think there’s any debate: Most companies no longer invest in shaping and developing their employees. Their talent-challenged finance executives preach that?cost reduction?is a better path to profitability than?investment. This exacts an enormous price on our economy because it’s relegating those companies to the scrap heap of “me-too enterprises,” and it’s failing our workforce as a whole.I also think you highlight the solution: “…the reason the company [provided extensive education and development]… was because they wanted to train us to do things the way they wanted them done.” That’s what gave your employer an edge. No investment in training means no edge.Drive by and keep your edgeMy advice:?Keep on truckin’?right past employers that provide no education, training or development to new hires and employees. These are companies that don’t invest in their future success — or yours.Go find their able competitors. There are some good ones out there. They’re not easy to find, just like talent isn’t easy to develop. (That’s why you should?pursue the best companies — not jobs.) The mark of a truly competitive product is the unique skills and talents a company developed to produce it.The next time you interview a company, ask to see their employee training and development plan. If they don’t have a good one, tell them your career plan is to avoid working in a stagnant environment. Flip them a quarter and tell them to call their next candidate, because they probably still have a pay phone in the lunch room.Does your employer provide training?and development to give you (and itself) a competitive advantage? When you’re job hunting, do you ask about employee education? If you’re an employer, what kind of training to you do?All the best to you and yours for a?Happy Thanksgiving!And here are some replies:Y’know, sometimes I read this blog just to remind myself that (even though my co-workers and I have our minor gripes like everyone has about the company they work for) the job I’ve got is really a pretty good one.Our clinic does train. It’s one of the rare massage clinics which actually requires a substantial amount of work experience in addition to one’s training and license for a therapist (most LMP jobs are open to just-out-of-school therapists so long as they can demonstrate the skills in the hands-on trial when interviewing), so it would be within what passes these days for reason to expect that the new therapists they hire know how to do the work. But when we arrive, we go through 15 hours of classroom training before we are even allowed to lay hands on a client, and more is expected over the time we work there.Every few months, the clinic offers its own course in something or other they’ve decided they want us to do better than we do now. Sometimes the classes are voluntary, sometimes they’re required. They offer formal CE credit for it, so we can count it against our license renewal requirements. And they show us how much of a priority it is to them by paying us for the time (VERY unusual for massage therapists, who usually do not get paid for all the hours we’re on the clock… only those where we actually have a client on the table), and by blocking those hours out of our schedule so that, even if we’re on shift at the time one is being offered, we’re still able to attend.They do it for the reason this week’s correspondent pointed out: they want us to do things THEIR way. Dreamclinic has a high standard for therapist skill, client service, and a host of other factors; and they don’t intend to leave it to chance whether we happen to already know how to welcome a guest in the specific ways *they* think one should be welcomed. And, in fact, mostly we didn’t… not because we didn’t know how to welcome a client pleasantly and professionally; but because DC has their own opinions about *exactly* what is the best way to introduce yourself to the guest in the waiting room and invite them upstairs. We might have learned a perfectly good way, but we cannot have learned *their* way before we got to them. And they’re smart enough to know that, so they don’t expect it — they expect that we care enough about getting it right to want to learn, and take seriously the need to do it their way once we know what that is.This attitude is capable of backfiring. If they had a persnickety method that I *didn’t* think was better than the way I already did it, I’d be hard pressed to figure out what to do… use their way or use my judgment. Fortunately, our owner has a good eye for client services, so the ways she asks us to do things are pretty consistently good ideas… and when the trainings she offers are in areas which are our specialty rather than hers, she will hire the senior therapists to teach the junior ones, and pay them extra for the task.My observation over the years is that there are two types of profession development (PD) tracks available to employees. The first track is the one provided by the employer that the employee must attend. The types of PD provided in this track consists of workshops and conferences that the employee attends where someone reads PowerPoint slides for a full day with two 15-minute breaks and an hour for lunch. The topics may or may not be related to the employee’s work, but you do get a nice certificate of attendance. In my organization, there are some people who spend the majority of their time at such conferences. Unfortunately there is a large body of evidence that this type of training does not have any effect on practice, and it usually isn’t part of any thoughtful professional development plan.The second track is the one that must be initiated by the employee as part of a targeted personal professional development plan. Many organizations allow employees to take classes and skill based trainings at company expense, particularly when the employee can demonstrate a return on investment to the employer. Education leading to a professional certification or license, or college courses leading to a degree or advanced degree, or a series of classes leading to proficiency in an application (e.g. Excel, Access or a programming language) benefits both the employee and the organization.The key is that the employee must be the one responsible for planning and implementing the professional development plan. If you leave it up to the employer, all you will have at the end of your employment is a file full of certificates. Early in my career, I took advantage of every dollar of tuition reimbursement available to me which eventually led to a graduate degree. More recently, I was able to attend employee-paid classes in Access, Excel, and Project enabling me to switch positions in my organization (a promotion) using those skills my employer paid for. Research your company’s policies, ask other people how they did it, and then make it happen for yourself.Hi Nick,I am finding that one industry is investing a lot in training. The Service industry. More and more meduim and even small service firms are training employees, both administrative and service techs in sales, safety and job-specifics.The investment made seems to pay back well in terms of increased profitability for the company and employee loyalty.We in service have always maintained that finding, training and keeping the best mechanics/techs is essential for maintaining a healthy business.What do you think?Nick,I am base in Europe, so I don’t think the question of training is unique to US companies. When I started out as a trainee accountant 30 years ago, my employer at the time was always running in house training or investing in me learning on the panies don’t do this anymore they expect you to do it yourself. The audit firms are the worst, because they expect their clients to train their trainees for them!I have 2 problems with the company training that I’ve received. Here’s what I do to deal with it:1. The “official” training that’s provided is poor. The best people to train you aren’t the people in the “training department.” It’s the people who are the best at doing your job.I find that you have to develop relationships with those stars and then show them that you’re using what they taught you.2. When you need to take courses to get promoted to your next job within the company, the company won’t pay for it. Or they’ll only pay if they’ve already hired you for the job that requires the courses.The kicker though is that you often have to take the courses to get the qualifications to get the job in the first place. It’s a catch-22.I resolve it by paying for the courses myself. In my experience, one of two things will happen:1. Your company reimburses you after they promote you. Or:2. You get hired elsewhere at a higher salary.Either way, you keep learning and eventually you get the return on your course investment, too.This article hit home. I spent a lot of time and money to get my project management certification and to keep that certification. I have also spent time and money to learn about Agile methodology, business analysis, and programming.Yet, those of use who have skills are not qualified enough according to the HR gods and goddesses. Yeah, we have skills but may lack one or two, or do not have the right number of years experience. It is frustrating to have experience and training and be told it is not good enough.I totally agree with the sentiment in this article that employers are looking for the perfect candidate to magically show up at the door with the exact skill set for the right price. No one is willing to give a new hire the time to learn while doing the job.Will there always be a large pool of talented people from which to draw or will that pool dry up? Employers behave as if there will always be another one to come along or the next candidate will be even better.@Kevin KaneI agree with you about “official” company training–it is not good. We have someone in our company who “trains” in project management but has never taken a course and is not certified. It shows when people I know who took the training and tell me they have a project management plan that is nothing more than an Excel spreadsheet.I have never had any employer offered training in any job I have had. I recently left a position that I thought when I was hired would lead to moving up into better positions within the company. Turns out that management wanted to hire from outside only and your supervisor had to give permission for you to change jobs. Therefore, the supervisors usually said no and people could not move to another position in the company. All training was you teach yourself. The CEO and upper management had never worked any where else in their entire career but the person who did the hiring had been promoted upwards so you’d think that would be valued. I suspected this person got promoted and wanted to ‘clean house’ cause she hired unqualified people who turned into bad managers rather than promote qualified staff. The CEO was hired straight out of college as the CEO and stayed for almost 50 years. People felt discouraged, to say the least!You bet! I joined a computer company in 1980 as technology apprentice. The company had a training budget and paid FULL FREIGHT my evening/weekend study for a Bachelors degree which I graduated in 1884. The CEO at a company wide meeting gave mention of my 4 years and said that there is a huge pile of cash industry is investing in capital expenditures but not much directed to Human capital. He said the company that is not investing in training and development now will not be around in the future to invest in anything,As a former commercial/CRE lender we all saw the result of no training/knowledge/experience in 2008. Any and all standards of underwriting were eliminated rendering failed portfolios. Great business plan!! And apparently nobody has learned . . . yet.I am a chemist. We learn a wide variety of instrumentation (NMR, FTIR, GC/MS, LECO, ICP, Raman, LC, etc) and types of chemistry (physical, analytical, biochemical, organic, inorganic, theoretical, computational, etc) in our studies. We take physics, biology, math, computer science, technical writing, foreign languages, etc. However, when we get into the workforce, we tend to highly specialize, such as working with aluminum and associated lubricants and coatings for the beverage can industry, testing novel onco-drugs, treating fracking wastewater, or formulating chemical-mechanical-planarization slurries for the semiconductor industry. We go from macro to micro. Of course, much training is necessary. Also, even in the same industry, the approach to problems can be very different. Companies do not even utilize workers prior knowledge well. Companies must invest in their employees and train people with the right backgrounds, who have already proven their competence in learning diverse subject matter. Otherwise, they are looking for a needle in a haystack to fill such specific and narrowly-scoped jobs.@EEDRI’m glad to hear from someone in the science community and understand what you are saying–companies don’t want to train those who have the education but not experience. I have a bachelors in chemistry and no one would hire me because I did not have X years of experience in whatever they were hiring for. Of the three of us in my class who graduated with a chemistry degree, only one got a job in the industry. Others I know with this degree struggled to find work in the industry. What a shame.The topic reminds me of this quote I once shared on my blog, came across it on one of the comment sections of some article about poverty/unemployment: “My dad (before he died) always told me stories about how he went to work for Mobile as a ditch digger and they trained him to be a geophysicist – then suggested that I do the same thing – because obviously companies still train minimum wage employees into scientists. Time was, a good work ethic, two hands, and an average brain was all you needed to hit the middle class. Now all that gets you is floor sales at Target.” (The only thing I’d correct is his Target reference, as you’re not even guaranteed that, I learned after being rejected myself from Target that they don’t hire anyone over the age of 35.)Nick,The current and supporting article, The Training Gap: How employers lose their competitive edge and Talent Shortage, Or Poor Management?, hit the nail on the head for me. I am a proponent of organizational training and the older worker specifically. In my workplace discussion, my passion is evident. Everyone can achieve success IF afforded the opportunity, training, and time.The changing dynamics within almost every industry in N. America, if not globally, points to the age bracket of the worker advancing. New entrants should not discount the availability of older workers. When I refer to older, my definition aligns with ADEA, 40 years and older. It is not the retirement age, but rather the willingness of the individual to remain engaged with the workforce. By 2018, the population aged 55 years and older is projected to increase by nearly 21 million, reaching 91.6 million (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009, p. 33). The reasons vary, but in my research I found a high percentage of the older workers want to stay in the workforce.My father is a perfect example. After learning how to use a computer coupled with his education/experience as an electrical contractor is employed, after retirement, in a career he loves. He mentions the only thing he dislikes is he did not find this opportunity when he was a younger man of 50, he is currently 71 years old. My dad is active and energetic, like many others in this category. He is innovative by nature that provides positive insight to new challenges.My focus in working with organizations is to realize training is relevant for all employees but critical for this population as they are the new talent pool and provide a dual benefit for the organization and society.I wonder why companies don’t look at training, particularly external training, as one of the best recruitment tools out there.Think about it. If you send a person to some training, especially industry specific training, who else is going to be there? People in your industry!What a better way to recruit than having your people talking with others over a beer after a day of training. It’s almost practically free since the cost is charged to the training budget.And the answer to the obvious question is that any company that truly rewards its people and is a good place to work would not be worried about their people being recruited away…..Sadly, interest in training is one of several Corporate pendulums one sees over time. At times I’ve seen Corporations get very interested in training, invest in it heavily, build some impressive programs, then walk away from it. Shoot it. Usually because business takes a hit in which case, the Training Department & it’s staff become an endangered species. Or the flip side, business is so hot, that people are needed so badly, managers don’t want to give up the productivity. They can’t live with “You don’t have them for 10 weeks, they’re in training. Shortsighted. Yes?But here’s a seemingly shocking philosophy that I picked up from the last company I worked at. Which we made sure people understood via their interviews. We didn’t think we had a responsibility to train them. We felt as far as advancing one’s knowledge and professionalism it was all about learning, not training. It was your responsibility to learn the skills you needed to advance your career and professionalism. If you had the passion, desire, interest in doing so, it was our responsibility to assist you in every way we could. Via tuition assistance, classes, challenging assignments, tools,access to the subject matter experts etc. If you think about it, it’s still all about knowledge transfer, except for the emphasis. We wanted to focus on the people who really wanted to learn, not populate classrooms with warm bodies, wasting the time of the SME’s And there were no artificial barriers on in house training..e.g. “not job related”. We recognized the one basic job description, ..make the company successful. If a bookkeeper had the intellectual curiosity to want to understand how a product worked…go for it.Related was our basic recruiting philosophy and building block…attitude trumps experience & education. If someone lacks a good work ethic and attitude, all discussions about training are moot, be it classroom or OJT.We were beefing up onboarding with some relevant classroom training that we wanted everyone to have to get people on the same page. ie. a 1st level consisting of Corporate level information we wanted all new hires to have, Department level information a Dept head wanted all new hires to that department to have, (e.g. Sales practices for Sales) and Section level information for all new hires in a particular group to have (e.g. assembly basics in Assembly). Beyond that, it got more specialized driven by learning needs as noted before hand)This was a work in progress when I left…but the key was that it was CEO driven. He believed that people learn all their lives and he gave a high priority to the program…for people who wanted to learn. But conversely did not feel obligated to spoon feed training classes to the uninterested. What was refreshing was that no manager would throw a body block on someone who wanted to learn something. While it may not seem job related everything connects at the company level.As to uniqueness and the quest for those special unique people that match your unique needs, aka the perfect hire.As a manager, and as a recruiter I’ve always followed and preached a rule of thumb. If your search for the “right candidate” exceeds the time for a seemingly less qualified, candidate passionate about their field, who learns quickly to ramp up to the need..you’re doing something terribly wrong with your recruitment. This is even more true if the company invests in a program that accelerates learning. I’ve seen it endless times, where companies underestimate the ability of people to learn, to change roles, to the detriment of the company. As Nick said, there’s absolutely no lack of skills, and in many cases the companies already have people who can step up to the line if they aren’t ruled out. and one common way they are ruled out by Corporate insistent habit of assuming formal education equals ability.AS to uniqueness in the marketplace. Unless you compete with idiots, your leading edge gets stale fast. The extraordinary becomes ordinary. To keep that edge you need people who learn quickly, welcome challenge, and who constantly push you to the edge and beyond as they drive to learn new things and try them out.Therein lies the weakness in these exacting job descriptions and insistence on finding people to meet them. Even if you find Mr or Ms Perfection, you’re finding someone who appears to be satisfied with zero challenges. Someone who is content to do what they are already doing. They aren’t likely the ones who will continue to make you unique in the market place.Normally, I read the comments carefully before chiming in, but before I even got a few sentences into today’s newsletter, the memory of standing face-to-face with an MBA who had been laid off about the same time I was laid off nearly 7 years ago came to mind. I’m not the sharpest tool in the box, but if I was running a company, I would consider an MBA a considerable investment in talent, especially if the company paid her tuition. She was laid off almost as soon as she secured her degree.No matter, don’t need her anymore, she’s redundant, she’s gotta go.Oops, we’re short of MBAs, anybody got any?My front-line crew had an average tenure of 14 years, and they were trained by me. It wasn’t easy, especially because I had to do a lot of it “undercover”. There is no “simple job”. Even digging ditches with a shovel takes training to dig ditches effectively.All companies are unique. Why do they think that they can acquire “off the shelf talent” to maintain their competitive edge?Grow yer own.Loved this post, Nick. I can’t begin to tell you how many jobs I’ve seen that want x years of experience using a specific accounting system. I have a bachelor’s in accounting, was a member of a business honor society, and have many years of experience (although over 10 years ago), but I can’t seem to find anyone interested in me. I’ve even applied for accounts payable jobs, probably the easiest job in the accounting career field, and nobody seems interested in me.I want to share a recent telephone screening. The screening was with a senior manager of recruiting. One of the questions she asked was if I had X years of experience working with Deltek. That requirement wasn’t in the job advertisement. When I told her that I did not have that particular expertise, she said they were looking for a candidate with that experience.I lost it a bit at that point and I asked her, how are all these companies wanting experienced candidates able to get such candidates when no company seems to be willing to take on someone who needs a little bit of training. I stumped her…she hesitated and then suggested temping. Temping would be an even worse environment for someone lacking a needed skill. Companies wanting temporary help usually aren’t interested in training someone. At some point, these companies are going to have to train people, but when?!I’ve been looking for a job for almost 2 years and it is one of the most frustrating experiences in my life. I have a database of every employer I’ve applied to and would be very hesitant to consider working for them in the future.I’ve been working in science publishing for 30 years and my current employer is the only one to offer any kind of training and development. There are a number of online and live courses to choose from and I am taking full advantage of them.Like all companies these days, mine is also looking to cut expenses. After reading this article, I’m glad they have the foresight to invest in their employees. This makes me feel like more than just a number on a balance sheet and helps me be more productive and a better fit where I am.As always, thanks for your interesting and eye-opening articles.Do companies no longer train employees because employees no longer stay with a company a long time as in the past? Do they believe it is not worth their investment because the investment will walk away? What I have read seems to indicate this may be a major factor in why companies don’t train anymore. On the other hand I connect a lot with local industry and I frequently meet workers who have been with their company for 15, 20, 25, … years. Which is true?Changing jobs is stressful. People don’t just walk away.They walk away from a frightened manipulative middle manager.They walk away from a lack of clear career direction.They walk away from cynical platitude delivering senior management.They walk away from a lack of regular feedback.They walk away from an underpaying job.They walk away from a job without any change in responsibility nor challenge.They walk away from a politically charged atmosphere which, in turn, is always is caused by weak incompetent management.They walk away from constant insecurity in their positions.They walk away from the toll their job takes on their home life.They walk away from the toll their job takes on their self-esteem.They never walk away because they were trained.Oh, man, you struck a nerve with this one. (Haven’t commented in a long time, but this one hit me just right.)I’m a contract programmer at a large health insurance company in flyover country, and I see stuff like this all the time, particularly in larger companies. The company where I’m currently working does training – the wrong kind for IT staff. They will send employees off for some feel-good touchy-feely stuff but provide no technical training. This is hardly the first time I’ve seen this at a large company. Years ago, when I was an employee at a Fortune 100 company, I went through “Seven Habits” training, but didn’t get a lick of technical training. Talk about throwing your money at the wrong problem, at least as far as IT is concerned.Interesting, how am I supposed to develop the skills the company demands if I’m not trained? Oh, that’s right, I’m supposed to pay for the training myself. Otherwise I could be replaced by an entry-level somebody who just so happens to have recent training in whatever the latest whiz-bang technology is on the market. Gee, then I guess my loyalty just went right out the window as well, and after I get finished with my own training that I had to purchase myself, I’ll simply move on to an employer who wants to pay me more.Any wonder there’s little loyalty left in the workforce today?@Tony: I think companies that invest in educating their employees see a nice ROI.@Ty: “Employers stopped training because no one stays long enough for the training to start paying dividends.”I don’t see any difference today in the degree to which people leave their jobs, for whatever reason. Cf. VP Sales’ comment. Though I appreciate that you might see this differently, what concerns me is that what you’re suggesting is cited by employers as justification for not investing in their employees. I think it’s a cheap excuse for being cheap and short-sighted.@Kevin Kane: I agree that in the absence of good training from an employer, it’s up to everyone to make sure they get their own.@Michael Enquist: You’re right: Education is part of compensation. So when a company argues that providing education just encourages the competition to poach newly trained people, the company can prevent that: By raising salaries and improving the quality of work life for its people. Sheesh. The “logic” used to excuse lack of training and development could be used to “prove” that your dog might be appropriated by your neighbor right after it completes obedience training. Give us all a break! :-)Also, to your Q about: “Has Nick ever written a post about the turn around question to the old interview hack, ‘Where do you see yourself in 5 years? The turn-around should be ‘Where do *you* see me in 5 years?'”The only response (retort?) I’ve suggested is, Do you expect your company will BE IN BUSINESS in 5 years?? But I like your suggestion – it’s sweet!If companies are scared talent will be poached once an employee is “trained,” the problem is not necessarily with said employee.Regarding the “commitment” excuse: Take a look around, most jobs today are *contract* positions, lasting six months to a year. Hardly what I’d consider a “commitment” by corporate America, so please don’t blame the workers who take these “scrap” jobs because they have no choice, and then accuse them of “jumping ship” when in fact it was the company that chose to not renew the contract. I haven’t had a permanent job since 2002. I contracted at Fidelity Investments for 3.5 years with no commitment from them in the end. They hired me again last January on a six month contract with the promise to convert me to perm status and they reneged on that. Enuff said.Regarding “poaching,” I am again compelled to quote a comment I once came across, “If the long-term unemployed are considered unemployable, and if employers intentionally shun them, this would mean that they can only add or replace experienced staff by raiding each other’s employees. Yet, isn’t job-hopping considered a negative trait in evaluating a prospective candidate? Somehow, the logic of the process fails me (never mind the unethical policies of ‘job creators’).”@marilyn: So you think the 2008 lending disaster could have been in part due to lack of training. That’s an interesting insight! Yah, training should be a part of business plans, especially when a company needs to explain why it’s omitting it.@EEDR @dlms: There’s always been a tendency by employers to discount general education and to complain about lack of specific skills when trying to fill jobs. (“Schools teach theory. We need hands-on skills on TODAY’S tools.”) But I think it’s always been a straw-man argument. I’ve never seen a case where solid, foundational education doesn’t help a person apply newly learned, specific skills more effectively. Specific training might be necessary, but it’s not always sufficient for long-term success. Employers are downright stupid to avoid training well-educated workers.@Bruce A:==Accountant: What happens if we invest time and money training and developing our employees and they leave?CEO: What happens if we don’t, and they stay?==That’s the best bit of sarcasm on this thread! :-)@BJ Older Wker Diversity: Thanks for reminding us that training and education are always a good thing. Your dad is an example of what happens when talent and experience meet education.@Chris: “I wonder why companies don’t look at training, particularly external training, as one of the best recruitment tools out there.”A number of years ago, MentorGraphics, a computer-aided design tools company, recognized an opportunity when jobs for electrical engineers (EEs) shriveled. The company sells training to users of its pricey tools. It announced a community service program: When seats in these training classes were empty, it would fill them with unemployed EEs, gratis. Mentor was up front: We know that if we invest in training you on our tools, when you get a job you’ll be more likely to spec our tools for your projects, or you’ll at least become part of our user base. Both outcomes pay off for Mentor, and the cost was minimal – those seats were empty anyway. The program was a sort of recruiting tool. Mentor got a ton of publicity for this, and built enormous good will. Bottom line: Training skilled workers is a smart thing to do.Finally, one of the best places to recruit is at training programs. Where else can you direct your efforts at a highly targeted audience? Of course, you can’t go in like a jerk with application forms. Best case, you go take the training yourself and mingle and make friends.@Don: Great little dissertation about the cost of talent, and the bigger cost of pretending perfect candidates are really perfect.When I started in the corporate world (1984), the company had a comprehensive professional development program that all front line managers were required to complete. Maximum ROI was achieved since curriculum theory was applied to the workplace challenges you brought to the courses. In addition, the peer network we developed was invaluable for building comradery. The win, learning drove the company to a new level of excellence. Unfortunately, over time, the ‘learning university’ was eventually abandoned.Bottom line, my learning takeaways were always insightful and provided background to overcome future challenges with the best takeaway, ‘never stop learning’. So, in the absence of company training, I began the practice of self-directed learning. This learning took many forms; books, seminars, college courses and peer groups. Some company sponsored, some not. Either way, I regarded the time spent and experience as an investment in my brand.Fast forward to now and I would say self-directed learning is more essential than ever. If you’re not learning to achieve a higher level of excellence, you’re becoming obsolete. I would not rely on my employer’s training and development program to define my success.Becoming excellent is the basis for what our country was built on, ‘ameritocracy’. Apathy towards learning and excellence will relegate your career.The underlying reason for corporate attitude and behavior related to training is very simple.If the corporate philosophy is that people are an asset, which grows more valuable over time via training and experience appreciates, you’ll find training is viewed as an investment. The value is viewed accumulativelyIf the corporate philosophy is that people/labor is an expense, training just increases the expense. the value is viewed currently measured by performance/productivity obtained for the expense.In the past Japan was a good example of the former. Japanese corporations never laid people off. On the surface it appeared to be benevolence per lifetime employment practices , but really it was business…they were keen aware of the investment, and hard-to-replace unique skills. Sadly in recent history they too have started down the lay-off munities and cultures who take the investment route are populated by companies who ALL train because their mindsets dictate that you develop and appreciate the value of your workforce. So you find a highly trained labor pool and poaching or people leaving for training reasons is pretty much moot.The US with some isolated exceptions takes the latter route. Labor is an expense, and real men learn in business school to cut your losses. If you need to reduce costs for whatever reason..the fast fix is to cut labor. I’ve been involved in massive layoffs from both ends. While performance or some currently needed skill may be considered, I never heard a word about the overall value gained over the years of an employee.And I’ve been with some companies who’ve done some neat things with training, with some stellar training professionals. These are in place because some decision maker with some horsepower strongly believed in it. This works until the company gets in trouble..or the program loses its sponsor. Training quickly becomes history.In spite of some very sound arguments that if business slows down, say to an economic slump, a smart company turns it’s attention to upping the ante in training, process improvement, product development …to be ready for when business improves giving them an edge over the competition.People who’ve written about self training programs, are on the right track. Don’t leave it to some company.To be fair to the corporate side, I’ve also been underwhelmed by candidates who have no proven track record practically demanding to be trained, or who’s reasons for crappy performance is “I wasn’t trained”.And my work history is in the hi-tech world, where the attitude is somewhat “we don’t need no stinkin training, that’s for losers” If you’re really sharp you already know what you need, or you’ll find out.This is a very interesting topic. I also started my IT career in a large insurance company after finishing my Comp Sci degree. This company had a policy of hiring entry-level and starting the process in our rather extensive training department; we were trained in operating systems essentials, languages, and corporate policies and protocols, after which we were graduated to production and became entry-level code monkeys.It was a great system; by the time they started as developers everyone had a good idea of the technologies involved, and how to manage themselves as professionals. I enjoyed the educational aspect so much that after spending some time as a programmer I became one of their trainers.We were the live front line for HR – anyone whose CV looked good was invited to come in and we, the trainers, interviewed prospective employees, and recommended them for hire. We trained them, managed them, and got them ready to feel comfortable and useful in our shop.The company was committed to keeping its staff well-trained and current. The training department constantly trained itself and developed in-house coursework for our developers. Experienced developers came back to training to augment their skills and to train in specific technologies required for new projects.As a result of this we had a very stable, productive, and committed workforce, with very low turnover. It was an exemplary system, and it’s a shame that this model has fallen into disuse.@Rick: I’ll bet these comparably competent staff were easier to work with in a more qualitatively productive environment. Now “productivity” is graded by how few employees are used, regardless of poor outcomes. Makes little sense :(@Ty: Outstanding list.With the steady stream of humanity flowing through my company’s doors, we don’t have time for exit interviews, but I’m sure many of them would check the box marked “all of the above”.There is no such thing as “the good old days”, but in my previous job, I was fortunate to work for a company for three decades that did not allow politics or for people to mistreat each other. Boy, were we weird!Then a for real corporation bought us, and I learned very quickly what the inside of hell looked like. Of course, they realized what I was observing–I was the first to be severed.@Nick: the “five year” question is unnervingly accurate. After my 30-year gig, the guys that bought us alienated our 30 year customer base, and folded their tents in less than 5 years when said customers left for the competition. The start-up I worked for after I was expelled from my 30-year gig went belly up just under 5 years after they dumped me. Extreme Purgatory survived a couple of rough spots in the five years that I’ve been here, but will be facing a big challenge in about six months. Is this a trend, or just my personal experience? Is modern business everywhere on a five-year precipice?@marilyn, it really was a good work environment, very productive, and relatively low-stress. Interesting people, too: the company did not require serious academic work in comp sci, but administered a fairly comprehensive logic exam to all applicants. You passed that test, we would train you. We all started out knowing (ok, with introductions to :-) ) the same basic technologies, a good idea as to what to expect as professionals, and the feeling that the company saw us as valuable assets. The pace of work was very reasonable, it was an insurance company after all, and whenever there was a technological bottleneck we sent our developers for additional training.There was an explicit policy of developing personnel – you were expected to put in some time programming, but also expected to advance up the hierarchy, either on a technical or an administrative track.I enjoyed meeting and working with many of the people I started with in training, and remained friends/colleagues throughout my career there. (and after being a trainer for several years, I think I knew most of the very large contingent of developers and managers there!)I’m a bit late to the discussion, but find this to be one of my favorite “best of Nick” Q&As. This is a topic of perennial concern and discussion in academia because too many people think college equals job training. In some cases, it does, and I can point to the programs in automotive technology, dental hygiene, massage therapy, and other “hands-on” programs offered by the community college at which I now work. But for most, college does NOT equal job training, and for employers to make having a college degree a requirement to answer phones, maintain a boss’ schedule, and for other jobs where the training is best done by the employer is stupid.I agree: today there is little to no training at all. Many employers want a new hire to be able to do the job perfectly and profitably the second her butt hits the chair without any training, without any mentoring. This means that they want someone who has done exactly the same job somewhere else, and to be happy to do it for less money and no benefits.I, too, have heard employers complain about employees leaving (so why bother to train them). People won’t leave after being trained IF there are opportunities to learn new things and grow in a job, IF there are opportunities for advancement (most managers don’t want to remain in the same job forever, so why do they expect their hires to be content to stay in the same job?), IF they are treated with dignity and respect (many of the things Ty listed).Sure, some will leave regardless of what an employer does–an employee may quit in order to be the trailing wife (moving because her husband’s job requires them to move), to go back to school, to start a family and raise children, to take care elderly or sick parents and/or in-laws. Those are the kinds of reasons for which there is no control.It is expensive to train workers, but what is the cost of ignorance and untrained or poorly trained workers? Mistakes (that might cost the company profits and/or fines), delay in the amount of time it takes to complete work/projects, and products getting out into the market without being properly tested.@marybeth: “Many employers want a new hire to be able to do the job perfectly and profitably the second her butt hits the chair without any training, without any mentoring. This means that they want someone who has done exactly the same job somewhere else, and to be happy to do it for less money and no benefits.” I really wonder about managers with expectations like that. I mean, there are usually a fair number of people involved in talking about a position before it’s advertised, aren’t there? Does not even one of them point out the obvious — “What exactly are we offering which would give anybody who had the skills we’re demanding a reason to want to work here?”It seems that not being able to put oneself in the candidate’s shoes even so far as to realize that you’re not offering anything which would remotely tempt someone with the skills you’ve demanded is a side effect of lack of empathy, which in turn is a side effect of not really engaging on a person-to-person level with anybody “beneath” you economically or in corporate rank. If you don’t think of someone as a live human being, with their own needs, desires and goals, then of *course* you’ll think you can just write up your wish list and advertise it in the Best Places, and wait for the candidates to beat a path to your door and beg for the privilege of serving you. It’s what you do with everything else you buy; why shouldn’t buying livestock (er, I mean talent) be any different? In order to recognize what’s wrong with that hiring system, it takes the recognition that A) *you* wouldn’t have any interest in a job which had similar demands to what you’re doing now, but paid less and with fewer benefits; and B) the candidates you want to recruit are humans like yourself, so they probably won’t react too differently.What really scares me is the number of companies which are choosing to turn away from hiring voluntary employees altogether, at least for positions which involve relatively noncreative work. The inmate workforces rented out by the for-profit prison system are expanding by leaps and bounds, and some of the biggest companies in a huge range of industries are using them. I’m honestly afraid that the management culture has decided that the way to deal with uppity workers who insist on being treated better than slaves is to rent slaves, period.We need more employee-owned companies. Desperately.@Naomi: I have wondered the same thing. I think, despite the glowing unemployment statistics (now at 5% and this will trigger a rise in interest rates by the Fed), there are still too many unemployed and under-employed people (not counted in the statistics because they’ve been unemployed for longer than 99 weeks, because they’ve given up/stopped looking for work, because they’ve gone back to school, etc.) and it is still an employer’s market. For the managers who think like this, I’ve noticed that their attitude is that people should be grateful to be working (for them) period and if they’re not, then there is someone else to take their places who will be grateful for what few scraps they offer.I think you are right about some managers not being able to put themselves in candidates’ shoes (lack of empathy, lack of understanding) is part of the problem. The other part is the big shift in the overall culture–employees are seen as “units”, as “costs”, not as people, which makes management even less likely to see them as human beings or to be able to relate to them.And I think you’re right regarding your comment about social and economic (and corporate) hierarchy.I hadn’t heard about companies choosing to use prisoners for non-creative work, but that is neither a surprising outcome nor an unexpected outcome. When your wages are too low to tempt skilled Americans and you can’t bring in enough H1B visa holders from foreign countries to work cheaply, then why not turn to the prison population? I am sure that the prisoners are even cheaper and easier to exploit than H1B visa holders. People get angry when their jobs get outsourced to India and China, or when you are required to train your replacement from India, who will be paid half your salary (which means more profit for the owners), but prisoners are viewed as leeches on “the system”, and I bet most people would think that making them work is a good thing because they’re being fed (3 hots) and housed (a cot) on the taxpayer’s dime.Yes, we do need more employee-owned companies, but I’d also like to see a shift back to a more balanced, more equitable relationship between owners and workers. It was not always so skewed.Coincidentally, a segment ran on NPR Radio this week that addressed falling wages due to technology replacing labor. In order to reverse this trend, the author prescribes old fashioned, on-the-job training.James Bessen is an economist that invented desktop publishing which put thousands of people out of jobs. On the other hand, the displaced knowledge workers that were re-trained, self-trained and continually trained are now some of the highest paid, most productive workers.I’ve read Peter Cappelli’s book, and it is spot on. If anything, he understates the severity of the hiring jam.Very revealing from Peter’s WSJ article that companies fill 66% of their vacancies from outside vs 10% twenty five years ago. Is there any better indication companies no longer develop employees? Why think outsiders are than insiders? And Peter’s comment about companies expecting precisely trained and experienced employees to just pop out of some magical supply line couldn’t be better.I’ve never had any training to speak of for any of my jobs. But I usually had some time to ramp up learning curves before producing deliverables. Except my last job, where the training consisted of sink or swim immersion, bad documentation, mentoring that wasn’t, and general lack of guidance. No time for learning curves there. Yet even subject matter experts need training in the company way. Unfortunately, too much is tribal knowledge that must be picked up by osmoses and serendipity.Its easy to say employees should train themselves. But how? And what? You can’t learn everything, and some things aren’t readily available outside corporate environments.@Stevie Wonders – That’s an interesting point about tribal knowledge. This knowledge is lost when experienced employees are laid off, eliminating the opportunity for informal training among colleagues.Here is another Nick Corcodilos article:In the?June 23, 2015 Ask The Headhunter Newsletter, Nick responds to readers who want to know what he thinks of a Time magazine cover story about employers that use “XQ” to assess job applicants.Your XQ: More HR B.S.?Readers have been peppering me with questions, asking my reaction to a recent Time cover story:?How High Is Your XQ??It’s about “strange questions you need to answer to get a job in the era of optimized hiring.”Translation:?It’s about employers’ new-found love for letting third-party personality-testing companies decide whether to reject you before the employer even meets you.I give the author of the article, Eliza Gray, credit for dealing with “optimized hiring” candidly and critically. The article is worth reading. (If you don’t subscribe to Time, you can’t read the full story online. Everyone, however, can read an online companion piece,?Find out if your personality fits your job.)In this week’s newsletter, I’m going to tell you what I think, and suggest how you might deal with this latest effort by HR executives to abrogate their responsibilities for hiring.But what really matters in all this is?what you think,?because that’s what will rattle these employers. Read on, then join me in the discussion below. We’ll talk.A $2 Billion IndustryTime reports:?“Convinced by the gurus of?Big Data?that a perfect workforce can be achieved by analyzing the psyche and running the results through computers, hundreds of employers now insist that job candidates submit to personality tests.”A $2 billion testing industry, funded by your friendly neighborhood HR department, “evaluates” job applicants even before an employer decides they’re worth interviewing. Yes, you too can get rejected before you’re even considered.What does all this entail??“Tests that can take anywhere from 20 minutes to several hours,”?says Time.Why does HR do this? It’s simple. HR doesn’t want to recruit, judge job applicants, hire, or be held accountable. So HR execs farm their work out to third parties that are not regulated — but who control whether you get a job.What it means:?HR has left the building. There’s a stuffed animal in the HR VP’s chair signing contracts, outsourcing hiring to clowns wearing psychologists’ hats. These employers consider their employees fungible commodities. (See?An insider’s biggest beefs with employment testing.)My advice:?Strike back, especially if you’re gainfully employed. “Sorry, my policy is not to take tests or fill out voluminous forms until the hiring manager and I decide there’s good reason to continue talking. When can I meet the manager?”I realize that if you’re unemployed, you might hesitate to be so assertive. But consider that after you invest your time, odds are very high that you’ll be rejected by an algorithm — time you could spend interviewing with a human who really wants to hire you.Bottom line:?Any employer that won’t take the time to meet you before rejecting you operates without integrity and is not one to work for.The No-See-Um AssessmentWhat are HR departments looking for?Time reports:?“It isn’t an IQ rating or even EQ, the emotional intelligence quotient that came into vogue in the 1990s. There’s no name yet for this indispensable attribute. The qualities are so murky that often not even the employers chasing it are able to define it; they simply know that an algorithm has discovered a correlation between a candidate’s answers (such as an expressed preference for classical music) and responses given by some of their most successful workers. So let’s call it the X quotient… your XQ test, an exam that no one has prepared you for.”What it means:?You apply for a job. HR has no time to interview you. (See?7 Mistakes Internal Recruiters Make.) It makes you take a test instead, saving its time and money, while you play outsourced psychological games, spending your time like it’s free. These tests reveal correlations, which reflect nothing about your skills or ability to do a job.Your answers to useless questions like, “Do you understand why stars twinkle?”?correlate?with the answers of successful employees. But statistical correlations don’t prove anything. They merely suggest you’re similar to someone else. If you’re not, it doesn’t matter that you can do the job better than any other current employee. You lose.My advice:?Don’t play the No-See-Um Game, in which no one interviews you. Insist on being seen by a hiring manager in person. There are many companies that respect job applicants and assess them face to face. (See?Kick the candidate out of your office.) Don’t feed the $2 billion racket. Find an honest employer instead.Meet Andy BigaIf hiring decisions that are based on test correlations are really not a good thing, why do employers rely on them?Time tells about a JetBlue HR executive named Andy Biga who “optimizes hiring.” He processes 150,000 job applicants for the airline, and hires 3,000 of them after they “get past the battery of tests Biga’s team designed.”Biga says, “I believe this is really the future for hiring.”Oops:?It seems Andy Biga is full of baloney. I know, because I spoke with Dr. Arnold Glass, a leading researcher in cognitive psychology at Rutgers University. Glass adds a measure of Real Science to Biga’s claims about Big Data in the service of HR:“It has been known since Alfred Binet and Victor Henri constructed the original IQ test in 1905 that the best predictor of job (or academic) performance is a test composed of the tasks that will be performed on the job. Therefore, the idea that collecting tons of extraneous facts about a person (Big Data!) and including them in some monster regression equation will improve its predictive value is laughable.”The Time reporter?“called Biga and his protege, another 30-something data wiz named Ryan Dullaghan, after the conference to see if they’d talk me past the buzzwords and through what they’re really looking for in a new hire. No dice. After all, if the traits they wanted in an employee were printed in TIME, they said, job applicants might be able to game the test.”What it means:?JetBlue and companies like it don’t hire you for what you can do. They hire you because you correctly agree or disagree with statements like, “I feel stressed when others rush me.” What that means is a secret.?That’s how they game?you.My advice:?Buy a lottery ticket instead. Because, can you imagine how Andy sorts through 150,000 applicants? BZZZT! That’s a trick question! He doesn’t. Nobody at JetBlue does. If JetBlue had any idea how to recruit the right people, it wouldn’t throw 150,000 strands of spaghetti at the wall.Andy has a big problem:?The FTC is looking into how these hiring algorithms promote bias and discrimination. Ashkan Soltani, the FTC’s chief technologist, says, “We have little insight as to how these algorithms operate, what incentives are behind them or what data is used and how it’s structured.”?CIO magazine?reports that the FTC has formed a new Office of Technology Research and Investigation to look at bias in hiring algorithms.Soltani cautions: “A lot of times the tendency is to let software do its thing. But to the degree that software reinforces biases and discrimination, there are normative values at stake.”Oops. There goes Andy Biga’s future.Meet Charles PhillipsThis racket is so corrupt that I couldn’t make up what Time disclosed.Time reports:?“One of the bigger outfits is Infor, a New York–based software company that claims to assess a million candidates a month–a number that translates to 11% of the U.S. workforce.”Hertz, Boston Market and Tenet Healthcare outsource candidate testing to Infor. The company?“concocts a job applicant’s ‘Behavioral DNA,’ a measure of ’39 behavioral, cognitive and cultural traits,’ and compares them to the personality traits of the company’s top performers.”What it means:?“Behavioral DNA” is a B.S. marketing term with no scientific meaning. Now for the good part. Says the Time reporter:?“Infor CEO Charles Phillips admitted he’d never taken the test when we spoke, adding, ‘I’m scared of what I might find.’”My advice:?A CEO who admits he won’t eat his own company’s dog food — but wants to feed it to you — has no business rejecting you for a job at arm’s length. Kudos to Time for exposing Infor. Look up?the list of Infor’s clients. Would you apply for a job at any of them, knowing how you’ll be “assessed?” Find employers who don’t serve Charlie Phillips’ dog food to people who apply for jobs.Correlation Is KingWhat is Infor selling to gullible HR executives who couldn’t recruit a dog to bite a mailman??Correlations,?reports Time.Phillips and his testing chums sell?“a mostly unchallenged belief that lots of data combined with lots of analytics can optimize pretty much anything–even people. Thus, ‘people analytics,’ the most buzzed-about buzzword in HR circles at the moment. Included in people analytics is everything from looking at the correlation between compensation and attrition to analyzing employees’ email and calendars to see if they are using their time effectively…?Correlation is king, even when causation is far from clear.?So it’s only natural that data worship would take hold in hiring.”Remember what Rutgers’ Dr. Glass said: “The idea that collecting tons of extraneous facts about a person (Big Data!) and including them in some monster regression equation will improve its predictive value is laughable.”Meet Ray Dalio, animal wranglerAccording to Time, one employer that does its own “people analytics” is Bridgewater Associates, the world’s biggest hedge fund. The company’s founder, Ray Dalio, expresses a belief that HR execs are quickly adopting:“Without data, we are no better than cavemen he says. ‘Society is in its animal, emotional state that is the equivalent of the dark ages. We are in this transition period where all that is hidden in darkness will come out through statistical evidence,’ he says.”What about all this testing, correlation and prediction to assess candidates for jobs? Peter Cappelli, a leading HR researcher at the Wharton School of Management, cuts to the chase: “Nothing in the science of prediction and selection beats observing actual performance in an equivalent role.”But none of the executives cited by Time select candidates by observing them actually performing a job.The Science Of Snake OilIt’s no accident that Andy Biga, Charles Phillips, and Ray Dalio are not scientists. They’re snake oil salesmen using fake technical lingo (Behavioral DNA? Jump, Spot, jump!) to impress lightweight HR executives. “Big Data” impresses HR charlatans who hide behind other charlatans to whom they outsource their own jobs — recruiting and hiring.The bunch of them love to pontificate about “evidence based” assessments. Yet real HR researchers, cognitive psychologists, Time magazine, and the FTC tell us there’s no evidence, no science, and possibly no integrity in any of this.(There are ways to apply for a job by going around these obstacles. See?Fearless Job Hunting, Book 3, Get in The Door (way ahead of your competition)).We Have Met The EnemyJob seekers at every level — including some of the smartest, most educated people in America — have met the enemy on the jobs battlefield. And the enemy is job seekers themselves.?They’ve let themselves be suckered.As long as job seekers consent to be treated like commodities, as long as they let their teeth be checked like horses at auction, as long as they subject themselves to imperious bureaucrats who hold up hoops to jump through, then they’ll be abused.Job seekers are their own biggest enemy. Folks, you have to grow some integrity of your own and refuse to be abused.So, how do I get a job?Job seekers tell me all the time that they’re terrified to buck the system. So, how can they possibly land a job in this miasma of phony science, trumped-up hiring technology, and HR bullying?It’s simple. Please pay attention.Time reports?that job seeker Kelly Ditson finally landed a job after subjecting herself to demeaning online applications and personality tests. She stayed up?“as late as two in the morning to finish just four applications.”In one case,?“she made it to the 95th question on the Chili’s [restaurant chain] application only to have [the] wi-fi connection cut out. She had to start all over. Chili’s had no comment for Time. Ditson said she was exasperated… In the end, she got her job the old-fashioned way: calling the manager at the Olive Garden until she hired her. She started in March.”Ditson went and talked to the manager she wanted to work for. One on one, not one in 150,000.No one can make a fool out of you if you don’t let them. (See?Employment In America: WTF is going on?) When will HR wise up and realize it’s losing the respect of job seekers every day? When will HR realize it’s being played for the fool by software companies masquerading as scientists? When will HR realize that “the people game” is played with real, live people — not phony “evidence” derived from “Big Data” by tech wonks working for stuffed animals in the HR suite?HR will realize it when job seekers stop rolling over.My AdviceHR execs say there’s a talent shortage.?That puts you in the driver’s seat, folks — it’s a seller’s market!Throughout Ask The Headhunter — the website, blog, newsletter, books — I talk (write) myself blue in the face about how to demonstrate that you’re the profitable hire. (For example,?Fearless Job Hunting, Book 6, The Interview: Be The Profitable Hire.) The best employers hire those that can do the job — they don’t diddle databases to find people who hate opera singing, know why stars twinkle, or would like to be the color red.If you don’t say no to employers who treat you like a dog begging for a bone, you’re going to wind up in the dog house. There are good employers and managers who respect talented workers. They will meet you and judge you in person. They will introduce you to their teams and assess whether you can?do the work, get along with others, and contribute to the bottom line.HR executives and the employers they work for should be ashamed of themselves — outsourcing hiring, the most proprietary edge a company has. Ray Dalio is wrong. You are not an animal in an emotional state. Tell any employer or testing company that treats you that way to shove it. And go work for one of their better competitors.That’s the only way to end the optimized rejection of millions of job applicants.Is there an end to this??Have you been abused by employers and subjected to “evidence-based hiring” that relies on phony “science” and made-up “tests?” Are you ready to say NO and move on to employers that respect people enough to talk to them rather than “analyze” them blindly? Let’s hear about employers that are worth applying to!And here are some replies:Nick,I hate tests, forms, and bs.I’m coming towards the end of a contract I may or may not see about renewing and in nearly all of my efforts to procure a new job or contract assignment, I’ve so far successfully avoided HR forms and tests in each case.In one situation, it was just a hiring manager with whom I had a “shop talk” discussion months ago reaching out to me because a position came up. Even when HR tried to but in, he and I both agreed that we’d rather meet in his office in a week or so and just talk generally.In another case, it was prompted by me doing an old friend a program courtesy of referring a few hires to him for a bid I knew his company would be up for. He asked me how I was, and if I had time if I could meet with him and colleagues about other miscellaneous business.No forms. No tests. No nonsense.Just keeping tabs on other peoples’ business needs and occasionally that naturally leads to them scratching your back.Keep up the good work on this blog.I work in data. The crap you describe so well doesn’t really have anything to do with Big Data besides using the buzzword as a selling point. It reminds me of the ’60s, where people were gullible enough to believe that if it came from a computer it must be true.Here’s how it should work. You take a subset of successful people, analyze their characteristics, and try to build a model of them. This is called training. Then you run the model on a larger set of people, some of whom are known to be successful, and see if your model finds the successful people most of the time. First, I bet dollars to doughnuts that no one ever did this. Second, you need more datapoints than you are likely to find in one company. Third, different jobs require different characteristics, so it would only apply to one type of job. Find a model that will select good artistic directors and apply it to CPAs and you get creative accountants.So, scientifically, this stuff should be grouped with astrology. Calling these guys snake oil salesmen is treating them better than they deserve.@Carl: Funny how easily that works, eh? :-)@Scott: I know it’s got nothing to do with Big Data. But HR loves to talk about Big Data any time it has information about something. Personality test results are “Big Data” – it’s “Big” because to HR it’s incomprehensible. I think the problem in all this has long been mirrored in the job board industry, where, as in “optimized hiring thru testing,” a bunch of database guys build a cool system that seems to sort job applicants – and then wonks like Andy Biga, who have absolutely no expertise in testing, proclaim “this is the future BECAUSE WE INVENTED IT.” Never mind that – as you point out – scientifically it’s filed under astrology. The fools in HR want to believe it’s real, because they paid an awful lot of money for it.@Mike Stone: I’m way behind on OITNB – can’t wait to check out the new season and the lessons in prisoner sorting…!@Jorge: Thanks for noting something that I have not brought up in a long time. The third parties that process applicants’ “Big Data” re-sell it to other employers, who are their other clients. Kinda makes you wonder if they don’t all share interview notes as well. “No need to interview this one. Andy Biga didn’t like her. Next.”Nick, I hope it’s OK if I not use my real name for this comment. I’m pretty sure you’ll recognize my email address and know that I’m a long-time reader — and implementor — of what you teach, both as a successful job hunter and now as the hiring manager for a small team. For an employer that is an Infor customer.The fact that my employer is an Infor customer came as a surprise, but it certainly explains some of the issues I’ve encountered when filling vacant positions on my team. I’ve had people directly contact me (relationships built as you’ve taught; I’ve tried to keep the door open as a hiring manager, just as I wanted them open when I was looking) about my vacant positions — people I wanted to consider — but it was like pulling hen’s teeth to get HR to pass the resumes to me! I guess the applicants didn’t pass the silly test (a test that I didn’t have to take since I came on when my company bought the contract I was on. Thankfully. Otherwise I’d probably be working elsewhere myself!).Don’t get me wrong; they’re a good company once you get hired. I’ve seen a substantial raise since I came on board that is a direct result of “delivering the goods”. I hope one of the company higher-ups read this and reconsiders this silliness.The last guy I hired came with a reputation for being a troublemaker and causing problems but is very good at doing the job I hired him to do. I took him out for a cup of coffee the first morning and directly addressed the issues that had caused problems in the past. Guess what? After clearly setting expectations before his first lunch break, I haven’t had a bit of trouble from the guy. Amazing what happens when managers actually show a bit of leadership instead of relying on HR to only pass through candidates that play well with others (but can’t do the job), eh?I never would have seen him had I simply relied on the “wimpy” resumes that made it through the HR process. Quite frankly, I prefer somebody that can do the job but needs a bit of polishing than somebody that never colors outside the lines but can’t analyze their way out of a wet paper bag.IF YOU’RE LOOKING FOR A JOB: Keep on doing what Nick says. Seek out the hiring manager. I want to talk to you and I’m certain I’m not alone. PLEASE don’t give up.IF YOU’RE A HIRING MANGER: Ditto. Talk to people. Keep the chute loaded. And don’t be afraid to “nag” HR to get the people you want (and don’t be afraid to talk to your people if their behavior is disruptive).Thanks,A Long-Time ReaderP.S. — “Correlation is king, even when causation is far from clear.” — I cringed when I read that. As a senior analyst that is constantly beating up his team about the fact that “Correlation does NOT equate to Causation”. HR (and everybody else) needs to stop trying to “play” analyst. They don’t know what they’re doing and they are making inaccurate decisions because of it.When I was an undergrad I took a psychology class and we had to sign up for 10 experiments so the grad students could learn how to do studies. I took one experiment (at the time I didn’t know what it was about) but it was a short version of the Meyers Briggs test. The Prof called because the grad student was confused by my score. He asked if I’d take the full test. I did (because flattering undergrads is a really good idea). I got the score. I was really, really dominant in 2 out of the 4 boxes and was just sub-dominant in 3 box. Therefore the Prof told me and the students that I was the exception that proved the rule that you could predict humanity but you’d never be precise.Anyway, after that I didn’t want to ever take a short MB test ever again. How was an HR person supposed to make head or tails out of my score?Lately I found out that Meyers Briggs test isn’t very scientific. See? the Prof wasn’t all that savvy either.My advice: Don’t take any tests which do not show you actually doing the job.The tests clearly do not show aptitude as I know way too many people who are really good at what they do and they get screened out. Why in the world would you want to hire someone effective and efficient – right? These companies are penny wise and pound foolish. Moreover, I know many managers who have hired terrible employees simply as a big middle finger to their own company. Usually these individuals found out their job was getting cut from one of their many inside contacts and decide to screw over the company. The applicant screening process is dangerously broken.The problem with the personality and behavior tests is that there is no choice for “it depends.” However, if interviewing for sales, always check that you would rather go to a party than read a book. I know it depends, but you must give correct answers to be considered. Also, be consistent, or you are lying. The hiring process sucks.From the wonderful and prescient movie, Broadcast News:Paul Moore: It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you’re the smartest person in the room.Jane Craig: No. It’s awful.Nick, I hope it’s not awful for you.I read this blog because people who see the world with clarity, and have the courage to speak up about what they see, are rare and inspiring. Thanks.@Nick: Fantastic piece.@EEDR: Precisely. Some years ago I had networked my way to a hiring manager; he was enthusiastic about my background, but before he could talk with me officially I had to take a personality test. Virtually EVERY question was situation-dependent on what my answer was… with, of course, no room for that. Needless to say I didn’t get in.Ultimately what this boils down to is FEAR. FEAR of a DA DUH DAAAA bad hire, and thus the quest to slough off responsibility for the decision onto someone, something, ANYTHING else than the hiring manager doing their job and making a decision.In my essay: quoted an HR type from his essay: which he said:Another problem with using personality tests is disempowerment. When there’s a test to fall back on, managers inevitably step back from responsibility and surrender to the test, instead of asking the tougher questions. Like “the claw” in Toy Story, the test [rather than the person] “decides who will stay and who will go.” (My addition in [].)This way, if there is a BAD HIRE, they can point to the test, not any decision the hiring manager made.I feel another column coming on… :)Companies better hope that they don’t get what they desperately want from these tests. Here’s why.Let’s set aside reality and assume that these tests actually work to screen applicants. The problem is that using these would homogenize a company’s workforce. The tests would essentially make a company culture very similar to the “ideal” candidates.While that may sound good, consider that this means a company would create a “successful culture” for how things are today. Business history is replete with companies that became successful because of what they did at a particular junction of history/technology/economic development but then fell apart because they kept trying to repeat or replicate what they did in the past while the rest of the world changed.These tests would create the exact same problem. Companies should think of their employees as an ecosystem. A diverse ecosystem* can adapt and respond to changes. One based on just a few creatures is at risk of a systemic shock that can easily and quickly wipe it out.Unfortunately, if the tests did work and this happened, you know what most companies would do. They’d double down. “More data! More testing! Let’s refine that model and be even more selective! And let’s hurry because we’re losing market share because we can’t find any candidates!” (Lather, rinse, repeat.)(* If anything, companies should be like groups of ecosystems. Every team/department/group has its own culture and forcing a team manager to hire someone based on some overall cultural model developed with “big data” is a mistake. You don’t put a tiger in a penguin exhibit and expect it, nor the penguins, to survive long.)Nick, you are no better than the big data companies as you throw all tests into one big pool. I have been through the gauntlet and the vast majority of companies that use testing do it only after at least one round of real interviewing so the idea that it is a first screening (and spending money on everyone who can fill in an application) is just fiction.Most companies testing is never used and is a waste as you say but I have seen several companies that use it as one tool to help them understand how people will get along in the workforce. One company I consulted with uses it for all hires manager and above. Over the past five years, including their hourly plant workers, they have less than a .5% annual turnover which is a number most companies would die for so there is SOME basis to the testing. I need to point out they also have a doctor meet with final candidates to discuss their backgrounds and validate some of what the testing proves.Nick, you are no better than the big data companies as you throw all tests into one big pool. I have been through the gauntlet and the vast majority of companies that use testing do it only after at least one round of real interviewing so the idea that it is a first screening (and spending money on everyone who can fill in an application) is just fiction.Most companies testing is never used and is a waste as you say but I have seen several companies that use it as one tool to help them understand how people will get along in the workforce. One company I consulted with uses it for all hires manager and above. Over the past five years, including their hourly plant workers, they have less than a .5% annual turnover which is a number most companies would die for so there is SOME basis to the testing. I need to point out they also have a doctor meet with final candidates to discuss their backgrounds and validate some of what the testing proves.Nick,Another great piece, and more insightful comments from your astute readers. Chris makes a great point about the danger of a homogeneous workforce.The theory behind this nonsense is that you hire people who emulate your best employees. What if your employees aren’t that great? I’m sure we’ve all worked somewhere that our fellow employees were just average. Or at least there weren’t any geniuses at the firm. How about hiring someone who’s above average and letting them inspire?The next logical step in this development is, of course, counter-measures. Companies will spring up that help you beat the XQ test. They will probably be formed by people who worked in Big Data and know how to game the tests. While this is just a further level of insanity, it could help to make the tests less common in the long run.Inevitably, something new and shiny will be created by another snake oil salesman looking for that fast buck. XQ will become yesterday’s news, and everyone looking to duck the hard work will move on to the new flavor of the month. While this is good, the new, shiny object will probably be even worse than XQ.Perhaps there will come a point where all hiring just comes to a grinding halt due to the weight of the BS it is supporting. Then someone somewhere will be forced to address the underlying issues. If you’re an optimist, maybe someone will come up with a radical new approach to hiring that is a great way to select candidates and spreads like wildfire.In the meantime, ATH readers will continue to cultivate their networks, getting the best jobs that are never advertised.Thanks again for all the great work you do, Nick. I’m sure it’s frustrating at times, but you are one of the few sane voices in an increasingly insane world. Keep ’em coming!How, as an interviewee, do we reject these tests? Simple tell the company ‘thanks but no thanks’ and move onto the next potential interview?About two years ago, we used a modified IQ test as an experiment to help us hire a production manager. It was interesting how applicants reacted. A couple of them flat out refused, but most of them gamely jumped in. We ended up hiring the one with the highest score after interviewing the top 5. She was perfect, a perfect nightmare! Paranoid, controlling, disruptive – she was fired after 5 months of hell. The test gave us permission to abrogate our judgment. Dumb.The FTC is investigating??? Finally something to be happy about! I’m gonna reach out to them cause I’ve got loads of stories to “assist” them.A few years ago I applied for a job with Bullhorn (take a guess what they make), immediately after submitting my online application I received an email ordering me to take their personality test. I sent them a written letter telling them politely but firmly what I thought of them (I even quoted from this site). Take a look at the interview comments on their Glassdoor profile, clearly they’re PROUD of their testing process, smh. ? P: “the idea that it is a first is just fiction” — People like you baffle me. Where does this “I haven’t seen it so it can’t be real” mentality come from? (Btw, your belief in something isn’t necessary in order for it to be true.)@sighmaster. I guess facts would baffle you. I am basing it on thousands of applications personally and with those who I have worked with over the past five years. The number that use it as a first cut for professional jobs would be less than 1/100th of a percent.@Chris: Exactly. (OK, call me prescient, but I wrote about that in 2013…): A fantastic idea in theory. Unless you’ve got “heft” and “pull” they’ll shrug their shoulders and move on to the next person who is eager-beaver to show just how good a drone, er, employee they’ll be.At the risk of being cynical, even if a company suffers from a lack of candidates because of this, and even if the reason for that lack penetrates to HR, do you think they’ll admit their pet program to “improve the breed” is causing the issue?@david Right, and as someone that is in fairly high demand, I’d feel OK telling them I won’t play that game with them. I guess we can also use thes bogus pre-hiring personality and IQ tests as an identifier for places that good employees don’t want to work – after all if they have to rely on pseudo-science ‘testing’, they may as well pullout a Ouija Board at the interview :)Anyone who’s seen the great silent film “Metropolis” can understand the picture of thousands in lock step this creepy testing conveyed to me.@A Long-Time Reader: Thanks for sharing your story. It’s important for people to see this through a hiring manager’s lens. Kudos to you for doing your job, even if it means going around the system. Companies talk about “empowering” their people, but sometimes you need to TAKE the power.@Bob: According to the Time article I cited, the Meyers-Briggs was created by “a suburban housewife with no formal training in psychology.” The conclusion in the article you cited is “Perhaps the best use for the MBTI is for self-reflection.” Ditto for Ouija boards.@Michael Gavaghen: Aw, just throw money :-). Thanks!@Chris: “The problem is that using these would homogenize a company’s workforce. The tests would essentially make a company culture very similar to the “ideal” candidates.”Hope you didn’t miss my mention of the investigation being launched by the FTC about this problem precisely. I think what employers are missing is the fatal flaw you describe: They’re hiring more of the same. They want someone who has done “the job” for 5 years already, at a lower salary. What dope would take a job s/he’s been doing for 5 years? One that isn’t growing or learning. Uh… small problem there…@Martin P: “they have less than a .5% annual turnover” Are you saying there’s evidence proving that testing produces that kind of low turnover, or is there just a correlation?There are indeed companies that test after the interview, and that’s better. But so what? If a test reveals something worrisome, how do we know it’s really worrisome? I think such tests can stimulate useful discussions with candidates. (See comment above from A Long-Time Reader.) But when they are used to make decisions, I think employers blow it.@Larry B: I’m sure we will see what you predict – countermeasures. What I wish some entrepreneur would give us is a test that job applicants could demand that hiring managers take – before they apply. I mean, let’s pick our managers using evidence!“Perhaps there will come a point where all hiring just comes to a grinding halt due to the weight of the BS it is supporting.” I think we’re there. They call it a talent shortage when there’s no shortage of talent.@Scott: “How, as an interviewee, do we reject these tests? Simple tell the company ‘thanks but no thanks’ and move onto the next potential interview?”Yes, it’s as easy as that. But I’d offer to interview anyway, if they’ll skip the test. Let them decide. I’ll always choose the better employer when I invest my time. Life’s short.@Peter: Thanks for that story from the trenches. ” The test gave us permission to abrogate our judgment. Dumb.” Like I said, HR is looking for permission to avoid accountability. And it’s got $2 billion worth.@marilyn: I will not seek, or accept, the nomination for president. :-) Thanks for offering, though.Nick…great question of me.I am saying that testing as part of a proper hiring process works. No individual part of a hiring process works in a vacuum and testing is no different. I agree many companies waste time and money using it and then mis-use it or ignore the results all together. This is similar to many job seekers who use the book Strengthfinders to determine what they do well. It is an input to ones self evaluation, not the be all end all of life, the universe and everythingThis company uses it to understand how people interact and behave as part of a team. I also should add for them it is neat the end of the process before they bring the final 2 or 3 candidates back for final meetings.@Martin P: I think tools used properly can be a good thing. But “tools” get quickly adopted by naive employers who want hiring “faster, easier, cheaper – and don’t blame me!”Of course there are employers who use testing intelligently. But what escapes most people – not just employers – is that such tests don’t do what is claimed, and test vendors claim a lot. If your company is using tools in a limited way, good for you. But in general, I think HR misuses such tools extremely. Just look at what the victims have to say.Consider the JetBlue example in the Time article. 3,000 hired out of 150,000 processed. That hit rate is about the same as the success rate of junk mail. We’re talking 2%. That’s random, Man! I could stand on a corner in NYC and hand out fliers and make more hires than that!What’s laughable is that Biga thinks he’s hit on something great! 2%!! I’m willing to bet he’s got more false negatives than hires. That is, among the 147,000 he rejected, there are more than 3,000 more good hires in there. Translation: He’s wasting time, money, and people.@nic Thanks for the followup – that’s exactly my plan. Though, any place that does these shenanigans probably isn’t a place I want to work.The place I’m stuck at now (for various reasons, not relevant here). Started doing these ‘personality tests’ pre-interview, about a year ago. We’ve had several high-level non-management positions open for the entire time, and they can’t get anyone to even interview let alone get to the offer stage. Hmmm, I wonder why? Meanwhile, they’re working on 70% turnover in the last year (no mention of the huge amount of unfilled positions that have been open for months and months), which they tout as being a good thing to ‘bring new ideas and smarts’ to the organization, but meanwhile they run these personality tests that just ensures everyone is the same. How boring.When I lost my 30 year job circa 2010, and read the prevailing literature on how to secure a position in the new employment landscape, I totally believed that I would never work again because no one would ever hire me.It took less than three weeks to fall into clinical depression.It took six months of meds and psychotherapy to convince me that my thinking was wrong. I did find work via the old-fashioned way: I answered an ad in the Sunday paper.Five years later, it appears that my delusional thinking wasn’t quite a delusion.I’m too nice a guy to forward this newsletter to my old shrink with an “I toldya so!” attached.About 40 years ago, Harlan Ellison penned a short story about a group of people trapped inside a sadistic computer. (For those of you unacquainted with Mr. Ellison, think Stephen King without filters.)The story did not have a happy ending, hence it’s title, “I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream”.Reports from the Dilbert Universe of Scott Adams twenty years ago regularly made note that “In cyberspace, no one can hear you scream”.I do not recommend clinical depression to anyone. It is a really nasty disease with often fatal consequences. I’ve been very fortunate to be in a five-year recovery.Just in time to deal effectively with this crap, which isn’t as bad as my delusions of five years ago, but bad enough.As far as the “X” factor goes, my fifty years in the contemporary thoughtscape pretty much confirms what Laurie Anderson reported in her Big Science album: “Let X Equal X”.Be seeing you.@lucille: you beat me to it with the link to the NY Times article. I read it and thought–what is wrong with them? How are all those algorithms working for you? You’re still not hiring because you’re not finding the perfect candidate, e.g., a 20 year old kid with 15 years of professional experience doing the same job, a master’s degree, and he’s willing to come work for you for $6.00 per hour and no benefits.@Nick: thanks for posting your thoughts on last week’s Time Magazine article. I read it and was horrified, but not shocked. It seems to me that employers are willing to do anything and pay anything in order to avoid actually meeting with and talking to job applicants. I am just waiting to hear that an app has been developed for hiring the perfect employee, and all employers have to do is download the app to their smartphones.All these tests do not amount to anything–just like the GRE, SAT, and other college and graduate school entrance exams, I am sure that it is only a matter of time before a new industry springs up to help job applicants beat these tests, while charging exorbitant fees. In my previous job, one of my tasks was admissions. Some of the applicants had to take the GRE, and all of them worried about it. Not everyone is a good standardized test-taker. But when I reviewed applicants’ files, their GRE scores were never the make-or-break factor in my determination of admission. Lousy GRE scores but strong GPAs and/or excellent letters of recommendation (and perhaps well-written personal statements) often tipped the decisions in favor of admission. But a poor GPA (below the minimum required for admission by the Grad. School), poorly written personal statement, “he’s a good kid” kind of recommendations AND lousy GRE scores spoke volumes created a different picture of an applicant, and even then I would tell him “you will never be admitted the way things stand now, but here’s what you can do to show me that you can handle graduate level courses–you can take up to 4 of our courses as a non-degree student, and IF you earn a 3.00 GPA or above, then we’ll look at your application for admission differently, and those courses will transfer towards your degree”. Looking back, that was my version of Nick’s “tell me about a problem that you have, and I’ll show you how I can do the job profitably”.If I had been restricted in how I did admissions, some of the best students in my program would not have been admitted (they did exceedingly well and they all graduated!), much to our loss. Letting an algorithm or relying on personality tests to make your hiring decisions for you, or relying on ATSes to screen out applicants means that you are eliminating those who might turn out to be some of your best employees, and you’re losing them for the stupidest of reasons.The perfect candidate is a myth. How about hiring the one who meets 70%-80% of your absolutely necessary skills and education requirements and train him in what he’s lacking?Great article once again!My wife and I went to dinner last night and we were listening to the radio. During an interview, someone said that it takes almost 2x as long as it did in 2010: article mentions one of the reasons is all the extra interviewing/tests/background checks/etc. because companies are too scared to make a hire. Well guess what, in life there are no sure bets. If you can’t handle making a mistake, maybe you shouldn’t be in business?(The interviewer also made mention of the fact that we have more job openings than we have had in quite awhile).No wonder the “recovery” from the “Great Recession” has been so anemic.@ Dave:Government doublespeak notwithstanding, I have a better chance of seeing a cremated corpse rise from the dead on national TV than seeing this economy recover.I took a closer look at that Infor customer list. Looks like they have a lot more products than just rejection analytics… oops, I mean people analytics:–?their human capital management products pageIt looks like the bad one is called Talent Science. You can tell how proud of the deep psychological insight Infor believes TS brings them. But I don’t think some of their other products are as bad. (For instance, Enwisen, used by the Utah and California state governments, appears to be more of a Q & A tool.Once again, solid post, Nick. The sad truth is that the companies that repeatedly employ these tests don’t really care about hiring quality employees anyway (otherwise, they would had already kicked these apps to the curb a long time ago), so it doesn’t matter whether applicants reject them or not, in my opinion. Nothing will change for them unless other, more intelligent, competitors do it instead.On that note, I still agree that seeking out the hiring manager is the only real way to go as an applicant. It’s been the case for me 99% of the time. But rest assured, unless you are prepared to compete against the very businesses who employ the HR quacks (or perhaps even take them over from the inside) those HR quacks will remain.And as for the FTC, does anyone really think its investigations will change anything? Notice how the CIO article references “discrimination”, but not about actual fraud or deceptive advertising toward applicants? If anything, companies should be MORE discriminating (against unproductive applicants) and less criminal, but I’m not about to suggest that the FTC nationalize all businesses…because would be the end of civilization as we know it.Love this article. In broad strokes, you have to wonder what the effect is of trying to hire employees who “just get along” with everyone else. As a consultant for many top companies, I have come across a small group of employees at most companies that are admittedly a royal PITA to deal with. More specifically I am talking about the useful PITA employees – the ones who find errors, question things, and in general make sure everything is buttoned up. These employees produce quality work and more importantly get other employees to step up their work product. In a world without such employees – things get missed and mistakes are not corrected until they are caught by outside stakeholders. This outcome is clearly not an optimal scenario if you want for your business to be taken seriously.I’ve been “offered” (required to take) psych tests for four job applications. (Pharmacy clerk, restaurant, business college instructor, and something more or less secretarial.)Didn’t hear back from any of them, after disclosing such personal information, which is irrelevant to the job and probably discriminatory against people with certain brain diseases.Now, I’d just tell them to shove it.If I were in a good mood, I might explain that they’re not predictive of job success, not correlated with anything related to jobs, not normed for job-seekers in any field (the MMPI, which is one I was required to take, was normed on a bunch of farmers in the 50’s; WTH does that have to do with dishing up food?), some are illegal, and they’re being investigated by the FTC.Or I might go through the stupid questions but answer by rote: a, b, c, d, a, b, c, d …Don’t pay any attention to what they’re asking.Costco made me sit through a test put out by UNICRU. I was told I would be able to get the results of the test, but when I wrote to UNICRU I got a condescending email saying it was up to the company that administered the PLETE B.S. AND AKSING QUESTION LIKE “WOULD YOU STEAL?” Who would ever answer yes to this. Now, when I see I have to fill out a form, I just bail out. And thanks for the list of clients of these places. I will refuse to buy one dime’s worth of products form any of them.Here is another Nick Corcodilos article:In the?January 10, 2017 Ask The Headhunter Newsletter, we attempt a reality check — about jobs. Disclosure: I wrote a snarky column to start the New Year. But it’s not as snarky as the news.QuestionNick, I know the newsletter has been on vacation over the holidays, but have you been reading the jobs news? Am I crazy, or do people really believe unemployment is down and pay is up? That there’s suddenly a job for anyone who wants it? That all our troubles are over? Man, sign me up for a new job for 2X what I was making when I had a job!Nick’s ReplyDuring my Christmas break, the news kept coming hot and heavy from the U.S. Department of Labor and associated pundits and experts:?You should stop complaining about jobs and salaries. Everything’s great!I’m sure you’re reading the same good news, but all I want to know is, does this reflect your experience with the job market and employers? Or is your head spinning?Jobs: U.S. Department of Labor NewsIn the past few days,?the DOL reported:“Unemployment rates were significantly lower?in November in 18 states and stable in 32 states and the District of Columbia…”“The national unemployment rate?was 4.6 percent in November, down from 4.9 percent in October, and 0.4 percentage point lower than in November 2015.”Fewer people unemployed!Bloomberg NewsRecent?Bloomberg reports?tell us:“The 4.7 percent?jobless rate remains close to a nine-year low,?even with a tick up last month.”We’re seeing?“enduring wage gains?as labor market tightens.”You’re getting paid more and employers are working harder to hire you!“Worker pay rises at fastest pace?since end of last recession.”“Fiscal stimulus would stoke further gains as labor [is] scarce.”“Average hourly earnings jumped?by 2.9 percent in the 12 months through December, the most since the last recession ended in June 2009.”“Workers in almost every category, from mining and construction to retail and education, saw?paychecks rise?from November.”JPMorgan Economic NewsMichael Feroli, JPMorgan’s chief economist, says:“I expect to see continued?acceleration in wages?this year.”And get this: Labor shortages may become more common. Employers are going to be begging you to take a job! I hope that makes you feel better if you’re facing a shortage of exactly the one job you need to pay your bills.But then there are the gotchas from from the DOL reported by Bloomberg:“More Americans joined the labor force but had?not yet found jobs.”Oops. And try this double-talk on for size:“The number of people who were jobless and gave up looking for work declined to a three-month low…” but “One caveat: fewer people who were already in the labor force but unemployed were?able to find jobs.”Associated Press NewsThe?Associated Press?isn’t being left behind:Since 2009,?“the job market is in infinitely better shape.?The unemployment rate is 4.7 percent. Jobs have been added for 75 straight months, the longest such streak on record.”But, er, ah…?“The proportion of Americans with jobs… dropped a full percentage point.”Uh… apply the grammatical logic tool to that one and you get…?More Americans are without jobs!“Hiring has been solid?yet still hasn’t kept up with population growth.”“…many workers, especially less-educated men, have become discouraged about finding jobs with decent pay and have?stopped looking.”Yes, that means many, many Americans are screwed, but they’re probably not educated enough to parse those sentences to glean the economic reality. But when they try to pay for food next week, they’ll grab their pitchforks and torches.Middle AmericaAnd don’t miss this troubling factoid: The “routine work” that pays middle-income wages is disappearing. But the good news is,?those of you doing “higher- and lower-paying jobs” should have no trouble finding work!?Tech jobs have “soared” 42%. Hotel and food service jobs have “jumped” 19%!Apply the grammatical logic tool to that one and you get…?Middle America can’t find a job!More good news: “Over the past year, average?hourly pay has risen 2.9 percent, the healthiest increase in seven years.”But, uh, in a “robust economy” pay gains would be more like?3.5%.There’s more, but your under-paid, under-fed or unemployed (or under-employed) brain probably couldn’t take it.Let’s stop pretendingThe jobs news is so contradictory that nobody knows — or will admit — what’s really going on. While the government, economists, banks and pundits spin a story that makes heads spin, I think the wisdom about all this is in the crowd. The people living, succeeding, failing, giving up, dropping out, scraping by and dying in this economy have a clearer picture of what’s really going on than what’s being reported.How are you doing?Early January of a New Year is a good time to sweep away the news and ask you —?How are?you?doing in all this??I think we all want to know what’s really going on in our economy and job market.Does this news reflect your experience?Are you finding more jobs — real jobs — are begging to be filled?Are you getting paid more money?Are employers hiring you more quickly at higher salaries?If you already have a job, has your boss increased your salary to avoid losing you?What’s really going on with respect to jobs, employment and pay?I don’t think we’ll sort this out, but we can do a more honest job of discussing the truth than the news pretends at!And here are the replies to the article:Nick,Three years ago I opted out of the traditional full-time job market because of all the abuse one has to go through at the hands of (In)Human Resources /A.K.A., the makers of Soylent Green.I may not be on a yacht, but I’m the captain of my own ship. I advertise my own services as an individual contractor and get enough work through that and my professional network. Honestly, the busier I get, the more calls I get about work.I wonder if I will ever be allowed by HR to ever hold a 40hr job… i doubt it, but I don’t care. I don’t need to kiss their rings.The economic downturn I went through taught me a lot about how to be in control of my direction in life, even if there are lots of things I cannot control.Carl – I decided not to get into the distinction between working 24X7 for an employer in a regular job, and running one’s own business. But you’ve highlighted the difference between working for the owner of a business and owning your own business. Two totally different scenarios. You’ve highlighted the option that I didn’t.The labor news is a joke. I don’t even pay attention to it. I dropped out in late 2014. I now work for myself, but I’m STILL not making ends meet, so I’ve been looking for part time, supplemental work FOR OVER A YEAR NOW with no success.It’s gotten so bad for me, financially, that I’m applying for “cents-above-minimum-wage” jobs just to supplement my meager income.Know anyone who needs a virtual assistant?I’m looking forward to a better 2017.Check the? and signup for their weekly updates. I have recently seen updates about virtual assistants.In May, I quit a company that was run by the bean counters, rather than people who actually understood the work. I applied for unemployment benefits and made my 3 employer contacts per week. I got calls from at least one of those contacts each week, but the pay they offered was lower than what I had been making, so I let someone else have the jobs.I have this ability to choose where I want to work because, when I had regular pay from an employer, we used the money to set up some non work income. Mostly rental income, including short term rental of rooms in our home.Now I’m going back as an employee for two reasons: To get more cash to buy more rental property and because of the ACA. The medical insurance premiums are very high and bumped up 25% or more this year. The exchange system is overwhelmed and it takes weeks to get a response. It may have benefitted the lower income folks, but it costs a lot for the people who are just above the cut off for the subsidies.This is where most Americans find themselves: Earning too much to be eligible for aid, but not enough to pay for more than the very basics.Michael – While the Department of Labor takes credit for successes on certain parts of the employment spectrum, it seems to dispense with Middle America and people in jobs that aren’t cream of the crop and that aren’t burger flipping. I don’t disparage people in either of those categories, or the work they do — but when the system fails most people, it’s time to look at the system.I know I rant about it all the time, but I’m convinced the problem is not employers, the economy, automation of jobs, or even the government. The problem is the infrastructure that’s been put in place to recruit, fill jobs, and find jobs. People and employers have been totally fooled into thinking that a system that totally isolates them from one another is the only way to bring them together.There’s plenty of work to do, and money to pay for it. The problem is the system used to match people to jobs. It doesn’t work because it’s too automated and because it dumbs everyone down.You’ve found that bean counters don’t understand the work. I’ve found that HR departments don’t understand how to hire. Both are fatal problems for our economy.HR doesn’t understand how to hire because they shouldn’t be the ones hiring in the first place. As you have said in a number of your posts, it should be the hiring manager who interviews and hires someone.Imagine how it would affect profits if companies stopped paying HR to sort millions of applicants.Because hiring managers have so much time that they can engage the entire onboarding process from start to finish. Also – I’ve been in HR 6 years at non-profits, medium, and huge corps. I’ve yet to see a company where the manager doesn’t conduct interviews or make the final hiring decision. As an HR Assistant, my job is to serve the needs of managers and employees, but I have no authority and truth be told neither does my boss. I see a lot of HR hate on these threads. Gets old. Do you people not realize that HR carries out initiatives that are decided and controlled by non-HR executives? Including compensation and in many cases certain aspects of recruitment? Where the hell does this idea come from that HR are these evil, ignorant minions? And for the record I hate applicant tracking systems and I can’t wait until they’re phased out. I think recruiters should engage in targeted marketing and review each resume. I like nick and enjoy these articles, agree with a lot but people’s “hr this and hr that” gets old since you obviously don’t work in hr so you don’t know what you’re talking about.The issue, as seen by job seekers:You say that the hiring manager makes the final decision. Fine. How many perfectly good, qualified people are tossed out before the HM even has a chance to see them?> I have no authority and truth be told neither does my boss. … Do you people not realize that HR carries out initiatives that are decided and controlled by non-HR executives?Yes. That’s the root of the problem.HR has an absolutely wonder and essential job for managing the paperwork and reporting stuff for hired workers. All the “paperwork support” that a worker needs. That stuff is going to be relatively constant for all hired employees, and a department/staff dedicated to that need is a good idea.The issue is when they are (forced to be) involved in hiring for something that they don’t understand.> Because hiring managers have so much time that they can engage the entire onboarding process from start to finish.OK, then a serious question for you: Why don’t they?Why is a hiring manager expected to manage more people than they can interview, investigate, and handle?If the HM doesn’t have time to hire enough people, then maybe that manager is responsible for too many people, and the group size needs to be smaller?Now, a question for your boss: If the people above them set policies and goals that stand in the way of hiring good people, why does your boss not complain and tell their boss to change? I know that’s not something that affects you directly, but perhaps you can see something your boss doesn’t see, or perhaps you can ask your boss.Nick, you make a good point about the problem being the “system”. However, I think employers are also part of the problem because they’re choosing to rely upon an increasingly automated “system” in which not only filling out the application is automated, but so is “interviewing” (I hesitate to use the word because with HireVue, it really isn’t an interview but just the applicant talking to himself on tape–there’s no conversation, no ability to ask questions, to follow up, to discuss something else) and reference checking. No one is holding a gun to the heads of employers, yet they’re doing the “let’s never meet/talk to anyone and let’s let a computer do the hiring” game and howling with indignation about a talent shortage when they can’t find better than perfect matches at intern (i.e., willing to work for free) wages. Job hunters, too, share some responsibility because for too many and for too long, they’ve been brainwashed into doing whatever HR wants rather than following your advice.Maybe this is one of those times when we should throw out the baby with the bath water–scrap the whole ATS/automated hiring system and start over with something non-tech or low-tech. More employers need to be convinced that the world will not end if they don’t hire the perfect candidate but hire someone with 70% of their fantasy candidate and train him in the areas he lacks. At one time on the job training was not only common but expected. No one wants to train anyone anymore.The last part of the problem is that employers want workers for dirt-cheap wages. When I see job postings that list for REQUIREMENTS (not preferred skills and education) a minimum of a master’s degree, 5-8 years of professional experience in the field, fluency in nine languages, multiple computer languages, 900 specs and require nights, weekends but only want to pay entry level wages or less, then there’s a problem. The talent exists, but as David Hunt commented in one of his posts, that kind of talent doesn’t come cheap. I bet employers would be able to fill some of the jobs if they’d pay more and be willing to train the almost-perfect candidate.There are no shortage of jobs if you’re 20 years old with 10 years of experience and willing to work 60 hours a week because working fewer hours indicates a lack of “passion”.Ruby – Pls see the new Q&A I just posted: “talent shortage” is an artifact of today’s dominant business strategy: “We want you to work for free. It’s a badge of honor. Do it.”I have been out of work for 13 months in my career. I send out on ‘average’ twenty resumes a week, often more than less. Since June, I have had FOUR interviews.I have gone back to being a server at a restaurant, not at one restaurant, but TWO. I work sixty hours a week on my feet. I have an MBA and a graduate in accounting from UCLA. The *ding-a-ling* statistics are bullshit, the low unemployment rate is due to those of us not wanting to live in our cars and taking jobs we can get, while the H1-B’s have shoved us out of jobs (thank you Obama and your twisted thinking).In addition, when I am not hitting the weekly money I need to support three children, I drive Uber/Lyft to bring in those last few dollars.Now doesn’t that make me feel as though I am hitting the American dream?Driving 4-5 hours in San Francisco living the American dream to make $100? (that is the average)If I had less scruples, I could be a sugarbaby. God Bless ‘MuricaWhy, Lisa, your problem is obvious. You live in the most expensive city in the world. Move. All your problems will magically disappear.I think the problem is clear, but I don’t know how to fix it. Every employer I poll tells me they need good accountants and can’t find them.Say what??Then there’s the story told by Wharton’s Peter Cappelli, who’s with the labor school. He got an e-mail from a shocked employer that posted a routine engineering job, received 14,000 applications, and the company’s applicant tracking system rejected them all.The employer didn’t say whether it crawled into a hole to die, or crawled out of its algorithm-induced stupor and hired one of those engineers. I suspect the former.You can blame Obama, but I don’t see anything changing under Trump.In the Milwaukee area the main employer for direct hire and contractor headcount has been firing for over 6 years. The rest of the employers are tiny in comparison and don’t need the level of sophistication. In past years my ex colleagues were able to find jobs in the area or work remotely, but in the past year they are starting to relocate to the south based on the LinkedIn updates I get. Madison companies don’t seem to be trying to hire available headcount from the Milwaukee area even though it’s an hour’s commute.Nick,The numbers look good because the total number of people “looking for work” has dropped – but that is because they have stopped looking like Jen M. above and myself. We have been forced to go it alone and try to scrape it together. I make an okay rate some weeks, but others are dead.Then there is the issue of healthcare. We end up having to take things like Medicaid or pay exorbitant fees and buy our own. As someone who is disabled, I cannot go without healthcare as my medications would cost 80-100% of what I am able to make some months.I can do the work, but am visually seen as disabled so am at a disadvantage right away in the hiring process. People need to get over the “fear” of working with someone that doesn’t look like they do.Any thoughts?I agree. When the denominator (# of people looking for work) gets smaller because people drop out, the numerator (people with jobs) makes the fraction look bigger.It’s called fraud.You’d have to read through Ask The Headhunter for my thoughts about how to beat the broken employment system. A good place to start: don’t have to buy my books to suss out how to use these ideas. First thing to consider is, my approach is a lot of hard work, but so’s any job. You have to violate, break, go around the employment system. It’s the only way I know.@Nick, you knew I was going to bring this up eventually:“Unemployment is at an all-time low at 4.7%” or some such is the smoke-and-mirrors number that on a good day only includes those who are out of work and have either registered for or are receiving unemployment compensation. FWIW, it can be found here:? more accurate picture can be had from another figure, plus a little grade school math. If one takes the Labor Force Participation Rate, subtracts it from 100%, you have those who have run out of benefits, did not qualify, are under employed or have just given up hope of ever finding work. In December the percentage was 37.3% or well above FDR’s famous “one-third of a nation …” By pulling in actual number of people in the Civilian Labor Force Level, one arrives at 59,545,720 people in this country un- or under-employed.?(my favorite) million, five hundred forty-five thousand, more or less. Even on a good month, 200 thousand or so new jobs scarcely makes a dent.What this country needs is general prosperity, and for this to happen, the private sector is going to have to start an continue hiring at middle-class or above wages until the previous percentage and the “unemployment rate” match. Government can’t do it, because all government does is reallocate wealth. The private sector might actually generate wealth with job growth.For reference: “One Third of a Nation”: FDR’s Second Inaugural Address’m an EE at a small company focused on scientific equipment. After an end of year summary that indicated everything was on target, there were no raises at all this year. Why? Our customers are in the scientific research space – industrial and medical – and the new administration and Congress are expected to be unfriendly to investment in science. And there is an expectation that the economy in general could be affected by irratic and petulant influences. The company, which has been around for 30+ years, is tightening its belt expecting a bumpy ride.I’m expecting the same. But here’s the contrarian perspective, which any good investment advisor understands. When things are in a state of flux, that’s the time to make the smartest bets, because flux and uncertainty create opportunity.The prospect is terrifying. But it’s more terrifying to sit on the sidelines and hope it all works out the way it used to.This is one reason I publish Ask The Headhunter. This forum is a place for honest people to put wishful thinking aside, and to discuss and explore ideas and alternatives that no one else wants to take time with. Translation: You’ll get more good ideas reading the comments on my columns than you will from my columns.I’m in northern Colorado. I have a job for another year, and then it all depends on what the new administration and Congress do to federal employees and contractors. The work I do must be done, but it’s not a national essential function for the agency. I’m laying the groundwork now for a self-employment business, because I doubt I’ll find a full-time job in any of my career fields. My significant other, with vast IT system and server administration experience in all platforms, got laid off 6 months ago can’t find a career job any closer than 70 miles.In Atlanta, GA. I was laid off in 2012 due to the downturn in Real Estate from an IT Admin position I held for 10 years. I was able to find another IT Admin job elsewhere before the severance package expired. I think it took about 6 weeks to land the job, but I literally spent 8-10 hours a day 5 days a week dedicated to the search.The VOIP Services company I’m at now has extremely high employee churn – hence the open position – but I have stuck with it more out of stubbornness than dedication. The stubbornness paid off about 6 months ago when a higher-paying position opened up, again due to employee attrition.I realize that my case is atypical – my employer certainly is – but I’m sharing to bring a bit of balance to the discussion here.Thanks — it’s not all doom and gloom, but it’s certainly all up in the air like a bunch of juggling balls. The challenge is to find some kernels of wisdom in stories like yours that can be useful to others.What makes your employer atypical? What makes it a better bet? No need to name your employer. But it would help to explore what makes your situation better than most.Every time these numbers come out I roll my eyes “yeah right”. What this is likely people manipulating data in s the Presiedent can look as good as possible on the way out.What I have noticed is that more people are getting pushed out of their roles (either the straight forward way or something less so). Others are being artificially held back– think someone who is clearly the the Directer level who is never allowed to move up. There are people reapplying for roles so that they can stay at the same company without a promotion (reducing workforce).Boston is supposed to be “the hot” market but IMO “hot” means arrogant.My personal experience is that I took time off to address a medical issue. My former company (Novartis) where I had loved working did have a disability plan which I qualified for easily. After some time their disability provided terminated me without notice illegally. Met Life loses paperwork, difficult to be reached by phone, always asking for my of something…..anything to find a reason to deny your claim. I lost the pay and the health insurance….and nearly my home. I did qualify for social security disability pretty easily. So this is a ERISA violation.Now anticipating a return to work I face a saturated market. Employers look to rule out for any small thing because they always think a more perfect candidate is out there. Being Hybrid HR means I can do more than just HR and work with the larger picture in science, operations, & finance. Hr/Organizational development is a strength. For some reason employers are more comfortable with traditional generalist. Small companies assumed I must be “corporate” because I worked at a large company, never mind I worked for other top institutes that were not profit for years.My experience is with a progressive groups, so if anything in my experience is beyond what the recruiters is, they can get uncomfortable and intimated no matter how down to earth I am.Many companies don’t know what they want so instead if setting a budget and doing a job documentation and analysis, they wing it and then change the role 4 times and the candidate pool. Others take 4 jobs and try to smush it into one because one person is what they can afford to hire.This reply is the long version but the short version is that no way do Not believe the numbers coming out on employment & salaries. BTW neither do my HR colleagues.There’s a stark message buried in your story. The more sophisticated a person’s skill set is, the more risky it is to trust a recruiter to judge the person.“Many companies don’t know what they want”Do recruiters know what a company wants when they reject talented job applicants?You know the old line from Shakespeare — “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” (Henry VI, Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73) I’m not for killing anyone while job hunting. But the first thing you have to do is avoid all the recruiters.Yes, there are some good recruiters, but not many. The safe bet is to avoid all recruiters and HR people — all intermediaries between you and the hiring manager — all the time. If a good recruiter or HR person runs up and bites you, fine, but don’t risk seeking them out or catering to them.In my opinion, they’re the single biggest obstacle any job seeker faces. Learn to go around them, and the news doesn’t matter.Thanks for the great advice. Already I have told some agencies that we are not a good fit to work together. A few have used my planned time off as an opportunity to try to get me to take a low salary– counting on the fact that I would be desperate which( GE, winter wyman).At the end of the I have been holding out– knowing that 2-3 companies I have vetted have me on the radar and also willing to relocate and brushing up on foreign language skills so I can be as adaptable as possible.In the mean time I volunteer and help anyone who reaches out for help of any kind.Your best bet will be to abandon the “Hot” Boston job market. Boston is one of the worst job markets in the United States.Best of luck.I’ve been out of work since 2013 save for one six month contract gig that went nowhere (I bypassed 1,500 rejections). I came across this article recently,?’t-find-jobs-i’m-one-of-them/ar-AAlJOVu?ocid=fbmsnmoney, the story was nothing that surprised me. What did surprise me — no, disgusted me is a better term — was the comments section which was full of judgmental jerks calling him a spoiled “whiner” and how he’d have a job if he really wanted one. Very sad. I was tempted to comment but instead walked away. Pitchforks? The mob with the pitchforks is the one on the other side accusing me and the guy in that article of being “lazy entitled moochers.”Oh, and just yesterday I got an email regarding a job for which I applied, the email was a demand that I design something for them (word doc was attached), then they’ll decide if I’m worthy of an interview. Good grief. I’ve been asked to do free work before during the interview stage, but never so blindly as this before even a phone screening. The deadline is tomorrow eod, what if I were out of town this week and comp!etely unable to do it, wouldn’t it have been common courtesy (and common sense) to have touched base with me first before making this outlandish demand? Nick, i already told you about the rejection that came thru on Xmas day, i also was “invited” to a hirevue robot interview…all these great hiring examples in only a few weeks’ time, some job market…See, an email like that would have gotten a response from me that included my fee–how much it would cost them for me to complete that project (I do other things besides administrative support work.)I’m sick of playing their games.Now, I have been to a working interview, where I participated in a group interview (the staff was the group, I was the interviewee–just me, not a bunch of people all at once.) I had my interview in the morning, they took me out to lunch, and then they set me up in an office for the day and had me work on a deliverable. I didn’t ultimately get the job, but I enjoyed the experience, and they LIKED me. I missed getting the job by “thismuch.”That, to me, is different from a company just demanding project work up front. If they do that, they’re going to have to pay for it.Jen – The idea is lost on people. If the employer wants you to spend some time showing how you’d do the work, that’s fine — in fact, it’s great — if in your assessment the employer has integrity and isn’t taking advantage of you. But if the employer wants you to deliver finished work, your next move should be to quote them a price. “For this much, I’d be happy to do the work for you, until you decide whom to hire. I hope it’s me. In fact, I’ll prove to you that it’s me by doing the work for a fair price. But I don’t work for free. Do you?”I viewed the “working interview” differently than the other scenario. I had been interviewed and told that the project was part of it. Also, I was not expected to finish and deliver it. It was a test. I jut worked on it for a couple of hours so they could assess my skills.I was OK with it in that situation, because I really wanted to work there.But otherwise, I don’t play that game, especially if an interview is conditional upon delivering something. Nope. You pay me for that.Sighmaster, thanks for posting the link. The story doesn’t surprise me either, nor do the comments. I’ve long since given up reading comments unless they’re here (ATH blog) or in the NYT (not NYT articles posted on other sites)–people have become so rude, so mean, so unconcerned about their fellow human beings, and there’s something about the internet that makes them think it is okay to spew their hatred and nasty comments (perhaps they wouldn’t do it if they were face to face with the person, but maybe not–there’s been a lot of bad behavior lately that is displaying the worst of us, not the best of us).From time to time, I have read some of those job reports, and it seemed like more people left the workforce all together than jobs created. In other words, the reason the unemployment rate is low is because people aren’t working, not because jobs are plentiful. Certainly we are better off than 2009, but have we really set the bar this low?Over the holidays, I was talking with a friend who is being laid off in January after working there 10+ years. He said he’s have at least 3-4 interviews each with a couple of companies which include various sorts of “assessment tests.” I understand wanting the right hire, but c’mon. Our parents were talking about back in the day, they called someone, talked to them about the job for 15 minutes and if they were interested, call them in for a 2-3 hour interview. If all sides were a fit, the job was offered within a reasonable amount of time. The companies did not come crashing down over night because they hired the wrong person.Dave: I think you nailed it. “have we really set the bar this low?”That’s how politicians demonstrate improvement. If you’re in a hole in the ground, coming up to live in the unheated basement is an improvement.Then the next politician in line says, “We’re in the basement! Watch us build a ladder to the first floor over the next 4 years! You’ll love it!”And in four years, the newbie takes credit for adding heat to the basement while trying to figure out how to pay to finish the ladder.A friend of mine went through 7 interviews before getting the job that she currently has.Do they really need seven interviews to figure out who is the right candidate?No.Dave, you’re right. I think the stats are skewed because they’re deliberately NOT counting everyone. They don’t count you if you’re unemployed for longer than a certain amount of time. They don’t count you if you want to work but have become so discouraged, so depressed that you gave up looking for work. They don’t count you if you’re like me–employed part time but want to be working full time. If they used the labor participation stats, I think we’d get a much better picture of what the employment market really looks like. I think the labor participation rate is at an all-time low–about 62% of people who are eligible for work are working, so I think the unemployment rate is being deliberately suppressed lest it send shock waves through the financial markets and send stocks tumbling, or causing the people to truly get disgusted and come after the plutocrats with tumbrils and pitchforks. Revolutions have started with less.Omaha, NE here. Sure, the news is all good. Not! My programming contract ended at the end of 2016, so I’ve been officially unemployed for the last 10 days. I had one interview in December, knowing that my contract was ending, but I know I wasn’t a great fit for that position and wasn’t heartbroken when it didn’t come through. Other than that, nothing so far, and certainly nobody is beating down my door to talk to me about coming aboard. After living here for quite a long time and doing a bit of job-hopping over the years, I’ve discovered that this really isn’t a very big town in the IT market. Several recruiters work to fill the same relatively small number of positions that become available, so I have only two of them working for me (one is the consulting firm I worked for until a couple of week ago). There’s no point in having my resume in front of multiple recruiters to end up who knows where. And as expected, around here they tend to hire based on specific skills, not talent, which works against me.Honestly, I suspect that I’m going to have a career change foisted on me this year. I was planning one anyway, but it sure would have been nice to have one more year as a programmer to shore up finances first. After being in this industry for over 25 years, I’ve frankly had enough of it. I’ve got specific plans that will take me out of this town this spring (and I’m not sad to go), just need to survive and not chew up all my savings in the meantime. Fortunately I’m not married anymore and don’t have a family to worry about, so as soon as I sell my house (soon) I can move to where the jobs I want are.One complaint I do have, and I know Nick has talked about stuff like this before, is that I registered with a couple of temp agencies so I could find something *temporary* to carry me through the next couple of months. Gee, isn’t that was a *temp* agency is for? My problem – except for a couple of positions in the retail space (a stint managing a convenience store about 10 years ago and a few years recently part-time at a home-improvement store), all my experience has been in software development. That means I’m probably being pigeon-holed by the temp agencies, thinking that they can’t place me simply because they don’t have a programming position to put me in. Despite that I could do tech support. Or basic accounting. Or whatever. It’s supposed to be a *temp* job! I’m thinking about applying at Wal-Mart or wherever for a part-time job and not telling them my plans to leave town in April, just so I can bring in something for the next couple of months, then bailing when the time is right. Another thing that may work against me is if I’m too honest about letting them know I want to leave town sooner rather than later.Jim — This is not directed at you. But, in the IT world, where there’s high demand for talent, does it occur to anyone that the reason good people aren’t getting hired and jobs remain unfilled is because fence posts called “recruiters” and “temp agencies” and “consulting firms”?have no idea what they’re doing when they review job applicants?I mean, where are the skilled IT managers who know how to recognize the talent they need to hire?Do cattle ranchers send a truckload of fence posts to the cattle auction to select the beef?Sheesh. Sometimes I want to explode.I think the “fence building” goes even deeper than that in the IT World. In my home (South Central Texas, USA) there is a growing tech sector. Most of the new hiring and growth is in startups and at one large, notable company. This company prides itself on its thorough, exhausting, and byzantine hiring process. They claim the practices they use are intended to filter out only the very best candidates. I suspect the real intention is not to find the best or most talented employees, but to see if the candidate’s personality will fit in with the hipster corporate culture. They don’t want talent as much as they want just the right kind of person. Of course, when they can’t find what they are looking for, they will blame the talent pool or lack thereof.I was out of work for 6 months last year – and despite my former success as a salesperson, I’ve been unable to find a suitable f/t staff position. The one job I was offered, of course, was much lower in salary than what interviewed for. I decided to start my own business. At age 54, I know there is no way I’ll get hired for a staff job. I’m lucky my husband is still employed and can help support us as I get going. I’ve landed my first client so I’m hoping that bodes well, but overall I have found the jobs report laughable and Pollyanna-ish. I’m also concerned about the new administration destablizing what little momentum we may have had and starting WW3. Guess we won’t have to worry about jobs then.Please keep this in mind as you develop your business. It’s just not true that a regular job is more secure than what you’re doing.After 13 years abroad, I returned to the U.S. in late 2014 to help out with elderly parents. Since then, I have had some 50 interviews without one job offer. In many cases, the person who received the job was an H1-B holder.Now that three of our four parents have passed away, I plan to go abroad again for work in 2017. It makes me sad that in order to earn a living, I have to remove my family from their country, rent out my house, and leave one sibling with the burden of managing my father’s care. Who would have dreamed that the U.S. would have turned against its own citizens in such a manner!I’ll be honest – the H1B problem is one big reason I’m sick of programming. At my last contract gig, a full 1/3 of the large IT department was H1B, mostly from one certain Asian country. And we were located just down the block from the largest public university in town churning out bachelor’s and master’s degrees in IT! I’ve had enough. Unless something comes through in the next couple of months, I’m adopting the mindset that I’m changing careers and starting over again from the bottom. I’ll make it work, even at age 55.My exit from engineering was similar. Laid off in 2014 from a position in software (which I always hated). I had a great employer and liked my co-workers, just not the work. The company had a severance benefit of $2,500 available for education. After assessing my strengths and what I really liked to do, I followed Nick’s advice on changing careers and took 11 accounting classes to qualify for the CPA exams. I have passed 2 of the 4 exams and have the final 2 scheduled this month and early March. I look forward to starting another career in audit. By the way, I am 67. I have enough saved to live frugally, but I like to travel and would rather keep working than stay home. Good luck.Good luck getting an accounting job. I have a bachelor’s degree in accounting and a number of years of experience at the lower end of the field, although many years ago, and I couldn’t seem to get anyone to give me a chance over almost 3 years of looking. I wasn’t applying for high-level accounting jobs either.I watch collages and universities, as well as everything from pre-schools to high schools crow on and on about how they are making STEM curricula,and are oh-so closely aligned with the business community. None of these graduates will qualify for a programming job here, unless you graduated from a university “over there”, are here on a H1b, and are willing to work for peanuts. About all the STEM-schools are doing locally is graduating a basket of unemployables (to borrow a great line).AND YET the city and county cannot hire enough crews at any price, wither FTE or contract, in order to repair the failing infrastructure, such as the water mains that for a while were generating a sink-hole a week. The local police department is 500 officers short, and is shutting down investigative and violent offender bureaus in order to just put more bodies on the streets. HVAC companies find their technicians bogged down in routine plumbing jobs because you can’t find a plumber.But no schools are offering these courses.My husband lost his job three years ago, in the pharmaceutical industry, and despite (or because of?) decades of experience and a doctorate, has gotten only one interview since then. He’s been willing to shift focus from research to sales, etc., but it’s clear the companies want young, cheap labor rather than actual know-how. Ageism seems to be rampant in many industries. He’s recently earned a certification for teaching high school science, and found that he was treated poorly during that process as well–even though there’s supposedly a shortage of science teachers in secondary schools.I work in publishing, and recently received a long-overdue promotion with a small pay increase. This was due to the fact that another colleague left her job, freeing up resources within the department. I would not have been promoted or given a raise otherwise, as the company has frozen raises for years. My boss is a really decent person and fought for me. She is also smart: she filled the open position with an older candidate who had less technical experience but more talent than younger applicants, knowing this new employee would have the right can-do attitude and be a good member of the team.I have had trouble finding a good job, full time paying above $30,000 for the last 8 years. Last year, I quit my 30 hour a week job to go to masters school b/c that it the standard for hire in my chosen career field. My friend at that employer got a 2% increase in 2016, with a hiring freeze going on there. She makes less than $33,000. My open position was filled a year later at 16 hours per week. My husband has not had an annual raise in years but got 3% in 2016. He was making under $50,000 before the raise. People are surviving in this large, expensive, southern city at stagnant wages but high housing costs. This is a booming city, lots of people make good income but there is also a lot of older adults working as grocery store cashiers and Uber/Lyft drivers. My millennial son is kept under 36 hours at his full time job and he’s unable to find work in his college degree field. My plan to go back to school was to babysit or be a personal assistant through a care finder website. Yes, there are jobs listed there but you can see how many have applied on their app. I was finding numbers like 40-60 applications already received before I would have applied. For part time $10-15 an hour babysitting jobs!! I am interning at a hospital for my degree plan and finding the days of full time employees are gone even there – it’s mostly on call, as needed, employees. The minority of staff work regular full time with benefits.Hmmm. You mean the number of jobs posted doesn’t correspond to the actual jobs waiting to be filled? Wonder how that happened?I moved from the midwest to the west coast with a 66% raise. In fact, my former small company even raised me further. Then they started cutting back for weeks or months at a time – 10% – 20% – 40% – the worst was a 40% cutback for a month, then back up to 20% cutback. When I interviewed with companies, they said my salary range was way too high (actually, in my town, many companies just drop all contact with you after an unsuccessful interview). My current company pays more than the -20% salary I was getting, but quite a bit less than my previous full salary. They are more stable, however, and make up for this in benefits.PS: My previous employer counteroffered saying they would not only put me back on full salary but that I would get a raise to boot! Why didn’t I take it? Because I think that would have been a bad business decision for them.My wife has a master’s degree in her field of library and information sciences but cannot find work in that field – I don’t know what will happen to libraries, but everyone I know ways that the internet killed the library. There never really were that many library jobs anyway – they don’t pay well, and many people I know in the field (including a retired librarian who was employed from the early 20th to late 20th century) would typically have to move to find a job. Those who most often stayed in the field were single women because those who were married would typically move due to their husbands’ work (my wife, for example).My final word about libraries: Anyone who thinks the internet has killed libraries is short sighted – the internet is nothing more than a medium on which to keep information. As a librarian, my wife has the skills to do “google searches” more efficiently than I do.Here is my challenge to everyone: I think we have a talent pool out there who can help us wade through “fake news” and get to the correct information. They are our librarians. Anyone who says, “All you have to do is a google search” is missing out on the richness of data searching that a human specialist in information, the librarian, can provide.Am I crazy, or is it my age? I’m 51 years young – perhaps with more maturity I will understand this better.The WSJ just had an op-ed piece about how California is increasing become a place only for the well-paid or the poorly paid (). From the piece:“Yet the exorbitant cost of living, driven principally by high prices for energy and housing, is pushing working-class families inland and out of state. Last year 109,000 more people left California than moved there, according to the Census Bureau. By contrast, Florida gained 207,000 and Texas added 126,000 net migrants. State data show that California refugees are mostly fleeing coastal counties for neighboring states.”There is a political angle here as well but the point is that living in northern and southern California is increasing becoming unfeasible. My wife grew up in San Diego (we are currently in Wisconsin) but I want nothing to do with high taxes, high property costs, earthquakes, etc.I am currently employed in IT but we now have a growing office overseas and one always worries.Library science has long been as much (if not more) IT than about books. In my own county, government has cut back library budgets and library hours, out of sheer ignorance about what libraries and librarians do. It’s beyond shameful — it’s stupid.My take on librarians:, I could kiss you! I’m going to send your link to my fellow librarians–we’re facing this mentality from the upper level muckety-mucks at the college, who seem to think that we are easily replaceable–all you need is google. My former dean used to sign her emails with Gaiman’s quote about a librarian “Google can bring you back 100,000 answers, a librarian can bring you back the right one.”We’re struggling to educate the students, and face an even bigger battle trying to educate the administrators. Thanks for the support. You just made my day!Working in the oil industry, I have seen a lot of forced retirement and layoffs in the past two years. I have been fortunate to stay close to production where work is needed just to keep the cash flowing. At the same time I was able to make a significant discovery so I proved my value for now. Now they are hiring again at my company, taking in new hires from previous internships, but they are still laying off which just adds to our workload. There appears to be a light at the end of the tunnel. We are adding new rigs, and every new drilling rig adds a few hundred jobs somewhere in the supply chain. That increase is still tenuous, and there is a huge backlog of experienced engineers, geologists, landmen, and others who want to come back to work.I have an informal market indicator that tells me which direction the oil industry is heading that I think precedes rig counts. I count truckloads and train car loads of drill pipe (it takes two or three miles of pipe to drill one well) during my daily commute. Loads are on the increase after a year-long hiatus of no loads, which means companies are planning to increase drilling and production again, but we are far from being back to high employment levels. So when you see a truck loaded with pipe, give him a cheer because someone is going to go to work after that delivery.I get pinged by “recruiters” 5 or 6 times a week, but almost exclusively for contract gigs (I work in the tech sector as a tech writer and training wonk).In some cases, the engagement look interesting, but the rates quoted by the contract house are mediocre, at best.In all too many cases, the rates barely rise above minimum wage, with the requirements listing a minimum of a BA, Master’s preferred and 5 years of experience, and a list of requires software tools as long as your arm.I believe, at least in the area in which I am knowledgeable, it’s pretty easy to find work, and pay the bills. Anything more than that is rare, and lord help you if you have college loans you have to discharge.Roseberg: Thanks for posting this. Folks, please note the emphasis on “recruiters” and “contract gigs.” When we see labor statistics, I think what we’re seeing is activity of recruiters from contracting firms — recruiters who are stunningly unqualified to select, interview and judge job applicants, especially in technical fields — and it relates mostly to short-term, part-time gigs.These recruiters generate enormous churn — loads and loads of applicants, interviews, and rejections. This is the breakdown of the employment system. You can’t get a job because there’s no one left out there to qualify you for a job.I work for a state/federal sponsored organization that helps with regional planning and teaches job search techniques. I read article after article of them dancing around this topic and spinning tales even though they are some of the best people to see the truth. It’s infuriating and plainly political. There should be stories in the news about businesses cutting their own throats (figuratively) because management refuses to take enough of a pay cut to afford employees at livable wages but, instead, there are just articles about how businesses and colleges need to work together to create the skilled workforce that is supposedly missing. It’s the willfully blind leading the blindfolded. There is my vent on your blog for the year. Keep up the great work, Nick!Well, you could send links to ATH articles on this subject to those organizations, and ask them to pass them along to their clients :-). Thanks for your kind words. I think the challenge is to get the word out to job seekers who scratch their heads when they listen to drivel about how good it’s gonna be…Been out of work since 2008. In 2016, I secured a job at a government contractor and getting paid 2/3rds of my 2008 pay. It’s not the career choice I wished for but I’ll take it. Thanks Obama for eight years, and good riddance!I have been underemployed for 6 years. I now work two low paying part time jobs. I am barely able to make ends meet. I am in the process of transitioning careers. So my goal is to save enough money to finance a move out of the hellish state of Illinois.They have been spinning bogus job reports since Obama took office. If anyone had a shred of reasoning skills, it’s obvious these reports are contradictory. It reminds me of communist countries that would spin economic stagnation as progress through decades of 5 year plans.I want to thank you Nick for what you have been doing. I have been visiting your blog for 9 years. I even purchased some of your books including How to Change Careers. It has helped me tremendously during this difficult time. Keep up the good work.ML, SAG: I don’t think presidents have much control or influence at all over economies or the job market. I don’t blame or credit Obama any more than I expect Trump will create loads of jobs.Folks: Political spin on all news is how people who really run the world distract us from our real problems. Neither the government or either of the major political parties are telling the truth. They all deliver a daily dose of soma — “a fictional hallucinogenic drug in Aldous Huxley’s novels Brave New World and Island” — that distracts everyone from what’s really going on, by triggering the most base human reaction to bad news: blame. Keep people angry, give them “evidence” to blame some one, some group, some scape goat, and the anger will distract people from what’s really going on. More important, instilling such anger and blame stops people from looking at the root causes of problems AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THEM.Whoever is in office gets the benefit of controlling the spin on news. Whoever is running for office gets the benefit of stirring public opinion against whoever is in office. Both have the same agenda: Foster anger, trigger blame, and turn a united people against one another, because that’s how you keep them from meaningful action.Who is actually in office is you — the citizen.If you want to understand how we all — including me — wind up making enormous mistakes of judgment, how we miss the truth, how we wind up on the wrong track, please read Michael Lewis’s new book, “The Undoing Project” — the story of how Amos Tversky and Danny Kahneman discovered how broken our judgment is, and why.? course presidents can’t create jobs. But they certainly can impede the process with bad public policy. My whole point about referencing the Obama administration is that media was obviously in the tank for his administration at the expense of properly reporting the true nature of the economy.You can bet that once Trump’s in office, the media will blame him for how bad the economy is. And who knows what Trump will do. There’s a vicious circle going on. A lot of companies are poorly ran. Which is due to a kind of short term mentality that has pervaded many organizations. Which in turn is due to the poor quality of education many people who runs these businesses have.For my own situation, I can only arm myself with the necessary information to prepare myself for entry into a new field. I can only be responsible for my own life and how I deal with challenges.> … media was obviously in the tank for his administration at the expense of properly reporting the true nature of the economy.Big Media has been lying/misleading the truth about our economy … pretty much ever since “big media” came into being.I stopped my subscription to the Los Angeles Times, not because paper was dead, or the web was easier — just the opposite, early adaptor news sites were horrible to use, and modern news sites are barely better. Paper news is much easier to read, and understand, and ** older LA Times reporting was good quality, detailed, and gave me information.Then, it was sold. Slowly, the quality went down. The degree of needing to read between the lines went up. The same actions would be described in two different ways, based on whether it was our country, or an enemy of our country. Etc. As it became less trustful, less useful, I just dropped it.Years later, I found out that this was when big media was consolidated to only about 6 or 7 people owning 90-95% of the newspapers and news shows/stations.Does “Big Media” distort the truth of what it reports? Yes.Can you now get pretty much any truth you want reported from the appropriate source? Yes.But if you can get a slanted left-leaning truth here, or a slanted right-leaning truth there, or a slanted liberal here, or a slanted socialist there, or a slanted nationalist over there, etc. — then what is the real truth?That has disappeared. And if the answer is to read many different sources, and try to understand the truth in the middle, then this means you are your own reporter, trying to verify sources, and suddenly the whole point of paying someone else to do the work is out the window; and now it takes too much time to stay on top of everything.The “pretend the economy is roses even when it’s thorns” behavior? It did not start with Obama. It goes at least all the way back to Bush.Keybounce: I’ve had similar experiences. I was a long-time subscriber to Newsweek and Forbes. The former sold out to the Daily Beast and reporting turned into cheap blogging and airing of thoughtless opinions. Forbes turned from investigative financial reporting into clickbait writing. I even dumped Fortune, for similar reasons. The online-ification of news publications has nothing to do with “online” and everything to do with failed business models and last-ditch efforts to stay in business by cheapening the product to the point where it’s worthless.My favorite pubs nowadays are Bloomberg Businessweek and Wired. BB can get political, but in general it has the best reporting anywhere — BB employees real reporters. They don’t just “curate” (steal) stories and comment on them. They use original sources, including interviews. Wired does in-depth stories on stuff I’d never find anywhere else — it’s more than just news.I prefer my news in print, but won’t get into why here. Thanks for your thoughtful post about an issue that affects people far more than they realize.What I see is a lot of spin.Every “authority” is looking at the facts and data through a tube, finding the bits and pieces that fit their private agendas, and then extrapolates it to be the reality of the whole job market and environment.“Figures lie… and liars figure…” is an old expression at work here.For example, none of the reported news even touches on the plight of people over the age of 40 who are unable to even get interviews because they’re considered “obsolete”, or not cool. Regardless if they bring with them a wealth of information and experience that would have direct impact to the bottom line for an organization.Also, in today’s job market — no matter what your demographics — you have to be your own advocate. You have to persevere; you have to be true to yourself and not compromise; and you have to maintain your faith …My husband has a well-paid job with the Feds. I work part-time. We have been doing this for a lot of years, but in the past four years we have seen ourselves on an inexorable financial slide. Costs go up but salaries don’t. My part-time work pays $13 and $14 an hour (for professional-level work) with unreliable schedules. We both have Master’s degrees and many years’ experience but those attributes aren’t helping much. The culprits? Health care costs, debt that refuses to go away (Mohela, the company managing my husband’s school loans, recently lowered his payment to an amt that will pay interest only without notifying him or giving any reason – makes us feel that their desire is to keep him enrolled forever) rising rents (outpacing pay increases by 2 percent) and just a sense of a tightening noose. I am currently looking for a REAL job (reliable hours, meaningful benefits, and company-paid-for computer, phone, lights and heat) – don’t know yet what the results will be here in Denver. When I see the rosy reports on the economy, I feel let down and abandoned by my government because I know these figures reflect what some want them to, not reality. I think we the people need to get together to form co-ops to conduct basic services for ourselves and bypass systems that are functioning in the favor of their owners and not in the favor of clients or the community of citizens. What say you, fellow citizens? Let’s pool resources and provide each other with loans and health insurance on a small scale within communities.Well, it seems that at least the readers of Ask the Headhunter have a different story to tell than the government. No surprise there. I’m wondering if people with solid, well-paying jobs simply don’t read your column, Nick. That seems unlikely. Also, it seems like most people have plenty of experience in their fields; I didn’t get the sense that many recent graduates or those early in their careers are responding.I share a common experience with most of the readers. A degree from (at least one of) the top universities in my field of Engineering, followed by a Master’s ten years later. Solid career growth (one layoff in 1996) until 2008, then sporadic employment since. When the times are good, I’m making a salary that reflects my skills and experience. When they’re not, I’m on unemployment or working trivial jobs like landscaping.Currently on my third startup after two previous failures because I obviously can’t learn my lesson. :) The work is great, I’m making a huge contribution to the business, and I’m loved and respected. But the money works out to less than minimum wage when calculated on an hourly basis. My choice of course, because I could try working at a “real” job. My wife has taught for over 35 years, so our household income is stable; lucky me.It’s a frustrating world, but it’s the world we live in. Our only choices are to adapt, and to change the system so it is more fair to all.Fully employed checking in.I have been reading Nick’s blog for years now… not because I am looking for work, but I realize the inevitability that I may doing so be in the future. Nothing specific, no impending doom, but in a world of at-will employment where one can be fired for any reason or no reason, I always make sure to have one foot out the door at all times.Employee loyalty was lost decades ago; I always keep feelers out, and expect to be cut as soon as the bean counters realize it’s more profitable without me than with me.It’s tragically cynical, but that’s the world we live in.Jeff: Top business schools pay me a lot of money to answer this question from Executive MBA students — people who’ve been running companies for 7-15 years on average — who want to advance their careers:“When should I actively start my search for my next job if I want to move up?”You said it in another way in your comment, but this is my answer to them:“Two years ago.”Their eyebrows go up, they cock their heads, and usually within about 15 seconds they get it. You have to run your job search all the time. Nice having you around :-)” I’m wondering if people with solid, well-paying jobs simply don’t read your column, Nick. That seems unlikely.”It seems unlikely to me too. I’m in the business of helping people find work. My experience–which began in 2008–is that clients come to me when they’re out of work and looking for a job, and plenty of them come to me because they’ve got a job and are looking for a better one and want all the help they can get in an economy and hiring environment that are getting crazier every day. For the same reason, I’m sure that even larger proportions of the employed group are reading ATH.Ken: I don’t keep stats, but in the 20+ years I’ve been publishing Ask The Headhunter, I’ve noticed a distinct trend. Far more employed than unemployed people read and participate. Those who come here because they’re unemployed often move on after they get a job. Those who are employed stick around, and they participate actively. I’m not dissing the unemployed — they’re welcome here and I hope more visit — but I find it’s the employed who offer some of the best advice and insight to the entire community. I think that’s the secret of this website and community, and it’s why the standard of discourse and behavior here is so high. I’m very proud of that.I gave up looking for work in October after looking for 2 years and 10 months with very little interest in me. I figured that was enough time to determine that I wasn’t going to get the job I wanted using the methods I had been using. Not sure what I’m going to do now; very frustrating and demeaning.I think the contradictory numbers you cite are pretty much accurate — it’s a mixed bag and a lot depends on a variety of factors. Yes, mid-level jobs with more routine responsibilities are disappearing, while there is growth on the high and low ends, mirroring the trend in business success (mid-sized companies are not doing well, while the behemoths and niche players are thriving).There is also a lot of geographic and demographic disparity. If you are in the SF Bay area, even NYC or Boston, things are not bad — even robust. Not so much in Ohio or Michigan or even places like Southern CA’s inland suburbs. Less educated people, disproportionately people of color (pointing out the irony of all the focus on the “white working class”), are not doing as well as those with advanced degrees.Older workers continue to face discrimination, which is why I stopped looking for a job and opened my own consulting practice. While the money is inconsistent, the work is satisfying, and I love controlling my own destiny, just like Jurassic Carl above.But let’s look at mega trends — as bad as it is now for factory workers with HS degrees, the real shocks are yet to come with the growing impact of artificial intelligence, which will begin to replace more educated workers in such areas as transportation (it is estimated that if driverless cars and trucks really catch on, it will eliminated 3 to 5 million jobs), accounting (basic bookkeeping and accounting), law (simple contracts), engineering (simple design and programming), even journalism (writing basic news releases and stories). What will happen when millions of white collar workers with BA’s are out of work and hopeless, like those folks today in the Rust Belt? I think they will be really pissed.I believe the level of automation will only be at the level that is sustainable – in other words, we have the capability of much higher automation than is currently implemented, but that would take money that just isn’t available. I call it “automation saturation.”If there is so much automation that companies could just fire everyone, then they would lose their customer base. Then they would go out of business.At the same time, you can’t just do a job search from your computer all day and hope to get something. You have to actually hang out with real living, breathing human beings. Sorry, but there’s no app for that.you can’t just do a job search from your computer all day and hope to get something. You have to actually hang out with real living, breathing human beings. Sorry, but there’s no app for that.”Kevin, you just nicely summarized about 80% of Ask The Headhunter. Thanks.NEWS FLASH! Recreational marijuana has been legalized. it is manifest in the way the lame-street media is reporting the jobs numbers.As far as I am concerned it is just hallucinations. I have been out of work for going on 5 years with an active job search, and yes I am finding more possibilities, but no one wants to interview, let alone hire someone who has been out of work more than 1 year. 35 years experience, 2 undergraduate degrees and 2 patents still will not get you a roll of toilet paper.There is no shortage of talent, just a re-configuring of the purple squirrel effect.“There is no shortage of talent, just a re-configuring of the purple squirrel effect.”When ZipRecruiter tells HR that the purple squirrel is in the database, just keep looking, HR keeps looking, spends more, while work goes undone.“It’s in there. Just keep looking… and paying…”Purple Squirrel?The non-existent perfect candidate.I think there are lies, dam lies, and statistics.I think there are two different things being discussed with different people having different definitions.Lets say that you have two people. In scenario one, one works 40 hrs per week, and the other is unemployed. In scenario two, both work 20 hours a week.In #1, there is 50% unemployment; in #2, there is 0% unemplyoment.But now look at the number of jobs. Scenario 2 has 2 filled jobs, a 100% increase from #1.If you look at “how many jobs there are”, without looking at “all of these are parttime, or temp work, or “as needed” with only occasional pay, you overstate the number of available or filled jobs.If a person is working two different 20 hour jobs, that’s an example of “lots of filled jobs” — heck the number of jobs filled can be higher than the number of people working.Spin? Unemployment? The last time I applied for unemployment, I was told that I qualified for a weekly check of $0. I don’t know what I did wrong, but apparently, that was pretty close to the point where if you were getting unemployment at time X, you got an extra 100 or so weeks of additional unemployment (when it normally stops at 26 weeks total).Is the system broken? Yes.The solution starts with better reporting of what is really going on, rather than what the inaccurate statistics say.If you look deeper, and not depend on just the short articles, you’ll see that there are lots of metrics. Someone wanting 40 hours (or 30) and getting 20 won’t be counted as fully employed by some measures. Ditto with the unemployment rate based on those looking for work as opposed to the rate with everyone in the denominator. If you think college and high school students and stay-at-home parents and the retired are in the job pool, unemployment looks real bad.Paul Solman, with whom I work at PBS NewsHour on my ATH feature there, used to publish the Solman Scale, which captures exactly what you’re talking about. I haven’t seen it in a while, but historically the scale has pointed out that the numbers are far worse than the Dept of Labor suggests.You have an ATH segment on PBS newshour?I generally only catch the weekend newshour, as a summary. I haven’t seen anything about the Solman Scale, or any questioning of the official Dept of Labor statistics. Do I need to start catching the weekday shows as well?Two years ago my daughter’s job ran out in Germany. She got one here with no big problems. Her husband, who is German, came and got a job in under a month (two offers) at 40% more salary than he got as a consultant with a prestigious company. Neither of them would ever bother reading ATH, so the readership here is a bit slanted to those with problems getting jobs.People like me, who have left the job force quite happily through retirement are one of the reasons the pool is shrinking. I worked in tech for 36 years, never got laid off, never unemployed. It is not all horrible out there.More people are confident enough now to be changing jobs, so if you don’t have one you are competing against them. And that is tough. And while I’m sure this does not apply to anyone here, on the average people who have stayed unemployed in a rising market are going to be maybe less qualified. I know someone who was unemployed a lot during the tech bubble where you could get a job as a programmer if you could spell C. It was not due to unfairness of potential employers.Just wait until the morons on Wall Street trash the economy again due to lack of adult supervision, and the horrible times today are going to look like a golden age.Unfortunately these bogus, out of context stats are regurgitated by all media, as far as I can tell. “Lazy journalism”. . . which won’t change soon.I remember the biz editor at NPR poo-pooing the fact of age discrimination, as well. She sounds comfortably past mid age and might want to cover her backside lest she is canned w/o cause,notice or severance.The worse the economy gets, the more the media disinformation campaign goes into overdrive.I too have had a very hard time finding a decent job over the last decade or so. Even before I took 6 years off to take care of my Mom so she could live out her days in her own home, it was VERY hard getting a job with a company that 1. paid their employees and 2. Didn’t have EXTREMELY high turnover. As an older female in IT, I have a good education and good experience, but age and gender discrimination are a huge problem, as is the fact that I live in the heart of the Rustbelt (WI).In November, I was forced through necessity to take a call center job that pays 18.00 per hour with draconian working conditions, and the high turnover to match. Hard to see how this will get better any time soon.This video clip is of a lady lamenting the challenges trying to find a job: didn’t watch it all, but yah, it seems to make the point.I don’t see it getting better at all. Wall Street and the stock market are doing fantastic. The investor class is doing really well. Those of us who have to work for a living, not so much. I’m in Massachusetts (Western MA), and the job market here sucks. Jobs added last month were part-time, seasonal jobs, and even then, I couldn’t get one–had to jump through all kinds of hoops and do back flips. No one will take an application or even trying to get a manager to come out and talk to you is impossible, even when stores had signs that read “Help Wanted”. They refused to talk to anyone until they’d gone online, filled out an application (to be screened by ATSes and if you got through that minefield, then vetted by HR), agreed to take “personality tests” and other tests. Then these same employers howled that kids and the unemployed are lazy because they can’t find anyone when the truth is that they do everything they can to make it impossible for people to apply.And yes, even for jobs that require “skills”, employers say they can’t find anyone, but God forbid that they do any on the job training.I think the government AND the media do a lot of false reporting on the labor market because if people really knew how high the un and under employment stats are there would be rioting along with the pitchforks.I have family up in that area. I know it’s hard up there. Funny thing is, we’re looking to move up there in the next three years or so. I LOVE it up there!I am experiencing the same thing with retail. People say, “Just get a job at gas station/fast food restaurant/store,” but it’s not that simple anymore. I tried to apply for one retail job the other day, and I had to jump through so many hoops that I just gave up after the fourth link they wanted me to click on.Jen: Here’s a tip, especially with retail, food service and such jobs. Skip the online app. Just show up. Ask for the manager. Don’t say why. When the manager comes out, ask for the job. Showing up counts — and that’s what the job boards count on you not doing, so they can keep charging dopey HR departments to post jobs. But the manager with boots on the ground — that manager usually cares about just one thing: getting the work done. Help make it easier for that manager to hire you by showing up, and even if it doesn’t work every time, I think it increases your chances of getting hired dramatically.Thanks. I’ve been tempted to do that. I’ll follow my gut from now on.I’m only looking to supplement the income from my VA business, though, so I have to work really hard to look like I’m invested. It’s easier to fake it online. ;)For anything other than my VA stuff, I really just want the paycheck.My first choice is not retail, but since I’m currently only working part time, I’d haven taken a part time retail job, even if it is only seasonal. You’re right, everyone (meaning everyone who has a job) thinks it is simple to get a mcjob, and it isn’t so easy any longer. I did what Nick recommended to you–show up and ask to speak with the manager, and even then, at best I was directed to their website, where I had to fill out the kind of application that people getting top secret security clearances have to complete, and at worst, the manager refused to talk to me (even after asking when it would be convenient for him to meet for a few minutes), and overhearing a “if people won’t go online, then they’re stupid/can’t follow directions and they’re not worth meeting.” I tried local supermarkets (both of which had help wanted signed prominently posted in their stores), Wal-Mart (big sign telling people they were hiring seasonal help), Home Depot (ditto), Lowe’s, etc. Yet the staff complained that there wasn’t enough help, as were customers due to the long lines and inability to find staff to help them find and reach items. But management won’t talk to people like me who walk in, résumé in hand, ready to work.Good to know. The stores in my town are those chains.Silliness! :/At my lowest point I walked into a Lowe’s (Attleboro, MA), they had the usual “we’re hiring” banner hanging out front. I went up to the info desk and asked the woman if I could talk to someone about applying. I’ll never forget how NASTY she was to me. She had an awful scowl on her face the whole time, and barked at me to go online and apply. I said you mean there’s no one here I can talk to first? Her answer was an absolute NO, and if I don’t have a computer/internet then go to the library and use their computers. I walked out in disgust. I did check out their online app, just like you said, the amount of crap they wanted for their minimum wage gig was insane, from personality tests to drug testing. (I’ve worked since 1986 and I never had to take a drug test before 2013, what happened? Is our workforce really so saturated with drug addicts? I mean, how on earth did any work get done in the old days w/o the standard drug test?)I came across a thread on the Indeed forum not too long ago (can’t find it at the moment) where they were talking about these stores with the perpetual “we’re hiring” signs, lots of folks said they tried to apply only to find out via someone on the inside that the sign was completely bogus, they’re not hiring at all, but there’s no law to say it’s illegal to falsely advertise this.I have thought about picking up some hours in retail to supplement my full time work. The amount of begging and what you have to submit to for a simple near minimum wage job these days is stunning.Here’s the deal. You are counted as unemployed while you receive your unemployment check. You are no longer counted as unemployed when you stop receiving your unemployment check. They stop counting you that way. What they count you as is a discouraged worker – meaning you aren’t looking for work any longer because you no longer receive an unemployment check. It matters not if you are looking for work while no longer receiving insurance.Nick,The rock you have kicked over is the story of the 2016 Presidential election. In show biz, there is a concept known as “believing one’s own hype.” In the case of Obama/Clinton, they put out fairy-tale job statistics and then quoted these same stats to brag about how great the job market is. One needed only to look at the packed Trump rallies to see people who were not dummies, racists, or misogynists but simply people who are sick and tired of being out of work. If the government job stats were accurate Trump would have faced arena after arena filled with empty chairs.Case in point: My specialty is so-called Cyber Security. According to the media, depending on what you are reading, there are 1,000,000 unfilled positions in Cyber Security. No, make that 2,000,000. No, 5 million! In actuality I see both of the job openings that occur in any given week and they either pay grocery-bagger wages, require unpaid relocation to the Deep South, or require a Top Secret clearance. Maybe all three.Most recently I heard feedback on a job I had applied for, the “hiring manager” (probably an HR type) had decided that 100% of the applicants were poseurs and fakers. This is what I call a “district attorney” interviewer, her mission in life is to phone-screen by cross-examining and browbeating each applicant until they are proved unworthy. Needless to say, after three months all four available positions are unfilled and have been reposted.MBS-JOBS: I agree that dissatisfaction is what packed the Trump rallies. But talk to me when Trump is the government and people are still sick and tired of being out of work. Presidents don’t create jobs any more than the spam in your e-mail box will help you lose weight.But your other point is far more important and interesting. Given your field, you probably know what a critical path is. What happens when we put an inept screener at the beginning of the path to hire a specialist in cyber security? What happens when we put 10,000 inept screeners there, for thousands of other jobs? What happens when the entire HR world is dominated by those screeners? What happens to the project?I don’t know one policy maker, or venture capitalist who helps fund another stupid database-oriented “recruiting solution,” or HR exec, who gets that.There’s no way to hire you, when the employer is trying to hire key words.Another thing is…. If there were so many jobs in “Cyber Security,” companies should relax their job requirements/screening. I’m not saying to hire someone incompetent, but they may have to train people up and/or make the job more attractive in some way.I always laugh when I hear people complain that there are too few “qualified” people in certain (usually technical) fields. There is a shortage of purple squirrel type candidates willing to work for peanuts. There is not really a shortage of people interested and willing to do the work, but maybe needs some experience/coaching along the way.Dave: Sometimes I think what there’s a shortage of is good HR managers who know how to hire talent… and a shortage of good managers who can train, coach and develop talent.Why do companies want only someone who’s done the exact job for 5 years already, who’s willing to take 20% less salary, and hit the ground running with a smile?Dear Lefty, I am disabled (on dialysis) and am currently working with an organization called “Ohioans with Disabilities”. These organizations are specifically for getting people that are disabled jobs and also should provide monies for education. This is a county organization and I know for a fact the US has theses types of organizations all over the US, typically located in county government probably for states also. Hope this helps.Please! Everyone! Stop the politics on those responses! Stop blaming the President! Just. Stop! This is not a political forum!The big issue is that the policies made by the people at the top really do affect the whole economy.Control it 100%? No.Have no effect at all? No.How strong in the effect? That’s a big question. Some people want to say it’s very weak, others want to say that it dominates the whole thing.To say that there is no politics, at all, in the economy? Just false.A quick example: How many foreign workers should be allowed in, and how much should a company pay to be able to hire a foreign worker instead of a domestic worker?That’s a political question, decided by the people at the top. Has to be, it is something that affects international affairs, so it is a function of the federal government, and ultimately Dept of Labor, and Immigration, both of which are cabinet-level positions, so they are decisions/decision makers that report to the President and are informed and instructed by the President.That is just the simplest example. And the scope and scale of that single question’s answer can result in anywhere from “little to no effect” to “massive effect”. And that’s just one of many different things that can add up.So how strong is the total effect of government policies? It depends on what those policies are.You cannot discuss the economy without discussing politics. They are one and the same.?think it’s possible there are jobs aplenty in certain categories, but that certainly hasn’t reached me. I have 20 years of HR management experience, and here I sit, unemployed for 8 months. I’ve been hit with layoffs before (my favorite job was at a major hospital in NYC that went bankrupt), so I’m not unfamiliar with the hunt, but it’s never taken anywhere near this long.I don’t think the jobs reports are fiction, but I don’t think they show the whole picture. I also wonder if my age (not that I’m all that old–50) is playing a role. I know age discrimination exists, but I didn’t think it was so widespread, since some must value my level of experience, but something odd is going on.Jess: Nice to hear from someone in HR. This isn’t a loaded question — I’d really like an inside view. Working in HR, did you see age discrimination against candidates?A Day late, but still wanted to add my 2 cents. I enjoy Nick’s blog immensely, however, I do not in a STEM related field. I lost my professional footing during Dubbya’s administration, when the world lost its mind due to the instant access of technology. Despite having a terminal degree in my field and considerable, and extensive, experience inside and outside my field I keep hitting a concrete wall.Mostly, I have worked low-wage short and long-term temp assignments. Highest wage being $15/hr, which by the way would have been a living wage in 2001 but is not in 2017.I have tried “networking,” but people with jobs in my industry treat me as if I am a leper. I give to get, am professional, etc., but have had less than a handful of people REALLY offer any substantial information or contacts that might actually lead to something.and Nick’s advice, among other strategies, as well as the old tried and true submissions through the ATS, all with varying degrees of success. Yes, the media is spinning the story and one thing that seems rarely taken into account in the reporting is the type and kind of employment people are looking for and the regions in which they live.Everyone does not work in tech. Artists, writers, and librarians, and accountants, and other professionals are struggling too. And whilst we used to believe, as a nation, that more education was valuable, employers see that as financial liability. No one wants to pay for quality, everyone wants cheap labor. And the millennial crowd is where that’s at, not matter if they don’t have as much experience.Regional inequality: true in Software Development. After going through the stages of grief, companies are slowly coming to terms that outsourcing to India had disastrous consequences in terms of return on investment and product quality and are slowly but surely requiring on-premise, US citizen workers. That means the industry is starving for workers. I’m making 120K now, been at my job for 2 years, and seeing job postings where I could make 180K working for a competitor doing the exact same work. That’s a 50% raise, not to mention sign on bonuses are standard.Been engineering and slinging code successfully for close to 30 yrs. Have always kept up with all the latest technologies. Over the last 2 yrs. have produced analytical apps for BI, machine learning, Javascript, etc. for the web using all currently hot, hot, hot technologies.The resumes that I send out usually get an almost instantaneous UFO (You f*** off) response from the top-tier dev companies despite having every requirement in spades. I’m convinced it’s because the depth and breadth of experience I present is an indicator that I am on the far side of 30 and ain’t an H1-B.The replies that do get that indicate interest in my skills are always from body shops that want self-financed relocation and offer laughably low pay rates.Fortunately I still stay working snaring gigs via my network of friends and colleagues.So the reality is that all the happy, happy tech jobs news is a bunch-o-crap and is a front for resume stockpiling by body shops and dev companies looking for cheap labor rather than paying for experienced problem solvers.Definitely age-ism in the field. Like it or not–Hiring Managers assume you’ve outgrown the position of a front-line developer. Have you considered re-branding as a Manager or Architect? Your age will work for you, not against you, in those roles.Maris: “always from body shops”Yup. That’s the problem. An employer may not be able to look you in the eye and tell you the job requires your extensive skills but, uh, we’re only gonna pay you half what you’re worth.HOWEVER, that employer has no problem deploying a silly “recruiter” at a job shop to tell you exactly that. And that “recruiter” and job shop has no problem “competing” with 50 more of same by telling the employer, “No worries, we can get you who you need for 60% less than you think you’d have to pay… just let us turn on this database of talent and send you all the talent you need.”Maris, I’m convinced the problem is not lack of jobs or even lack of money — there’s plenty of both. Employers have been sold a bill of goods — “We can find you the purple squirrel for less!” and many employers have decided, “The market is awash with talent… look, they’re minting database records of talent…! We’ll pay less and still get what we want…”Just like outsourcing overseas, this approach will fail as quality goes down the drain. Question is, who can wait as long as that will take? Our economy is now founded largely on phony promises and a voice on the phone that says, “Please press 1 if you’re willing to take an automated customer satisfaction survey at the end of the call… and give us data without getting paid while we save money by not doing our jobs to begin with?”Guess I’m in a bad mood.I adjunct at two colleges, plus private tutoring on the side, and still barely make enough money to cover rent. One of my schools just froze all full time hiring indefinitely. Applied for some non-education jobs with no luck. Prior to this I was mostly under/unemployed for a few years out of grad school. But when I started working as a part-time teacher, for the first time in my life I qualified for unemployment benefits last summer! Yay! So I “entered the workforce,” or whatever, and also added to the unemployment statistic.Ah, the system “they” designed works… and they’ll blame you when they realize you got it working :-)Hi Nick,I worked a seasonal retail job at one of the largest department stores in the country for the 2016 holiday season. The Labor Department claims about paychecks in that sector are disingenuous. As I’m sure you know, many of these workers with “higher paychecks” see a brief bump in earnings due to commissions. What the labor department does not say, is that we took these positions for a few months knowing that they would end in January after the holiday season came to a close. Also, they don’t say that those paychecks shrink for full timers because of a drop in business and returns to those department stores. ( The one I work at subtracts commissions if items are returned, and since it’s the nations largest, I have no doubt that smaller ones do the same.) many of the people I worked with during this time were educated, intelligent, college educated people over the age of 55 who had been laid off during the recession and have not been able to find A full-time job that matches their former salary.Every single one of these people is capable of working most of the ridiculous jobs I see posted on , which include job descriptions that require you to have three years of experience working with social media so you can sit at a computer and post company updates on Facebook and Twitter.David: There’s a term for that. “Taking advantage of you.” Of all of us.Nick,I also forgot to mention that pay rises a bit in the retail sector during the holiday season because everyone in every department is working upwards of 40 to 50 hour weeks. Now that the season is over, the seasonal people are being released while the full-time people are having their hours cut .so, claiming that this is a sign of a stronger job market might be true in the literal sense for a few months, but in the long term it’s completely meaningless.I was laid off in 2016 but landed a comparable job (even at a slightly higher salary) in a relatively short time of 4 months. That said, I agree with Nick’s observation that it’s the job search/hiring infrastructure that’s causing the problem.During my job search, it would take companies on the order of 4-6 weeks to get back to me about an initial interview. Mind you, I’m not talking about the ones who rejected me outright. If I heard anything from them, it was more like 2-3 months. No, the ones who actually wanted to talk to me would wait 4-6 weeks. Then it’d be another 3-4 weeks after that before they made a decision. In this day and age, I don’t understand how companies can let work slide for two whole months.I actually gave up applying to numerous jobs that I knew I was qualified for. Why? Stupid ATS stuff. Ten minutes into an on-line application, and I’m transcribing crap that’s already on my resume.Then there are the job inquiries from automated systems and recruiters for jobs that I was either wholly unqualified for or would not take because of the pay/location/whatever. I don’t know how, but I would get emails/calls/etc., and there would absolutely nothing on my resume or in my background that would have the smallest thing to do with the job. The funny thing is that I keep getting inquiries about some of the same jobs that have been open for months and months.And let’s not forget the contract positions at sub-market wages which everyone seems to be moving to. Thankfully, my wife has a good job, so I never got to the point where I had to consider them to get by. I was not looking for a hired gun position lasting as little as 3 months. Yes, 3 months. How companies think anyone can be effective in a job for only 3 months is beyond me. As above, I keep getting contacted about the same positions again and again. (The really funny thing is I actually worked in one of those positions, and the company hasn’t been able to keep it filled since I left. It’s not a testament to me but rather to how poorly the company is run.)So, add it all up: companies that take forever to respond, make you jump through useless hoops, offer sub-market wages, waste time contacting the wrong people for the wrong job, and state they’re not looking for a long term relationship by offering contract positions. It’s no wonder people can find work and companies can’t find workers.The company that did hire me? A recruiter who had a relationship with them called me about an open position. Three weeks after initial contact, I had an interview scheduled. (There was no real delay on their part, it was just one of those things where they wanted everybody in the office.) A week after the interview, I had the offer. The next two weeks were basically paperwork/physical/background check/etc. No ATS. No HR BS. No online applications or “assessments.” The hiring manager was in control of the whole thing.If companies would actually talk to people and offer realistic wages for full time position instead of trying to treat people like cleaning supplies bought on line for the lowest price, things would be a great deal better.Chris: Every economist, federal policy maker and personnel jockey should read what you wrote. Then their bosses should read it and fire them.Has anyone done a study on the ebbs and flows of labor reports during election cylces?I am unemployed at this time. I had stopped looking for a corporate job and started to consult part time just to make ends meet. I started to reach out to people I know that I had done job favors for and I have not received the responses I had expected back.I received a response back from one company after I submitted an online application that I must complete an online behavioral assessment. The job is for a high level position and they want a behavioral assessment? I did complete it and highly doubt I will hear next steps on the job.I get directed from hiring managers I reach out to directly about positions to go fill out applications online that disappear into a black hole. I follow up and don’t hear back.Other jobs pay way too little for someone like me who is overqualified for many jobs and yet I have received too many calls from recruiters and even from company HR recruiters looking to hire me but for half the salary I made before I was unemployed. What is going on?Unemployed: I believe this article explains what is going on:“The “routine work” that pays middle-income wages is disappearing. But the good news is, those of you doing “higher- and lower-paying jobs” should have no trouble finding work! Tech jobs have “soared” 42%. Hotel and food service jobs have “jumped” 19%!Apply the grammatical logic tool to that one and you get… Middle America can’t find a job!”It also means that those attempting to move up into Middle America from Lower and Working class America are increasingly screwed.[What would have happened if there was no government bailout in 2008?]There were many factors going on. Unrestrained lending was lead by mortgage brokers who sought to make shady expensive loans, with many instances of lying along the way. I recall one "friend" I'd met at a party who offered me a great deal...he was going to get the seller to pay all of my costs, and the costs were $14K on a $200K loan. In looking at it, I realized he was just going to put in in the loan, and the loan wasn't fixed. This man got rich doing these loans, leaving a ton of people swindled in his wake. Some were just worse off, others found themselves with a loan they could never hope to afford. Worse, unrestrained lending was pushing the price for homes and commercial buildings up. Previously, a lender doing such things would be stopped by their bad loans causing the bank to fail, but with securitization of loan interests, they could be repackaged into amazing AAA rated bond products. Operationally, it was tough to know how loans were doing, or what tier of a loan was even owned.?Now realize that the banking system is, by design, insolvent at any given time if all short term depositors rush to take out their money at the same time. With unemployment on the rise and company orders slowing in recession, there was less money coming in than going out, and nobody knew if someone's loans were good and bad. If AAA loans were in danger of default, who could be safe? I pulled my money out of Wamu shortly before it closed. I was not alone. Once large institutions start folding, truly nobody is safe at that point. Individuals have protections in law, but corporations don't for their larger deposits. They purchase insurance on these things, but alas insurance companies (chiefly AIG) were too far overextended to possibly cover the claims on the insurance they'd sold.?So the investment banks fall, the banks fail, the insurance companies fail and the Feds have most Americans looking to it to redeem their checking accounts. Companies, themselves generally rolling over debt into a new bond, have no market, and must come up with cash to redeem their bonds....with nobody lending, their own cash possibly impaired in a bank and insurance companies in default to boot.The result is the perfect storm of economic implosion. Who can sell anything if nobody has money. If you can't trust your supply chain to get paid. The contraction would be huge. Without a correction, how long until civil order begins breaking down. Worse, because these debts had been purchased around the world, the entire world was destined to go down at the same time.?In war, debts go away when everything is destroyed. There's now war in this one. Debts stay forever. Out here, I recall shopping for commercial properties at the time. One property had been selling for $285 a sf. The people that bought it went bankrupt. The lenders that had given the loan to them tried to sell it at $188, and they went bankrupt. Eventually it sold for $65 a sf. The state was offering to finance us at .3% interest and would cover everything, in exchange for jobs. We turned the state down. (I was pretty pissed)So the government was smart. It needed to restore confidence before a complete collapse. The Fed increased it's balance sheet by $4Trillion to get it done while the Government spent money in a massive Keneysian way. Were there crisis profiteers...of course. And the government took its time, and now when times are good are going back to hunt them down, because doing it then would have defeated the very purpose of the bailout in the first place. Plus, by lending it to the banks, they were going to be able to pull the money back without causing inflation. That easing money has not been stopped that long. The economy has been on life support for quite awhile.?Everyone likes to think of the prospect of a free home, but a free home in a place with no jobs and your bank accounts inaccessible is a pretty tough place to be.The downturn would have been more severe, but the recovery would have been much faster.?In truth, the Great Depression wasn't great because of the stock market crash. It was because of the government policies that both predated the crash and the responses that ensued. Everybody subscribes to the belief that Herbert Hoover sat back and did nothing, but the exact opposite is true. To wit:? Government spending increased by something like 60% during his administration.?? What's even worse, personal taxes for the highest earners soared from from somewhere around 24% to around the 65% mark. Even so, all earning levels had raised taxes, businesses included. Roosevelt, who evidently learned nothing from his predecessor, raised taxes again in 1937, sending the economy back into another tail spin.?? The Hawley Smoot Tariff Act in 1930 eviscerated international trade. Is Donald Trump paying attention??? While not a White House policy, the Federal Reserve actually created the conditions for the Great Depression in the 1920s by inflating real estate values with easy money, particularly in the farms of the Great Plains states. The executive branch essentially went down that same path once again in the mid-90s by gutting the underwriting requirements of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA. Australia tried the same thing at the beginning of the 20th century and their GPA took a 10% haircut as a result. In fact, it's a pretty good bet that anytime government gets involved in the marketplace, the pricing is going to get completely bollixed.?In other words, history may not repeat itself. But it rhymes.?Compare that to the Depression of 1920, something nobody ever hears about. Why? Because in many ways it was as severe as Great Depression in its opening phases, it was remarkably short-lived, somewhere around 14 months. Part of the reasons for this relatively short downturn was due to the inaction of a very ill Woodrow Wilson. Another part was that one of the major remedies was tax cuts, not increases.?So if we had no government intervention in 2008, it would have been a scary thing. There would have been bank collapses among the weaker sisters with the most exposure. At the same time, I feel that the assets of those banks would have been bought at bargain basement prices by more stable competitors. Meanwhile, there would not have been legislation such as the egregious Dodd Frank legislation that not only propped up misbehaving banks and ravaged the community banks, but it also tightened up lending requirements for businesses that, heretofore, had impeccable credit.?My wife is the CFO of a large commercial real estate company, one that had a strong stable of investors and never missed a mortgage payment on any of its 100+ properties. Yet, Dodd Frank capriciously started monkeying with loan ratios, resulting in banks calling my wife's company and saying, "We need you to pay down the principal by $5,000,000 by the end of the month." This was her life for three solid years until the regulators eased up. Yet that was capital that could have been used in far more constructive ways than simply satisfying the whim of a regulator.Originally Posted by?artillery77?There were many factors going on. Unrestrained lending was lead by mortgage brokers who sought to make shady expensive loans, with many instances of lying along the way. I recall one "friend" I'd met at a party who offered me a great deal...he was going to get the seller to pay all of my costs, and the costs were $14K on a $200K loan. In looking at it, I realized he was just going to put in in the loan, and the loan wasn't fixed. This man got rich doing these loans, leaving a ton of people swindled in his wake. Some were just worse off, others found themselves with a loan they could never hope to afford. Worse, unrestrained lending was pushing the price for homes and commercial buildings up. Previously, a lender doing such things would be stopped by their bad loans causing the bank to fail, but with securitization of loan interests, they could be repackaged into amazing AAA rated bond products. Operationally, it was tough to know how loans were doing, or what tier of a loan was even owned.?Now realize that the banking system is, by design, insolvent at any given time if all short term depositors rush to take out their money at the same time. With unemployment on the rise and company orders slowing in recession, there was less money coming in than going out, and nobody knew if someone's loans were good and bad. If AAA loans were in danger of default, who could be safe? I pulled my money out of Wamu shortly before it closed. I was not alone. Once large institutions start folding, truly nobody is safe at that point. Individuals have protections in law, but corporations don't for their larger deposits. They purchase insurance on these things, but alas insurance companies (chiefly AIG) were too far overextended to possibly cover the claims on the insurance they'd sold.?So the investment banks fall, the banks fail, the insurance companies fail and the Feds have most Americans looking to it to redeem their checking accounts. Companies, themselves generally rolling over debt into a new bond, have no market, and must come up with cash to redeem their bonds....with nobody lending, their own cash possibly impaired in a bank and insurance companies in default to boot.The result is the perfect storm of economic implosion. Who can sell anything if nobody has money. If you can't trust your supply chain to get paid. The contraction would be huge. Without a correction, how long until civil order begins breaking down. Worse, because these debts had been purchased around the world, the entire world was destined to go down at the same time.?In war, debts go away when everything is destroyed. There's now war in this one. Debts stay forever. Out here, I recall shopping for commercial properties at the time. One property had been selling for $285 a sf. The people that bought it went bankrupt. The lenders that had given the loan to them tried to sell it at $188, and they went bankrupt. Eventually it sold for $65 a sf. The state was offering to finance us at .3% interest and would cover everything, in exchange for jobs. We turned the state down. (I was pretty pissed)So the government was smart. It needed to restore confidence before a complete collapse. The Fed increased it's balance sheet by $4Trillion to get it done while the Government spent money in a massive Keneysian way. Were there crisis profiteers...of course. And the government took its time, and now when times are good are going back to hunt them down, because doing it then would have defeated the very purpose of the bailout in the first place. Plus, by lending it to the banks, they were going to be able to pull the money back without causing inflation. That easing money has not been stopped that long. The economy has been on life support for quite awhile.?Everyone likes to think of the prospect of a free home, but a free home in a place with no jobs and your bank accounts inaccessible is a pretty tough place to be.As someone who has spent a lot of time in the financial industry, mortgages in particular, your post is the exact opposite of my experience.?Yeah, a lot of people saw the movie, the Big Short. It was interesting, but it only told half the story. It focused on the greed of Wall Street as the mortgage bubble reached its peak, but said absolutely nothing about the government efforts that created that bubble in the first place. It doesn't speak to how underwriting guidelines were slashed at FMAE, FMAC, and FHA in the mid-90s to fulfill Henry Cisneros hare-brained scheme to increase home ownership among the most economically-challenged.?The government got into the market big time and both requirements and pricing went completely out the window. I remember when the new guidelines came out. And I remember that a lot of bankers were shaking their heads, wondering where it would lead. It didn't take long. I remember one of my clients, the CEO of a multistate mortgage firm with a century in the biz, calling me up in 1999 and telling me he was getting out. Mind you, this was when the real estate bubble was revving up. When I asked why, he replied, "There is no way this can possibly last and we don't want to be anywhere near it." Yes, the cracks were forming that early.?I had my second epiphany in 2001 when visiting another client, a mortgage banking operations in 40 markets, one that had gotten in early on the FMAC and FMAE gravy train. My direct contact was the VP of underwriting for the entire thing. I brought him a white paper that was written by the chief economists of those two operations predicting that the real estate boom would continue until 2020, with average returns of roughly 7%. I showed that to Ray. He read the abstract and then slid it across his desk, saying "If it lasts until 2006, I'll be amazed."?Why? He spent a lot of time discussing how the government intervention in the real estate markets had utterly changed the dynamics of the purchasing. Just as importantly, it affected the business decisions of the banks doing the lending. As he put it, "Used to be, when I turned someone down for a mortgage, I'd pick up the phone and tell them why. Now, when I turn down someone for a mortgage, I pick up the phone and tell the government why." Bank records were being scrutinized for this stuff, and bank charters were at stake if the bankers didn't play ball. And this guy wasn't the only. Every one of my community and mid-sized banks was dealing with this regulatory arm-twisting. Because if you are FDIC, you live and die at the leisure of the Federal government. You could literally walk out the door Friday night and read in the Monday paper that your bank has been sold off to the competitor down the street. A lot of that happened in 2009, 2010, and 2011, sometimes justified, sometimes not.?Yet had you spent much time talking to bankers in the 80s and 90s, you would have known that it was a point of pride that banks kept their loan portfolios for the duration. But in the late 90s and early 00s, banks realized that the mortgages being underwritten under the new regulatory environment were simply untenable. So they started selling off the loans, abetted in large part by the new, looser securitization rules developed during the Clinton Administration with the help of firms such as Bear Stearns.?Remember that, prior to the bubble, mortgage-based securities were the safest investment around, basically a notch above US Savings Bonds. Dull but completely reliable. With securitization now giving banks a way to unload bad loans, things really got moving. By 2006, I remember sitting in a meeting where one banker discussed how the average life of a mortgage in a bank's portfolio could now be measured in days, not years. They just wrote the loans and sold it upstream.?I also remember a meeting in 2006 when I was called in to listen to a pitch by a specialist in Latino marketing. His pitch? How illegal aliens were the next great mortgage market. As he ran through his powerpoint, I sat in the darkened room and watched these bankers nod their head and thought, "Wait a minute. These guys are all about risk." Those same guys in 1996 would have laughed this guy out of the room. The lights came up after the presentation and the presenter asked if there were any questions. I raised my hand and asked, "So are you suggesting we sell mortgages to someone who could get deported the day after closing?"?You would have thought I had said something awful even though, in 1993, I had to explain a late payment on a Sears credit card before the bank would approve my mortgage. That's how much underwriting had changed. And one guy said, "CPG, the rules are different now. We're just going to sell the mortgage off, so it doesn't matter." The next week, I put our house on the market, sold for a stupidly high price, and bought something smaller that we could live in on one salary, just in case. Because I knew the party was almost over.?After all, the Federal Government made it happen. Underwriting went almost completely out the window. And while shady operators existed, they were far, far outnumbered by the long-term professionals who faced a lot of regulatory scrutiny for rejecting applicants. So in the end, they shrugged their shoulders and wore out their APPROVED stamps. After all, the government was backing them.?In other words, the narrative that bankers became greedy SOBs overnight is just childish nonsense, the kind of pat explanation that points the stinky finger of blame at the private sector while ignoring how government policy was complicit in the entire debacle.First of all YOUR NEVER TOO BIG TO FAIL..?Money should went to house owners to help pay off the debt, than the banks would have gotten their money back plus interest. Most of the ones that did get the bail out should have never gotten it or should have just let them go out on their own. The smaller groups would have pick up some of the slack, but to say your too big to fail is a overstatement.Originally Posted by?69Charger?Cpg35233 -?You are very knowledgeable. May I ask what you think of the current housing market? SoCal if you can be that specific, thank youIt's setting up for another go around, especially in multifamily. I don't think we'll have the all-around collapse we did in 2008, but it will happen in specific markets. California is riding the wave right now price wise, but it has always been boom and bust. The problem is that there is a demographic hollowing out in California at the moment, where the middle class is beginning to exit the state.?The reasons for that are pretty simple: real estate values and taxes. There was an article recently that stated flatly that 80% of all homes were unaffordable on the average teacher's salaries. Only 30% of families can now afford a home in the state. We aren't talking Santa Barbara and San Francisco here. We're talking the entire state. This is resulting in a net exodus of about 50-60K people a year, and most of them are working and middle class. This can't last.Originally Posted by?Pub-911?Lots of disinformation and fake-news chicken scratching.?Intro to What Really Happened for BeginnersIt's a good video in a lot of ways, but it also makes the mistake of starting in the middle of the bubble, not at its formation. If you don't take government policy and the Law of Unintended Consequences into account, then you really don't have much of an explanation. For example, the video doesn't explain how mortgage-based securities were one of the safest investment instruments around until the early 00s. The glut of bad paper encouraged and partially subsidized by the Federal government changed that. In other words, the video describes the symptoms rather than the disease itself, and then passes itself off as authoritative.Originally Posted by?cpg35223?The downturn would have been more severe, but the recovery would have been much faster.We're dealing in hypotheticals, of course. I agree the downtown would have been much more severe (actually, I think that's an understatement). I don't think the recovery would have been much faster for the following reason.Financial institutions are fundamentally different than manufacturing enterprises and other participants in the economy.A manufacturing company that is teetering on the edge can typically live many months as management tries to regain solvency. It can string creditors along for months. Perhaps it works its way out of an existential crises, perhaps not and sells itself or files for bankruptcy protection.In contrast, financial institutions can be absolutely fine on Monday yet have no liquidity on Thursday and be insolvent on Friday and file for bankruptcy protection on Monday. It is about confidence, and the immediate evaporation thereof.We might have seen the entire banking industry, or most of it, die over the course of a few weeks. If that had happened (and of course we're dealing with hypotheticals) there would have been no liquidity for businesses and consumers, and otherwise OK businesses would have failed from lack of liquidity and from insolvency and the depression would have been extremely deep. A recovery would have taken a very, very long time. New enterprises rely upon availability of capital to form and expand, and few financial institutions would still be alive to provide access to that capital.Quote:Originally Posted by?cpg35223?In truth, the Great Depression wasn't great because of the stock market crash. It was because of the government policies that both predated the crash and the responses that ensued. Everybody subscribes to the belief that Herbert Hoover sat back and did nothing, but the exact opposite is true.The causes of the Great Depression are well researched. It is a solved problem.A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960Quote:Originally Posted by?cpg35223?Meanwhile, there would not have been legislation such as the egregious Dodd Frank legislation that not only propped up misbehaving banks and ravaged the community banks, but it also tightened up lending requirements for businesses that, heretofore, had impeccable credit.The history of governmental regulation is replete with well-meaning tactics gone horribly wrong.? Posted by?cpg35223?As someone who has spent a lot of time in the financial industry, mortgages in particular, your post is the exact opposite of my experience.?Yeah, a lot of people saw the movie, the Big Short. It was interesting, but it only told half the story. It focused on the greed of Wall Street as the mortgage bubble reached its peak, but said absolutely nothing about the government efforts that created that bubble in the first place. It doesn't speak to how underwriting guidelines were slashed at FMAE, FMAC, and FHA in the mid-90s to fulfill Henry Cisneros hare-brained scheme to increase home ownership among the most economically-challenged.Don't forget Roberta Achtenberg, Cisneros' Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity. A civil rights attorney from San Francisco who made her fortune suing corporations for perceived slights, it was her hare-brained scheme to coerce mortgage originators to issue loans not only to those farther down the economic ladder, but in particular to people of color (her words) to ensure they were not left behind in a new economic environment where houses were sources of wealth and jobs merely existed to pay the mortgage.?Quote:Originally Posted by?cpg35223?In other words, the narrative that bankers became greedy SOBs overnight is just childish nonsense, the kind of pat explanation that points the stinky finger of blame at the private sector while ignoring how government policy was complicit in the entire debacle.I can't rep you 'cause C-D wants me to be more promiscuous with reps. So I'll just say "excellent post."Originally Posted by?SportyandMisty?Don't forget Roberta Achtenberg, Cisneros' Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity. A civil rights attorney from San Francisco who made her fortune suing corporations for perceived slights, it was her hare-brained scheme to coerce mortgage originators to issue loans not only to those farther down the economic ladder, but in particular to people of color (her words) to ensure they were not left behind in a new economic environment where houses were sources of wealth and jobs merely existed to pay the mortgage.Exactly. I can't tell you how many banks I was in beginning in the late 90s and early 00s where they talked about the regulatory arm-twisting that went on. Charters were threatened and lawsuits were dangled if the banks didn't abandon prudence in underwriting, based on some hyperbolic claim that banks were turning away business because of ethnicity. By the time 2004-2006 came alone, you got a mortgage if you had a pulse.?I mean I remember one guy talking about an application from a custodian at an elementary school who wanted a $300,000 house and how he would have, in the sane days of underwriting, been turned down cold based on his income. This was 11 years ago, but he basically said that the legal fees if he turned the guy down would have been more. And since it would be sold off in 2-3 weeks, it just wasn't his problem.?I know the lazy populists want to rewrite the script and lay it all at Wall Street's feet. But funny how none of this was taking place before the Federal government totally changed the rulebook.One other point that should be clarified. Almost all the bailout money was paid back by the banks. In fact, the Federal Government actually earned a profit off the program.Originally Posted by?cpg35223?As someone who has spent a lot of time in the financial industry, mortgages in particular, your post is the exact opposite of my experience.?Yeah, a lot of people saw the movie, the Big Short. It was interesting, but it only told half the story. It focused on the greed of Wall Street as the mortgage bubble reached its peak, but said absolutely nothing about the government efforts that created that bubble in the first place. It doesn't speak to how underwriting guidelines were slashed at FMAE, FMAC, and FHA in the mid-90s to fulfill Henry Cisneros hare-brained scheme to increase home ownership among the most economically-challenged.?The government got into the market big time and both requirements and pricing went completely out the window. I remember when the new guidelines came out. And I remember that a lot of bankers were shaking their heads, wondering where it would lead. It didn't take long. I remember one of my clients, the CEO of a multistate mortgage firm with a century in the biz, calling me up in 1999 and telling me he was getting out. Mind you, this was when the real estate bubble was revving up. When I asked why, he replied, "There is no way this can possibly last and we don't want to be anywhere near it." Yes, the cracks were forming that early.?I had my second epiphany in 2001 when visiting another client, a mortgage banking operations in 40 markets, one that had gotten in early on the FMAC and FMAE gravy train. My direct contact was the VP of underwriting for the entire thing. I brought him a white paper that was written by the chief economists of those two operations predicting that the real estate boom would continue until 2020, with average returns of roughly 7%. I showed that to Ray. He read the abstract and then slid it across his desk, saying "If it lasts until 2006, I'll be amazed."?Why? He spent a lot of time discussing how the government intervention in the real estate markets had utterly changed the dynamics of the purchasing. Just as importantly, it affected the business decisions of the banks doing the lending. As he put it, "Used to be, when I turned someone down for a mortgage, I'd pick up the phone and tell them why. Now, when I turn down someone for a mortgage, I pick up the phone and tell the government why." Bank records were being scrutinized for this stuff, and bank charters were at stake if the bankers didn't play ball. And this guy wasn't the only. Every one of my community and mid-sized banks was dealing with this regulatory arm-twisting. Because if you are FDIC, you live and die at the leisure of the Federal government. You could literally walk out the door Friday night and read in the Monday paper that your bank has been sold off to the competitor down the street. A lot of that happened in 2009, 2010, and 2011, sometimes justified, sometimes not.?Yet had you spent much time talking to bankers in the 80s and 90s, you would have known that it was a point of pride that banks kept their loan portfolios for the duration. But in the late 90s and early 00s, banks realized that the mortgages being underwritten under the new regulatory environment were simply untenable. So they started selling off the loans, abetted in large part by the new, looser securitization rules developed during the Clinton Administration with the help of firms such as Bear Stearns.?Remember that, prior to the bubble, mortgage-based securities were the safest investment around, basically a notch above US Savings Bonds. Dull but completely reliable. With securitization now giving banks a way to unload bad loans, things really got moving. By 2006, I remember sitting in a meeting where one banker discussed how the average life of a mortgage in a bank's portfolio could now be measured in days, not years. They just wrote the loans and sold it upstream.?I also remember a meeting in 2006 when I was called in to listen to a pitch by a specialist in Latino marketing. His pitch? How illegal aliens were the next great mortgage market. As he ran through his powerpoint, I sat in the darkened room and watched these bankers nod their head and thought, "Wait a minute. These guys are all about risk." Those same guys in 1996 would have laughed this guy out of the room. The lights came up after the presentation and the presenter asked if there were any questions. I raised my hand and asked, "So are you suggesting we sell mortgages to someone who could get deported the day after closing?"?You would have thought I had said something awful even though, in 1993, I had to explain a late payment on a Sears credit card before the bank would approve my mortgage. That's how much underwriting had changed. And one guy said, "CPG, the rules are different now. We're just going to sell the mortgage off, so it doesn't matter." The next week, I put our house on the market, sold for a stupidly high price, and bought something smaller that we could live in on one salary, just in case. Because I knew the party was almost over.?After all, the Federal Government made it happen. Underwriting went almost completely out the window. And while shady operators existed, they were far, far outnumbered by the long-term professionals who faced a lot of regulatory scrutiny for rejecting applicants. So in the end, they shrugged their shoulders and wore out their APPROVED stamps. After all, the government was backing them.?In other words, the narrative that bankers became greedy SOBs overnight is just childish nonsense, the kind of pat explanation that points the stinky finger of blame at the private sector while ignoring how government policy was complicit in the entire debacle.First off, it's a nice anecdote of a banking professional watching their industry go insane. As an accountant watching the AICPA become paralyzed to the new codification rules and our new political overseers, I can understand the frustration there.?But holding the banks as innocent isn't correct either. The fact that conferences were being held on how to target an illegal market is case in point. What started as, help out poorer people and we'll back you, had quickly turned to....we can churn a lot more money building up a garbage portfolio and selling it off than the old way of determining if someone can afford these things. Before the new regulations, I couldn't get a loan that wasn't stocked with fees. There was just no incentive to being a qualified, albeit small, person seeking a home loan. I felt great joy picking up short-sales and foreclosures in 2009-2011 and seeing loans from Bank of America and Chase get settled with six figure losses.?Of course, most of them didn't make sense. The loans were far higher than the original purchase price in every property I bought. So either the loans contains some sort of terrible fee crazy clause, or lines of credit had been extended. They all had multiple lenders on the property. Who abandoned the traditional DTI ratio in making those..especially 2nd..loans? Why were the losses really centered in the more aggressive banks? I didn't see aggressive lobbying from the banking industry to get the government's involvement overturned. Why...because there was money to be made of course.Originally Posted by?cpg35223?It's a good video in a lot of ways, but it also makes the mistake of starting in the middle of the bubble, not at its formation. If you don't take government policy and the Law of Unintended Consequences into account, then you really don't have much of an explanation. For example, the video doesn't explain how mortgage-based securities were one of the safest investment instruments around until the early 00s. The glut of bad paper encouraged and partially subsidized by the Federal government changed that. In other words, the video describes the symptoms rather than the disease itself, and then passes itself off as authoritative.Mortgage-BACKED-securities were solid because mortgages were. Default rates were tiny, but Wall Street would take care of that soon enough. Once the Fed pledged to keep interest rates at 1% until economic activity picked up, Wall Street built out a whole new network of private-label securitizers as a bypass for what was suddenly high-yield paper around the front-door standards of the GSE's. No problems at first, as there were plenty of borrowers who both wanted and were qualified for a new mortgage. Profits and bonuses flowed freely all around. As those supplies began to dwindle and dry up, the frenzy should have been cut short, but it wasn't. Greedy brokers knew they could write any sort of high-cost paper they wanted and get it sold into secondary markets, so that's what they did. GSE market share fell from 75% to 25% in primary markets and from 70% to 40% in secondary markets. By 2005, Wall Streeters knew full well that they were writing paper that was destined to fail, but they didn't care. They just kept doing it. That's what eventually poisoned the well and triggered the credit crisis of 2007. The situation could have been contained there, but it would have been very expensive and there was no political will for it. What we got instead was the ridiculous?Hope Now Alliance, a weakening Main Street economy, and eventual waves of asset market collapses.I agree that some government action was needed, and TARP was the offer on the table.I do think the deal should have included renegotiation of the bad mortgages to make the banks regurgitate a substantial share of the principle of the loans that they absolutely knew were bogus. They did well, the homeowners got screwed.The nature of the financial crisis was eerily similar to the Great Depression and thus we can expect that the outcome of doing nothing would have had similar effects as the actual Great Depression.People forget that the actual depression did not actually begin until 1931. From the stock market crash in October 1929 to the spring of 1931, the economy was in shock, the stock market was down, but it was hobbling along.Creditanstalt,?Austria's largest bank, declared bankruptcy in May 1931. That started a cascade of bank failures in Europe and it spread to the U.S. later in the year, the winter of 1932 being the worst for the U.S. The stock market plummets to about 10% it's pre-1929 value at that time. Banks around the country fail, credit becomes non-existent, this causes an extreme vicious cycle.Large employers like Ford Motors, who had been urged by President Hoover to keep wages high, suddenly lay off their?entire?workforces in the late winter, early spring of 1932, because of the finance basically disappearing. March 7, 1932 - hungry laid off Ford workers march on the shuttered plant. Police and security guards shoot them down. Similar riots spread around the country, ultimately symbolized most powerfully by the WWI veterans march on Washington in May/June 1932.Long story short, doing nothing would have just made everything worse. Unemployment would have been 20% rather than 10%, etc... The experience during the GD showed that if you do nothing, it's that much harder to dig out of a deeper hole.?Left out of our conversation these days is what happened to the housing market in the 1930s. It collapsed. In the GD's case, banks collapsed first, then the housing market because mortgages worked differently then. This time it was housing then banks, but the outcome would have been similar. Once one of the big banks like Bank of America collapsed, it would have overwhelmed the FDIC. That would cascade everything.I'm not sure how the population would have taken it. The population in the 1930s was a lot more self-sufficient and hardy, used to poorer living conditions than we are.Originally Posted by?jackmccullough?I do think the deal should have included renegotiation of the bad mortgages to make the banks regurgitate a substantial share of the principle of the loans that they absolutely knew were bogus. They did well, the homeowners got screwed.I bought real estate in 1988. It got crushed in the S&L Meltdown. I signed a mortgage contract. My choices were to keep paying the mortgage or declare bankruptcy. How was it the bank's fault that I bought a piece of real estate, borrowed money, and then got crushed in a real estate downturn?I ended up selling 4 years later for 60 cents on the dollar. I had to accelerate payments for 4 years to do that and I had to borrow money against my paid-for car to settle up at the closing. I was one of millions who had things like that happen to them in the late-1980's and early-1990's. There was no such thing as a short sale with bank forgiveness. You signed a contract. You were held to it. Your alternative was bankruptcy.?If you look at what really happened, the banks got enormous Federal pressure to lend money to people with lousy credit ratings in poor zip codes. The government relaxed the credit standards to make it possible. If the Federal government hadn't done this, no bank in the world would have written any of those mortgages. If you're assigning blame, blame Dubya for allowing it and blame people in Congress like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd.Originally Posted by?TheOverdog?That has to do with compliance with the Fair Housing Act. They still have to produce those documents and they have since 1968.Yes, but it was the lowering of lending standards in the mid-90s that were the catalyst. While the wording of the CRA wasn't materially changed, it was the aggressiveness of the regulators that mattered. Regulators suddenly were asking lenders to consider alternatives to normal payment histories and relax income requirements, giving applicants such as day laborers a shot at homeownership even when they didn't have reliable incomes. Particularly troublesome was the push by regulators to have automated underwriting of mortgages, lest banks put their CRA ratings at risk.?No sane bank president would have fought this, chiefly because they wouldn't want to risk the ire of regulators or even a discrimination lawsuit. And with Andrew Cuomo heading up the drive on the part of Fannie and Freddie to buy up to $2 TRILLION of affordable mortgages, the government was intentionally decreasing the risk to banks in order to increase loans to high-risk borrowers. So because the government was providing the escape hatch for a bank to dump any marginal loans, banks went along with it. After all, if the loan went bad, there wasn't any skin off their noses any longer.Originally Posted by?mathjak107?you can bet most of the "let crash " folks have gov't jobs or lower end jobs and no money to speak of invested in anything .Yep. They would have been the first on the streets, too.?I remember the phone call I made to my wife in September, 2008."I'm taking $7500 out of our money market account.""Why?""Because the banks might crash."?"You think?""Oh yeah.""But we're FDIC insured.""That's fine. But we'll need cash in the meantime."I went down to the grocery store and bought two weeks of grocery and filled up both cars with gas. Not because of some apocalyptic scenario, but the fact that I worried that the whole system would just be down. The banks obviously didn't crash and I put that money back in a week later. But, holy cow, that was terrifying. Anybody who wasn't scared just wasn't paying attention.There is barely a subject which infuriates me more than this one.Wall Street and the Banks created a massive problem, getting hugely rich along the way. When people realized that they had sold a LOT of worthless investments, a HUGE liquidity problem developed.Why?Our banking system is basically a pyramid scheme. There ia NEVER sufficient reserves for everyone to withdraw their money from the system all at the same time. We rely on "confidence" to keep the thing afloat. Top that off with the fact that the collateral which the banks were holding wasn't a fraction of what THEY owed, the system was in a real crisis.?There were two options. The best one being letting the greedy SOB's who had put themselves in this position fail, thus cleansing the system of bad Banks and REALLY BAD people. Instead, Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs stepped in and after several attempts, was able to convince Congress that the sun would not come up tomorrow if we didn't step in and salvage the bad banks with generous amounts of the peoples money. What he was really saying, and what he knew, was that HIS FIRM, GOLMAN SACHS, had made billions of dollars of bad bets with AIG, and those bets were about to sink, along with Goldman. Never mentioned was that there were thousands of banks around the world (I know, because i worked for one of them which was one of the few which still had a Triple A Credit rating) which had not participated in the scam and could readily step in to finance healthy businesses. We could extend credit to sound banks, we could move money, we could do all the things which Hank assured us would never happen if the Congress didn't step in to bail out (his ) banks.That was the first HUGE error.As if that wasn't bad enough, when Europe faced the same crisis and was about to "do the right thing"(write off the bad banks, and invest in the good ones) Hank sent Timmy Geitner over to tell them that we would backstop their loan guarantees, and thus became a series of quantitative easing and liquidity measures which created a false, and depressed economy, for nearly a decade now.What we are left with is a Secretary of the Treasury who got away with treason and raping the American people to save his firm, a multi trillion dollar deficit, a multi trillion dollar balance sheet at the Federal Reserves, and an economy which is frozen. It can't get better, because then we have trillions in bills to pay, and it can't get worse, because it is awash in phony paper liquidity.Thank god The Donald is going to make America Great again.....or at least take us so far back that this will look like a pleasant dream.Originally Posted by?TwoByFour?We dodged a huge bullet. Our entire economy is based on credit and liquidity and both had almost disappeared in October 2008. If TARP had not stepped in I believe we could have suffered a collapse worse than the 1929 crash.We didn't dodge a bullet....we just put it off for a little later in the form of ever increasing government debt.Originally Posted by?cpg35223?Yes, but it was the lowering of lending standards in the mid-90s that were the catalyst. While the wording of the CRA wasn't materially changed, it was the aggressiveness of the regulators that mattered.More fairy tales. CRA was passed in 1977 and established that institutions taking federal deposit insurance had an affirmative obligation to meet the credit needs as well as the depositary needs of the communities they served. Prior to Clinton, there had been no enforcement of this at all. Clinton suggested that if banks wanted favorable reviews of their applications for acquisitions or for newly available interstate banking operations, they'd better have a positive CRA review to point to. Such positive reviews did not presume that any loan at all would be made. It was enough that banks made serious efforts to find qualified borrowers. Of course, once that started, a gold mine was discovered, as half of new CRA borrowers were qualified at prime terms and nearly all the rest at Alt-A. It's easy to make money lending to such people and that's exactly what happened. CRA portfolios of the 1990s were more profitable than industry averages. CRA was both good policy and good business.Originally Posted by?High Altitude?They should of let it crash. That way big corps and banks that made bad decisions would of went belly up, the businesses that didn't make bad decisions and others with money would of had a tremendous amount of opportunity to pick up the pieces, expand, produce, etc......We would of been much better off in the end and recovered faster. Now, we just have a bunch of big corps and banks who feel no matter what they do the government will always bail them out.I don't disagree with your premise. Where I see the problem however is here: American's no longer have the stomach or the will to endure very hard times. As a nation we have grown too soft and no longer have the "pull ourselves up by the boot strap" mentality. We simply want it given to us. This will ultimately be our downfall.Originally Posted by?Pub-911?More fairy tales. CRA was passed in 1977 and established that institutions taking federal deposit insurance had an affirmative obligation to meet the credit needs as well as the depositary needs of the communities they served. Prior to Clinton, there had been no enforcement of this at all. Clinton suggested that if banks wanted favorable reviews of their applications for acquisitions or for newly available interstate banking operations, they'd better have a positive CRA review to point to. Such positive reviews did not presume that any loan at all would be made. It was enough that banks made serious efforts to find qualified borrowers. Of course, once that started, a gold mine was discovered, as half of new CRA borrowers were qualified at prime terms and nearly all the rest at Alt-A. It's easy to make money lending to such people and that's exactly what happened. CRA portfolios of the 1990s were more profitable than industry averages. CRA was both good policy and good business.Again, you don't know what you're talking about. The Clinton administration pushed the envelope on lending, expecting banks to ignore time-honored best practices such as taking income into account. Again, I'm pretty sure you have no direct experience in this area, just scouring the internet for what journalist fits your preconceived view. You know, journalists who didn't see the bubble expanding either. Funny how few of them actually did.?Okay, scuttle off once again and find another article that agrees with you, written by yet another propagandist shill who never saw the inside of a bank. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download