One in five American men don't work: Where's the outrage?

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/25/unemployment-job-skills-training/

by elptacek • 15 years ago

61 104 15 years ago

finance.fortune.cnn.com

fatalisk• 15 years ago

What's really interesting here is that companies are reporting awesome earnings[1], yet they're still resting on their laurels when it comes to hiring.

And, I think everyone is outraged when it comes to what's going on in Washington right now.

[1] http://www.cnbc.com/id/18038403/

cageface4• 15 years ago

Or, to put it another way, companies just don't need as many unskilled workers as they did a decade ago.

Hyena7• 15 years ago

All companies need unskilled people: you train them so your business can expand. That's where global supply chain managers and database programmers came from originally--and in many cases still do--they don't fall from the clouds.

The issue is that a lot of these companies are only expanding overseas, so they're not really ready to hire and train people. Much of their profits come from cutting back on their junior staff, from laying off the next generation of skilled workers.

sliverstorm3• 15 years ago

You can interpret that several ways. Perhaps those awesome earnings are short-term gains due to not paying wages for all those empty jobs, but long-term losses due to faltering growth as a result of all those empty jobs?

pedalpete• 15 years ago

I'm surprised the figure quoted in the opening paragraph would include incarcerated men along with those on disability and unemployed.

According to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta... 2.3 million people were incarcerated in the US, and 93% are male, so that's 2.1 million men.

The article also says 4.3 Americans have been jobless for months if not years. If this number includes those who are in prison, that means that nearly half of what is counted as unemployment is actually within the prison system.

Part of me says there are way too many people in prison, but the other side says, what if these people weren't in prison? Would the actual number of people competing for jobs be higher?

glimcat3• 15 years ago

Simple arithmetic says yes, there would be more competition for jobs.

But you're talking about a dramatic change in US public policy. A first-order approximation is not sufficient, and higher-order approximations depend heavily on what guesses you want to make about the social outcomes.

ars6• 15 years ago

> Simple arithmetic says yes, there would be more competition for jobs.

But there would also be more demand since those same people would also be buying things.

JamesBlair• 15 years ago

What's the alternative to being in prison and what are their prospects? I suspect that employers of the sorts of jobs that the incarcerated could find are probably not that eager to hire people with a history of drug use[-1] regardless of its legality, but I do not have any data.

[-1]I also suspect that this is the main source of the incarcerations. But I'm not a US resident, I don't have any data here, either.

sixtofour4• 15 years ago

Violent crime is the main source of incarcerations.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/corrtyp.cfm

dreww• 15 years ago

usually, 'unemployment' figures refer only to those who are actually currently on unemployment insurance payments. which is one of the serious problems with that number.

glimcat3• 15 years ago

Okay, it sucks. What do you want me to do about it?

There are not many obvious sustainable solutions that don't involve the government suddenly deciding to reallocate pork funding to major public works or otherwise taking unlikely actions which would dramatically alter the current climate.

Meanwhile, it's a good time to start a business. It probably won't create many jobs and it might not take off, but at a minimum it will be good experience and it will look better than a few blank years on the resume.

intended• 15 years ago

Hmm, just had a thought - wouldnt it make sense, based on what you are saying, for people to just lie and say that they started a business which failed during the time they were unemployed?

glimcat3• 15 years ago

Most likely, that will just end up wasting everyone's time when it turns out that you do not, in fact, have any experience whatsoever with business development or product design.

Hyena7• 15 years ago

I think the article does a pretty good job. I've figured several times that there is no "talent shortage" but a "training shortage": companies want people with skills they learn on the job but are unwilling to actually train anyone.

So you've got a bunch of companies sitting around waiting for a miracle to happen. Maybe HR imagines that a Google product exec will fall from the sky and accept $40k a year.

mlg• 15 years ago

Even traditionally 'entry level' jobs that historically don't need a four-year degree are like this these days - secretary/receptionist jobs are almost always looking for people with two or three years of prior experience.

I wonder how much of this is due to the job market. Is it a supply and demand issue, where there are simply so many applicants that HR can sit back and wait for the perfect candidate? Or is the reluctance to hire less-experienced workers a long-term behavior shift that will stick around even if the worker supply dries up?

seanmcq2• 15 years ago

"or getting by on the paychecks of wives"

This is pretty rampant sexism for 2011. Don't want it to go unnoticed.

sliverstorm3• 15 years ago

In what way? Not that I disagree, but please expand on your statement?

seanmcq2• 15 years ago

Sure.

It's been more than a generation since women started making more money than men in some households due to increases in equality between the sexes. The phrasing and positioning used implies that a stay-at-home dad is something that we should be reacting to as an economic problem.

In other words, it required the assumption that men are the proper breadwinners in heterosexual households.

orijing• 15 years ago

I think seanmcq is referring to the implication that "getting by" means subsistence wage (of the wife).

I don't think it was a sexist statement, but rather the focus is on "getting by." It could've been "getting by on his partner's wage" (if he were homosexual).

daimyoyo• 15 years ago

I have experienced this first hand. I have applied for a LOT of jobs in the last 2 years and one of two things happens: They don't talk to me, or they do, and I sail past the preliminary interviews only to get rejected after the background check. I am not a felon, a terrorist, or a scourge of society. I have bad credit.(Funny/sad aside, I once went to Best Buy to see if I could get a card to finance something with the idea of improving my credit score. I was rejected summarily. I was trying to buy a toaster. I literally can't finance a toaster.) This scarlet letter had precluded me from any job paying a living wage. And that's why I'm retraining myself. No one cares what the FICO score of a talented software engineer is. At least, that's what I desperately hope the case is. For recruiters out there: Do you care about the credit of a potential coder?

Nate75Sanders• 15 years ago

Forgive my ignorance:

What jobs are asking you your credit score?

david927• 15 years ago

I saw it a couple years ago in the States, for technical and managerial jobs, and I was shocked and horrified.

oneofthefive3• 15 years ago

If you want to be a programmer at a financial firm they usually care about your credit score.

dools2• 15 years ago

I heard this for the first time on HN the other day. I think (and certainly hope) it's illegal for potential employers in Australia to use your credit file as a factor in deciding whether or not to hire you.

Not hiring people with bad credit seems to me to be patently absurd. Talk about kicking someone when they're down - as if non-payment of debt was a crime!

It seems that the likely result of this for most is the development of a disenfranchised underclass of black market employees.

Having healthcare attached to employment makes this all the more despicable.

Why aren't people in the U.S just rioting in the streets?! This is the real outrage.

dschobel3• 15 years ago

Not sure about hiring but I just checked my employment agreement (I'm in Oz) and my employer can definitely fire me if I declare bankruptcy:

  *the Company may terminate your employment without notice (no payment in lieu of notice will be paid) in any of the following circumstances:
    ×If you become unable to pay your  debts as they become due 
    ×If you are declared bankrupt;

mahyarm3• 15 years ago

Because you'll become poor, and then medicaid and welfare will cover you, somewhat. It's a healthcare system with cracks, but it covers the elderly, college students, most of the employed and the poor, which is the vast majority of the voting populace.

potatolicious2• 15 years ago

I've always wondered why an employer would demand good credit. Even if the person is a spendthrift, what does it matter so long as they perform their job?

My employee could be living in a shack having had every single item of worth repossessed... but if they can do their job well, why wouldn't I hire them?

In any case, I know what you mean - I'm from Canada, and arrived in the US after the financial meltdown and subsequent tightening of the credit belt. I still don't have a credit rating since I couldn't convince any major bank in the USA to give me a credit card. Yes, this includes secured credit cards (i.e., you leave a month's credit limit with the bank in cash, if you miss your bill at all, they take the entire sum... aka zero risk for the bank) And yes, my credit in Canada is stellar - but that counts for absolutely zip in this country.

It's not until very recently that I was able to flash about an employer's name and convince one of them to cut me some slack. It'll be months still before my credit score populates - this has made renting apartments, and just about everything a nightmare.

The only way I've been able to skate by is by flashing an offer letter and pay stubs showing I make >3x the US median income... imagine if my pay was dead average... I'd be fucked.

reitzensteinm• 15 years ago

At a guess, it probably indicates that the employee is a higher than an average risk of engaging in fraud (to pay off debts), and it probably does, again on average, speak to their discipline, maturity, life skills, etc.

The trouble with that thinking is of course the multitude of reasons that someone can get into debt through no fault of their own - especially in the US with health care - the fact that people often mature faster than their credit score recovers, not to mention situations like your own where there's no credit score to begin with.

I'm glad that in my native Australia, as another poster pointed out, it's illegal to discriminate based on credit score for hiring purposes. It seems that the small amount of good businesses may get from this discrimination is way out balanced by the harm it causes society in general - though obviously I'm preaching to the choir here :)

mahyarm3• 15 years ago

I'm guessing your in the bay area? Goto the bank of america close to the stanford mall (which is next door to stanford), open an ebanking checking account and credit card. There is a canadian credit program that BoA has that should give you a ~$2000 credit limit card. Most BoA people are fairly clueless (Stanford mall BoA employees are pretty good!), but they do have it. If you can't go there, ask the BoA retail banker to look up the "Diplomat, Large Corporate and Canadian Client Consumer Credit Card Special Handling Form" and the "Bank of America credit card application - BankAmericard Power Rewards Visa Card Diplomat, Large Corporate and Canadian Clients" and they'll have to fill out a W-8BEN since you haven't had a US tax return yet. They'll also need your employment verification letter (your address on the letter will also help), your passport with your visa, your Canadian SIN and your american SSN.

Citibank also has a program where if your a 'newcommer' and can show proof of $1000-$2000 average balance in an american bank account for 3 months or $5000+ in a canadian bank account for 6+ months, they will give you a credit card. They'll need the employment verification letter with your total compensation and address (and passport, and SSN card, and other standard things). If I'm guessing your wage correctly you can get a $9000+ credit limit card from citi. I went to a citibank on El Camino close to Stanford.

Thirdly, Capital One has a newcommer card. I just filled out the application for that online and I got a $500 limit card. I think you just need a new/blank SSN for that one to work. If you can actually talk to an actual person, you might be able to get a better credit limit. They also offered to open a secured card with me when I talked to them on the phone.

http://www.capitalone.com/creditcards/newcomer-credit-card/

Also if you've had an RBC account for 6+ months in Canada, you can get an american credit card from them over the phone. They're a big PITA about it although so I eventually didn't go that route. HSBC premier clients can get sweet credit transfer services worldwide, the US included. I was told in Canada that they do credit transfers after having any sort of account for 3 months with them, but the HSBC banker said they thought only premier clients could get that (that was at the palo alto branch where ~90% of their clients are premier clients, on a barely staffed saturday, so she said she might be wrong). On the east coast TD bank also has a much larger presence, but they will only service you if you live on the east coast. Also American Express canada will also transfer your card over to the US if you've had a card with them in Canada. Also applying for those airline credit cards inside airports and W-8BEN and the employment letter might work too.

If you want to avoid credit checks most of the time, go room mates and explain you just moved from canada. As long as you have a job most roommates don't care about credit histories. People in the bay area are big flakes about roommates, pounce on it and get it setup (deposit and all) right there if you like the place.

Also, best kind of banking there is BoA ebanking for atm cash/check deposits and charles schwab for your paycheck/main account. Schwab refunds all ATM fees worldwide and they don't charge a currency exchange spread, unlike the %2-3 you get everywhere. Great for whenever you fly back to Canada, or travel anywhere in the world. They don't give duplicate cards although, you have to open another free account with them to do that.

diolpah2• 15 years ago

Your experience stands in stark contrast to what the general belief of the tech media, including HN, is. Specifically, that the job market for engineers is extremely tight and that even junior developers can name their price, that recruiters are spamming everyone who has ever written a line of ruby, and that even the dumbest ideas are attaining ludicrous levels of funding.

I find it interesting that this 'tale of two cities' situation is becoming more pronounced.

oneofthefive3• 15 years ago

Banks and financial firms care.

known2• 15 years ago

Wondering if a potential employee can ask for employer's credit score

martythemaniak• 15 years ago

There's lots of outrage - it's called the Tea Party.

sage_joch• 15 years ago

It's unfortunate there is so much misinformed, incoherent outrage, when there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be upset.

Helianthus• 15 years ago

and it's summarily laughed at.

edit: not that it doesn't deserve to be.

pyre2• 15 years ago

From the little I know about the Tea Party it seems to be a dumping ground for anyone who ever thought that the government didn't listen to them. From people that think we should ban gay people from 'merica, to people that think that socializing health care is an Obama 'Nazi policy.'

ck22• 15 years ago

So if a tool made in China cost $20 and the same kind made in USA cost $100, which one do you think people are going to buy at the hardware store (even if the one made in China lasts 1/4th as long).

What if there was a tax that made the one made in China cost $70 - you think the one made in USA would have a fighting chance? I think so. It would create a whole bunch of jobs because there would be less impulse to move jobs overseas.

What if that $50 was used for single payer health care so that "job providers" didn't have pay for health insurance or play that game and compete with the international market.

ars6• 15 years ago

You need to think on a larger scale.

If everyone had to spend 3 times as much on the things they buy, then they would have even less available money than they do now.

So they would probably stop buying, which would really hurt the economy.

Or they would cut out health insurance and other things.

jlangenauer2• 15 years ago

Or they would buy fewer things that they actually needed, and that would probably last longer.

Not an idle consideration on a planet with finite resources and an ecosystem being pushed beyond its limits.

bergie• 15 years ago

That would be quite funny, given that USA has spent much of th last hundred years promoting free trade and trying to force other countries to open up their economies for foreign imports.

And I don't think a protectionist customs scheme is what you want. It could boost local manufacturing on a short them, but eventually the lack of incentive makes them fall behind. Then you have whole industries producing stuff nobody would buy, except for the fact that anything imported is way overpriced.

USA has a quite large domestic economy, but it still probably isn't enough for the companies there if they are not competitive elsewhere.

mahyarm3• 15 years ago

America has a big protectionist/anti-immigration streak.

webwright3• 15 years ago

You know what happens if we tax the hell out of cheap overseas goods? Everything gets more expensive. Cost of living skyrockets and wages would have to go up commensurately if people were going to survive/thrive. Businesses who raised wages would have to curtail hiring because more of their revenues were going to wages.

Any they'd keep shipping jobs overseas because of the healthy margins selling in overseas markets. Start taxing that stuff too and see how many corporations decide that being a US company isn't so awesome anymore...

achompas5• 15 years ago

Right, and you're not even discussing the subsequent tariff war. Other countries would tax the hell out of American goods, global demand for our goods will fall, we'd produce less, companies would make less money, and people would lose their jobs.

antidaily• 15 years ago

All of those negatives have already happened precisely because we don't have a smart trade policy.

dools2• 15 years ago

I believe the economic term for that is "Protectionism".

tomjen33• 15 years ago

Then everything else would become way more expensive and the quality of life would decrease a lot.

Protectionism never many a country rich. Only production of goods and services that people actually want will do that. This may require people to upgrade their skills, but so be it.

CrystalKoo• 15 years ago

On top of that 20%, there are people that are working part time to make ends meet. So in reality, the number of people that need full time jobs is much higher.

webwright3• 15 years ago

I'd wager close to another 1 in 5 works for the government directly or indirectly. And I assume we're not including retirees in any of this.

The ratio of retirees to workers continues to get worse. In the 1940s, there were 42 workers per retiree. Today there are 3.3 workers per retiree.

So you have a shrinking group of people who are actually producing (total workforce minus unemployed, minus goverment workers, minus workers who exist due to government purchasing) and a growing number of people who get a chunk of that production.

This does not end well.

doctoboggan2• 15 years ago

I am curious as to why you state that government employees are not producing?

diolpah2• 15 years ago

Because hamstringing and stifling business activity that does not comply with the interests or arbitrary whims of politically connected powers is not an economically productive activity?

danenania2• 15 years ago

Some of them produce useful goods and services, but at a drastically lower efficiency than the private sector due to lack of competition and economic incentives (spending other people´s money). Still it´s good that someone is planning out the roads and running fire departments, even if they´re bad at it. On the other hand, the government also produces a lot of counterproductive ´services´ like war, financial meltdowns, and software patents. It´s in no way obvious that government employees as a whole do less harm than good.

webwright3• 15 years ago

I'm not saying they don't work hard. I'm just saying that there is a growing list of people whose livelihood depends on the government writing them a check and the government gets its money from taxing citizens and businesses.

If 1.5 out of 5 people are retired, 1 out of 5 people aren't working, and 1 out of 5 people work directly or indirectly for government, that's about 70% of the population surviving because the government writes them a check (probably a bit less-- some retirees actually saved money for retirement).

davidw• 15 years ago

Uh, the outrage is over on reddit. Let's leave it to them, please. There are plenty of things to be outraged about to the point we could innondate the site with them.

Down the path of "outrage!" lies discussions about abortion, gay rights, appropriate levels of taxation, health care systems and any number of other topics that people feel VERY STRONGLY about.

known2• 15 years ago

The Growing Divide Between Silicon Valley And Unemployed America http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/16/tale-of-two-countries-silic...

One in five American men don't work: Where's the outrage?

Related Stories