What Comes First? Jobs or the Workforce?

"Hopefully, people will see this as a "teachable moment" in democracy and realize that just like the economic sector, democracy is a garden that requires thoughtful work."

Sorry,

The United States is not a Democracy:

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States is a Republic:

Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank God for that.

Although we are more a democracy now than what was intended by the Founding Fathers.

I think if the senate was truly representing the state as originally spelled out in the constitution, we wouldn't have nearly the mess we have now. As it is, the general public get to be represented directly in both houses of congress which upsets the balance of powers between the federal government and state governments.

You are technically correct about the US government. My point was concerning democracy in general, but kudos to you for making a good point that many people do not realize.

A bright man once said "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner"

and in a republic the sheep would be armed...

Twenty-odd years ago, I walked into a cable-making company that used home-made 'looms' to make structured cables from wires. Nails driven into a woodena wooden board served as the points where wires were bent in order to get wires of different lengths in a given cable (different nails for different wires ... and different 'recipes' for different cables).

I must say that I was surprised to that being done here in Montreal, Canada. Mind you, that WAS 20 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some specialty places that still do it that way here. They could only survive doing small-run cablemaking, but quite a few companies have made the transition from mass production to specialty production, where small runs and rapid response to requests are needed.

That being said ... jobs or workforce first? The simpler the job, the more workforce precedes. Hand-tilling fields with manual hoes, anyone can do, so the workforce precedes jobs in that the workforce is naturally endowed to do them.

As jobs get more complex, general capabilities of the workforce precede the jobs but particular training is done either on the job or not long before. For example, if one wants to build a basic wood-frame house, one needs carpenters at various points (ideally ... to make good beams, to assemble and 'join' the house parts). General carpentry skills are needed, and particular 'house-making' skills are learned once 'standard' education is over. (For examples, carpenters could learn to work with wood ... but once they 'graduate' from a vocational school, they can 'apprentice' / get trained on the job in cabinet-making, industrial design, house-building, etc. So, in this case, we have 'general' skills that precede, but 'particular' skill sthat are coincidental ... they get learned as the job is being done.

As concerns jobs that require special skills that don't already exist, the workforce follows jobs to some degree. For example, in Canada's Province of British Columbia in the 80s, the provincial government decided to build 'fast' ferries that would move between islands in the province's populated Southwest. To be fast, the ferries had to have a low draft (they should ride as high as possible on the water) to avoid water-drag. To achieve this, it was decided that the ferries would be made out of aluminum instead of the usual steel. The catch: welding aluminum is much more difficult than welding steel, lots of bad welds were made because the welders (who were seasoned veterans) weren't used to welding aluminum (and maybe had insufficient training), etc. The project fell way behind, it was a financial disaster, and in the end the ferries' design was altered, which made them them slower.

In the last case, one can argue that workforce follows jobs. When there's a need for a particular job to be done, a workplace with general and particular (specialized) skills must be available, it has to be trained for the new jobs, and only then does it actually execute them. In a sense, the jobs include training required up front to make the workforce 'catch up' with the job. In such a case, the workforce follows jobs.

Cheers!
DZ

P.S. Feel free to comment ... I'm not an HR pro, I just reasoned this out.

There is no point in teaching a course in say public telephone sanitizing (Douglas Adams reference) if there are no jobs in that field available. The cost of labor in the us is such that the only jobs that are available are the ones that cannot yet be outsourced. Those limits are steadily falling.

Thanks for the Douglas Adams reference, one of my favorite authors, by far. He's been a part of my signature file for many years.

But, back on topic, even if you did not outsource those jobs, our labor costs would make the end product non-competitive in the market place.

I mean, is it just me or have we brought this upon ourselves? When I was 16 and looking for my first job, the word "benefits" never entered my mind; I was just looking for a pay check. Now we have the typical minimum-wage jobs, companies like McDonalds, offering medical and 401k to the kid that takes your order. No wonder a cup of coffee there costs over a dollar.

Don't even get me started on some of the entitlements that exist at the next level up, either. I mean, sure, we need life and health insurance. But does someone 18 years old making $10 an hour twisting wire, really need a matching contribution 401k plan or a bunch of 'personal days' on top of their vacation? Leave the core benefits, toss the fringe ones at the lower job levels and make them a part of advancement incentives. It will lower labor costs, increase the desire to move up the ladder (Oh, sorry... you want an additional percentage matching contribution? Finish your degree, and will toss in another percent. Get your Master's and we'll toss in 2 more percent and another weeks vacation.)

If we made benefits a part of educational advancement, it would lower the cost of the labor rates at the entry level position making the product more competitive, and it would give incentive for those individuals to take that wire loom class, and other continuing education because that's how they earn their additional fringe benefits.

I don't know, just a thought. With problems as complex and systemic as these, there is no 'simple' solution, I just felt like venting this morning.

JavaHead

That is how it works in most municipal and school district/university jobs, the pay is a function of the education level, and what you end up with are a bunch of people getting doctorate degrees in "public administration" via correspondence through cracker jack degree mills like walden university, where you are given "credit for life experience" towards an PhD. the next thing you know everyone is a PhD but they don't actually know Jack Shitt, heck, they've never even met him! It all becomes nothing but a paper chase.

Completely agree with you. No solution - if not regulated and monitored for effectiveness and efficiency will work. That's why our laws are written so non-intuitively... they have to cover every potential angel, and even then some lawyer will eventually find a loop-hole to allow for some unintended situation. But where we fail is then revising the law to cover the hole.

An incentive-based 'fringe' benefit program is a sound idea, but it will fail if it is taken advantage of. And by fringe, I mean those additional benifits beyound the core... pay is a core benifit. A fringe benifit is that extra weeks vacation or match percentage to your 401k.

The purpose is to increase the skill level of the employee so that they can do their job better. If your position does not require a PhD, then getting one should provide you neither additional benefits nor be subsidized. In fact, anything above a BS should not be included in the program anyway. The program would be for the labor force, not upper management, to increase it's skill and knowledge.

JavaHead

Economic activity can be defined as the transfer of resources. This implies the resources must be present. A job is an ongoing transaction - a person trades his labor providing a service to others for remuneration. In order to do this, he must have the desired skill set, and he must be willing to do it at a price his employer is willing to pay. This is one of the key resources in employment economics.

The problem in the United States, and in many other socialist nations, is that the government interferes in the contract and raises the price, often too high for mutually profitable employment. Minimum wage laws are part of the problem, but not the only part. Taxes, benefit mandates and other regulations add to the price of labor.

Another part of the problem is cultural. Socialism makes the worker lazy. He comes to expect high pay for minimal work, and in some countries, or under some union contracts, it is almost impossible to remove an unprofitable worker. This is a strong disincentive to expand the workforce. It is even worse when political correctness pervades the educational system and leads students to expect they should be handed nice paychecks just because they are, not because they excel at their work.

We are becoming a double-curve society. Those on the upper curve generally did well in school, completed tertiary education and obtained high-paying professional jobs. There are many continuing education programs for these people. Many who are chronically on the lower curve failed to acquire or maintain marketable skills or damaged their marketability through irresponsible behavior. There is little demand for workers on the lower curve. The "missing middle," which would normally provide an opportunity for people to advance out of the lower curve, is generally the manufacturing sector. Except for local government, there is not much demand for "moderately skilled" services (and where there is demand, the competition is fierce); in the service sector, either you have professional status or you do low-end work.

Another problem with employment in the United States is the difficulty of obtaining the raw materials of production at a reasonable price, again due to government interference. For example, any process that requires oil as a feedstock comes with an import premium because we are precluded by law from exploiting much of the oil within our national economic boundary. These laws are based on outdated perceptions of the environmental hazards of oil extraction. So, even though we have hundreds of billions of barrels of oil underground, only a 3-year supply is listed as "reserves", that is, known economically extractable deposits. Much of what is presently permitted for extraction may at any time be subject to punitive taxation or regulatory prohibition. For example, the so-called energy bill the House of Representatives passed in 2008 would have levied an unconstitutional excise on oil extracted off the shore of Louisiana, Florida and Texas. (If I recall correctly, it died under the threat of a veto by President Bush.) Even when Congress permits resource extraction, frivolous and costly litigation by "environmentalists", who may be nothing but lawyers making money off of misguided sympathizers, can stall a project at the courthouse for years. What is an economical resource today could be shut down by government decree tomorrow.

The United States has thus acquired the reputation of being a costly and unreliable place to manufacture goods. To remedy this, we the people must stuff the government back into the box in which it belongs. We must develop means of protecting the environment through market incentives rather than judicial or bureaucratic command, or else we must place reasonable limits on the expense of legal intervention. We must require our politicians to close down unconstitutional bureaucracies and cease the wasting of our tax dollars on programs outside the government's proper mission since these destroy capital.

On a personal level, we must demand quality general education — and be willing to pay for it, even if it means bypassing or closing down the government school system. Parents must ensure their children have a reasonable expectation and understanding of the nature of the real world. We must take personal responsibility for remedying our problems in a practical fashion instead of expecting government to do everything. That may include personally helping neighbors in need instead of expecting a welfare program to do the hard work. And we must realize that manufacturing employers in our country must compete with a global market. Until we regain our national reputation as a reliable, reasonably priced source of high-quality, well-designed goods, our work force may have to accept a somewhat lower standard of pay than we have been used to.

The conclusion I reach is that the jobs come to a competitive workforce with the resources to compete in the marketplace. These resources include worker skills, knowledge and motivation, raw materials, good product concepts, wise management, capital, and a government that respects and protects property rights. The last two or three items are in rather short supply at this time. Capital, including investment in lower-level worker training, will return when we can convince investors that short-sighted executives and greedy politicians will not destroy their money.