Workforce Participation Rate Hits New Low- Yet We Need Skilled Workers

Yeah well you're building the robots that are taking their jobs, your last job will be to build the robots that will take your job, then you'll be with the rest,,,on the outside looking in......

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/04/global-robot-population.html

http://www.ifr.org/industrial-robots/statistics/

It's a recovery....and it's real!

While about 50% of the skilled machinists are approaching retirement age, precision machining only makes up a tiny fraction of the total labor force.

Even if you were able to fill every precision machinist job that is now open, it would make very little difference in the total employment figures.

Obviously the other issue is this is a specialist occupation and the number of qualified people is simply less than the available openings. This is at least partly due to the trend to send that work overseas. Now that the tide is starting to reverse we are seeing a deficit.

At some point people will start filling those jobs again. That's just the way the market works.

I think SolarEagle is closer to what will be the reality.

If there is any possible way, companies will invest their money in automation over people. Unless there are some serious profit margins, and there just isn't any other way to get the job done, hiring humans just isn't a winning proposition in the US anymore.

Companies require an entire, (non-producing), staff, just to keep up with government taxes and regulations, and it's only going to get worse.

The big ACA hit was personally changed by the president himself, until after the mid terms, but business knows that it's still coming.

Might as well call it the 30/50 plan. Under 30 hours a week, and under 50 employees; anything else, and the penalties fines taxes kick in. Or is it penalties?

If there is any possible way, companies will invest their money in automation over people. Unless there are some serious profit margins,

There is nothing wrong with making a profit in a business. Anyone that thinks otherwise, does not run a business.

Having employees is expensive, you know that kramarat.

And these employees are protected by government agencies. There is nothing wrong with that in its purity.

Until employees find out they can take advantage of the system at virtually no expense on their part, but that makes it very hard on a business. That's whay business are very conservative on hiring employees. It can be very exhausting and as well as risky.

Orders HAVE TO offset those risks. Because business should not be a welfare source.

I wasn't saying that in a disparaging way. Investing in automation is becoming the only thing that makes sense.

I'm getting ready to launch a new product, (fingers crossed), and from where I'm standing, I don't have an option; I'm going to have to go to China to get things done and make a little money.

As much as I would like to hire some people and do it here, I can't afford it. It's far too risky and complicated, it would drive the cost of the product too high, and I can't start a business strictly for the sake of employing people, and barely make any money myself. It would be stupid and pointless.

As a small business owner in manufacturing...... the initial investment in automation can be out of reach. In a fabrication shop, this would be CNC equipment, Weld positioners and automatic welders.

One has to start with employees, to do this, the costs is high, but there is really no other way of starting, but these costs are spread out. After becoming established, the migration to automations is the path to take, if its available.

And even then the risk is then condensed to even fewer people.

But what I mentioned earlier, if people address these problems at face value, then I sure solutions can be made.

Yes, whether its an idea, product or business. Other then what is trying to be push as a popular belief. it's the few that attempt it that actually 'builds it'.

The problem is not the ACA, the root cause is that healthcare cost so much. If medical equipment and pharmacy where reasonably price (a little less profitable multi-billion dollar industry), the insurance would be proportionally lower. ACA is a band-aid to help slow the healthcare industry from bleeding us dry. We now have the ACA band aid on and can only hope eventually the bleeding will stop.

FYI: I don't like the health insurance cost either. But I would point a finger at those charging outrageous prices, not the person trying to fix it.

Here is the other issue, Its the push for minimum wage of $15.00/hour for unskilled labor.

The ROI for an education or a skill for the individual has to be made.

The problem is they only want to pay a new machinist about $12/hr. We just had a machinist retire after 30 years of service, he was only making $16/hr.

So in reference to your comment. That $15/hr minimum wage increase would not just only help unskilled workers. there are skilled workers that are also barely making more than minimum wage.

$15/hr is not all that good of an income either. That's only about $1300/mo take home pay. Woohoo, that's throw it on your bed and roll in it rich isn't it.

Now wait a minute.

Why was he making $16 an hour after 30 years?

That question has to be explored, before we just jump to, "the company is greedy".

What did he do over those years to increase his value to the company?

Over those 30 years, was he increasingly making the company more money, year in and year out?

We're entering a very dangerous frame of mind in this country, where we're thinking that just because a person mans a post for a number of years, that person is entitled to automatic raises.

He was the lead machinist and he did his work competently. There was rarely any reworked by him and he had to work with Fred and Barney mills and lathes and he completed his work in a timely manner. We don't have CNC equipment. He was reliable and professional.

The company is greedy. We are a French owned company. They pay the employees here in the lower 25% wage bracket for the type of work we do according to the BLS.

As tempting as it is, I cannot buy into that mindset...and I don't have much money.

He could have left the company. He could have went back to school.

The sad reality is, that competition is fierce; and in the workplace, humans are nothing but a commodity. They don't automatically become worth more money, just because they show up on time every day and do the assigned task. It just can't work like that.

I'm afraid we're all going to be seeing the concept in action though.

The democrat party is running away from the destruction they've already caused, and into wage equality and increased minimum wages.

That's fine, but everything else will adjust too. It's called inflation, and it will happen overnight.

If we give everyone a government imposed 20% raise, everything they buy will go up 20%. So who wins?

Well, lets consider the payroll tax and sales taxes. Who ends up getting a bigger cut as wages and prices increase?

He was 72 years old.

So by your logic kramarat, if a person is not making a living wage, they should seek education so they can qualify for a higher paying job, or get the 25 cent raise at existing job. In line with that same logic, if automation replaced their job, they should get more education so they can find a new job. The paradox is, if they are currently making less than a living wage, where are they going to get the money to pay for more education, the money to survive unemployment while they are getting the new education, how do they pay for health insurance while re-schooling, gas to find new job, relocating to where work is, the kid's food and schooling, etc. etc.?

While your view in its over simplistic outline is well illustrated, it lacks a viable path to climb out of that poverty. As a small business owner, I put the bulk of responsibility on the for not paying his/her employees a living wage on the lawn mowing business owner, not the employee. As the owner should see the profit in low turnover rates and employee loyalty and dedication to his/her business. If the business owner's can only increase profits by increasing volume, and those profits are not enough to keep employees, maybe it is the owner who should seek new employment, not the employees.

There were comments here by others about the ACA too. If a company gets up to 50 employees or more and does not make enough profit to pay part of employee health care and a living wage, maybe that business is not sustainable by the current people running it. That company should seek new management, or let some other company who is better at running a business take their piece of the pie.

I'm just saying I see and hear a lot where people are putting all the blame/responsibility on the employee, not the company. Even though when you think about it, a company has a whole lot more options than any one individual/family does. Especially now that the USA no longer has a pathway out of poverty, the majority are living in or close to poverty, even more are 1 hospital bill away from poverty, which results in us, the taxpayers supplementing employees for multi-billion dollar companies not paying their employees enough to live on. Also you should consider only a fraction of citizens work for a small business (under 50 employees), the rest of employees work for huge corporations.

In the end no one plan to correct the imbalance will work for everyone, yes some small businesses (under 50) will be hurt, no matter what you do. But at least we can fix this problem for the majority of our citizens.

True kramarat for 2008 census before the great recession, it show 57k employed by small companies (under 500 employees) and 150k+ for larger companies. So the fraction according to that old census would be 1/4, still a quarter is a considerable fraction for small businesses that employ people. So it is a proportional fraction for those surveyed. Strange the numbers are so low when you consider the USA has 300+ million citizens. But when you add the 120k surveyed who were consultants/business that do not employ anyone, the numbers make a little more sense.

You did not mention the fact that when that multi-billion dollar company (with billions profit) is not paying that employee enough to live on, we the taxpayers have to pay the rest of what that employees needs to survive to make up what that billionaire company did not pay its employees. Not only are our tax dollars supplementing the employer's shortcomings, we turn around and give more tax dollars directly to the company.

Maybe a compromise would work. If you make billions in profits, you are not allowed to receive any tax dollars. (which would mean those large companies would be required to pay a minimum wage and health insurance to their employees. Regardless if they are part time or full time.)

Also something to consider is the type of business. Some businesses, employee labor is their product (like consulting/engineering firms/service). Others mass produce inexpensive products (low profit margin like McDonald's, Retailers). Others sell high end products like machines, cars which have high profit margin comparably speaking. But regardless of the product/service type, the bottom line, is the bottom line. Which is the profit that company makes. Companies today (not 2008) are reporting record profits, so why should their employees be at their lowest profit. (once adjusted for cost of living) The only real solution to safeguard against a dangerous imbalance and eroding path to success may be to tie the two together. More company profit equals more employee pay for companies over a certain amount of profit per year. A conditional minimum wage (or two different ones), if your profits show you can afford to pay the minimum wage, you must, taxpayers will no longer pick up your slack. Maybe 3 separate minimum wages. 1 for laborers, 1 for skilled labor, 1 for huge profitable corps. Just thinking outloud, not advicateing any of these amature ideas.

So, your solution is to shoot anyone who gets pregnant who is not married?

Might as well, if that's the attitude.

Here's one for you. I see it EVERY DAY and so do you. I live with the result, as you know.

There are many self-serving do-gooders who preach to the top of their lings that abortion is bad, and children deserve to be brought into this world. Eagle Forum and Kathi Harrod is an example.

They spout sanctimoniously about the rights of a fetus, but as SOON AS that unfortunate fetus leaves the womb, these pious hypocrites are nowhere to be found.

They could not care less if the baby has a chance for a decent life.

Oops. That's ever further off topic.

You can't paint everyone with the same brush!

And vote for the ones that dole out corporate welfare, instead.

Sorry, let's take this squabble off here. This thread deserves better.

Bye.

There you go again.

"The democrat party is running away from the destruction they've already caused"

Come on. Even you can't believe that.

The pendulum of destruction began when the USA began exporting jobs to China in the early 1980's. I was working for Motorola at the time and we were sending engineers over there then. Why? Not because of quality concerns. Not even because skilled technical people weren't here and willing to work, but because IT (labor/raw materials/factories) WAS SO MUCH CHEAPER than here, even considering the transportation/travel penalty.

That's how shoes came to be made there and all the other off shore nuggets of cheap labor.

Now, with the standard of living rising on the tide of off shore prosperity the birds have come home to roost. Trouble is, the chicken coops have all been torn down and there's nobody to rebuild them. Where is all our oil, aluminum and copper going? Not to Detroit.

We quit producing skilled/educated labor in this country because there was no market for it. That decline took 30 years to come back to haunt us.

The democrats can't always be used as your whipping boys, just because you have a distorted view of the world.

When enough people on both sides of the isle start being more concerned with the future of their grandchildren than the next election, when money is plowed back into education and business real development instead of the stock market and foreign bank accounts and hedge funds then maybe, maybe we will recover.

But it won't be because of any noble ideology of the GOP.

Okay. Lets just call everything a success.

The New Deal worked. The War On Povery has been a smashing success, and we are all living in a Great _Utopian Society.

We're just about there, anyway....

If only the rich paid a little bit more.

Nice overview,

Do not know if I could add to it, but this is more of my opinion.

I feel that Corporations began to emphasis short term goals at the costs of long term sustainablity.

US corporations have always been a short-term planning entity. This is in stark contrast to Japanese companies that may have long term planning reaching a half a century. Note that Japanese companies still have the same issues that US companies do and are doing the same things to reinvent themselves.

However, modern corporations are now doing more long term planning than they did decades ago.

The change in corporation operation (reinvention) is not simply greed. It is a reaction to the changing world market and business environment. It is all about staying alive in a more competitive environment.

Some people like to think of it as greed, but corporate profits are not actually increasing per se. If these changes were not instituted there would be considerably less employment in the US today.

There are still some holdout corporations, but they are struggling badly and the first change of action is downsizing their workforces and severely cutting pensions.

This is why I am now such a strong advocate of personal financial planning. Decades ago we were relying on pension and retirement plans from corporations and to a lessor amount Social Security.

Social Security is nothing but a cruel joke. You can retire with 10 times the amount of retirement if that same money or even a portion of it was privately invested in a secure mutual fund.

Social Security is nothing more than a tax that will never go away and will most likely stop paying out to our children when they become of working age.

Getting vested in a corporation is much harder now as most people simply do not work for that company long enough to become vested.

This is why it is critical to self-invest above and beyond anything that your job might offer. Starting early in your working life, even if you only attain lower middle class wages all your life will net you a very comfortable retirement.

That is a huge short fall of long term planning, if I recall there is one company that has 100 year plan.

A downfall of long term planning, conditions change to where you have to adapt, and to adapt you may have to sacrifice or abandon the long term plan.

What I was think of, is when a CEO comes in and he/she would implement short term goals for lucrative profits for the shareholders, generating huge bonuses for them selves.

Then CEO leaves and then the company feels what those short term profits and actual costs are to the company. Created a fire control administration to bring the company back to profitability. And at times government bail-out, just due to the size of the company.

I can't give examples of this right now such as I believe GE, but I'll post them.......

It's impossible to make long term plans, when massive sweeping changes can come from a change in administrations in Washington. It's a pointless exercise.

Most companies are in a perpetual "deer in the headlights" mode, and trying to make as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, because they may not survive another round of regulations and laws.

This is partly what's driving up health insurance premiums right now, and making them completely unaffordable for many people. The insurance companies are terrified.

Actually instead saying long term planning, I should have structured my comment to removing or limited future alternatives for the quick short term gains.

The reason that health insurance is sky-rocketing is deleting the causitive effect. (rates based on risk) Auto insurance would rise in a similar fashion if drunk drivers HAD to be insured at the same rates as good drivers. The premise with Obama-Care is that all of the younger generation, who are much less of a risk, (less medical care) will enroll, which helps offset the higher risk of the older generation who need more care. If the majority of the youger generation DO NOT enroll, it's a bust. (hense the IRS fines)

That being said, the health insurance companies CANNOT lose money, as they are being backed by the federal government. If their loses exceed XXXX, the government will reimburse the health insurance company. (The government in this case is the taxpayer)

There is legislation somewhere in the system at the current time to prohibit health insurance company bail-outs, which could destroy the Obama-Care/health insurance company marriage. It would prohibit the federal government from reimbursing the private health insurance companies for losses.

getting off topic, but in a way it is connected, they tried to repeal the Federal help to the insurance companies if the insurance companies don't make a profit. Which will easily showed the true cost of healthcare.

That really removes the risk, and put the burden on the taxpayers.

I've heard something about a built in bailout for the insurance companies.

I've given up trying to figure it all out, since the people that wrote it and are implementing it are completely clueless about it. There's no point in me trying.

We've got a high deductible plan through my wife's work for another year; after that, who knows?

Without getting into party lines, I think the federal government's role in everything is too large and invasive; that includes the federal reserve... and it's a joke to look at them as a private organization, along with Fannie and Freddie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession

With their constant tinkering, and complete inability to either admit, or even recognize their mistakes, there are no small ones. Every blunder they commit to, is a biggie.

All one has to do, is look at the economic stability of individual states, to get a read on what works and what doesn't. When the federal government cripples the ability of states and individuals to innovate, we all pay a hefty price.

Just for once, I'd like to see an experiment done, where the federal role in everything we do, is diminished. Let individual states pass laws, and let individuals and companies run their businesses however they see fit, as long as they are not defrauding customers, grossly polluting the environment, or breaking the law.

Welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

We're headed into some really hard times if things don't change, which I know you're aware of.

One of my thoughts, was the creation of a total 1-2 year tax holiday, (except payroll), for people that start new businesses.

People may have the skills to start a business, but figuring out how to keep government happy, is a really daunting task. I think it's enough to scare a lot of people away from it.

It just can't go on like this.

If your company is still making the same product year after year and you havent figured out how to increase your profits by improvements in operations, etc., you are obviously making the wrong product. Perhaps you should be looking to Research or Development to make a more profitable line. It is management's job to look at these issues, not the labourers. I am thankfully retired for several years and I am not particularly pro-labour or pro-management, but I have also seen how frequently poor judgement on management's part cuts into profits.

It depends on the company. In a lot of small companies that aren't publicly traded, if the owner is able to make a decent living, he/she doesn't necessarily feel pressure to continually seek more profit.

I've been a self employed painting contractor for 20+ years, and I'm happiest with zero employees and just busting out all of the work myself, even though I can make more money by having employees.

Most of them end up leaving anyway, because I work right along side of them, and they don't think it's fair that I make so much more money than them. Of course, they're not with me when I'm out doing bids on weekends, discussing colors with clients at night, eating it on a bad bid, etc.

Start with the skilled labor first.

No fooling $15.00 isn't much, but for unskilled labor, it is. Since when was your first job, such as working at an unskilled position as McDonalds, that was never intended to be a career choice,

Your earn your wages first, businesses are not part of a government welfare department.

And another thing, after 30 years making only $16.00, there's more to that, that your not telling.

When minimum wage was $3.25/hr, my first job was manufacturing paint. I did everything from concept to completion in manufacturing paint to having it ready to ship. My job was far more risky than flipping burgers and still was only paid $3.25/hr. One chemical was so volatile that it would explode from one spark if the drum wasn't grounded while pouring.

Minimum wage involves a lot more than just people working in burger joints.

No but that's a part of it. You can latch onto it to defend your position.

And why did you take that job. I also can give you an example, I farmed till I was 25, and I. Most of those years, I qualified for government assistance. I never took it, but the situation I was in, I chose to leave it. No money, very little savings. That choice was mine, just like the choice to leave your 3.25/hr job.

Frankly, minimum wage is for the low or no skill. As far as risk, I can't even apologize for that, life is a risk. It's up to you to take the initiative and change your position.

Absolutely right. I did not ever work for minimum wage at a burger joint.

I started my first job at minimum wage working in a small semiconductor dicing and polishing operation. Actually required some reasonable skills at process control and 'watching' for signs during the polishing process and adjusting flow rates appropriately. We worked with ammonium fluoride, cupric nitric, nitric acid for cleaning, 1,1,1-trichloroethylene vapor cleaning and so on. Had to become trained in handling hazardous wastes, learned good industrial hygiene and so on.

The plant owner would contact the electronics teacher at my high school for good candidates. Great job. I worked after school and full time during vacation periods. I didn't stay minimum wage for long. They were accommodation to my school schedule and I continued to work for them part-time while I was in college.

Now after college, graduate school and thirty years or so in the workforce I enjoy a very comfortable, not lavish lifestyle.

I plotted a career path that included leadership, personal and technical growth. I made the opportunity. I didn't wait to have someone hand it to me. Could I have achieved more (financially)? Absolutely.

But that is not what I wanted to do (climb the corporate ladder). I made a conscious decision that my health, personal time and family life was more important than selling my soul to the corporation. Another path to success outside of a large corporation is to start and run your own business.

My hat's off to anyone who does or have done that. It is hard, long hours, very few vacations during the early decades and sometimes you are your own worst boss.

Cheers !!

Since when does wanting your first job to pay enough for you to live on mean it is "a career choice". In the 70s you got your first job to live on your own. If minimum wage was not enough to live on back then, young adults would be living with their parents longer. Back then more industries (jobs) to work in, so mostly kids just starting out worked at fast food. Now since there are less jobs in general and less of the jobs available are people qualifying to work at, moms, dads, even single moms are working at fast food too. And many are stuck there, not making enough to get ahead, get educated, to move up.

What we're going to be seeing, is more than one family living in a single home, and similar circumstances, as the economy continues to do badly.

Ironically, and sadly, by doing things like raising the minimum wage, and whatever other "wage equality" schemes the democrats have cooking in preparation for the midterms, only puts more people out of the workforce, and prevents many more from entering.

There are young people, and others that may not have any experience, that are willing to work for $5 -$6 an hour to get in the door and learn, and the government has banned them from doing that. Only people with prior experience will be hired.

It's interesting that our highbrow politicians that make the rules for the rest of us to follow, pay their interns almost nothing, and expect them to consider it a privilege to be working there, while figuring it out out on their own how to make it.

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/the-age-of-the-permanent-intern/

Doesn't seem fair.

With the internet, educational opportunities abound...including free courses at MIT. I don't think not getting a degree, should ever be an excuse for not getting an education. Knowledge opens doors.

Since when does wanting your first job to pay enough for you to live on mean it is "a career choice".

No, its when a job that was intended to be a persons first job BECOMES a career choice.

I started off cutting grass, shoveling snow, and working tobacco fields in the summer. Once I was an adult, I started off painting for $5 an hour, after getting out of the Navy. It didn't pay enough to pay the bills, so I had to hook up with other people and work nights, weekends, holidays, and whenever I could. I think my personal record was around 130 hours of work in one week.

It took about 3 - 4 years of busting my butt, but I worked up to superintendent, and traveled around the southeast, running massive commercial/industrial jobs by myself, with crews up to 100 people. The company found me valuable enough to pay my rent and utilities wherever I was, along with a nice salary. Eventually, I moved from that to self employment.

I never had any expectation of earning a good living as a painters apprentice; the world doesn't work like that.

If we in the US, allow ouselves to believe the lie that everyone deserves an equal slice of the pie, regardless of effort, we will only manage to completely remove ourselves from competing in the global economy, and we will all live in equal poverty. It will be real poverty though, because the government won't have the money to house, feed, and hand out free phones to all of us.

Still with OTs?

I don't care. Lets just make the minimum wage $50K a year salary, regardless of skills or hours worked...that'll fix it. We'll be a nation of comfortable middle class people and poverty will be gone.

It looks like we're going to have to learn the hard way anyway; lets go for it!

Then we can all whine about how expensive everything is.

I feel workforce participation is a more important number now than unemployment figures.

With the math that is being used shows unemployment dropping is inverse to the increase of able body people not working, (which by the way is another classification the government is keeping for statistics)

We can get into costs of what it takes for a company to employ people as compared to automation, but it will turn political. But as a business owner, employees are a huge costs to a business, and as a previous small business owner (OEM Design and Fabrication employing 24 people), you offset the costs with good, solid people.

And as a small business owner, to get the workforce to participate, your deal with it directly and honestly. By doing so, you do not create new classification for these people, you call unemployment as it is, by INCLUDING that are off the grid, the people no longer looking for work, and no longer collecting unemployment.

And actually creat, these shovel reading jobs. There is definitely room for improvement on our internal infrastructure. Such as roads and bridges. It's very hard to replace these with robots.

I do not have the figures in front of me, but, I believe that for ever employee hired, that creates jobs for seven ** other jobs to support it. And that is where you get workforce participation.

**(I don't recall, I also heard it could create four jobs , but you get the picture)

It's not easy, (because there are people would rather address unemployment by using creating accounting practices, because its easier) and there are not many people that want to really address those issues. But I believe it can be done.

One of my former neighbors owned a small business of installing reinforcement steel is swimming pools.

He started out working for someone else and was paid XX per pool. The harder you work, the more you could earn. It didn't take him long to figure out the he was busting his hump with someone else reaping the rewards.

He left that employer and started out on his own. He built up the business by himself, and when it got to the point that the workload overcame his efforts, he started hiring.

Those that he hired, he employed as a reasonable rate, plus profit sharing in the company, which must have been a very good enticement, because soon he had a workforce of over a dozen.

He retired a few years ago, a very well off man.

While not a highly skilled job, a desire to earn a living wage prevailed.

As it should be.

All I know, is that if the king and his minions are able to eliminate the disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots", I'm finished.

I depend on the "haves" to earn a living, and I do not hate or envy them.

This experiment has already been done in the former Soviet Union; they ended up with a nation of drunks, with no reason to try harder.

Why repeat it?

The bozos have to repeat it because they somehow think it is 'fair'.

I realize that this is for precision machining. But I feel that Precision machine is the secondary type of work that I spoke of in my earlier posts. Where for each person a company hires can employ support several others.

I lot of things have to come together to get workforce participation.

The Areas infrastructure, People, and most important, tax breaks and abatements on the start-ups to bring the risks under control.

I just came across this example in 'FOOD Engineering' magazine this morning.

You can see how this would employ several others initially, in construction, new equipment, as well as the tertiary jobs it would create that keeps it sustainable. Parts, Service and supplies.

the participation rate is a far better indicator of real world employment. we have an almost unfathomable situation occurring here right now. millions are on food assistance (commonly known as food stamps) and drawing UI. contributing to this is a government more than willing to buy votes by perpetually extending "benefits" for those that should have had these same benefits expire months or in some cases, years ago. the combination of food and cash payouts equal up to $15 an hour in some regions. where is the motivation for that young adult to get off the beach or leave their parents basement when the government has them on eternal welfare? cut these freeloaders off and force acceptance of reality. a $12 an hour job is far better than none at all. perpetuating an entitlement class is a loser proposition for us all.

it comes to a point of the Emergency Extension of UI benefits that the only part of emergency about it, is that it's ending.

My brother-in-law was laid off and collected UI for a quite a long time. He was of course 'looking for work' but couldn't find any that was commensurate with his skills and experience as a carpenter. Never mind that he did odd jobs and small projects under the table as well during that time. It was quite amusing to me that once the government teat got shut off, he suddenly finished his CDL classes and now drives a truck instead of driving nails. It's amazing how jobs suddenly appear after the UI goes away.

But the bozos in Washington don't ducking understand this very basic principle that hunger is a damn good motivator. Too many people think that because they've lived in town 'X' for the last 20 years, that someone needs to bring them a job and set it in their lap. I've seen a number of these sob stories in the press recently. If there are no jobs for you there, you gotta move. Period. Sorry, life sucks then you die. (A funny old song by the Fools from outta Boston, my stomping grounds growing up. Check it out on YouTube if you get the chance. They also do a great parody of the Talking Heads song Psycho Killer called Psycho Chicken.)

If anyone ever offers to pay me to do nothing, I will be all over it.

Not really. I've seen the results, and it ain't pretty...especially after several generations.

Yeah, I've seen it first hand too. There was this one guy who seemed to have a hard time keeping a job, seemingly got laid off with unsettling regularity. (Not that it had anything to do with his stealing from his employers, but I digress.) Once his last unemployment check came in he started hitting up Social Security for SSDI. They denied him twice for his feeble claim.

Then he hired a lawyer to get what he was rightly entitled to. He finally achieved what he wanted. To collect money for nuthin. He went from being a part-time drunk to a full-time drunk. This SOB had the gall to gloat about it to his friends and neighbors that his SSDI paid better than any of the jobs he was offered when he was on UI. His circle of friends shrunk faster than my ----- swimming in a cold lake.

Apparently, a day after a hemorrhoid surgery, he was found dead of 'heart failure'. Not that his alcohol consumption and the presumption of narcotic pain killers prescribed after surgery had anything to do with it, but just sayin'.

I feel ashamed for speaking ill of the deceased this way, but I have so little tolerance for a perfectly capable person (he could easily sling bales of hay for his horses) who aspired to nothing more than living it up on the backs of the rest of us working folk.

Hopefully we get back on track here away from the tangencies, but there are Scandal abound.

What about the single mom unemployed, you going to throw her and her baby under the bus too, just because there are always 10% bad apples gaming a system? How do you move when you bought a house and you are upside down in mortgage due to the economy?

I think the fact that we care if our neighbor, friend, fellow citizen ,fellow human being is starving and needs our help (tax dollars), is what sets us apart from animals. Makes us more civilized, more Christan like. I would not sacrifice those attributes to put a couple extra dollars in my own pocket, any more than I would give up freedom for security. Some things are more important than money. Until one comes to realize that, they have not yet come to fully live life.

Would you just stop!

That's the way it should be, but the government ruined the idea of compassion and charity, when they decided to make single motherhood into a career path!!!

Ok kramarat, I'm stopping. Have a great day.

I'm more than happy to help out a neighbor down on their luck. And I do.

What I won't do is blindly throw money at a 'problem'. That's the job of the government.

You see, because I will know if my neighbor is no-good, dud of a parasite.

Business has thrown away one whole generation of workers, and is approaching throwing away a second generation. In many skilled fields the job market has been depressed and unstable. Many former workers were forced into different occupations, and many potential new candidates didn't see opportunity and didn't enter. While chasing profits via out-sourcing, layoffs and lowered pay and benefits these businesses killed their local talent bases. Even now, despite claiming a shortage of experienced candidates, those same companies practice age discrimination and / or unrealistic expectations and don't hire.

I know a former machinist who was very good, but got laid off due to out-sourcing. After several years of struggle he ended up as a diesel mechanic - there were no other machinist jobs in the area. Then his former employer called him to interview for his old job, but HR cancelled the interview because they thought he'd "gone stale". They kicked him out, and essentially blame him for not being able to stay in the field. Meanwhile he has taught some machining skills to his son, but neither of them consider machining a viable career. His former employer cries that there are no suitable candidates, but ignores talent on its doorstep.

You can't blame it all on businesses, if you develop a skill, and that skill is no longer in demand, you develop a new skill or improve the skill you have that is in demand.

And the time to hone the skills you have is not when you are being lead out the door.

That is the problem, it's not businesses responsibility to find you a job.

YOU and only you are the only one to take control and the responsibility of your life.

I agree, if your skill is no longer in demand then you move on to a new skill.

My point is, some skills come back in demand (they never really went away, they were displaced). But if the local demand has forced the workers to move onto new skills then business can't complain about not enough workers with those skills.

If you develop skills, they don't complete removed altogether by learning a new skills-set. But it's also about being too (for a lack of a better word) enthusiastic about ones worth.

I took a few night classes about 2 years ago, and there was a fellow there, who was going to school, because he couldn't get a job. He was 64 years old, and was getting grants through the unemployment office for training and education ((How's the for a return on investment).

He got an associates degree in CAD, and then a Bachelors degree in Project management, he thought was worth close to $100,000.00/yr.. He had a lifetime experience as a machinist and Sure he had 2 degrees, but no experience in those degrees.. Was willing to start at the bottom........ Except for the pay scale of what he thought what he was worth.

Now I did not care to have him as a partner on any assignments....... Old fart couldn't stay awake and bitched how tired he was.

And just last week he's bitching that's he still can't get a job.......... I think he's not very realistic.

I'm not arguing about updating or replacing expired skills.

But you're missing my point. In this case we have skills that are still valid and in need - else the company wouldn't be trying to hire them back. Plus in my example my friend has attempted to keep sharp. At his job he is the person they use to fabricate parts that cannot be found or must be custom. He also races cars as a hobby and machines many special parts for them. He is good enough that other racers buy parts that he makes, although it is not enough to sustain a living. But as far as the original company is concerned he lost all of his machinist skills after a few months of (involuntarily) leaving their employment. So they are too short-sighted to even consider the proven talent that is in front of them. Instead they claim that there is no talent available.

Meanwhile, during the twelve or so years that the company out-sourced the local market for machinists dried up. Many experienced machinists moved away, others learned new skills and got different jobs. The local high school vo-tech programs quit teaching machine skills, and the local community college quit offering related courses too. The company shipped the jobs away and without a viable local job market the support died. Now the company is shocked to find that the local support it enjoyed is gone. Cause and effect.

I wouldn't stereotype all older workers as "old farts" who can't stay awake and have unrealistic expectations. Surely those folks exist, but today it seems that anybody 40 or over is experiencing age discrimination. My buddy the machinist is under 50 and works harder than many Millennials. But if you are still young you won't understand. I just hope that you don't wake up to a rude surprise one day when suddenly you're also considered obsolete by age not by performance.

The flaw in this argument assumes or infers things that are not necessarily true.

The candidate's interview was cancelled. The reason given was rather strange. Without the interview the company claims it was due to his stale skills.

First, the company's professed reason for not hiring is assumed true, but there is no supporting evidence that this is in fact true. Many times the response is not true because the company simply does not want to reveal why (thank attorneys). They may have filled the position, or the position may have evaporated, or something was discovered about the candidate that raised a red flag, or the hiring manager simply changed his mind.

Second, we really don't know anything about the candidate and is hire-ability for any job. Every person is different and their experiences unique in the universe.

So, using one example individual is not representative of the universe of the labor force. You can claim this person is representative of the "norm", but it is really impossible to prove.

Third, to assume that the company is too short-sited is another giant leap of faith. Again, you really don't know what is going on behind closed doors. So, you can't come to a conclusion on the actual competence of a company based on a "published" reason for employment denial for the reasons cited above.

Forth, where was the source of all this information? Was it the candidate himself? If so, no one likes to lose face in front of their peers. It is only human nature to exaggerate the truth in these embarrassing moments.

I hate splitting hairs just to provide an example, and the space we have doesn't really lend itself to long discourses. But I will try to answer your charges of untruth.

I admit that my source for this example is the candidate himself, and it is always possible that he is coloring the picture. I also admit that my choice of words may lack some clarity. I said the interview was "cancelled" - my buddy felt that it was age discrimination because everything was great on the phone but the HR person was visibly disappointed when he came in to demonstrate his skills. She did not allow him to show what he could do but kept harping on stale skills. As far as his employ-ability he has been able to find other work and his current employer is happy with him (he only pursued this job because he'd rather return to machining). Certainly the company covers itself about why it hires some and not others, but after going public about being unable to find any experienced local talent (they said so on the local TV news) they don't appear to be sincere.

Since you set an impossible list of criterion I'll refrain from attempting to provide any more examples or explanation. My premise is that we can't completely blame the workers for failing to meet the job participation levels expected by industry - especially when that industry has depressed its own local job market.

First, this was not a personal attack, but I wanted to bring up that there are so many variables and issues that come into play that you really can not make a satisfactory conclusion.

It doesn't surprise me that there seems to be a discord between the story on TV and your friend's account of the story. Probably neither is exactly the truth.

From your earlier post you wrote, "But you're missing my point. In this case we have skills that are still valid and in need - else the company wouldn't be trying to hire them back."

My point is that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the argument and it is not easy (if even possible) to demonstrate that the company is really hypocritical in its claims just because your friend got denied a face-to-face interview and the reason given was "stale skills".

There are too many possibilities for us to know what's going on here.

But, rather than saying "the company", I think we're all aware of people in management, that would never hire anyone that posed a threat to their own job.

These people are all over the place, and they feel genuinely threatened by others that may be smarter/more qualified than them...especially in this economy.

In more cases than not, I don't think it's accurate to blame the "company" for this attitude. The "company" will always do what's best for the "company". Unfortunately, people within the company, don't always do what's in the company's best interests.

I see, yes, I've witness similar things also.

The company where I worked, we had a very efficient fabricator. He would build jogs and fixtures, and the owner and his nephews felt he wasn't working because they rarely see him work on a actual 'Part'. ^{"Nephews, what a waste"}

Until one day the owner said to him,
"Are you going to do any work today?"

The were surprised when he packed up his tool box and went home. He also milked a small herd of cows. Well, it didn't take long for this family to realize this guys value, but they did have the guts enough to ask him back, that had our sales man go to his home and ask him back, and his response was 'No'.

I told the owner, it has to come from you, but before he did it, you have to ask yourself his value. And then tell him what you think his value is and apologies for being critical.

He was back the following week.

But the owners attitude the only change they did was to keep they thoughts internal.

A.H. has some very valid points, One thing, as a hiring issue, there are employment laws that you have to be aware of, one of it, is that you can not advertise to hire, of there really isn't a position open. This was difficult.

I always felt that if you waited to justify an opening, you already have your people putting in too many hours already. So when I advertise, to hiring it was based on trends on shop loads, WIP, orders and interest from quotes. Rarely did the trend change, rarely.

And as I said earlier, business is not a welfare department of government.

Agreed, "business is not a welfare department of government".

But business is also not a one-way street where management is always right and workers are merely commodities. Workers have value else companies would not need to hire them. I am baffled by how some managers treat their employees poorly yet expect 120% productivity and loyalty at the same time.

But business is also not a one-way ....... I am baffled by how some managers treat their employees poorly yet expect 120% productivity and loyalty at the same time.

And that is why each state has a workforce development department..... and if an employee puts in a claim against the business, no business wants that. The state will protect an employee (on taxpayer's dime, unless the business loses than the business picks up the tab) even if the company shows proof the employee committed fraud.

That I experienced, and after fighting for two years, I told them to turn it over to the District Attorney, of which after she looked at it, she threw it out. I was disappointed over it, because it would have shed light about the power of the government.

I heard this morning on the radio this morning that jobs that are off-shored, are beginning returning to the U.S.

That wages from off-shored business have been steadily been increases at least 18%/year, that it is becoming fiscally less attractive to be off-shoring work and is bring work back to the U.S.

A quick research confirms it, and has been going on for some time.