Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Four reasons why companies are still reluctant to hire your unqualified ass   (cnbc.com) divider line 108
    More: Obvious, construction industry, investment strategist  
•       •       •

6512 clicks; posted to Business » on 03 Dec 2012 at 9:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 08:49:38 PM  
How about "Because people don't like to actually work." I started a job as a line cook three months ago with six others. Two didn't even last through training. The other four didn't make it past a month. At least eight others have been in and out in the last two months because they couldn't handle it. Worthless human beings can't do a day's labor.

/now after 90 days I get free shoes
 
2012-12-03 09:02:37 PM  
"Uncertain." How certain are you ever in business? How hard can it be to let people go if it doesn't work out.? I call BS on not hiring; you either need folks or you don't.

This is just the same old "Privatize the profits , socialize the losses" approach. When times are good, the "job creators" are dislocating their shoulders telling us how great they are for providing jobs. When times are bad they point to politicians or the economy and declare their hands are tied.
 
2012-12-03 09:07:31 PM  
Because they don't have to. The Hallowed Job Creator lords have realized that they do not need more people to do the same work, so they don't add more people.

If only there was some individual who supported stimulative spending as a solution towards getting out of a liquidity trap.
 
2012-12-03 09:16:44 PM  
Is "unqualified" the new business lingo for "unwilling to work for half what the job paid three years ago"?
 
2012-12-03 09:21:16 PM  
But ... UNCERTAINTY!

Nonsense.
People who want to work will find work.
Whether that's work that involves sitting on one's ass all day is another question.

/There's not a lot of work for ass-sitters out there.
 
2012-12-03 09:22:18 PM  

ArkAngel: How about "Because people don't like to actually work." I started a job as a line cook three months ago with six others. Two didn't even last through training. The other four didn't make it past a month. At least eight others have been in and out in the last two months because they couldn't handle it. Worthless human beings can't do a day's labor.

/now after 90 days I get free shoes


It's not that people don't want to do a day's labor, they don't want to do it for so little money. Pay someone enough and they'll do a miserable job with a farking smile on their face.
 
2012-12-03 09:22:34 PM  
sounds like because most people have so little money, there's no demand to create new jobs. If only there was some group of folks, who have billions of cash sitting in piles doing little for the economy, that could be taxed and used to create demand from folks that don't have their needs met.
 
2012-12-03 09:24:53 PM  

ArkAngel: How about "Because people don't like to actually work." I started a job as a line cook three months ago with six others. Two didn't even last through training. The other four didn't make it past a month. At least eight others have been in and out in the last two months because they couldn't handle it. Worthless human beings can't do a day's labor.

/now after 90 days I get free shoes


Working a minimum wage job (or whatever is the equivalent of a minimum wage in your area) is a fool's game. You are FAR better off taking state/federal benefits and looking for a better job. Or going to school.

Do you think that ANY corporation would REFUSE "government money" if it were offered to them? Why should individuals be any different?
 
2012-12-03 09:30:57 PM  
as a job applicant who keeps running into hiring freezes, I am getting a kick out of this.

i'm seeing this across industries, from startups to fortune 500 companies. non-profits too.

at one firm I dealt with, the particular finance department is several people short. my friend who got hired last year was the first person hired in a couple of years, and is the only staffer younger than 50. he was hired as a temp to perm, and is still temping with no end in sight (so no bonus). the company's financial performance? one of its best years ever.
 
2012-12-03 09:34:42 PM  
Because all 40 hour workers now do 45 hours of work for the same 40 hours of pay?
 
2012-12-03 09:35:37 PM  
Companies aren't hiring because employees are doing the same work for less or the same pay. If they complain they are reminded that no one is hiring so they have no other option. Off course those other companies aren't hiring either, because they are forcing their employees to do more work for less or equal pay.

I would like to remind everyone that unions are bad, and their time has passed though.
 
2012-12-03 09:40:51 PM  
Four reasons why you'd be really stupid to take away anything from this article:

Reason #1:
Ken Mayland, an economist with ClearView Economics who often speaks with chief financial officers at large U.S. corporations and also works with small businesses

Reason #2:
Joel Naroff, economist with Naroff Economic Advisors

Reason #3:
James Paulsen, chief investment strategist for Wells Capital Management

Last but not least:
NBC News

So, a self-promoting douchebag, a narcissistic idiot, a paid shill who's part of the problem and a source of, by and for retards.

Companies are not hiring, but you'd think the word "demand" would get mentioned. . . nope.
 
2012-12-03 09:49:43 PM  

edmo: "Uncertain." How certain are you ever in business? How hard can it be to let people go if it doesn't work out.? I call BS on not hiring; you either need folks or you don't.


Know how I can tell you've never run a business?
 
2012-12-03 09:54:43 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: edmo: "Uncertain." How certain are you ever in business? How hard can it be to let people go if it doesn't work out.? I call BS on not hiring; you either need folks or you don't.

Know how I can tell you've never run a business?

Enlighten us, Mr. Burns.
 
2012-12-03 09:55:21 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: edmo: "Uncertain." How certain are you ever in business? How hard can it be to let people go if it doesn't work out.? I call BS on not hiring; you either need folks or you don't.

Know how I can tell you've never run a business?


I ran a gas station for years through college and, yes, it's insanely easy to fire people.
 
2012-12-03 10:01:59 PM  

majestic: Because all 40 hour workers now do 45 hours of work for the same 40 30 hours of pay?


looks better
 
2012-12-03 10:06:52 PM  
So in summary:
-They don't want to,
-They don't have to,
-They don't have to, and
-They don't want to.
 
2012-12-03 10:08:25 PM  
Company i work for is offering early retirement packages hoping to not lay people off after the first of the year.
 
2012-12-03 10:09:34 PM  

dragonchild:

Companies are not hiring, but you'd think the word "demand" would get mentioned. . . nope.


at the moment real GDP growth is running at late-2006 levels and consumer spending in 2012 is expected to show a 4% gain over last year.

noted communists at Kiplinger forecast more of the same next year (2% growth, 5% spending growth) but for the lack of hiring/wage growth:

With so much slack still in the labor market, there is scant pressure on employers to boost wages. And without increased income, consumers can't keep increasing spending. Gains would be even stronger if managers weren't worrying about the fiscal cliff.

Link
 
2012-12-03 10:14:54 PM  
It's not that they just don't want to, it is also who they are hiring. When the economy collapsed millions took a huge financial hit to their 401(k)'s, so lots of people who were going to be exiting the job-market stayed in. Not only did they stay in, but many took entry level positions just because they needed any income. You should look at some of the entry level requirements out there now, I've seen some that ask for 7 years experience in middle management. Top that off with the internship "experience" that they offer (at no pay and often with no real benefit) and a lot of the mindless entry-level positions are taken care of.

/One thing that really annoys some of my job-seeking friends is how many "executive" level positions are open, but not entry. It's really kind of weird.
 
2012-12-03 10:21:02 PM  

ArkAngel: How about "Because people don't like to actually work." I started a job as a line cook three months ago with six others. Two didn't even last through training. The other four didn't make it past a month. At least eight others have been in and out in the last two months because they couldn't handle it. Worthless human beings can't do a day's labor.

/now after 90 days I get free shoes


Glad to see that degree from Le Cordon Blu worked out for you.
 
2012-12-03 10:24:36 PM  
They are going to ride our economy into the grave flogging that "uncertainty" excuse.
 
2012-12-03 10:24:49 PM  

NINDroog: /One thing that really annoys some of my job-seeking friends is how many "executive" level positions are open, but not entry. It's really kind of weird.


That's because it was the executives who f*cked everyone else out of their jobs. The f*ckees are having to compete for the lower-level jobs. The executive ranks were/are doing just fine because that's where the "talent" is in these companies. They keep getting promoted, which creates a "talent shortage" in the lower executive ranks. You don't need to worry about that, though. If you were laid off/downsized, then you've already been screened out of the talent pool. Now go back to your minimum wage menial job and stop complaining about things that aren't relevant to your status in the New Economy. You should even be thankful you're allowed to work.

The Great Screwing continues...
 
2012-12-03 10:27:58 PM  

inglixthemad: BarkingUnicorn: edmo: "Uncertain." How certain are you ever in business? How hard can it be to let people go if it doesn't work out.? I call BS on not hiring; you either need folks or you don't.

Know how I can tell you've never run a business?

I ran a gas station for years through college and, yes, it's insanely easy to fire people.


I see what you did there.
 
2012-12-03 10:28:28 PM  

ArkAngel: How about "Because people don't like to actually work." I started a job as a line cook three months ago with six others. Two didn't even last through training. The other four didn't make it past a month. At least eight others have been in and out in the last two months because they couldn't handle it. Worthless human beings can't do a day's labor.

/now after 90 days I get free shoes


Restaurants are almost always hiring. It isn't their awesome respect for employees and high pay with benefits that leads to the high turnover.

And that is fine. It is ok for an industry on a razor thin margin to pay what they want and get the employees they deserve. It isn't terrible work and it has its perks: going home tired, 'free' drinks and food, etc. But it is what it is and you are crazy if you think your experience is evidence of why businesses aren't hiring. Those fellow trainees are proof of nothing more than how crappy restaurant jobs are. And you can substitute any other industry with high turnover there.
 
2012-12-03 10:29:38 PM  

inglixthemad: BarkingUnicorn: edmo: "Uncertain." How certain are you ever in business? How hard can it be to let people go if it doesn't work out.? I call BS on not hiring; you either need folks or you don't.

Know how I can tell you've never run a business?

I ran a gas station for years through college and, yes, it's insanely easy to fire people.


It's insanely easy if they're complete farkups or you're a total asshole. But if you have a shred of decency and have to fire a good worker because YOU misgaged demand, then it aint easy.

Hiring is not undertaken lightly if you care about employees. If you care, you train them to succeed, and that's a lot of work. If you care, you don't hire without reasonable belief that you'll be able to keep them employed.
 
2012-12-03 10:45:52 PM  
"You have a Master's degree and experience in commercial analytical labs? I'm sorry, you're not qualified to mix our chemicals."

What the fark do you want from me? Business, law, finance and accounting? That's why you hire business managers, lawyers and accountants. Let the scientists do the actual science and let the weasels handle the weasel-work.
 
2012-12-03 10:53:18 PM  

Bondith: "You have a Master's degree and experience in commercial analytical labs? I'm sorry, you're not qualified to mix our chemicals."

What the fark do you want from me? Business, law, finance and accounting? That's why you hire business managers, lawyers and accountants. Let the scientists do the actual science and let the weasels handle the weasel-work.


They need 4-5 weasels and an army of bean counters to manage one scientist.
 
2012-12-03 11:00:36 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Because they don't have to. The Hallowed Job Creator lords have realized that they do not need more people to do the same work, so they don't add more people.

If only there was some individual who supported stimulative spending as a solution towards getting out of a liquidity trap.


This.

An Anecdotal Bit...
Years ago, my hotel got rid of most of the laundry crew. We kept enough people to get everything washed, but didn't keep enough to get all of that laundry folded every day. As a temporary measure", the rest of the staff was told to fold laundry "in (their) spare time". Of course, the workers complied... They didn't want to be next on the chopping block. As time passed, it moved further away from an "in your spare time" duty, and became an "official" part of the job. Now, they must fold X amount of laundry regardless of how busy their shift is. Why would the company re-hire the laundry workers? The job is getting done for "free" now, so paying more workers is "wasted" money.

An Anecdotal Bit From the Other Side of the Coin...
I used to manage a small ice-cream parlor on the beach. When we first opened up we had too many employees, partly because the owner wanted to help out his friends by giving their teenage kids a job. An admirable sentiment, but it was a nightmare for a while. Most afternoons we could have run the place with nine employees, but we had fourteen. We had bad satisfaction surveys (from cards on the tables), most of which complained that the employees seemed to be "goofing off" instead of helping customers. It took me two weeks to convince the owner to let me fire four people (I wanted to fire six and work a part-time shift myself). Lo and behold, as soon as those four were fired satisfaction went way up.
Truthfully, the employees weren't goofing off. There just wasn't enough work for five people per shift, so they ended up standing around after the work was done. That of course created the perception of laziness.
We had two registers at walk-up windows and a dozen small round tables on a wooden patio. Three employees could EASILY handle average business and still keep the place squeaky clean. On days we were going to be busier, I either helped out myself or offered extra hours to another employee.

This is the reason lowering taxes won't create jobs. Any decent employer knows how many employees they need to meet demand. Even in a brand-new business, you have some idea of how many people you will need. Employees beyond that amount are "wasted" money. It doesn't matter if the employer suddenly has a bunch of extra money (for whatever reason). As long as demand is being met, there is no reason to hire more people.

The problem a lot of employers don't seem to see is that there is an upper limit to what you can ask of an employee. Neither of my cases hits that limit... the first gives the employee an "out", and the second brings in extra help when demand rises. Nowadays, it seems the thing to do is keep piling work on an employee until they crack.
 
2012-12-03 11:02:24 PM  
As long as the people they have are willing to do the extra work at the same pay business owners are not going to hire new employees. Why should they? The breaking point will be when the economy improves enough that companies start losing good employees to their competitors. That's when the hiring starts.
 
2012-12-03 11:08:18 PM  

ArkAngel: How about "Because people don't like to actually work." I started a job as a line cook three months ago with six others. Two didn't even last through training. The other four didn't make it past a month. At least eight others have been in and out in the last two months because they couldn't handle it. Worthless human beings can't do a day's labor.

/now after 90 days I get free shoes


Meanwhile, you probably don't have healthcare (an emergencies will hit my insurance costs to cover you), most of your coworkers are probably going to have to be on some form of public assistance like food stamps(more costs for me in taxes) and you probably don't get paid sick days (that cost my colon in terms of hours bacteria because of food borne illness).

I've cut back my restaurant going simply because the whole industry seems like a leech on the public, paying its workers too low, being far to unstable and in terms of fast food, generating a lot of waste and being a cause of obesity.
 
2012-12-03 11:10:41 PM  

fozziewazzi: As long as the people they have are willing to do the extra work at the same pay business owners are not going to hire new employees. Why should they? The breaking point will be when the economy improves enough that companies start losing good employees to their competitors. That's when the hiring starts.


if only there was a way workers could group together to fight against parasitic bosses. I can't think of the word. Hmm...... is it utopia? No, unicep? no U.... u...

God the rich have the country right by the balls. It's unfortunate for those in their 20's right now that their parents sold them out for...... propaganda and fear of communism. The greatest nation fell because they feared they might help some people with their lives, I mean socialism. How can folks be so stupid? Is TV that effective at controlling people?
 
2012-12-03 11:35:38 PM  

ArkAngel: How about "Because people don't like to actually work." I started a job as a line cook three months ago with six others. Two didn't even last through training. The other four didn't make it past a month. At least eight others have been in and out in the last two months because they couldn't handle it. Worthless human beings can't do a day's labor.

/now after 90 days I get free shoes


Dude, you're in the restaurant industry. Everyone's a pothead and jobs turn over like mad. It's not indicative of anything.
 
2012-12-03 11:38:23 PM  
5) fark you.
 
2012-12-03 11:51:53 PM  
Meanwhile we have tons of opening and can't find qualified people.

/so - of course - we are going overseas to find them
 
2012-12-03 11:52:28 PM  
Because I don't know Revit, and architecture firms are averse to training.
 
2012-12-04 12:02:45 AM  

gingerjet: Meanwhile we have tons of opening and can't find qualified people that will work a skilled job for just above minimum wage

/so - of course - we are going overseas to find them


Fixed for what's been going on in a lot of industries
 
2012-12-04 12:09:57 AM  

discount sushi: Because I don't know Revit, and architecture American firms are averse to training.


ftfy

I did some consulting work for a European energy company last year, with part of the project focused on HR. Most of the company saw the value of training, except for the American renewable energy business.

"If I need to train someone, that means he isn't qualified for the job. I won't hire someone that needs to be trained. I don't promote unqualified people either, if the person cannot perform he will be fired."

This division is in shambles at the moment, no new contracts in 2 years. Gee, I wonder why.
 
2012-12-04 12:11:33 AM  
There's more people than are needed for the amount of work that needs to be done.

Of course, some of the work that doesn't need to be done exists within the highest paying jobs.

If the most important consideration of your workday is which tie to wear, your job probably doesn't need to be done. And you probably make at least 6 figures.
 
2012-12-04 12:19:33 AM  
5) Obamacare
 
2012-12-04 12:21:52 AM  

links136: sounds like because most people have so little money, there's no demand to create new jobs. If only there was some group of folks, who have billions of cash sitting in piles doing little for the economy, that could be taxed and used to create demand from folks that don't have their needs met.


In other words, if business won't hire people, government will. Adding millions of new drones to the public teat sounds like a sure economy booster. Of course, once you've drained the "sitting piles of cash" from business and spent it, those guys definitely won't be hiring anybody new, because you've taken away the money that would have let them do that.
 
2012-12-04 12:27:09 AM  

links136: if only there was a way workers could group together to fight against parasitic bosses. I can't think of the word. Hmm...... is it utopia? No, unicep? no U.... u...


UNIcrON?

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-04 12:30:09 AM  
My company (glorified data entry) is brutally understaffed, with holes in work processes appearing everywhere because there aren't enough people on shifts so that each researcher can spend time to take responsibility for their input into our database and to double-check their stuff.

Management considers this to be a virtue. "Streamlined" is the term, I think.

On the plus side, we do get decent bonuses and upward mobility seems pretty good (mostly because of ridiculous turnover). Also, anecdotal evidence suggests management made a concerted effort not to fire too many people during the depths of the crisis.
 
2012-12-04 12:40:48 AM  
The recession and recovery also may have made some businesses nervous about taking a gambit on a new product, market or industry. Experts say some worry that if they get optimistic and add staff or move into new lines of work, it will backfire if the economy recedes once again. Then, they'll face the painful prospect of cutting staff and resources.

Not where I work. Our company's management went farking nuts investing in a new service line and about a year later (late 2011), we ended up laying a number of people off, including some really bright, motivated people. Funny how there hasn't been a quarterly financials meeting since... I recently overheard someone in payroll say we're making just enough to cover the checks.

I was seriously considering a move back east next year without a job lined up before my company implodes, is bought out or sued into the ground for lack of integrity, but all this fiscal cliff bullshiat is making me reconsider. It's just another excuse for employers to use. Assholes.
 
2012-12-04 12:42:10 AM  

jjorsett: links136: sounds like because most people have so little money, there's no demand to create new jobs. If only there was some group of folks, who have billions of cash sitting in piles doing little for the economy, that could be taxed and used to create demand from folks that don't have their needs met.

In other words, if business won't hire people, government will. Adding millions of new drones to the public teat sounds like a sure economy booster. Of course, once you've drained the "sitting piles of cash" from business and spent it, those guys definitely won't be hiring anybody new, because you've taken away the money that would have let them do that.


Or maybe that pile of cash could be used to you know, balance the current budget instead of adding more expenses. Or investing in infrastructure that America desperately needs. The economy isn't supply-side, it's demand driven, only folks can't demand anything because they don't have the purchasing power to demand anything. Putting billions in infrastructure from money doing nothing would create a huge amount of demand in the hands of consumers from the increase in trade jobs(something also severely lacking) as well as adding a bunch of experienced workers that are so 'vital' to job hiring, as well as improving transportation efficiency.

Or you can get on your knees and suck some more corporate dick.
 
2012-12-04 12:45:51 AM  

dumbobruni: at one firm I dealt with, the particular finance department is several people short. my friend who got hired last year was the first person hired in a couple of years, and is the only staffer younger than 50. he was hired as a temp to perm, and is still temping with no end in sight (so no bonus). the company's financial performance? one of its best years ever.


Your friend should complain and yell at his boss.
 
2012-12-04 12:49:09 AM  
Because companies can push their employees to be more productive for the same or less pay, they don't have a great incentive to hire more workers. Instead, they're more likely to either push people harder or come up with technological solutions for getting more work done.

Yeah, thats always works out well.

i1.ytimg.com

pushing your employees above normal capacity because of 'why-the-fark-not?' is great in the short term, but dies a painful death in the long term.

Then again, the bosses don't care. They arent planning on being there long term. nobody does that anymore. String together a few good quarters, massage the books, get your bonus check, and move on to another future disaster. let someone else clean up the mess. you will be out the door by then.
 
2012-12-04 12:51:53 AM  

fredbox: There's more people than are needed for the amount of work that needs to be done.

Of course, some of the work that doesn't need to be done exists within the highest paying jobs.

If the most important consideration of your workday is which tie to wear, your job probably doesn't need to be done. And you probably make at least 6 figures.


No there isn't. As long as people don't have their needs met there will always be demand for something, whether it be shelter, entertainment or communication. The issue is whether their current income and expenses will allow them to fill those needs, and whether there are businesses that can fulfill that demand, or if they're educated enough to know anything about money or their own needs. Being that wages haven't increased in decades despite the economy growing the simultaneously, demand is incredibly low right now, and we're also told to buy corporate goods to stimulate the economy or else they'll cut more jobs (like they're holding the country hostage or something), which ends up simply siphoning off more wealth to the new monarchy i mean investors.

It's a completely manufactured recession, intentional or not. Government debt is another issue altogether.
 
2012-12-04 12:52:59 AM  

links136:
Or maybe that pile of cash could be used to you know, balance the current budget instead of adding more expenses. Or investing in infrastructure that America desperately needs. The economy isn't supply-side, it's demand driven, only folks can't demand anything because they don't have the purchasing power to demand anything. Putting billions in infrastructure from money doing nothing would create a huge amount of demand in the hands of consumers from the increase in trade jobs(something also severely lacking) as well as adding a bunch of experienced workers that are so 'vital' to job hiring, as well as improving transportation efficiency.



you mean businesses should be asked to chip in for the roads, ports, bridges, waterways, power plants, and railroads that are essential to the companies success??? Communist!!!!!!
 
2012-12-04 12:55:53 AM  

buzzcut73: gingerjet: Meanwhile we have tons of opening and can't find qualified people that will work a skilled job for just above minimum wage

/so - of course - we are going overseas to find them

Fixed for what's been going on in a lot of industries


That's what I've seen consistently from employers that complain they can't find qualified employees. You can find someone with the right skill set to do anything in this country. The question is whether you're willing to pay enough for it.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report