Unemployment as a cause of unemployability

Suggested by the 2012 Election thread.

I've seen multiple arguments that unemployment makes someone unemployable—that, for whatever reason, people who have spent a long time unemployed are unlikely to be capable of getting a job. (The Losers by David Eddings makes a particularly good, if ultimately flawed, argument in this regard.) However, I have never seen statistics to support this, and I have never heard a proposed solution that didn't blatantly disregard economics. This thread is to determine the magnitude of the problem, and to figure out how and whether it can be solved.

Well I'd argue that they should force employers to not segregate based on whether or not they've been on unemployment, but I dont think its that simple.

Anecdata: I have an 8-year "not employed by someone else" gap on my resume. It's making it much more difficult to find a job, despite there being both a very good reason for it, and a number of skills that I gained during that time that would serve an employer well.

It's true that employers won't hire someone who's between jobs, but that's just a symptom of an "employer's market". Not too old, not too young, not unexperienced, not overexperienced...

It's a matter of elbow grease and luck, I'm afraid. I got a job last month but was promptly sacked because, despite being minimum wage, I couldn't perform it. So there's that. Minimum wage doesn't mean anyone with half a brain cell can do it.

@OP: It does.

Look at the probabilities distribution in the article. The longer you go, the less probable you are. More info.

This has also been studied in Europe a long time ago.

Perhaps the government could offer tax breaks to those who employ those who have been unemployed for a long while, or those without much experience.

Ah, sociological cyclical logic. What a lovely thing.

"They've been unemployed for awhile, so they must be lazy and/or undependable, so I won't hire them. Then they stay unemployed, so they must be even more lazy and/or undependable!"

People like that should be smacked upside the head.

Nah, might as well subsidize companies for lowering their hiring standards.

Bleh, if I were granted limitless legislative and executive power, I'd rip all the tax cuts/breaks/subsidiaries away that were created for the purposes of stimulus and replace them with a "create jobs with pay equal to or over X amount and you get a tax break" system.

In the meantime, it's stupid thinking like this that perpetuates poverty and bumfucks the economy...

How about not paying them money for that sort of behaviour. How about making it illegal to discriminate in hiring practices based on unemployment.

edited 20th Oct '11 7:36:38 PM by TuefelHundenIV

That's not a solution, because you'll still have as many unemployed people as you do now. You're substituting one group for another.

Either kill off 2/3 of the existing American population, or make moar jobs.

edited 20th Oct '11 7:39:14 PM by johnnyfog

I don't know, I don't think creating jobs with high pay is bad behavior.

I mean, right now, the system is rigged so that there's lots of cheap, interchangeable labor, so the corporations and businesses can be as picky as they like, because there's fifty guys like the one they just rejected for looking funny. All while they make ridiculous profits off the free tax breaks we throw at them like candy.

The whole damn system is fundamentally broken and needs to be rewritten.

The whole point of what I proposed is to make more jobs. People get jobs that actually pay well, thus increasing demand, thus creating more incentive to make more jobs to meet the new demand on the supply side of things, thus reducing unemployment further.

edited 20th Oct '11 7:41:17 PM by USAF713

Even if you make more jobs those unemployed are not going to be be getting them with that practice.

It does seem sort of tyrannical to tell businesses who they can and cannot hire, apart from racial and sexual discrimination. It's the same thing as telling industry not to develop technology that makes a certain segment of workforce obsolete. Nice in theory but not very practical.

Outsourcing is a different story. If we resign ourselves to the blind whims of the 'market', we would have a permanent midnight of unemployment and zero job creation.

See my edit, Tuefel.

Who says we have to? Just incentivize hiring with decent wages. They don't have to do it if they don't want to. We just make money off the taxes they now actually pay properly to do other things to create jobs. Either they get a piece of the long-term pie, or fuck them, they're stupid.

Oh, yeah, fuck all the outsourcing bastards. Well, after we've rectified the piece of half-assed shit that is NAFTA and some things equal out, then see who gets to be on the tax-based chopping block for outsourcing.

edited 20th Oct '11 7:47:36 PM by USAF713

Proponents of outsourcing will say, "Well, what gives you the right to tell me not to hire Indian workers who are more qualified?" Those people are thinking globally, which is nice, I guess... but until there's a globally-mandated minimum wage (single currency?), I think government should be able to barricade outsourcing in the interest of self-preservation.

Back to unemployment; what can we do on a local level?

Is it up to individuals to be entrepeneurs, or could we have a cooperative that provides services you normally get from big chains, but for a fraction of the cost and the warm fuzzy feeling of helping your community?

If they want all their employees to be from India, then they should sell only in India, and move their HQ to India.

^ I guess all exports and global commodities are banned right? You want something for a specific market? Make it yourself because outsourcing and globalism are always inherently bad.

No but you have a responsibility to support the country you are based in. Especially when the government bends over backwards with tax breaks and the such.

If you dont employ the people from the country you are based in...then why be there?

edited 20th Oct '11 8:04:23 PM by Thorn14

Or we could just tariff countries with shitty safety standards and low wages.

In the meantime, yes, this concept is true, as well as incredibly stupid.

No you don't. Otherwise the world should just slap embargoes on China. Their population doesn't use or buy the vast quantities of shit they export.

There is no such thing as country loyalty in economics. A business is free to trade with whoever it wants, wherever it wants. You don't ban businesses for outsourcing to India when the wages they pay there while cheap to us are massive improvements to them. We are the end of developed nations having luxurious, well-paid careers made out of menial "dumb" jobs like assorted manufacturing industries. A lot of those jobs can simply be automated entirely eliminating thousands upon thousands of jobs that will not possibly come back. Outsourcing is thus the only option left to keep those jobs human.

I know I've been passed over for being out of work for a long time even though the entire reason I've been out of work is because nobody I've submitted to so far has hired me.

I've also been told the fact that I have a work history with lots of short-term jobs makes me look bad, even though the reason I have so many short-term jobs is because I keep getting laid off or can only find temporary work.

So, you know. Yay, I keep getting passed over for work due to things that aren't my fault and have nothing to do with my skills or employability.

But yeah, johnnyfog's pretty much right. When employers are getting hundreds or more applications for every opening, they use any excuse to quickly narrow down the pack, even if it actually has no impact on ability to do the job.

But I feel like giving heavy incentives to hire people who've been unemployed a long time might help. Maybe offer to subsidize the person's wages for a short while, based on how long the person was unemployed before you hired them, or a tiered rebate, or some similar thing.

edited 20th Oct '11 8:11:47 PM by Jeysie

The problem with saying "You can't take unemployment into account when hiring" is that sometimes someone has been unemployed for a reason that's entirely germane to whether they should be hired or not. What do you do then?

The problem with giving incentives is sooner rather then later someone is going to start fudging the books to get that bonus without actually hiring anyone.

Also making it illegal to discriminate because you had a bad stretch of employment is not tyrranical. It is common sense. It keeps companies from brandishing the bat of unemployment over your head so you can't complain if your wages are cut or they chop your benefits to ribbons.

Also it makes it easier to leave an employer who is treating you badly and find work elswhere without that spectre of almost guranteed rejection because you don't have a job. Removing a catch 22 for average American that keeps them from finding honest work based on their qualifications instead of luck sounds rather sane and reasonable to me.

Maddy: Still bs. Because you made a mistake means you have to remain jobless. That is a nice way create desperation by removing any chances of finding a job legitimately.

edited 20th Oct '11 8:13:53 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Well I think capitalism to that degree is a bad idea. But i'm a filthy communist so what do I know. I'd gladly pay 2 bucks more for a product knowing that someone in America didn't lose their job over it.

I'm from Michigan and massive outsourcing destroyed our economy.

Also thats why I support educating people for cheap so that our economy and people can survive us shifting from a manufacturing industry to an IT industry.