Cracked: 6 Harsh Truths

[SongsOfDragons]

Yep. I've got a business admin degree. You'd think "Taco Bell Assistant Manager" would be something I could do to get some experience. The kind of position that usually goes to a particularly clever 18-year-old, because college grads won't take it.

Nope. Seven years retail management experience required.

Most of the jobs round my area are beginning to deliberately leave their experience requirements off their adverts completely now. Back in 2013 when I was still looking for work they were getting more and more absurd: probably the same as everyone has seen, n years' experience for a job - often offering part time hours, or worse, zero - and proudly announced its pay as 'meeting National Minimum Wage!'.

Recently I've heard that these jobs were starting to have serious attraction issues. Nobody was applying for these adverts: those without experience knew it was a waste of time to apply, and those with were turned off by the ZHC and/or the shitty wages. In the egregious cases they were getting no applicants whatsoever. So gradually they've begun to remove their experience requirements...

I've no idea whether this is helping employer or employee - they are probably getting more people applying but I don't know if any of them are making the sift or even getting through the interview, or if the employers are having to settle for true entry level people when they were really after a (cheaply-paid) manager or something.

[s_stabeler]

with that kind of asshole employer, they'll probably hire a true entry-level employee, then expect them to do the work of a manager.

Incidentally, I recently found out who the guy was who first advocated a lot of this crap ( at least in principle- his views were more or less that corporations could do no wrong as long as thye made more money out of it): Milton Friedman ( though it should be noted his views are pro-business, NOT pro-rich people. There's a difference. ( for one example, his opposition to Social Security is actually that it doesn't go far enough- he advbocated a (government-paid) basic living wage instead. (presumably, if you are in work, the government tops your wages up to the basic living wage)

aother example of Milton Friedman's idiocy: Milton Friedman- Greed ( Youtube video) ( in the video, he actually claims corporate greed is a good thin, IIRC!)

[wolfie]

Back in 2013 when I was still looking for work they were getting more and more absurd: probably the same as everyone has seen, n years' experience for a job - often offering part time hours, or worse, zero - and proudly announced its pay as 'meeting National Minimum Wage!'.

Try one I ran into many years ago when I was still working with computers. Company was looking for people with 5 years experience working with Windows NT 4.0. I had been working with NT since the first beta of 3.1 had been released outside Microsoft - 4 years earlier.

[Rageaholic]

Most of the jobs round my area are beginning to deliberately leave their experience requirements off their adverts completely now. Back in 2013 when I was still looking for work they were getting more and more absurd: probably the same as everyone has seen, n years' experience for a job - often offering part time hours, or worse, zero - and proudly announced its pay as 'meeting National Minimum Wage!'.

Recently I've heard that these jobs were starting to have serious attraction issues. Nobody was applying for these adverts: those without experience knew it was a waste of time to apply, and those with were turned off by the ZHC and/or the shitty wages. In the egregious cases they were getting no applicants whatsoever. So gradually they've begun to remove their experience requirements...

I've no idea whether this is helping employer or employee - they are probably getting more people applying but I don't know if any of them are making the sift or even getting through the interview, or if the employers are having to settle for true entry level people when they were really after a (cheaply-paid) manager or something.

I consider the fact that they had to change their experience requirements a small victory. I'm sure they'll look for other ways to screw over workers, but it's nice to see the company having to change something for once.

[Andara Bledin]

for one example, his opposition to Social Security is actually that it doesn't go far enough- he advbocated a (government-paid) basic living wage instead

Actually, all indications show that a guaranteed minimum income (mincome) is far better for the entirety of society, removing the need for social security, unemployment insurance, welfare, food and nutrition programs, and a host of other systems that all go to externalize the true cost of minimum wage being too low to provide for survival.

As to the stupidity of jobs requiring more experience than is reasonable; spam them with your application, anyway. They can do the math and see how much experience you have, and they have to hire someone.

[s_stabeler]

my issue is that he wanted it paid by the government, not as some form of minimum wage thing. In other words, outright outsourcing wage bills onto the government. I have no problem with an mincome where the employer has to pay it if you have a job, with the government paying if you have no job. ( Indeed, i'd support such a policy)

[Andara Bledin]

That's how a mincome works.

The government gives the mincome and shuts down all of the other systems, and their support networks, with the people receiving more despite it not costing the government significantly more (we waste billions on not only the multitude of bureaucratic departments, but on the fraud investigations every one of those also has).

[TheHuckster]

A lot of minimum wage jobs, despite their stigma, require a good work ethic and it is hard work. A full time position in fast food, retail, and other service-oriented jobs can be exhausting, as I'm sure a lot of us coming from the CS side can agree with.

So, if we offer a program where one can get a mincome without a job, how do we ensure that people not abuse that system, since a lot of people would certainly choose that benefit rather than being a wage slave for the same amount of income? Do we have limits to how long one can be on a jobless income, and if so, what do we do during recessions where there might not be enough jobs and people who are honestly trying to maintain a job simply can't?

[Andara Bledin]

With a proper Mincome, being employed is not required, but it doesn't provide for much beyond merely subsistence level living. And the vast majority of everybody would much rather work and get more than sit at home all day picking their noses.

And for those who prefer to slack and live a marginal lifestyle? So what? Everybody has the option to do that, and when they aren't required to be a part of the job force, then there are more positions open to people who really do want to work because they want to do more than slack. Plus, for those who want to work, our system is currently so broken that it actively works against people who don't want to be on welfare but who can't get full time work.

Part of the issue, of course, is that too many people get hung up on people appearing to get something for nothing. Even if that 'something' is also being collected by those same people. Once we get over the idea that socialism is some sort of evil conspiracy to part the industrious from their hard-earned dollars (most of the mega-rich do nothing to benefit society and they don't invest in the future - they only invest in accumulating more and more of the world's wealth in their greedy grasp) and that the measure of a man's worth is how much industrial age work he can do. The Industrial Age has ended and we'd better get off our asses and stop legislating ourselves into stagnation.

[s_stabeler]

It depends. If it's used as a vehicle for starbucks, etc. to simply get free labour, with the government effectively paying their staff to work for them, then it wouldn't work. ( basically, businesses MUST pay workers ON TOP of the government paying the mincome. ( which answers the question of how there would be incentive to get a job)

Oh, I'm not saying that wages have to be the same as they are now- I accept that wages would drop. What I don't accept is that wages should drop to $0 per hour.

Do you see what i'm getting at?

oh, and for obvious reasons, you WOULD need to ensure you've planned out exactly how this is going to be funded.

[Andara Bledin]

Well, duh, work would still be paid for being done. Otherwise, why would anybody work.

Funding would come, largely, from where it already comes from. I don't remember what the estimate from the one study I read was, but it wasn't terribly off what we're paying in social services now. Having a dozen federal services, plus the state-based services, none of which align quite directly, is massively wasteful.

[s_stabeler]

I'd have to see some actual figures, but yeah, if it can be done, then I see no reason why not.