• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Jobs Report - Lower than Expected Jobs Growth

I suppose on some level, some company could do what you are saying, but we have finite resources and we apply them in the manner that we see most efficient. The notion that we could've trained this position from within, in our circumstance, is just laughable. We knew the position was going to be needed (which is why we decided to hire) but it would take many, many years to train our manager to be our director (seeing as how we'd never had a director). Any "small" growing company in our position that would commit those kinds of resources to a position that would (re. "may") be years away (time is uncertainty) is foolish.

I got a little off subject, but the whole point of the example is that jobs are becoming more and more complicated because the economy is becoming more and more complicated. More skills are needed, the days of working the same job for 40 years are becoming more and more rare....if you're not getting better you're getting worse...not just from the standpoint of a company but from the standpoint of an employee as well.

This might be (read: is) true in the traded sector, but most jobs are not in the traded sector.
 
Red30.jpg

:)
 
most small, growing companies have people wear multiple hats. The person may not be completely correct for that position, but he could help you get by.

Also, the definition of "small" often means different things to different people. To some a "small" company may have 500 employees and tens of millions in revenues.

This will be my last comment on this b/c I don't want to derail this thread with specific convos about my company. However people do wear different hats. We were just getting by with our upper management/Director of manufacturing trying to encompass director of Safety/Quality "duties", but it got to the point were we where that just didn't cut it, we needed more specialized knowledge and skills and for a highly educated and skilled person to focus solely on S/Q, thus we set out of hire one.
 
most small, growing companies have people wear multiple hats. The person may not be completely correct for that position, but he could help you get by.

Also, the definition of "small" often means different things to different people. To some a "small" company may have 500 employees and tens of millions in revenues.
A couple of thoughts:
The 50% rule says if you have someone who can do half the job and grow into the other half, you should promote them into the slot.
Generalists often get the nod over specialists for the really good jobs. Knowing some about everything in a business trumps knowing everything about part of it.
 
Along the lines of your 50% rule is my buddy's 20% rule. He was VP of a top 20 international bank, founded his own international merchant bank and now sits on the board of NYSE banking group.

His 20% rule is if you are starting a company or creating a new position in your company you pay that person 20% more than the going rate. It creates loyalty and makes it harder for the person to go elsewhere.
 
I got an email turning me down for a job as a waiter sayin they went with somebody more qualified. I have worked as a waiter before.
 
I am going to laugh my ass off when the Fed brings another round of QE into play in the next few weeks and Republican's shriek that it was done to save the election for President Obama.
 
I am going to laugh my ass off when the Fed brings another round of QE into play in the next few weeks and Republican's shriek that it was done to save the election for President Obama.

To be fair, I've been criticizing the Fed's inaction for weeks/months on the grounds that Bernanke is trying to get Romney elected.
 
Of course easing would just be the Fed doing its job, which I think gives my criticism better grounding than Paul Ryan's.
 
Also, governments are still shedding workers, so why isn't the confidence fairy coming around to bestow prosperity on us?
 
That's oversimplifiying it.
The world is complicated. Only in a complicated world do we look at college graduates and say they don't know shit. (and truly mean that).
The skills that are necessary are developed through years of experience, education and knowledge.
I'll give you an anecdotal example
I work for a growing chemical company, we had to hire a Director of Safety/Quality because we needed more skills than the manager of Safety and Quality had. The manager had a B.S in chemistry, but we needed someone with a graduate degree, we also needed someone who was intimately familiar with government regulations (i.e. OSHA and the like)....at a level greater than anyone else in our organization had. There was no way we were going to be able to train anyone (even the S/Q manager) to have the skills that our Director has.
Obviously, that's very anecdotal, but those are the kinds of things that I see quite a bit.
Again, I'm not claiming this is the end all be all, or even the major cause of our underemployment but from my POV there seem to be a lot of jobs that companies are struggling to fill because they just can't find the right people.

Vote Republican and you can re-task the new guy to something more productive.
 
I hope you are right, but I have very little faith in the Republicans in the House & Senate. They haven't given any indication at all so far that they would put aside petty, ideological politics to try to work to solve any problems.

I posted this link a day or so ago on another thread. I don't know if it's been discussed previously and put to ground or what, but I found it very interesting (long freaking write-up, though). I finished it with a different (more favorable) opinion of Obama. But I'm posting here to push back on your assertion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
 
This is exactly what I was saying earlier regarding Boehner's supposed willingness to raise taxes. He was actually calling for lower rates, not higher rates...and there was going to be this increase in revenue by the illusory & unnamed "closing of loopholes". Just more smoke & mirrors from Republicans while they steadfastly refuse to budge on tax rates for their millionaire friends:

"He showed it to Lew, and they quickly reached the same conclusion: Boehner was saying that he was willing to accept $800 billion more in tax revenue. Or, to put it another way, Boehner was proposing to increase the government’s haul by the same amount you would get if you reversed Bush’s tax cuts for the most affluent Americans, but he was proposing to do it by lowering rates and eliminating loopholes and subsidies instead — a revenue increase by other means."

OMG, what a ludicrous idea!
 
This is exactly what I was saying earlier regarding Boehner's supposed willingness to raise taxes. He was actually calling for lower rates, not higher rates...and there was going to be this increase in revenue by the illusory & unnamed "closing of loopholes". Just more smoke & mirrors from Republicans while they steadfastly refuse to budge on tax rates for their millionaire friends:

"He showed it to Lew, and they quickly reached the same conclusion: Boehner was saying that he was willing to accept $800 billion more in tax revenue. Or, to put it another way, Boehner was proposing to increase the government’s haul by the same amount you would get if you reversed Bush’s tax cuts for the most affluent Americans, but he was proposing to do it by lowering rates and eliminating loopholes and subsidies instead — a revenue increase by other means."

And at the end of the day, President Obama called him back and asked if they could circle back to that proposal. Evidently he didn't feel it was all smoke and mirrors --

After that meeting, he called Boehner yet again, asking if they could just go back to the previous Sunday’s handshake agreement.
 
I'm not going to take the time to read that right now, but I'll tell you that I see and hear about mismatch all the time. I work along side with, call on and deal with manufactureres on a daily basis.
It may be overstated, but there are jobs out there for people with skills but there aren't enough people with skills.
The biggest problem I see is that these skilled jobs are in "less desirable" places (not bad places, but less desirable) and people just don't want to move.

As most of you know the auto manufacturers have basically taken the place of the mills in the south. Unlike the mills you need to know more than how to push a broom across the floor to work there and the same is true for the auto suppliers. I hear complaints all the time from our customers about how it takes 20 applications to find 1 semi good applicant to take the time to interview & possibly hire. The number of folks that get out of high school and do nothing but bitch about not being able to find a good job is insane. The days of just getting on and moving up based on seniority in the local mill are long gone.
 
To be fair, I've been criticizing the Fed's inaction for weeks/months on the grounds that Bernanke is trying to get Romney elected.

Of course easing would just be the Fed doing its job, which I think gives my criticism better grounding than Paul Ryan's.

Also, governments are still shedding workers, so why isn't the confidence fairy coming around to bestow prosperity on us?

En fuego, people. Tuff is en fuego
 
...and Boehner refused to return his call, didn't he? By that time, Cantor had read the riot act to Boehner.

Reading the article would give one a sense that it was much more complicated than that.

ETA: and they did speak. Boehner told him it was time for both sides to move on.
 
Vote Republican and you can re-task the new guy to something more productive.

No. Vote Republican means bills about abortion, voter ID and gays.
 
Last edited:
Cantor and Ryan would NEVER have allowed $1T in revenue/tax increases. Without that there is no deal.

You can't possibly believe they would have agreed to the revenue part. It is that simple.
 
Cantor and Ryan would NEVER have allowed $1T in revenue/tax increases. Without that there is no deal.

You can't possibly believe they would have agreed to the revenue part. It is that simple.

So you read the article, then? And your takeaway from the significant efforts of a well-respected NYT reporter/columnist is that Cantor submarined the deal?
 
Back
Top