Implications of 1 to 2 trillion yearly deficits as far as the eye can see ?

[GodlessCommie]

I agree that a trucker shortage is bad for supply chains. But it predates the pandemic.

A lot of the staffing problems that became visible during the pandemic predate the pandemic. Healthcare would be the most obvious example.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I agree that a trucker shortage is bad for supply chains. But it predates the pandemic.

A lot of the staffing problems that became visible during the pandemic predate the pandemic. Healthcare would be the most obvious example.

6 years ago the President of the healthcare system I worked at said that 55% of their current employees would be eligible for retirement within 10 years.  Meaning virtually all of that 55% are probably eligible for at least early retirement right now, and I can't imagine what they're having to do in terms of incentives to get those people to not bail right now.

[zolotiyeruki]

I was thinking about the labor shortage this morning, and realized something:  The workforce grows, historically, about 1-1.2 million people per year.  The current workforce is down by two million from two years ago, which means that we have about 4.5 million fewer people in the workforce than we would expect to have at this point.

There are about 160 million people in the workforce.  If you assume a 40-year career, that means you get about 4 million people retiring each year (maybe a bit less, due to do demographics), and 5 million people joining the workforce each year.  As a thought experiment, let's assume that those 4.5 million "missing" workers are all people who were near retirement, and covid gave them a reason/opportunity to retire.  That's about one extra year's worth of retirees.  That would mean that over the next few years, we would expect to see a lot fewer people retire (because many from that cohort already pulled the plug), and after those few years, we'd expect to get back to the earlier trajectory.

A larger-and-earlier-than-expected cohort of retirees also has interesting implications for the stock market, as those folks transition from accumulating to spending.

[PDXTabs]

WSJ: Companies Need More Workers. Why Do They Reject Millions of Résumés?

Companies are desperate to hire, and yet some workers still can’t seem to find jobs. Here may be one reason why: The software that sorts through applicants deletes millions of people from consideration.

Well, that's dumb.

[maizefolk]

What are the factors causing the software to throw people out? I don't subscribe the the WSJ and my normal workarounds for trying to read a particular story there don't seem to be working today.

[PDXTabs]

What are the factors causing the software to throw people out? I don't subscribe the the WSJ and my normal workarounds for trying to read a particular story there don't seem to be working today.

It includes amazing data points like:

Job prospects get tripped up by everything from brief résumé gaps to ballooning job descriptions from employers that lessen the chance they will measure up. Lead Harvard researcher Joseph Fuller cited examples of hospitals scanning résumés of registered nurses for “computer programming” when what they need is someone who can enter patient data into a computer. Power companies, he said, scan for a customer-service background when hiring people to repair electric transmission lines. Some retail clerks won’t make it past a hiring system if they don’t have “floor-buffing” experience, Mr. Fuller said. This reliance on automation filters big sections of the population out of the workforce and companies lose access to candidates they want to hire, he added.

It's written in regard to this Harvard Business School paper which was just released and is publicly available.

[ChpBstrd]

What are the factors causing the software to throw people out? I don't subscribe the the WSJ and my normal workarounds for trying to read a particular story there don't seem to be working today.

It includes amazing data points like:

Job prospects get tripped up by everything from brief résumé gaps to ballooning job descriptions from employers that lessen the chance they will measure up. Lead Harvard researcher Joseph Fuller cited examples of hospitals scanning résumés of registered nurses for “computer programming” when what they need is someone who can enter patient data into a computer. Power companies, he said, scan for a customer-service background when hiring people to repair electric transmission lines. Some retail clerks won’t make it past a hiring system if they don’t have “floor-buffing” experience, Mr. Fuller said. This reliance on automation filters big sections of the population out of the workforce and companies lose access to candidates they want to hire, he added.

It's written in regard to this Harvard Business School paper which was just released and is publicly available.

These sound like normal everyday business errors to me. The underlying issue is that information technology has allowed people to apply for hundreds of jobs at once and then pick the best offer, which means hundreds of applications for any given job and a lot of labor spent in the hiring process. One way around this, which may not work for all employers, is to only take applications in-person. This would narrow the list of applicants to only the most motivated people, and it would prove they can show up.

[PDXTabs]

These sound like normal everyday business errors to me.

These sound like new exciting business errors to me. But you are welcome to your own opinion. When I was working retail 19 year ago our applications were in person on paper. Then the manager actually held them in their hand and read them.

[Paul der Krake]

I've been trying to get a job recently and was really mystified/discouraged by how annoyingly difficult it was.

This is in a crazy hot industry where fresh grads make 150-200k.

I kept getting getting ghosted, up to the point where I started telling people I had an existing offer, at which point people suddenly started responding to my emails and scheduling interviews.

[bacchi]

I've been trying to get a job recently and was really mystified/discouraged by how annoyingly difficult it was.

This is in a crazy hot industry where fresh grads make 150-200k.

I kept getting getting ghosted, up to the point where I started telling people I had an existing offer, at which point people suddenly started responding to my emails and scheduling interviews.

I don't understand. They contacted you, you responded, and then they ghost you? And now you respond with, "I've got an offer but I'm thinking about it. Tell me what you're looking for." and that works?

[Paul der Krake]

I've been trying to get a job recently and was really mystified/discouraged by how annoyingly difficult it was.

This is in a crazy hot industry where fresh grads make 150-200k.

I kept getting getting ghosted, up to the point where I started telling people I had an existing offer, at which point people suddenly started responding to my emails and scheduling interviews.

I don't understand. They contacted you, you responded, and then they ghost you? And now you respond with, "I've got an offer but I'm thinking about it. Tell me what you're looking for." and that works?

Yes I'd get ghosted after a couple emails, at various stages of the interview cycle. Sometimes between interviews, sometimes in between interviews. I gave up on those companies and moved on to others.

Once I made it clear that I was actively interviewing and had offers in hand, that still happened, I'd get a ghost or a very delayed response once in a while, but overall they'd take me much more seriously, loops would get scheduled promptly, etc.

Early on it was weeks of hunting with absolutely no results, and then suddenly the flip switched and I started getting offers from places.

My "favorite" interaction was a large financial institution that was absolutely /terrible/ at scheduling and responding to emails (not answering questions, sending calendar invites in the wrong timezones), finally got me some interviews line up, then ghosted me for a full month. Once I finally heard back from them they had an offer for a job I did not interview for but had VP title. What the fuck.

[ender]

Many banks have VPs for titles even as ICs @Paul der Krake.

I have a good friend working at a household known financial institution as a "VP" but with no direct reports.

[LennStar]

Many banks have VPs for titles even as ICs @Paul der Krake.

I have a good friend working at a household known financial institution as a "VP" but with no direct reports.

The best VP title is still "VP in charge of VPs"

[Paul der Krake]

Many banks have VPs for titles even as ICs @Paul der Krake.

I have a good friend working at a household known financial institution as a "VP" but with no direct reports.

The best VP title is still "VP in charge of VPs"

Yes, VP is basically senior engineer or more in banking.

[habanero]

At some point in time Goldman had bit over 30.000 employees of which almost 12.000 were VPs. At least according to Lloyd Blankfein and I guess he should know.

An old classic explaining investment banking titles:

Global Head of X" / "Partner Managing Director" / Management Committee member

Counting their coin. Checking it twice. Determining bonuses of who's been naughty and nice.

Managing Director

Actually runs a desk or unit.

Executive Director

Being groomed to run a desk or unit.

Vice President

Runs/manages subsets of a desk or unit, generally the bits the ED thinks are less profitable than the bits he manages.

Associate

Runs themselves and an analyst.

Analyst

Runs Excel, if lucky.