[lbo-talk] Friends and enemies

Somebody Somebody philos_case at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 20 10:51:30 PDT 2010


[WS:] This crossed my mind too, but on the second thought, I do not think it is the case. I recall arguments being made a couple years ago about most "sought for" skills in job applicants. Contrary to popular beliefs, the argument went, corporations were not looking for highly specialized education, but for general one, such as humanities, "topped up" with some specialized training. It was so, because (i) technical skills are always organization-specific, so technical training received in colleges is of limited usefulness, and the candidate must be retrained anyway; and (ii) technical training is relatively simple and inexpensive, most entry levels candidates can be trained to acceptable levels of technical competence within a few weeks.

Somebody: I think you're mistaken about this. The popular belief is correct - American companies are looking increasingly for workers with specialized skills that require less on-the-job training. This trend has only been accelerated by the depression. That's why a liberal arts bachelor degree by itself is less valuable than ever. One piece of evidence is how slow companies are to fill job openings today:

"Among the explanations for the stubbornly high U.S. unemployment rate, factors such as housing troubles and extended unemployment benefits have played a leading role. Increasingly, though, economists and job seekers are identifying another problem: Employers are being pickier, or not trying as hard as they usually do to fill the openings they have.

The reasons for the foot-dragging are closely related to the reasons employers aren't creating many openings in the first place. Companies lack confidence about the outlook for consumer demand, they're not sure what the government will do with taxes and regulation, and they want to keep squeezing as much output from their current workers as they can. They also feel they have plenty of time to pick the best candidates.

...

Some companies complain that when they do try to hire, they have a hard time finding the right people. Extended unemployment benefits could make people less willing to take the jobs available, or mortgage troubles and poor credit scores could make it difficult for people to move for work.

But job seekers say some of the blame should be placed on the companies—either they're not trying very hard, or they're waiting for the perfect employee.

"I think a lot of companies are fishing," says Korey Stephens, a former mortgage-finance manager who has been looking for work since early 2007, while simultaneously training to update his computer skills. "They're just putting their feelers out, and if they find someone who's ridiculously awesome then maybe they'll hire them."

...

At Leggett & Platt Inc., which makes metal parts for bedding and other purposes, Chief Executive David Haffner says his company remains hesitant about any kind of expansion, because it's not clear to what degree demand will snap back. But when it does hire, it's taking more time.

"With more experienced talent on the market in these challenging times, we are utilizing a more rigorous screening and interviewing protocol," says Mr. Haffner. "We feel it is crucial to add 'top graded' talent."

That could be good for companies and their shareholders. But it will mean a lot more frustration for the 14.8 million Americans looking for a job."

Link: <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703927504575540491410169152.html>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list