I have experienced this first hand. I have applied for a LOT of jobs in the last 2 years and one of two things happens: They don't talk to me, or they do, and I sail past the preliminary interviews only to get rejected after the background check. I am not a felon, a terrorist, or a scourge of society. I have bad credit.(Funny/sad aside, I once went to Best Buy to see if I could get a card to finance something with the idea of improving my credit score. I was rejected summarily. I was trying to buy a toaster. I literally can't finance a toaster.) This scarlet letter had precluded me from any job paying a living wage. And that's why I'm retraining myself. No one cares what the FICO score of a talented software engineer is. At least, that's what I desperately hope the case is. For recruiters out there: Do you care about the credit of a potential coder?
I've always wondered why an employer would demand good credit. Even if the person is a spendthrift, what does it matter so long as they perform their job?
My employee could be living in a shack having had every single item of worth repossessed... but if they can do their job well, why wouldn't I hire them?
In any case, I know what you mean - I'm from Canada, and arrived in the US after the financial meltdown and subsequent tightening of the credit belt. I still don't have a credit rating since I couldn't convince any major bank in the USA to give me a credit card. Yes, this includes secured credit cards (i.e., you leave a month's credit limit with the bank in cash, if you miss your bill at all, they take the entire sum... aka zero risk for the bank) And yes, my credit in Canada is stellar - but that counts for absolutely zip in this country.
It's not until very recently that I was able to flash about an employer's name and convince one of them to cut me some slack. It'll be months still before my credit score populates - this has made renting apartments, and just about everything a nightmare.
The only way I've been able to skate by is by flashing an offer letter and pay stubs showing I make >3x the US median income... imagine if my pay was dead average... I'd be fucked.
I heard this for the first time on HN the other day. I think (and certainly hope) it's illegal for potential employers in Australia to use your credit file as a factor in deciding whether or not to hire you.
Not hiring people with bad credit seems to me to be patently absurd. Talk about kicking someone when they're down - as if non-payment of debt was a crime!
It seems that the likely result of this for most is the development of a disenfranchised underclass of black market employees.
Having healthcare attached to employment makes this all the more despicable.
Why aren't people in the U.S just rioting in the streets?! This is the real outrage.
Your experience stands in stark contrast to what the general belief of the tech media, including HN, is. Specifically, that the job market for engineers is extremely tight and that even junior developers can name their price, that recruiters are spamming everyone who has ever written a line of ruby, and that even the dumbest ideas are attaining ludicrous levels of funding.
I find it interesting that this 'tale of two cities' situation is becoming more pronounced.
I think the article does a pretty good job. I've figured several times that there is no "talent shortage" but a "training shortage": companies want people with skills they learn on the job but are unwilling to actually train anyone.
So you've got a bunch of companies sitting around waiting for a miracle to happen. Maybe HR imagines that a Google product exec will fall from the sky and accept $40k a year.
Even traditionally 'entry level' jobs that historically don't need a four-year degree are like this these days - secretary/receptionist jobs are almost always looking for people with two or three years of prior experience.
I wonder how much of this is due to the job market. Is it a supply and demand issue, where there are simply so many applicants that HR can sit back and wait for the perfect candidate? Or is the reluctance to hire less-experienced workers a long-term behavior shift that will stick around even if the worker supply dries up?
Uh, the outrage is over on reddit. Let's leave it to them, please. There are plenty of things to be outraged about to the point we could innondate the site with them.
Down the path of "outrage!" lies discussions about abortion, gay rights, appropriate levels of taxation, health care systems and any number of other topics that people feel VERY STRONGLY about.
The article also says 4.3 Americans have been jobless for months if not years. If this number includes those who are in prison, that means that nearly half of what is counted as unemployment is actually within the prison system.
Part of me says there are way too many people in prison, but the other side says, what if these people weren't in prison? Would the actual number of people competing for jobs be higher?
Simple arithmetic says yes, there would be more competition for jobs.
But you're talking about a dramatic change in US public policy. A first-order approximation is not sufficient, and higher-order approximations depend heavily on what guesses you want to make about the social outcomes.
What's the alternative to being in prison and what are their prospects? I suspect that employers of the sorts of jobs that the incarcerated could find are probably not that eager to hire people with a history of drug use[-1] regardless of its legality, but I do not have any data.
[-1]I also suspect that this is the main source of the incarcerations. But I'm not a US resident, I don't have any data here, either.
usually, 'unemployment' figures refer only to those who are actually currently on unemployment insurance payments. which is one of the serious problems with that number.
I'd wager close to another 1 in 5 works for the government directly or indirectly. And I assume we're not including retirees in any of this.
The ratio of retirees to workers continues to get worse. In the 1940s, there were 42 workers per retiree. Today there are 3.3 workers per retiree.
So you have a shrinking group of people who are actually producing (total workforce minus unemployed, minus goverment workers, minus workers who exist due to government purchasing) and a growing number of people who get a chunk of that production.
So if a tool made in China cost $20 and the same kind made in USA cost $100, which one do you think people are going to buy at the hardware store (even if the one made in China lasts 1/4th as long).
What if there was a tax that made the one made in China cost $70 - you think the one made in USA would have a fighting chance? I think so. It would create a whole bunch of jobs because there would be less impulse to move jobs overseas.
What if that $50 was used for single payer health care so that "job providers" didn't have pay for health insurance or play that game and compete with the international market.
You know what happens if we tax the hell out of cheap overseas goods? Everything gets more expensive. Cost of living skyrockets and wages would have to go up commensurately if people were going to survive/thrive. Businesses who raised wages would have to curtail hiring because more of their revenues were going to wages.
Any they'd keep shipping jobs overseas because of the healthy margins selling in overseas markets. Start taxing that stuff too and see how many corporations decide that being a US company isn't so awesome anymore...
That would be quite funny, given that USA has spent much of th last hundred years promoting free trade and trying to force other countries to open up their economies for foreign imports.
And I don't think a protectionist customs scheme is what you want. It could boost local manufacturing on a short them, but eventually the lack of incentive makes them fall behind. Then you have whole industries producing stuff nobody would buy, except for the fact that anything imported is way overpriced.
USA has a quite large domestic economy, but it still probably isn't enough for the companies there if they are not competitive elsewhere.
Then everything else would become way more expensive and the quality of life would decrease a lot.
Protectionism never many a country rich. Only production of goods and services that people actually want will do that. This may require people to upgrade their skills, but so be it.
On top of that 20%, there are people that are working part time to make ends meet. So in reality, the number of people that need full time jobs is much higher.
What's really interesting here is that companies are reporting awesome earnings[1], yet they're still resting on their laurels when it comes to hiring.
And, I think everyone is outraged when it comes to what's going on in Washington right now.
You can interpret that several ways. Perhaps those awesome earnings are short-term gains due to not paying wages for all those empty jobs, but long-term losses due to faltering growth as a result of all those empty jobs?
Okay, it sucks. What do you want me to do about it?
There are not many obvious sustainable solutions that don't involve the government suddenly deciding to reallocate pork funding to major public works or otherwise taking unlikely actions which would dramatically alter the current climate.
Meanwhile, it's a good time to start a business. It probably won't create many jobs and it might not take off, but at a minimum it will be good experience and it will look better than a few blank years on the resume.
Hmm, just had a thought - wouldnt it make sense, based on what you are saying, for people to just lie and say that they started a business which failed during the time they were unemployed?
[+] [-] daimyoyo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] potatolicious|14 years ago|reply
My employee could be living in a shack having had every single item of worth repossessed... but if they can do their job well, why wouldn't I hire them?
In any case, I know what you mean - I'm from Canada, and arrived in the US after the financial meltdown and subsequent tightening of the credit belt. I still don't have a credit rating since I couldn't convince any major bank in the USA to give me a credit card. Yes, this includes secured credit cards (i.e., you leave a month's credit limit with the bank in cash, if you miss your bill at all, they take the entire sum... aka zero risk for the bank) And yes, my credit in Canada is stellar - but that counts for absolutely zip in this country.
It's not until very recently that I was able to flash about an employer's name and convince one of them to cut me some slack. It'll be months still before my credit score populates - this has made renting apartments, and just about everything a nightmare.
The only way I've been able to skate by is by flashing an offer letter and pay stubs showing I make >3x the US median income... imagine if my pay was dead average... I'd be fucked.
[+] [-] dools|14 years ago|reply
Not hiring people with bad credit seems to me to be patently absurd. Talk about kicking someone when they're down - as if non-payment of debt was a crime!
It seems that the likely result of this for most is the development of a disenfranchised underclass of black market employees.
Having healthcare attached to employment makes this all the more despicable.
Why aren't people in the U.S just rioting in the streets?! This is the real outrage.
[+] [-] Nate75Sanders|14 years ago|reply
What jobs are asking you your credit score?
[+] [-] known|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oneofthefive|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diolpah|14 years ago|reply
I find it interesting that this 'tale of two cities' situation is becoming more pronounced.
[+] [-] Hyena|14 years ago|reply
So you've got a bunch of companies sitting around waiting for a miracle to happen. Maybe HR imagines that a Google product exec will fall from the sky and accept $40k a year.
[+] [-] mlg|14 years ago|reply
I wonder how much of this is due to the job market. Is it a supply and demand issue, where there are simply so many applicants that HR can sit back and wait for the perfect candidate? Or is the reluctance to hire less-experienced workers a long-term behavior shift that will stick around even if the worker supply dries up?
[+] [-] davidw|14 years ago|reply
Down the path of "outrage!" lies discussions about abortion, gay rights, appropriate levels of taxation, health care systems and any number of other topics that people feel VERY STRONGLY about.
[+] [-] pedalpete|14 years ago|reply
According to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta... 2.3 million people were incarcerated in the US, and 93% are male, so that's 2.1 million men.
The article also says 4.3 Americans have been jobless for months if not years. If this number includes those who are in prison, that means that nearly half of what is counted as unemployment is actually within the prison system.
Part of me says there are way too many people in prison, but the other side says, what if these people weren't in prison? Would the actual number of people competing for jobs be higher?
[+] [-] glimcat|14 years ago|reply
But you're talking about a dramatic change in US public policy. A first-order approximation is not sufficient, and higher-order approximations depend heavily on what guesses you want to make about the social outcomes.
[+] [-] JamesBlair|14 years ago|reply
[-1]I also suspect that this is the main source of the incarcerations. But I'm not a US resident, I don't have any data here, either.
[+] [-] dreww|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] webwright|14 years ago|reply
The ratio of retirees to workers continues to get worse. In the 1940s, there were 42 workers per retiree. Today there are 3.3 workers per retiree.
So you have a shrinking group of people who are actually producing (total workforce minus unemployed, minus goverment workers, minus workers who exist due to government purchasing) and a growing number of people who get a chunk of that production.
This does not end well.
[+] [-] doctoboggan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanmcq|14 years ago|reply
This is pretty rampant sexism for 2011. Don't want it to go unnoticed.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|14 years ago|reply
What if there was a tax that made the one made in China cost $70 - you think the one made in USA would have a fighting chance? I think so. It would create a whole bunch of jobs because there would be less impulse to move jobs overseas.
What if that $50 was used for single payer health care so that "job providers" didn't have pay for health insurance or play that game and compete with the international market.
[+] [-] webwright|14 years ago|reply
Any they'd keep shipping jobs overseas because of the healthy margins selling in overseas markets. Start taxing that stuff too and see how many corporations decide that being a US company isn't so awesome anymore...
[+] [-] ars|14 years ago|reply
If everyone had to spend 3 times as much on the things they buy, then they would have even less available money than they do now.
So they would probably stop buying, which would really hurt the economy.
Or they would cut out health insurance and other things.
[+] [-] bergie|14 years ago|reply
And I don't think a protectionist customs scheme is what you want. It could boost local manufacturing on a short them, but eventually the lack of incentive makes them fall behind. Then you have whole industries producing stuff nobody would buy, except for the fact that anything imported is way overpriced.
USA has a quite large domestic economy, but it still probably isn't enough for the companies there if they are not competitive elsewhere.
[+] [-] dools|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|14 years ago|reply
Protectionism never many a country rich. Only production of goods and services that people actually want will do that. This may require people to upgrade their skills, but so be it.
[+] [-] CrystalKoo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fatalisk|14 years ago|reply
And, I think everyone is outraged when it comes to what's going on in Washington right now.
[1] http://www.cnbc.com/id/18038403/
[+] [-] cageface|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] known|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glimcat|14 years ago|reply
There are not many obvious sustainable solutions that don't involve the government suddenly deciding to reallocate pork funding to major public works or otherwise taking unlikely actions which would dramatically alter the current climate.
Meanwhile, it's a good time to start a business. It probably won't create many jobs and it might not take off, but at a minimum it will be good experience and it will look better than a few blank years on the resume.
[+] [-] intended|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martythemaniak|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sage_joch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Helianthus|14 years ago|reply
edit: not that it doesn't deserve to be.