Study: Nearly half are overqualified for their jobs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014380591

Sounds like Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, Dell and the rest, with their bullshit claims of a lack of talent... are just seeking cheap labor.

Actually, I am retired, but when I wasn't it was a major talking point behind closed doors. Along with outsourcing will save money, which it did not since you have lost the immediate quality control of seeing when things are starting to go off the track, not just when you get a defective product back.

But the thinking is so ingrained, that any arguments are dismissed as if you are not up on the latest information.

but a quote from the article is of interest "Right now you can look around the world and you can see a lot of high-tech, high-value high-productivity jobs that we are not doing in this country, in part because our country does not have the requisite skills," says Joe Minarik, of the Washington-based Committee for Economic Development. "

Also the article suggests that of those who have degrees and have jobs (even those who have a BS degree in dumbass) are making almost 60K/year.

..but workers have yet to see a pay increase. i.e. we are doing almost twice the work we used to do.. for less money.

Welcome to Republican-World-Trickle-Down hell. That's where they pee on your shoes and tell you it's raining.



Worse yet.. if you are over 50.. no company will even talk to you because they are afraid you will run up their health care costs.

At the same time... the Republican pshchopaths in Congress want to RAISE the retirement age to 75.

The standard of living in China is up by the exact same amount that the standard of living is down in the USA... and it's getting worse.

Productivity is up across all sectors of the economy because technology allows companies to produce more with fewer workers.

One can find this effect in manufacturing, the service sector, IT, everywhere.

After companies downsized from 2007-2009, they found they could produce the same amount or more with fewer workers.

This phenomenon is accelerating. Expect the unemployment rate to remain where it is now, or go up, for many decades to come. And it will not matter who is in office, D or R. Technology is it's own imperative.

It's a simultaneous situation. That's why it's so frustrating.

how the future plays out. If nothing is done, nothing will change for the common worker.

And the actions of masses of frustrated people is by no means clear. One, actions have consequences, both positive and negative. Two, masses of people have masses of differing opinions. Three, frustrated people act in sometimes weird ways.

We're living in a future that was acted for by masses of frustrated people. There are some positives, and there are some negatives. Some things have changed for the common worker, some things have not.

Diversity is a messy thing.

that future, which has come to pass because of the actions of those masses is very much in danger and slipping away. The age we live in now bears a striking resemblance in many ways to the labor situation at the turn of the 19th into the 20th century i.e., that described in 'The Jungle' or the Gilded Age or the Age of the Robber Barons. And it is going to take a massive effort to turn things around. But if it was done once and it can be done again. However a clear direction and leadership will definitely be needed.

as I know many people whose workplaces have downsized and they are all expected to do more work because it still needs to get done. Including my own place of work.

.... to do that work within the 40-hour constraint, or put in 'free overtime'.

IMO we would be a hella happier place if we followed some European models of a 35 hour work week, lower production, more life-time. The gerbil-wheel we're on now: work more to buy more to work more to buy more, is simply not sustainable or healthy.

... if one is stuck at $7-10/hr and has a couple kids to raise, one must keep feeding "the machine" (food, clothes, housing supplies etc).

In the event of 'unnecessary stuff', I agree totally, but that's a discussion for the Marketing Industry, isn't it? The road I take to work every morning is lined with used car dealerships. Hundreds - if not thousands - of used cars waiting to be sold. And still we're bombarded with new car ads and gimmicks every time we turn on the tv or open a magazine. And that's just one industry.

...buying a second or third television, buying a new car when the current vehicle works perfectly, buying a stainless steel refrigerator when the 20 year old beige one still purrs along well.

I don't consider buying necessities "buying more".

as waiters and waitresses. They barely pay their rent with their pay and tips.

They don't "buy more" ever. And some of them live with their parents.

A third television?

A new car?

Are you kidding? That's not the America we live in. That is the America the people on TV live in. And that's why I don't watch TV.

The young ones don't buy much. They can't afford it. They live rather austerely in many cases, compared to those in their position in the 90s.

Even the ones with good jobs often have high student loans they have to pay off. I know a young guy who has been working in the financial (trading) profession for a couple of years after graduating with his master's. He's done well - he is very able. He makes over 100K. But he has over 100K in student loans, and these jobs are in the cities, so he doesn't even have a car. Actually he and his girlfriend share one. She has a job and makes over 40K, but she lives at home with her family and buys her clothes at thrift shops, when she buys them. She's got to pay off her student loans too.

They're going to get married, but they are planning to spend the next three years paying off their loans and saving money so they can afford a wedding.

These are the successful ones. Their one car is over 10 years old. Companies are crying wondering why young people don't spend the way they "should", but this is the reason.

Now take someone who hasn't had the luck in finding the job, and has to cover those student loans working as a waiter or barista. It's ugly.

are mandatory 12-16 hour days.

there aren't enough jobs to go around here, so the work week should be shortened so that more can have jobs. I think Germany starts with 6 weeks vacation too. People actually have some quality of life there.

so that we have a healthy, safe society?

Do we give it all to the rich, to those who invested in it or innovated it, or do we spread the benefits of technology across society?

That is the major political and social issue of our time.

The fact that so many talented, well educated people in the U.S. (and across the world) are doing work that does not challenge their abilities suggests we may face a pretty dismal future.

The rich view themselves as the "makers." They think, that they are therefore entitled to keep the benefits of what they think they made and not share those benefits.

What they don't understand is that there are millions of people with just as much ability as they who are working just as hard as they ever worked, but who don't have the opportunities they have.

I watched a Netflix video of a 1995 interview with Steve Jobs. He spoke about the experiences he had as a teenager and young man. He was born at the right time, and happened to live in the right places and meet people who were doing innovative things in the field of computers.

When you see the video, you realize that he had a lot of talent and he worked hard, but that the secret of his success was the mixture of his talent, his personality AND ALL THE HELP HE GOT ALONG THE WAY BECAUSE HE JUST HAPPENED TO BE IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME.

Had Steve Jobs lived in Podunk, Mo., he would never, ever have become the computer innovator he was and never, ever have been able to do what he did at Apple.

It's just a fact.

And that is why I believe that the benefits of technology, the profit from these innovations, should be shared. They do not simply belong to those lucky few who happen to wander into Hewlitt-Packard laboratories when they are teenagers.

I have read similar facts about Bill Gates. During his early teen years, he attended a private school and had a computer to play with. At that time, most kids in America did not have computers to experiment with. Who knows whether Bill Gates would have become so wealthy had some other equally bright or even brighter kids in America had the opportunities he had at that early period in his life. Why should he get to keep all the benefits of something he got to a great extent by chance?

So, the big challenge is for those who think of themselves as gifted "makers" to understand that while they were gifted and lucky, a lot of other people are just as gifted and work just as hard as they do but make a lot less money. Those who are not rich are not always poorer because they aren't "makers." It is often because they did not have the opportunity to become "makers."

There is only so much demand for people at the top of the heap. Most of us end up at the bottom no matter how brilliant or talented we are. The benefits of technology should be shared by all. And every individual needs challenge in work and life.

We cannot expect people to continue to work so hard at menial jobs for little pay. Either people who are not challenged in their work will not encourage their children to become well educated or they will quit working so much and who knows what will happen? It's not a pretty ending.

Everyone has to learn to share their toys and talents. It's the only way a big family can live in anything approaching harmony.

Over the coming decades, because of economic reality, people will delay having families, or have smaller families, or no children at all.

Boomers will pass away.

Population centers will shrink.

And since 2007, even within the immigration groups, birth rates have dropped below the replacement level:

Decline in recent birth rates:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-record-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/11/Birth_Rate_Final.pdf



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Beyond the Seattle area, Gates was appointed to the board of directors of the national United Way in 1980, becoming the first woman to lead it in 1983. Her tenure on the national board's executive committee is believed to have helped Microsoft, based in Seattle, at a crucial time. In 1980, she discussed with John Opel, a fellow committee member who was the chairman of the International Business Machines Corporation, her son's company. Mr. Opel, by some accounts, mentioned Mrs. Gates to other I.B.M. executives.

A few weeks later, I.B.M. took a chance by hiring Microsoft, then a small software firm, to develop an operating system for its first personal computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Maxwell_Gates

citibank.

has a job, and the only jobs (except for CEO and Boards of Directors) pay poverty wages??

Ask your unfettered free market capitalist friends THAT.

All that fun stuff like IT workers being expected to hang in another twenty, thirty, fifty hours of work a week, especially since allowing employers to require that sort of thing increasingly has the force of law behind it. Why hire two people, when you can hire one person, tell him to do two peoples' jobs, and skip out on paying for the excess time?

I left my previous job over something like that - they switched me from hourly to salary and immediately demanded I start putting in 60-80 hours a week at my base rate. I had enough saved up that I could afford to do that and spend some months in the doldrums until finding something better a few months ago, but I also know a lot of people in similar situations, maybe most, aren't nearly so lucky.

The rapid expansion of colleges during the Vietnam War has come home to roost.

Some institutions produce worthless degrees that are not remotely linked to
any business experience.

And with this much surplus education rampant in America it doesn't sound like
a good bet that educating more young people more and more at greater
expense is going to bear fruit for them or for society.

Degrees are worthwhile when they build skills and experience (accounting, math,
entrepreneurship, even journalism if interned)

or when they are closely linked with the local job market (community colleges).

The rest of this education is just not worth the effort or cost.

And the education industry has costs that are inflated by all the easy federally-
backed borrowing to pay tuition.

If you want to inflate the cost of something, throw money at it. Insurance, college
loans come to mind.

Americans need to become better consumers of education.

It enables us to read, think and write well. It is just a wonderful gift.

Technical education serves us only if we are able to put it to its specific use (get a great engineering or technical job that is challenging) or use the basic skills it gave us to do something else we want or need to do.

I found that my liberal arts background enabled me to learn just about anything I wanted to learn. I think that more people should study liberal arts in college in the future. They should then take technical training.

It would be great if we had a system similar to that of some European countries in which stronger academic training -- liberal arts training -- was available to high school students who wanted it. Those students could then finish both a strong liberal arts education and some technical training by the time they were in their early 20s.

I know someone with a degree in a math-related field from one of the top schools in the country. She found when she went into the labor market that she really needed a PhD to be employable above the level of an administrative assistant. Even a degree from a great, big-name school, honors and glowing recommendations do not always mean a challenging job in our economy. I know another person who has a PhD in a math-related field (partly math partly something else) who has had great difficulty finding a job. This has been going on for years and years. It is getting worse.

In the thirties, people with engineering degrees could not get jobs. Liberal arts makes a person more flexible. I strongly recommend a liberal arts background.

There's lots of people graduating with computer science, network administration and other IT degrees. They can't find work due to competition from more experienced people who are "slumming it" in jobs they are overqualified for. Due to things like outsourcing and H1Bs and the insane demand that no company ever conduct on-the-job training.

These aren't fluffy, useless degrees. They're the ones held up as examples of "real" degrees that give "real" training for "real" work. And they're utterly failing so that the CEOs can buy a 5th house.

It's not the problem of "these kids today". It's the problem of "these executives today".

And some other categories....

What's the situation of those with associate degrees?

What about graduates of trade schools? Those with apprenticeship?

For 10 years before transferring to another department in the company. We both do the same thing in the QA lab on different shifts. In fact, his 15 years of seniority beat my college degree.

How fucked up is that?

is you assuming because you have some piece of paper that you are better and more derserving of more money than some other individual. Is that other person competent and doing what is required of him or her, then they derserve to be there.

Shows that I completed relevant coursework that gives me the knowledge to work in a lab setting, using analytical skills and sterile techniques while documenting any and all results related to my work.

Look at this another way. Would you be comfortable seeing a dentist who doesn't have his or her "piece of paper" showing they completed dental school? A pediatrician for your kids who never finished medical schoool? How about hiring someone without accreditation to build you a brand new home?

Not fucked up at all. Think of the reverse. How fucked up is the idea that 4 years in a classroom would beat 15 years actually doing work in the industry?

That's definitely a big problem in our country, but it's one of inflated education costs and unrealistic promises and expectations.

Most employers would rather hire someone with working experience than someone with a degree. And who can blame them?

It does seem to make a degree worth a lot less than the cost of getting one these days. I have been working in IT and technical fields for almost 15 years now, out of college. I was stunned by how many people (computer programmers, IT techs- highly skilled positions) don't have degrees. At first I was incredulous that they would have better positions and salaries than me. But as I've spent those years working, I've found that there's zero difference and when doing hiring myself I don't even check what the education level is on a resume.

I want to see demonstrated skills and the ability to practically apply those skills. A programmer, for example, could easily do and learn more applicable programming in 3 months on the job than in 4 years in most university Computer Science programs.

Don't get me wrong, he's a nice enough guy and I like his personality, but this is a QA lab in which food is tested to ensure that people don't fall ill. He is the only one without a degree, and he struggles more than all the other lab techs to complete his work. Frequently he leaves work for the next shift, but this is ignored due to his seniority he acquired while working in the production wing.

Every other QA position I've inquired at has a hard requirement for a college education to work as a lab tech. My place of employment is the only one that I have found that does not.

Does it comfort you to think that someone with no formal education in quality control or basic lab techniques is testing the food you or your family eat?

My experience leads me to believe that on the job training one receives is most times superior education than scholastic education.

To honestly answer your question, though I have many concerns about what goes into the food I eat, your statement neither raises or lowers them.

I don't doubt your personal situation isn't ideal. But it's also not likely the norm.

Is the ink dry on that diploma?

Seniority is worth something. Years of relevant experience are worth even more.

college, or as an excuse to not do something about high tuition and hideous student debt.
And then, of course, Americans will not be educated enough, so we will have to import people from countries that actually help with education.

"Look, Charlie, let's face it. We all know that College is a big commercial racket. It's run by a big eastern syndicate, you know."

I have three children, all graduates with Finance, Accounting, and Marketing degrees from major universities.

All with full time jobs. All with horrendous debt burdens. They live in Chicago and Cleveland....not cheap.

If they were in high school today, I would recommend they first get an associates degree from a community college (less expensive) and some real world work experience. Then go back after a few years and get a bachelor's.

Better yet, go to a trade school, complete an apprenticeship. Work for oneself or as a contractor. Buy a piece of land away from metropolitan areas --- 100 acres would do. Move out of urban areas, to a place like Circleville, OH. Stock up on food and water. Know one's neighbors well. Learn how to protect oneself. But I digress.

Not everyone should go to a 4 year college out of high school. If I could do it over, I wouldn't. I don't need a 4 year degree and my working experience surpassed my college learned knowledge in a few months of work.

Unless we get a complete overhaul of the university system, financially, it's not worth it and it's putting many people into debt that isn't worth the degrees they are getting.

There are other ways to have an educated populace. Push kids to Community Colleges and Trade Schools, at least right out of high school. Let them finish at a 4 year school if a Bachelor's, or more, is needed in an industry of their choice. Make online degrees and certificates more affordable and more valuable. Let's shore up our primary education so our high school graduates are capable of sound thinking.

But pushing kids into exorbitantly expensive 4 year schools isn't a net plus on our society.

Yet, I use the knowledge and expertise I learned from my 2-year vocational drafting degree a few years before. And I'm happy with that.

I'm glad I was able to get a four-year degree, but it's just not for everybody. Two years of college for a well-rounded background and a vocational degree is all most people truly need. And some don't even need that.

I dismiss the concept of "over-qualified" as a term invented by corporations to have yet another excuse to not hire someone. If they cared more about employee loyalty, and encouraged that, versus laying people off every time there was a minuscule economic downturn (i.e., their stock prices dropped three cents) then we wouldn't even be discussing this.

A lot of energy goes towards keeping kids in school, at least to get their HS Diploma. It isn't working - nationwide. Here in LA, completion rates hover around 50%.

IMHO, I don't really blame the kids. They see their older siblings, cousins and families in the neighborhood. Those students who went to college, paid those tuition bills, took out those loans are frankly working in boring substandard positions that do not justify the cost of the degree. Assuming they even got a job. Employers who pretend a BS/BA is required to adequately perform the tasks of a routine service job are just trying to narrow the field of applicants. It is not a job-performance factor. Maybe this means a degree helps you get that routine service job, but you are paying a lot for little.

Until America starts creating decent jobs again, at family-sustaining wages, young people will be cynical of the value of higher ed. Trade schools, skill-specific training classes are still important.