Seattle approves $15 per hour minimum wage

[General Zod]

It's worse when you consider that many jobs require a 4-year degree even if it has nothing to do with the job position. My wife tried to apply for a job at an auto insurance company, and they demanded a 4 year degree even for a basic trainee position. The recruiter even admitted they don't care what the degree is...it could be a degree in culinary arts for all the care. That means you're paying for a 4 year degree in a subject that you don't even need for the current job just to start off as a trainee. It's bullshit.

Those sort of jobs are common as dirt in New York. I see ads I'd be qualified for all the time but couldn't possibly land because a 4 year degree is required.

[Simon_Jester]

As far as I can tell, part of the problem is that the HR systems of a lot of employers are using "has a four year degree" as a bozo filter: a way to preemptively screen out applicants who are too dysfunctional, ignorant, or who have major personality defects that would get in the way of their being able to do the job.

I suspect that in the past this was handled differently.

[Borgholio]

I'd have no problem with a 4-year degree being required in a relevant field, but if you have 10 or 20 years of experience in the field...that should actually count more than a degree with no real world experience.

[General Zod]

As far as I can tell, part of the problem is that the HR systems of a lot of employers are using "has a four year degree" as a bozo filter: a way to preemptively screen out applicants who are too dysfunctional, ignorant, or who have major personality defects that would get in the way of their being able to do the job.

I suspect that in the past this was handled differently.

As far as I know, this sort of thing didn't really happen 15 years ago. The problem is simply a matter of too many applicants and not enough jobs.

[RogueIce]

It's probably because there are just so many people out there with degrees now, thanks to schools and basically everybody else pushing the "if you don't have a college degree you have failed at life and will never go anywhere ever" meme so hard over the years. All else being equal for an entry-level position, in a "professional" job they'd be more likely to take someone with a degree than not. And since there's such a glut of college grads out there these days, they might as well make it a requirement - even if you don't actually need that degree to do the job - so as not to waste time on applicants they were never going to hire anyway.

That and the state of US public education and that college is, essentially, High School 2.0 for the first couple years anyway, which is bad enough.

[Zaune]

As far as I can tell, part of the problem is that the HR systems of a lot of employers are using "has a four year degree" as a bozo filter: a way to preemptively screen out applicants who are too dysfunctional, ignorant, or who have major personality defects that would get in the way of their being able to do the job.

I suspect that in the past this was handled differently.

Automation strikes again! In the past it didn't matter quite so much if HR inflated the requirements a bit for whatever reason, because an actual human being would still have to sift through all the applications that did turn up. Ideally they'd read over each resume and pass on some that didn't quite meet the stated qualifications but might still be somewhat acceptable (possibly receiving an earful about expletive deleted Human Resources REMFs and their artistic license for their trouble), and at worst they'd just throw up their hands, grab a dozen at random and make it someone else's problem so they can sneak out for a smoke.

But nowadays, there's these wonderful things called keyword searches. Anything that doesn't meet the requirements in the advert to the letter gets bounced back with a canned "thanks but no thanks" message as soon as it touches the server, no human intervention needed. Isn't progress wonderful!

(Can you tell this has happened to me more than once?)

[Borgholio]

(Can you tell this has happened to me more than once?)

I've heard some people say don't even bother with a cover letter anymore because the resume-sorting software won't read it. Just focus on making a solid resume and hope you have the right keywords in it.

[Simon_Jester]

As far as I can tell, part of the problem is that the HR systems of a lot of employers are using "has a four year degree" as a bozo filter: a way to preemptively screen out applicants who are too dysfunctional, ignorant, or who have major personality defects that would get in the way of their being able to do the job.

I suspect that in the past this was handled differently.

Automation strikes again! In the past it didn't matter quite so much if HR inflated the requirements a bit for whatever reason, because an actual human being would still have to sift through all the applications that did turn up. Ideally they'd read over each resume and pass on some that didn't quite meet the stated qualifications but might still be somewhat acceptable (possibly receiving an earful about expletive deleted Human Resources REMFs and their artistic license for their trouble), and at worst they'd just throw up their hands, grab a dozen at random and make it someone else's problem so they can sneak out for a smoke.

But nowadays, there's these wonderful things called keyword searches. Anything that doesn't meet the requirements in the advert to the letter gets bounced back with a canned "thanks but no thanks" message as soon as it touches the server, no human intervention needed. Isn't progress wonderful!

(Can you tell this has happened to me more than once?)

The flip side of that is, the same information technology means that each job posting receives an enormous number of applicants, because unemployed people who are even slightly trying can spam a dozen job applications a week. Two or three dozen, easily. Multiply by even a few weeks of unemployment and that translates into something on the close order of a hundred applications.

Now, suppose that there are roughly as many unfilled jobs as there are unemployed people to fill them. For every application you send, someone, somewhere, has to read the thing. If you send out 100 applications before finding a job, on average 100 applications are being vetted for each job. Ten years ago it'd be considerably less; twenty years ago online applications weren't a thing that happened, and that number of applications to read would be in the single or low double digits, not triple digits.

Since the HR departments haven't gotten ten times bigger, they have to automate the process somehow.

So there's an evolutionary arms race here between the unemployed (who use IT to spam applications) and the HR departments (who use automation to filter the spammed applications in hopes of reducing them to a manageable number). It's counterproductive, but evolutionary arms races usually are.

[Elheru Aran]

I wonder. Is there any correlation between the difficulty of finding a job now in the Internet age, the rise of the online application, versus being able to get a job before the Internet when you actually had to go places and fill out a paper application?

How do places even deal with paper applications these days, anyway? Do they just mail them all off to a central office? The manager read them? OCR them into some computer? What?

[General Zod]

I wonder. Is there any correlation between the difficulty of finding a job now in the Internet age, the rise of the online application, versus being able to get a job before the Internet when you actually had to go places and fill out a paper application?

How do places even deal with paper applications these days, anyway? Do they just mail them all off to a central office? The manager read them? OCR them into some computer? What?

Funny you should ask, I went to Trader Joe's the other day to drop off a paper application. According to the manager I talked to, they only accept applications on a store by store basis. So if you wanted to be considered for other stores, you'd have to put in a separate application. (Trader Joe's pays about as much as I'm earning right now and comes with half the stress, so I figured what the hell.)

[Broomstick]

I wonder. Is there any correlation between the difficulty of finding a job now in the Internet age, the rise of the online application, versus being able to get a job before the Internet when you actually had to go places and fill out a paper application?

As someone who has had the experience of looking for a job from the late 1970's through the present, it is a fuck of a lot harder to get noticed these days than in the old days. You simply could not generate as many applications in a day or a week due to the need to physically obtain the forms and actually fill them out one at a time by hand or by typewriter. Then there was the cost in time and money to actually move you and the apps around. You were a lot more selective about where you applied.

Now, yes, the unemployed are forced to be spam generators. It doesn't help that in the US just about every agency purporting to help the poor/unemployed/underemployed requires a crapton of applications from each job seeker per day/week/month. The requirements in that regard have soared, leading to even more spamming of apps. If the agency providing your with food stamps or housing assistance demands that you apply to X number of jobs per unit of time you will definitely do that, whether you have even a ghost of a chance of getting that job, because your food and shelter depend on that.

Remember, though, that 30 or 40 years ago there were simply more jobs of the sort that required minimal training or experience that have largely been eliminated by automation these days. Basic bookkeeping, typing, answering the phones/taking messages, and so one used to be very commonly available jobs that paid a living wage and they're just gone these days. So all those people either fall down to the tier below them, crowding out entry-level people, or try to claw their way upwards, but there are fewer jobs above them and those might require training they don't have access to due to money or whatever.

How do places even deal with paper applications these days, anyway? Do they just mail them all off to a central office? The manager read them? OCR them into some computer? What?

A lot of places simply will not, under any circumstances, accept a paper application. Period. If you attempt to submit one it will go directly to the trash can.

In other cases, you'll be at a sharp disadvantage. It's pretty rare to see a paper-only application process these days.

[Elheru Aran]

How do places even deal with paper applications these days, anyway? Do they just mail them all off to a central office? The manager read them? OCR them into some computer? What?

A lot of places simply will not, under any circumstances, accept a paper application. Period. If you attempt to submit one it will go directly to the trash can.

In other cases, you'll be at a sharp disadvantage. It's pretty rare to see a paper-only application process these days.

I would think that if a place offers a paper application they're semi-obligated to at least give it the once-over before they toss it? I mean, there's enough stores down here where if you walk up and ask for an application they'll give you one. This may be a regional thing, though. I do note that most of the corporate places will also tell you to apply on their website.

It is somewhat disturbing how involved everything has become with technology these days... but then I'm essentially a neo-Luddite in some ways...

[Broomstick]

I would think that if a place offers a paper application they're semi-obligated to at least give it the once-over before they toss it?

No. Why would they be?

It is somewhat disturbing how involved everything has become with technology these days... but then I'm essentially a neo-Luddite in some ways...

Personally, I'm getting disturbed at how having a smart phone is getting to be a requirement these days.

[Elheru Aran]

I would think that if a place offers a paper application they're semi-obligated to at least give it the once-over before they toss it?

No. Why would they be?

I suppose there's no practical obligation, but if a person is willing to work for you, that's something. It strikes me as rather dishonest to be willing to give out an application upon request and then simply ignore it. If you're not hiring, don't give out applications, or if you do, at least file them for a period of time.

It is somewhat disturbing how involved everything has become with technology these days... but then I'm essentially a neo-Luddite in some ways...

Personally, I'm getting disturbed at how having a smart phone is getting to be a requirement these days.[/quote]

In general my problem is more with how people are starting to lose touch with basic skills beyond those required for everyday living. Things as small as cursive writing, for example. Things as large as an appreciation for hand-worked pieces and those who make such. Clothes being far cheaper to just buy off a rack in Walmart than to actually make yourself. Technology is a blessing-- I won't argue with that-- but I'm afraid my kids won't want to learn to value a life that's all the simpler for not having it everywhere.

[General Zod]

Clothes being far cheaper to just buy off a rack in Walmart than to actually make yourself.

I'm pretty sure making clothes yourself hasn't been a normal thing for at least 50 years. Most people just don't have the time or the skill to make clothes that don't, well, look like you made them yourself. But I'm nitpicking a tangent.

[Broomstick]

I suppose there's no practical obligation, but if a person is willing to work for you, that's something. It strikes me as rather dishonest to be willing to give out an application upon request and then simply ignore it. If you're not hiring, don't give out applications, or if you do, at least file them for a period of time.

Do people ever read the bits where I write that receiving government aid in the US is contingent on job seeking, which is measured by how many applications you submit.

Even if you're not hiring, in retail shops, restaurants, and other easily accessible locations people will literally BEG to be allowed to fill out an application. Even if you're not hiring. It's a hell of a lot easier to simply hand them an application than argue with them for 15-20 minutes, and they get to fulfill a bureaucratic requirement in order to obtain desperately needed assistance.

Yes, it's dishonest to claim you're hiring when you're not, or promise someone their application will be looked at when it won't, but if you say "we're not hiring" and someone wants to fill out an application anyway I don't see a problem here, and you may even be helping the person even if you're not hiring him/her.

[Elheru Aran]

Clothes being far cheaper to just buy off a rack in Walmart than to actually make yourself.

I'm pretty sure making clothes yourself hasn't been a normal thing for at least 50 years. Most people just don't have the time or the skill to make clothes that don't, well, look like you made them yourself. But I'm nitpicking a tangent.

I think it was a lot more common even 20 years ago than it is now; clothes cost a bit more relative to the value of the dollar than they do now. It's become far more of a niche thing with the cost of materials and time versus simply buying something off the rack. Broomy can probably chime in on that, though, it's obviously before my time

It's not just clothes, that was just one example that came to mind-- there's a lot of products out there like that. Take woodworking or cabinet-making; you can spend a hell of a lot of money to have cabinets custom made, you can take a few years and learn how to do it yourself and probably end up spending about as much as you would to have it made, or just go buy some at the local big-box.

Conversely you have the rise of the 'maker', people who put stuff together for fun or for a living. Cosplayers also fall into that category (just something else I thought of). It's a bit more of a geeky thing than a practical thing right now, though. Which really pretty much is what most hobbies come down to, and what a lot of skills formerly seen as 'essential' or 'practical' have become.

[Elheru Aran]

Yes, it's dishonest to claim you're hiring when you're not, or promise someone their application will be looked at when it won't, but if you say "we're not hiring" and someone wants to fill out an application anyway I don't see a problem here, and you may even be helping the person even if you're not hiring him/her.

Fair enough. It's a personal issue, that's all.

[Broomstick]

Clothes being far cheaper to just buy off a rack in Walmart than to actually make yourself.

I'm pretty sure making clothes yourself hasn't been a normal thing for at least 50 years. Most people just don't have the time or the skill to make clothes that don't, well, look like you made them yourself. But I'm nitpicking a tangent.

I think it was a lot more common even 20 years ago than it is now; clothes cost a bit more relative to the value of the dollar than they do now. It's become far more of a niche thing with the cost of materials and time versus simply buying something off the rack. Broomy can probably chime in on that, though, it's obviously before my time

Back in the 1970's when I was in school making your own clothes was, indeed, much more common and not for just coplayers (we hadn't heard of the term yet), hippies (we still had them back then) and the like. It was promoted as a useful skill, especially for the poor and the young adults just starting out. Fabric, patterns, and sewing machines were common as dirt and a lot of folks either really did make their own clothes or extensively modified off the rack clothes. Lots of people made their own clothes and no, they didn't look like they were half-assed, either. Often, that was the only way for middle-class and lower young women to get really nicely made clothing.

When my second-oldest sister got married we didn't buy her wedding dress, we made it, along with the bridesmaid dresses. This wasn't seen as particularly unusual for our social class in the mid-1970's. These days? It just doesn't happen that way unless you're a dedicated coplayer or member of SCA, and probably not that often among those folks.

I will also note that we did NOT have computerized sewing machines back then (virtually all were electric, though) and it was a heck of a lot cheaper to get a useful, durable, "starter machine" as opposed to the elaborate models you usually see for sale today. Because more people sewed the availability of patterns and material was much more extensive.

Back then, it WAS cheaper to make rather than buy your own clothes. Now, though, poor people can pick up new clothing for a fraction of the cost of making the equivalent. So sewing one's clothes has moved from "useful skill of the lower socio-economic classes" to "wealthy person's hobby". Likewise things like knitting, which became trendy in recent years. Poor people used to knit socks because they needed to. Well, these days I'm poor but the lowest cost (not including the worth of my time/labor) I've done a pair of socks is about $8/pair. I can get 10 commercially made socks for that price.

A lot of this has to do with increased automation (used to be you needed a human to monitor/maintain a commercial knitting machine, for example, but something like sock production has become increasingly automated with time, requiring much less human input) and outsourcing of production to the third world (used to be most clothing was made in-country, now it's almost all produced overseas).

The bottom line is that poor people today have access to cheap clothing. Lots of cheap clothing. It used to be very common in my youth that people only had sufficient clothing for about one week, with a couple of good outfits for special occasions. These days? Holy crap. Clothing in second hand shops was generally worn and often needed mending. These days? Practically new.

On the downside you're much more constrained by the seasonal styles and the clothes themselves are often poorly made, with poor quality control and crap materials. On the other hand, who cares if it only lasts a half dozen washes? It's cheap to replace. No more need for "classic" styles that will last years, of good quality materials that are durable.

Except... see the the Vimes theory of economics in my sig line.