61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience
1–10 of 364 posts
Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience
#2I get it though. The employer is thinking: Why do I pay you to train you? You should pay me to train you.
Lets bring back the apprentice system.
Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience
#3Do we need more evidence that "Entry-Level" means "poorly paid"?
Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience
#4I get it though. The employer is thinking: Why do I pay you to train you? You should pay me to train you. Lets bring back the apprentice system.
That's not the issue, the issue is the terminology. If you don't want to pay to train someone then don't label it an "entry-level" position. The truth is that many want "mid-level/senior-level" employees (3+ year experience requirements) at "entry-level" salaries.
Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience
#5Won't the market sort out whatever this is?
Is there a specific unfair mechanism at play that would prevent supply and demand from finding its balance?
Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience
#6"Require"? The fact that something is written in job description as a "requirement" doesn't mean that you won't get hired without it. I think that most jobs I got as a self taught engineer had a degree as a requirement – and it was almost never even mentioned in an interview.
Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience
#7I get it though. The employer is thinking: Why do I pay you to train you? You should pay me to train you. Lets bring back the apprentice system.
That's not the issue, the issue is the terminology. If you don't want to pay to train someone then don't label it an "entry-level" position. The truth is that many want "mid-level/senior-level" employees (3+ year experience requirements) at "entry-level" salaries.
Look at it from the perspective of a "career in this organization", not "career of this person".
It is an entry level job - it's the lowest tier in their ranking, it's the starting place, it's literally the level where new people enter the organization; it's the lowest paid and least respected position they have, filled with the least experienced and least tenured people in the whole company. It's just that they (want to) start with people who have worked (somewhere else) for a few years already; but that does not and can not make it a mid-tier job, that would require them to have other, even lower jobs.
Furthermore, saying that 3 years might be a senior level position is stretching definitions - assuming an average lifetime career of 30 years, someone with 3 years experience has less "seniority" than 90% of the workforce.
Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience
#8I dont really understand what the problem is. If a job says 3 year experience "required", it just means they want people that know what they're doing. If you worked a few summers and are good at something you're qualified to apply.
Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience
#9Won't the market sort out whatever this is? Is there a specific unfair mechanism at play that would prevent supply and demand from finding its balance?
The fact that people need a source of income to live, and that they have very little influence on the price of their labor without collective bargaining.
Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience
#10"Require"? The fact that something is written in job description as a "requirement" doesn't mean that you won't get hired without it. I think that most jobs I got as a self taught engineer had a degree as a requirement – and it was almost never even mentioned in an interview.
That's because oftentimes the people writing the help wanted ads aren't the same people doing the hiring for whatever team.