Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Youth Unemployment Bomb

businessweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 163 posts

Re: The Youth Unemployment Bomb

#111

Post by [deleted] »

ylem wrote: post #31
_delirium wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Relatedly: some days I wonder if the single most effective form of unemployment relief would be teaching people that sending out resumes is for suckers.) The welfare-reform efforts of the past 15-20 years in most western countries have tended to do exactly the opposite, oddly enough. Out of a worry that people were just receiving benefits without really looking for work, you must now demonstrate that you're actively…

I have a sister who is unemployed in California (Pasadena), so I will make a few anecdotal observations. She was an honors student in college and taught special ed for some years before moving on to manage some group homes for the mentally impaired. She then went into home health care and became unemployed when a job offer fell through. During this time (over 1 year), she has applied for many jobs (including an inter…

[deleted]

Re: The Youth Unemployment Bomb

#112

Post by lukeschlather »

gaius wrote: post #99
_delirium wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the main historical example of a make-work program in the U.S., during the Great Depression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration Perhaps because the WPA is a lot more recent, it seems to be the thing Americans think of when a make-work program is suggested. I don't think I've ever heard them criticized as Dickensian; instead they tend to be criticized as socialist.

Paying people to make stuff isn't a bad idea, if your government would be doing public works (e.g. roads) anyway, you just get to do that stuff a bit quicker. Paying people to do made-up jobs (e.g. most of the UK public sector) just destroys wealth.

If the jobs are truly pointless, they're not destroying wealth. Rather, they redistribute wealth. And even if they do destroy wealth (and you need to provide examples of specific positions and why they are counterproductive and not just unproductive) the destruction may be evened out by keeping them in the working mindset and being a normal member of society.

Re: The Youth Unemployment Bomb

#113

Post by redrobot5050 »

netmau5 wrote: post #59

They mention the product lifecycle being short as a primary reason for not wanting to bring on new employees. If it takes someone 12 months to get up to speed in an 18 month product lifecycle, it is too costly. I've got to wonder what kind of industry takes 12 months to get up to speed unless you've got workers coming in with absolutely no training and education. For most programmers I know, the worst case ramp up ti…

Hardware engineering can easily be 12 months out of 18. There are a sundry of reasons:

a) Moore's law. The technology your school is using for hardware design is easily 5-6 or 10 years out of date. This makes it easier to teach and cheaper to work on, but the "real world issues" like heat, leakage current, etc just aren't addressed at the same level.

b) Intel has its own RTL that is not taught in schools. Some technology companies also have proprietary in-house technologies (like Cachet, or Wasabi).

c) Ripple effects. Analog components might change/fluctuate and this impacts the entire design. Or a new antenna placement might merit new design, etc.

d) Scale. An undergrad in hardware engineering typically builds a 5 stage pipeline processor that supports 2-4 hardware interrupts and a memory controller. This is enough to run linux on an FPGA. You've engineered a computer! But a Core 2 Duo has 23 pipeline stages. Vector units. Out of Order execution. 96% accurate branch predictor. Each one of those things I've mentioned could be the focus of a masters or PhD thesis. Getting hired, you'd be expected to pick up the logic of all of them in about six months.

e) Minimization. More systems are being done by less chips. This is what is called System-On-A-Chip design by some. Previously, you'd need to know how to design a CPU. Now you need to know how to integrate a CCD into the CPU.

This is off the top of my head but i'm sure you get the point.

Re: The Youth Unemployment Bomb

#114

Post by thedaveoflife »

pragmatic wrote: post #60

The simple answer is: These kids are training for the wrong jobs. College (in many areas) is a waste. Trade schools (vo-tech) offer a (almost 100%) guarantee of employment. A trade is a gateway to self employment (once you have your hours in for licensing). My brother has his master electrician's license in two states. He has more work than he knows what to do with. I have two friends who recently went back to school…

I agree that there are certainly plenty of opportunities presented by developing a technical skill. However the unemployment rate is only 4.5% for the college educated vs 10.7% for high school only and 8.4% for an associate degree/some college. So maybe college is not as much of a waste as you might think.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

Re: The Youth Unemployment Bomb

#115

Post by mdemare »

gaius wrote: post #99
_delirium wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the main historical example of a make-work program in the U.S., during the Great Depression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration Perhaps because the WPA is a lot more recent, it seems to be the thing Americans think of when a make-work program is suggested. I don't think I've ever heard them criticized as Dickensian; instead they tend to be criticized as socialist.

Paying people to make stuff isn't a bad idea, if your government would be doing public works (e.g. roads) anyway, you just get to do that stuff a bit quicker. Paying people to do made-up jobs (e.g. most of the UK public sector) just destroys wealth.

If these people would otherwise be unemployed, and if their wages are modest, then it doesn't destroy any wealth, and if what they do is even slightly useful, it creates wealth.

Re: The Youth Unemployment Bomb

#116

Post by throw02082011 »

stevenbedrick wrote: post #94
andresmh wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you say that you were helping a family business or living abroad?

You really, really, really don't want to give false statements on a job application. That's usually grounds for termination should it come to light.

I've confessed to the time in college. Lost me a shot at the 4:30-9 (or so) shift at the local coffee place. The manager had been kind, friendly etc. before I said that.

To mix it up I've also said I'm in school now, hence some hours I can't work, and don't show the degree or say that it's for a grad program. Just let prospective employers think it must be undergrad.

Really since losing my job (started grad school part time before then) as tough as it is being "over qualified" people don't want students either. A number of places have said they require "full-time" availability even for part-time employees because the hours change week to week.

For those who say the jobs are out there and that Gen Y is lazy, try losing yours. It can suck. Bad.

Re: The Youth Unemployment Bomb

#119

Post by VladRussian »

prostoalex wrote: post #70
rst wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about putting back together giant structures that are falling apart? Our infrastructure is rotting away --- that Minneapolis bridge collapse in 2007 was a bit of a wake-up call. There's no shortage of stuff in the United States that needs to get fixed.

Wouldn't you need some specialized skills for that? Trusting unemployed psychology majors with bridge reenforcement doesn't inspire much confidence.

"unemployed psychology majors" could do some work in special education or nursing homes for disabled and old or half-way homes for addicts, etc.. . Their skills would definitely be of much help there.

Re: The Youth Unemployment Bomb

#120

Post by DrJokepu »

The fact is than even the educated kids are unemployable. We constantly try to hire graduate developers here in London but the fact is that most of those kids are simply unemployable. They have impressive degrees from the best universities, but I simply can't hire someone who can't code a simple Fibonacci algorithm at the whiteboard in the interview room. In the language of their choice. I'd even accept an only marginally working solution with a few bugs. Still, most of them just can't do it. They don't even know how to start.

Universities simply don't prepare kids for the needs of the industry. After 3-5 years of higher education, many of the graduates can't solve even the most basic programming problems. I suspect that this must be the case in other professions as well. Something has to be done about the completely defective higher education systems.

Post reply on HN