Jobless Gen Y: Young, unemployed and giving up hope

[mastercool]

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1143367--jobless-gen-y-young-unemployed-and-giving-up-hope

I found this article on thestar a month back and it really hit close to home....

Now I'm sure many people here already know that it's tough finding a permanent position right now, and this isn't just limited to the arts degree people. Engineers can't even find permanent work... Engineering has always been known for being one of the most useful degrees...if they can't find work...I don't know what I can say for this country.

When I look around at my age group, the only people who've done well for themselves are nurses or people who've gotten lucky finding government positions. Many friends I know are in "travel mode", job hopping like it's some kind of disease, or career students...

It's honestly quite sad...Do any of you see this trend changing in the future?

[divx]

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1143367--jobless-gen-y-young-unemployed-and-giving-up-hope

I found this article on thestar a month back and it really hit close to home....

Now I'm sure many people here already know that it's tough finding a permanent position right now, and this isn't just limited to the arts degree people. Engineers can't even find permanent work... Engineering has always been known for being one of the most useful degrees...if they can't find work...I don't know what I can say for this country.

When I look around at my age group, the only people who've done well for themselves are nurses or people who've gotten lucky finding government positions. Many friends I know are in "travel mode", job hopping like it's some kind of disease, or career students...

It's honestly quite sad...Do any of you see this trend changing in the future?

In before Mark77!

[Mark77]

Now I'm sure many people here already know that it's tough finding a permanent position right now, and this isn't just limited to the arts degree people. Engineers can't even find permanent work... Engineering has always been known for being one of the most useful degrees...if they can't find work...I don't know what I can say for this country.


Yup, even this forum is full of civil servant types (or government subsidized bankers/lawyers/accountants) who laugh when real-world people come on here and describe their plight of graduating with good grades in an engineering program, sending out thousands of resumes, only to receive a minimum of response. Rather disgusting, IMHO, that there are individuals who revel in such.



When I look around at my age group, the only people who've done well for themselves are nurses or people who've gotten lucky finding government positions. Many friends I know are in "travel mode", job hopping like it's some kind of disease, or career students...


Same deal here. The problem with those government workers is they confuse 'luck' with 'merit' and 'skill'.



It's honestly quite sad...Do any of you see this trend changing in the future?

At some point, government's ability to tax and borrow will exhaust itself.

In the US, government deficits and debt is completely out of control.

In Canada, a housing collapse would likely decimate government revenues (and force CMHC payouts), forcing the government itself into massive cutbacks and industry-friendly policy to revive the tax base.

I don't think we're all that far away from seeing some major fireworks on either side of the border. The status quo cannot continue much longer.

[Buggy166]

in the future? yes. 5-10 years. Anyone who says otherwise must know of an impending miracle the rest of us have no idea about. As for the current times, ive been on contracts with work stoppages in between of anywhere from 1 month to a full 6 months. It is what it is.

[spike1128]

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1143367--jobless-gen-y-young-unemployed-and-giving-up-hope

I found this article on thestar a month back and it really hit close to home....

Now I'm sure many people here already know that it's tough finding a permanent position right now, and this isn't just limited to the arts degree people. Engineers can't even find permanent work... Engineering has always been known for being one of the most useful degrees...if they can't find work...I don't know what I can say for this country.

When I look around at my age group, the only people who've done well for themselves are nurses or people who've gotten lucky finding government positions. Many friends I know are in "travel mode", job hopping like it's some kind of disease, or career students...

It's honestly quite sad...Do any of you see this trend changing in the future?

All the jobs went to China. Another thing is, jobs that Canadians don't want to do gets done by Workers hired from aboard. Do you guys have any idea how much farm work is done by foreigners? Canadians are just too good to do these jobs.

Honest, I think of the post 90s Gen Y aren't employable. They are quite crazy.

[Mark77]

All the jobs went to China. Another thing is, jobs that Canadians don't want to do gets done by Workers hired from aboard. Do you guys have any idea how much farm work is done by foreigners? Canadians are just too good to do these jobs.


Hardly. Canadians would gladly do any job thrown at them. However, the pay needs to reflect the true supply and demand picture.

What gives a business owner, or even society, the right to demand that work be done at below market rates? Running to the government to bring in immigrants (or guest workers) if they can't get their way?

That's the problem with the way things are right now. People want a 'free market' when it is favourable to them, but they instantly scream for government regulation/control and an abrogation of the 'free market' when things aren't favourable to them. Then some of the very same people wonder why the distortions in the economy, the labour market, etc., grow larger and larger, while the overall performance of the economy remains sub-optimal.




Honest, I think of the post 90s Gen Y aren't employable. They are quite crazy.

Hardly. They are amongst one of the most educated categories of workers ever to come out of the high schools. The skill of typing is universal, something that wasn't universal when I personally graduated high school in the mid 1990s. Their money management skills are second to none because they never received the bailout of rising stock markets, house prices, inflation, etc., unlike the boomers. Most of them live extremely frugally. Graduating in a recession/depression will do that, after all.

[PPiL]

The article seems to think that the situation will resolve itself when the economy gets back on track, but I'm not as optimistic as them.

The recession started it all. To survive, company's learned to do more with less, and they won't stop just because the economy gets better.

Not only it's now hard to get an entry level job, but since the entry level jobs are now occupied with experienced and educated (master degree, mba, etc.) people (working below their skill set level, and below their worth) you need less supervision for those workers so many management positions are getting cancelled. It's hard to find work and there's hardly any vertical mobility...

It's vicious circle... Overskilled people in entry level jobs = less entry level jobs people needed = less bosses needed = less promotions possibilities = them staying at entry level = no entry level jobs opening

[CSR]

I'm graduated recently and my first job out of school was... you guessed it, with the government.

[Syne]

In before Mark77!

See, this was funny because you barely made it in :razz:

[tmkf_patryk]

must be an eastern canada thing, there is alot of employment opportunities in alberta. I can literally see hundreds of new postings for jobs each day. Looking at skilled trades, theres about 300 new ones each day, so get a journeyman ticket and make 40+ bucks n hour

[KDSet]

You have choices.. from article:


In the meantime, part of the answer for young people is Go West, towards the booming oil and gas industry.

Sly has considered it, and his two brothers have done it. There are also smaller communities in Ontario with a lower cost of living and better chances of landing that stable job.

As for me there isn't much doubt I'd be heading west of Quebec.

[Mark77]

Not only it's now hard to get an entry level job, but since the entry level jobs are now occupied with experienced and educated (master degree, mba, etc.) people (working below their skill set level, and below their worth) you need less supervision for those workers so many management positions are getting cancelled. It's hard to find work and there's hardly any vertical mobility...


Not just that, but there's plenty of jobs that are occupied with people that are far above their skill levels. Especially in government, where seniority, not skill and education, is a large driving force behind the selection process.

I've personally seen illiterate senior managers. No business whatsoever holding those positions, but still there anyways, while far more competent younger people were excluded from the positions.

[b166er1337]

must be an eastern canada thing, there is alot of employment opportunities in alberta. I can literally see hundreds of new postings for jobs each day. Looking at skilled trades, theres about 300 new ones each day, so get a journeyman ticket and make 40+ bucks n hour

Job market is crap in Toronto and most parts of Ontario. I graduated from the top university in Canada and has a masters degree from the States, with work experiences in Federal, municipal and state government. Couldn't land a job (not even entry level positions) in TO for six months. First week I moved to Alberta, I landed a fantastic job with pay I could only dream about 2months ago. So if you are reading this and struggling in TO, make the move. There are way more opportunities in the west.

[Jruuu]

The recession started it all. To survive, company's learned to do more with less, and they won't stop just because the economy gets better... It's vicious circle... Overskilled people in entry level jobs = less entry level jobs people needed = less bosses needed = less promotions possibilities = them staying at entry level = no entry level jobs opening

I agree. The worst part of PPIL's formula (and touched on in thestar article) is "Overskilled people in entry level jobs = less entry level jobs people needed = less bosses needed = less promotions possibilities." Not only do we have high unemployment, we are in a situation where skilled people are being de-skilled by remaining in entry level positions for long periods of time. It cheapens one's education and experience, making it bad even for those who are employed. This is the boat I'm in, and I think it's time I took b166er1337's advice.

[beerbaron105]

Job market is crap in Toronto and most parts of Ontario. I graduated from the top university in Canada and has a masters degree from the States, with work experiences in Federal, municipal and state government. Couldn't land a job (not even entry level positions) in TO for six months. First week I moved to Alberta, I landed a fantastic job with pay I could only dream about 2months ago. So if you are reading this and struggling in TO, make the move. There are way more opportunities in the west.

Agreed, you have to roll with the punches, if you cannot find related work in your area, move to where the demand is. Fortunately, demand for my work seems to be everywhere... ;)

[Mark77]

Agreed, you have to roll with the punches, if you cannot find related work in your area, move to where the demand is. Fortunately, demand for my work seems to be everywhere... ;)

Yeah, great if that works for you. Doesn't really work in IT or many fields of engineering though where demand is in the toilet right across the board :(.

But for a labourer stuck on welfare in Newfoundland, there's really not a lot of excuse not to look at Alberta..


I agree. The worst part of PPIL's formula (and touched on in thestar article) is "Overskilled people in entry level jobs = less entry level jobs people needed = less bosses needed = less promotions possibilities." Not only do we have high unemployment, we are in a situation where skilled people are being de-skilled by remaining in entry level positions for long periods of time. It cheapens one's education and experience, making it bad even for those who are employed. This is the boat I'm in, and I think it's time I took b166er1337's advice.

Yup, massive part of the problem out there is that employers have overly rigid HR processes and can't really be creative. They also don't want to acknowledge that some people start at different levels than others, and are at different skill levels. People cannot merely be judged on 'experience'. More experience is not always better than less (and the inverse is true as well).


This guy is a machine, a pure trolling RFD machine.

If by 'trolling' you mean, a poster of the truth, sure....

[spike1128]

See, this was funny because you barely made it in :razz:

I actually saw his post as the 2nd post. Then I started typing, by the time I was posting, Mark 77 already posted. This guy is a machine, a pure trolling RFD machine.

[Rhaegar]

Not just that, but there's plenty of jobs that are occupied with people that are far above their skill levels. Especially in government, where seniority, not skill and education, is a large driving force behind the selection process.

I've personally seen illiterate senior managers. No business whatsoever holding those positions, but still there anyways, while far more competent younger people were excluded from the positions.

I agree, I know a lot of older government workers that are basically computer illiterate and not only do they waste their own time, but they are often in a position to obstruct and frustrate younger workers who might actually be able to work efficiently.

And unfortunately this current round of cutting is hurting those younger workers most, while the older people refuse to leave unless they are already within a year of retiring anyway.

I swear every colleague I have over 55 was holding their breath the last year or so, waiting for some big golden parachute from these budget cuts, and when they realized the government isn't offering anything beyond the severance and measures in the CBA, they all were so disappointed it was disgusting. None of them stopped for a minute to think "wow im lucky I didnt get cut" (we did get off really easy at my place and I am thankful) but instead it was "why aren't they giving me a huge pension bonus and a bunch of severance".

Coincidentally I doubt many of them will bother alternating to help out some of the younger workers that are getting hit by these cuts and would actually do a good job.

[snowball]

I agree, I know a lot of older government workers that are basically computer illiterate and not only do they waste their own time, but they are often in a position to obstruct and frustrate younger workers who might actually be able to work efficiently.

And unfortunately this current round of cutting is hurting those younger workers most, while the older people refuse to leave unless they are already within a year of retiring anyway.

I swear every colleague I have over 55 was holding their breath the last year or so, waiting for some big golden parachute from these budget cuts, and when they realized the government isn't offering anything beyond the severance and measures in the CBA, they all were so disappointed it was disgusting. None of them stopped for a minute to think "wow im lucky I didnt get cut" (we did get off really easy at my place and I am thankful) but instead it was "why aren't they giving me a huge pension bonus and a bunch of severance".

Coincidentally I doubt many of them will bother alternating to help out some of the younger workers that are getting hit by these cuts and would actually do a good job.

I strongly agree with you. I'm from Gen Y group and have had a contract job with the government once. Man, you would've believe how much office politics affected the morale there. Many older workers didn't know how to operate a lot of machines and had to actually ask me back how to do this and that (I was a new hire there at the time). Some older workers told me that they are just waiting to get there severance package and head out the door, I had this discussion with my co-workers and some agreed that there should be more younger workers here (I was the youngest so I wasn't treated too seriously, again probably seniority wise). Unfortunately, when the cuts came, my contract wasn't extended. I was a good performer with a solid work ethic but they couldn't keep me because I wasn't permanent. If they've kept me, I would've thought "wow, I'm lucky I didn't get cut" and would be grateful to still have that job. At least, it'll give me some time to find another better position.

[Rainne]

Job market is crap in Toronto and most parts of Ontario. I graduated from the top university in Canada and has a masters degree from the States, with work experiences in Federal, municipal and state government. Couldn't land a job (not even entry level positions) in TO for six months. First week I moved to Alberta, I landed a fantastic job with pay I could only dream about 2months ago. So if you are reading this and struggling in TO, make the move. There are way more opportunities in the west.

^ It's probably due to immigration + weak job market

[Rainne]

I strongly agree with you. I'm from Gen Y group and have had a contract job with the government once. Man, you would've believe how much office politics affected the morale there. Many older workers didn't know how to operate a lot of machines and had to actually ask me back how to do this and that (I was a new hire there at the time). Some older workers told me that they are just waiting to get there severance package and head out the door, I had this discussion with my co-workers and some agreed that there should be more younger workers here (I was the youngest so I wasn't treated too seriously, again probably seniority wise). Unfortunately, when the cuts came, my contract wasn't extended. I was a good performer with a solid work ethic but they couldn't keep me because I wasn't permanent. If they've kept me, I would've thought "wow, I'm lucky I didn't get cut" and would be grateful to still have that job. At least, it'll give me some time to find another better position.

Unfortunately, it costs more to fire senior government workers than to accept their incompetence :lol: (sad but true).

Also, they are the master of office politics.

[gilboman]

must be an eastern canada thing, there is alot of employment opportunities in alberta. I can literally see hundreds of new postings for jobs each day. Looking at skilled trades, theres about 300 new ones each day, so get a journeyman ticket and make 40+ bucks n hour

Most of the Eastern parts of canada are well educated and don't want to do trades in Alberta or have the crazies Wildrose ideologies to deal with.

The west is not a knowledge based economy yet and is looking for grunt work more. The intellectual industries/jobs are still in the East.

[Rhaegar]

I strongly agree with you. I'm from Gen Y group and have had a contract job with the government once. Man, you would've believe how much office politics affected the morale there. Many older workers didn't know how to operate a lot of machines and had to actually ask me back how to do this and that (I was a new hire there at the time). Some older workers told me that they are just waiting to get there severance package and head out the door, I had this discussion with my co-workers and some agreed that there should be more younger workers here (I was the youngest so I wasn't treated too seriously, again probably seniority wise). Unfortunately, when the cuts came, my contract wasn't extended. I was a good performer with a solid work ethic but they couldn't keep me because I wasn't permanent. If they've kept me, I would've thought "wow, I'm lucky I didn't get cut" and would be grateful to still have that job. At least, it'll give me some time to find another better position.

I managed to fight my way into an indeterminate position about 4 years ago after doing terms for a couple years. The really sad thing is, that even though I've been hear nearly seven years, I am the youngest person working here, aside from a grad student. That's mainly because we've been somewhat frozen in hiring but also because they usually favor older workers when they do hire (my facial hair makes me look older than I am, so maybe that helped, lol)


non pc discussion alert:

I actually don't mind most the older male government workers I've met. They usually do a decent job, have an ok grasp on technology, and are ok to get along with. Still a few stinkers, because well, It's government after all...

It's the older ladies that are nearly impossible to deal with in my experience. They are a lot more likely to hate computers and be really stuck in their ways. A lot of them also have a really strong and blatant bias against men, especially younger men, which has made it hard to contribute. Even in my position for a while it was me and a 40 year old lady supervised by a 55 year old lady. I felt like a child who was being babysat all the time, the amount of micromanaging was rediculous. Now its me and another guy in his early 30's under our 55 year old supervisor. It's a little better because now she has no choice but to trust us "boys" to get things done, but we still can't wait for her to retire.

[gilboman]

I agree, I know a lot of older government workers that are basically computer illiterate and not only do they waste their own time, but they are often in a position to obstruct and frustrate younger workers who might actually be able to work efficiently.

And unfortunately this current round of cutting is hurting those younger workers most, while the older people refuse to leave unless they are already within a year of retiring anyway.

I swear every colleague I have over 55 was holding their breath the last year or so, waiting for some big golden parachute from these budget cuts, and when they realized the government isn't offering anything beyond the severance and measures in the CBA, they all were so disappointed it was disgusting. None of them stopped for a minute to think "wow im lucky I didnt get cut" (we did get off really easy at my place and I am thankful) but instead it was "why aren't they giving me a huge pension bonus and a bunch of severance".

Coincidentally I doubt many of them will bother alternating to help out some of the younger workers that are getting hit by these cuts and would actually do a good job.

lol, my old director in one of the big 3's couldn't even login to the computer.

But your point is moot and invalid, old workers don't need to know. They are there for their experience, problem solving and managerial abilities... The grunt work (technical/analylitical) are done by the young grunt workers who are interchangeable and much more easy to replace.

Don't worry, eventually you will get up there and realize the young workers are easily replaceable, interchangeable, much moreso than people in more senior roles. It doesn't matter you have the technical skills, can use SPSS and master all the mainstream office software, so do a thousand other graduates... but it's the people higher with the experience and understand the nuances and history that affect outcome.

It's like the architect/engineer vs the bricklayer. Young grads are the bricklayers, sure they do most of the grunt work ...but they are a commodity that are a dime a dozen. Them having a sense of entitlement like yourself and thinking because they are more technically superior to the more experienced people is exactly why you are in your predicament. Refusal to accept that your technical skills are not worth anymore than the paper your degree is printed on.

Hard skills are very easy to get, soft skills needs to be developed and can only be developed through experience. Doesn't matter the manager/director can't check their emails or even login to their computers, it's not a skill that they need or why they are there. If they could do all the grunt work.. you wouldn't even be hired lol

[Rhaegar]

You're assuming that those older workers actually have "soft skills" and know how to manage... remember this is the government I'm talking about :P

I'm also not talking about director/executive types here, these are people that are supposed to be doing the grunt work along with everyone else, they are just senior/supervisor type people.

[gilboman]

You're assuming that those older workers actually have "soft skills" and know how to manage... remember this is the government I'm talking about :P

I'm also not talking about director/executive types here, these are people that are supposed to be doing the grunt work along with everyone else, they are just senior/supervisor type people.

Actually, government middle management and higher are very intelligent and capable from my past dealings with them and working in such an environment. They are handcuffed by the politics of it. You have elected ministers/councilors/MP/MPP who really do not know anything and change their mind all the time depending on what the often uninformed/ignorant public is yelling that day. So one day it's build power plant here on advice of staff who have done all the grunt work and jumped through all the hoops, next day, it's oh we can't. Give me alternatives. So just like that, years of work goes down the drain and you start at square one. Look no further than Toronto city hall, you have local councilors and local businesses on st.claire yelling when the streetcar which serve the ENTIRE city was being proposed built. That back and forth took forever, if you didn't have to cater to nimbyism, local politicians ... it would've cost half as much and done in half the time. But for "accountability" and "transparency" you end up with a debacle.

This is what "accountability" and public involvement/consultation results in.

Senior/supervisor should not be doing grunt work as well, they're paid 80k+, you can get a coop to do grunt work and work the laptop/projectors and throw together a presentation or analysis. But as a low level grunt worker, you really are not privy to all of the nuances and politics so it seems like senior management doesn't have a clue when they are just trying to please the publicly elected overlords. I mean imagine trying to run anything under Rob Ford..the guy flipflops daily, comes up with pie in the sky ideas and asks staff to do it. lol

Government and it's workforce itself is highly educated and capable IMO..it's the public that makes it so inefficient and wasteful. I mean look at this
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1338859--richmond-hill-residents-split-on-settlement

That has been going on for a few years now with countless staff hours on negotiations, refinements, OMB hearings and achieved a pretty good outcome...yet you have the public yelling, so the local Councillor/municipality wants to "listen" to residents and they're trying to push the buck up the hierarchy... needless to say, a lot more time/effort will be wasted on nothing. Public involvement ensures the most inequitable outcome and least efficient use of resources.

[yads12]

Most of the Eastern parts of canada are well educated and don't want to do trades in Alberta or have the crazies Wildrose ideologies to deal with.

The west is not a knowledge based economy yet and is looking for grunt work more. The intellectual industries/jobs are still in the East.

This is such an ignorant comment, yeah you're all intellectuals in Ontario and we're all just a bunch of roughnecks and rig workers. Fortunately reality is a little different than your world view. According to StatsCan Ontario (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr69j-eng.htm) actually has a much higher proportion of jobs in trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations than Alberta (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr69g-eng.htm).

[gilboman]

This is such an ignorant comment, yeah you're all intellectuals in Ontario and we're all just a bunch of roughnecks and rig workers. Fortunately reality is a little different than your world view. According to StatsCan Ontario (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr69j-eng.htm) actually has a much higher proportion of jobs in trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations than Alberta (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr69g-eng.htm).

I see you do not know how to deal with stats yet. Thanks for explaining my point.

[waterloser]

I got 3 full time job offers in Toronto, 55K+full benefits, 55K+5K stock+full benefits and 50K+full benefits, in February 2012. At that point I had about 2 years of cumulative experience with 3 firms. I graduated in 2009 with a math/engineering type bachelor degree from a top Canadian university.

Come on people, there are jobs out there. Don't just sit on your butt and complain, get up, get out and network.

[gh05t]

Those baby boomers got a strangle hold on Ontario.

They ain't budging except for family members and compadres.

They intend on staying in the positions they hold for as long as they can.

While they secured their jobs with very little qualifications, you better have a whole hell of a lot to even get an interview.

As some have posted, networking, moving to greener pastures or simply get into fields that take advantage of baby boomers.

A great many of these baby boomers are well off but aging. Many will start to drop soon.

The health care field is growing.

Geriatricians, undertakers and Morticians are just a few that could easily be poised to make a killing.Lol

[gostinger]

Lazy.....enough said

[yads12]

I see you do not know how to deal with stats yet. Thanks for explaining my point.

Well thought out response.

[gilboman]

Well thought out response.

Yes..you see in real world, you quickly sum up who you are dealing with, there's no point having a reasoned rational discussion with anyone if they do not grasp the fundamental basics and do not have the means to engage in such a discussion.

[nx6288]

I got 3 full time job offers in Toronto, 55K+full benefits, 55K+5K stock+full benefits and 50K+full benefits, in February 2012. At that point I had about 2 years of cumulative experience with 3 firms. I graduated in 2009 with a math/engineering type bachelor degree from a top Canadian university.

Come on people, there are jobs out there. Don't just sit on your butt and complain, get up, get out and network.

I agree...I know too many people graduating this year that are incompetent in building and writing their resume. I worked hard on building up and writing my resume and then doing the proper preparation and research for my interview that helped me land a 50k+full benefits position back in November.

[spike1128]

I got 3 full time job offers in Toronto, 55K+full benefits, 55K+5K stock+full benefits and 50K+full benefits, in February 2012. At that point I had about 2 years of cumulative experience with 3 firms. I graduated in 2009 with a math/engineering type bachelor degree from a top Canadian university.

Come on people, there are jobs out there. Don't just sit on your butt and complain, get up, get out and network.

Judging from what you are saying. You are a Loo graduate (top Canadian university). Not considered the norm if you are from Loo.

[Cress]

Very nice and very true about the resume, that thing will kill you and you will blame it on the companies not hiring you.

OP, treating your job search like a 10 credits class helps, your syllabus should be something like:

1. Write resume
2. Look for jobs reading everything line by line
3. Use google to learn the basics of your field
4. Tune resume

Repeat Monday to Friday untill you get your first job that you may not like.

5. Increase to 15 credits until you find a job you like.

Apply to all jobs that require less than 2 years of experience.

Cheers,


I agree...I know too many people graduating this year that are incompetent in building and writing their resume. I worked hard on building up and writing my resume and then doing the proper preparation and research for my interview that helped me land a 50k+full benefits position back in November.

[divx]

I got 3 full time job offers in Toronto, 55K+full benefits, 55K+5K stock+full benefits and 50K+full benefits, in February 2012. At that point I had about 2 years of cumulative experience with 3 firms. I graduated in 2009 with a math/engineering type bachelor degree from a top Canadian university.

Come on people, there are jobs out there. Don't just sit on your butt and complain, get up, get out and network.

not sure if you are bragging, those are pretty low # for a loo grad, and this is not just coming from Mark77.

[Mark77]

not sure if you are bragging, those are pretty low # for a loo grad, and this is not just coming from Mark77.

No, they sound pretty much average, especially on the Electrical/Computer/Math side of things. Not really enough to start a life in the GTA though, and pretty insulting that some middle aged boomer bus driver is paid nearly twice as much.

[WildWolf]

Those baby boomers got a strangle hold on Ontario.

They ain't budging except for family members and compadres.

They intend on staying in the positions they hold for as long as they can.

While they secured their jobs with very little qualifications, you better have a whole hell of a lot to even get an interview.

As some have posted, networking, moving to greener pastures or simply get into fields that take advantage of baby boomers.

A great many of these baby boomers are well off but aging. Many will start to drop soon.

The health care field is growing.

Geriatricians, undertakers and Morticians are just a few that could easily be poised to make a killing.Lol

True. GenY is a mirror image of them and lazy, oh man are they lazy. iPhone in one hand, Star Bucks in another, no job can be done.

[DrXenon]

I got 3 full time job offers in Toronto, 55K+full benefits, 55K+5K stock+full benefits and 50K+full benefits, in February 2012. At that point I had about 2 years of cumulative experience with 3 firms. I graduated in 2009 with a math/engineering type bachelor degree from a top Canadian university.

Come on people, there are jobs out there. Don't just sit on your butt and complain, get up, get out and network.

That's pretty impressive for a Waterloo grad. I got my first engineering job out of UofT at $65k before I had my masters, and that was quite a few years back. Either something really bad is happening to engineering intern salaries, or the coop programs everybody raves about on RFD are worthless.

[Mark77]

That's pretty impressive for a Waterloo grad. I got my first engineering job out of UofT at $65k before I had my masters, and that was quite a few years back. Either something really bad is happening to engineering intern salaries, or the coop programs everybody raves about on RFD are worthless.

Yup, I know the UW pumpers (and ECE pumpers in general) like to claim that 'everyone' is fully employed, in California, at $100k, or more, but every so often, the truth slips out, and we actually get some facts.

[divx]

Yup, I know the UW pumpers (and ECE pumpers in general) like to claim that 'everyone' is fully employed, in California, at $100k, or more, but every so often, the truth slips out, and we actually get some facts.

the salary for engineering professionals have been stagnated for decades, not that I have to tell you, so it's rather unfortunate for us professionals to make anything less than 6 figures.

[Mark77]

the salary for engineering professionals have been stagnated for decades, not that I have to tell you, so it's rather unfortunate for us professionals to make anything less than 6 figures.

Yeah, APEGS survey in Saskatchewan shows ECE's are now at the bottom of the heap, with the Environmentals, in terms of compensation.

One well-known engineering outfit in Sask was quoting its EE P.Eng. consulting rate at $56/hour + disbursements. Pretty hard to imagine they can pay their staff more than $70-$80k/year on that.

Until the glut of people like me, and my classmates are cleared out of the market (through employment or death), the rates can't really rise a whole lot. After all, when a local telecom gets 50 resumes for 1 engineering job, is there a whole lot of incentive to actually pay more than the minimum?

[rolledoats]

this is such an ignorant comment, yeah you're all intellectuals in ontario and we're all just a bunch of roughnecks and rig workers. Fortunately reality is a little different than your world view. According to statscan ontario (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr69j-eng.htm) actually has a much higher proportion of jobs in trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations than alberta (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr69g-eng.htm).
322.0/1765.1=0.1824 (ab)
722.5/5660.8=0.1276 (on)

[mtmp5k]

There are jobs all over the place. You just have to find them.

[Mark77]

There are jobs all over the place. You just have to find them.

So all the people that are unemployed are guilty of not actually looking for jobs?

That's a very narrow view, and definitely not supported by the real situation on the ground, that employers can advertise a job and receive hundreds of resumes.

[mtmp5k]

Mark77 are you currently employed?

Why is it that some people get multiple offers from various organizations while others cant even get a job at mcdonalds with an engineering degree?

Getting a job is like getting a woman. You cant hit on every chick that walks by.
If you are goodlooking and rich enough you will get them coming to you.

[Mark77]

Why is it that some people get multiple offers from various organizations while others cant even get a job at mcdonalds with an engineering degree?


Some people just fit the profile of what certain employers (ones that happen to be hiring) are looking for better than others.

The big job growth over the past decade has been in public services and healthcare. Healthcare needs a lot of people with specific qualifications ("doctor", "nurse", "pharmacist"). Public service employers have other criteria, such that, they're not looking for the brightest minds. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a lot of room for job growth for engineering talent against such a backdrop as few engineers are employed in healthcare or in government, especially for the sort of engineering I am trained to do.

Many, if not most people who are unemployed do not suffer character flaws, nor are they lazy, or otherwise unqualified. They just don't fit the profile, or there's a massive glut of people that is so bad that the good people find it very difficult to stand out in the ocean of resumes and inquiries received.



Getting a job is like getting a woman. You cant hit on every chick that walks by.


And I'm sure there are tons of 'hot' guys out there, but if supply doesn't match demand, then there's going to be people excluded from the matching process.

An ugly girl may very well feel intimidated by a really good looking man, and reject a further relationship even if invited to one. Likewise, some really good looking men won't consider good looking women because they have insecurity issues, or don't want to face a lot of competition from other men for the same scarce resource.

In my case, I've been called "overqualified" ("you're too pretty for me"). I've been told, "you'll be bored here" ("you're probably a slut and will leave me the minute a hotter piece of ***** comes along"). And I've heard the comment, "you're too smart to work here" ("I'm dumb and I don't like to be around people smarter than me"). What's a person to do when they hear that?

[Rainne]

An ugly girl may very well feel intimidated by a really good looking man, and reject a further relationship even if invited to one. Likewise, some really good looking men won't consider good looking women because they have insecurity issues, or don't want to face a lot of competition from other men for the same scarce resource.

No Mark, no they wouldn't.

[rUn-gUn]

I know its tough but there are jobs out there.. whether its IT, power engineering etc.. most of my friends are employed we are in our mid 20's. It took a while to land a job but eventually opportunity came up. I think the key is in niche fields like nuclear operator for Bruce Power (training is provided if you make it through the interview process) or IT security (forensics, network security, threat management). These are just examples, I'm sure there are many other specialty fields that might increase ones chances.

Working any job is better than working no job, I worked in a factory for a year and EB games for about 6 months after college. Took me about a year of applying to positions before I got my first offers.

For Mark maybe your personality in the interview is just not jiving well with any of the interviewees. Maybe you should experiment with changing your approach. Adjust how you present yourself depending on the position. If you feel overqualified then you need to downplay your skills. Sounds like you may just need to make some adjustments to "fit the profile".

[Syne]

I've always found that the bottleneck for me was getting interviews. I've had people look my resume over and say it was fine, so I apply for jobs where I meet or exceed the criteria and there's no reason why I shouldn't get an interview, all things being equal.. but I don't. Most employers get around this by listing enough requirements that nobody would realistically have them all. This way, they can say to everyone, "well you didn't have a QRT certificate in middle product logistics handling" if they didn't get the job.

I think that is the most discouraging part. Knowing you're qualified, applying and not knowing what hidden criteria you didn't meet. If it was just once in a while, it would be fine but when it happens hundreds of times, with zero communication from several different employers, it's like the entire world is having a joke at your expense and you're not in on it.

Then you go to various communities to talk about this problem and people tell you that because you're not working, you must not be looking for a job. Then they read about a triple-murder suicide in the paper the next day and wonder what the world is coming to, not realizing that they've unwittingly contributed to it with their small-minded comments on a deals message board.

[rUn-gUn]

I can understand how difficult getting an interview can be and also how the qualifications may be skewed towards insiders or people with a specific set of criteria that is not part of the initial job ad.

For IT, I have found some headhunting firms can help to understand some inner-workings of these hiring practices. They can sort of "coach" one into how to present their experience and make sure they are doing so in a way that meets the criteria of the employer.

Even if I didn't want to go through a staffing firm, it was a good experience to get this sort of advice from the agency and apply it in other interviews for similar positions.

In the end, everyone mostly looks out for themselves first and only then will they extend a hand to others to help them out with a job. It sucks for sure.. :/

[waterloser]

not sure if you are bragging, those are pretty low # for a loo grad, and this is not just coming from Mark77.

LOL I am NOT bragging. 55K is okay for new grads, not so much considering I have 2 years of experience. All I am saying is that there are jobs out there, you just have to look for them.

I never had any jobs spoon fed to me (aka the waterloo co-op program). Networking is much more important than you think when trying to find a job. If you accumulate a lot of connections over the years, eventually somebody you know has friends working at the company you are applying.

[waterloser]

That's pretty impressive for a Waterloo grad. I got my first engineering job out of UofT at $65k before I had my masters, and that was quite a few years back. Either something really bad is happening to engineering intern salaries, or the coop programs everybody raves about on RFD are worthless.

I see what you did there o.<

I wasn't in the co-op program. I was one of those kids who wanted to become something that later found out to be completely opposite of my expectation. I am still hopping around and try to find something I enjoy.

For whatever its worth, In my opinion over all UofT is a better school than Waterloo.

[mtmp5k]

$65-75k salary out of college for engineering with no experience is reasonable

[Kuurgen]

I know this may be a tad off topic, but I felt that it would be relevant to why engineers are having a hard go of it.


Framing the Engineering Outsourcing Debate," they reported that the United States annually produces 137,437 engineers with at least a bachelor's degree while India produces 112,000 and China 351,537.

These number are a bit old, but gives you an idea of what's happening.

[nx6288]

Speaking of engineers, I was just reading an article in bloomberg how because of the massive cuts at NASA, there is now this huge pool of engineers who are available and is considered one of the biggest influx of talent available in the U.S.

[Abel4Life]

$65-75k salary out of college for engineering with no experience is reasonable

Yep then 100k + after 5 years?

[divx]

Yep then 100k + after 5 years?

reasonable

[mtmp5k]

Yep then 100k + after 5 years?


reasonable

Very

[dibksbgon]

Hardly. They are amongst one of the most educated categories of workers ever to come out of the high schools. The skill of typing is universal, something that wasn't universal when I personally graduated high school in the mid 1990s. Their money management skills are second to none because they never received the bailout of rising stock markets, house prices, inflation, etc., unlike the boomers. Most of them live extremely frugally. Graduating in a recession/depression will do that, after all.
EDUCATED =/= Employable or experienced. I say this time and time again. You can have all the education and book smarts and grades and still be too inexperienced to get employed. And getting experience does not mean anything crazy. Basic summer jobs like manual labour on a golf course lets say or perhaps lifeguarding can help you if you market yourself correctly.

[Rainne]

Tbh, the media/society has convinced Generation Y into thinking everyone needs a University degree and should pursue their passion (lol, Art History, Psychology) which will lead into a nice cushy white collar job upon graduation.

[WildWolf]

Tbh, the media/society has convinced Generation Y into thinking everyone needs a University degree and should pursue their passion (lol, Art History, Psychology) which will lead into a nice cushy white collar job upon graduation.

True. If you've read what I've read, this topic has been scrutinized and everything points to one fact. School is a Hoax and there are no Jobs. Look at the USA, their Employment is 20%, that is great depression levels. You have a Boomer generation that wants to work as long as possible, either that or retires, then wants to enter the workforce after a few years of retirement, how many actually re-enter I don't have figures for. They want the best for their children GenY at a time when it was them-self who made things more difficult and harder for their own children. GenY has to ask them-self, are we being as selfish as our parents ? The boomers are world wide, yet governments are focusing on them and telling previous generations, specifically GenX and GenY, you do your own paper work for your future.

Bill Gates is pushing for online schooling, GenY doesn't do any social interaction as most have their head in a phone / tablet. The future will consist of no schools, and you learn on your own, and your only interaction is on the internet as we are already seeing, is this what society is changing too, or is it a person or persons changing it who has influence and power ? I'm not completely against learning at home, for one reason. Teachers across North America are getting paid far too much then what they actually do, they want to keep the status quo alive, they want their raises and fat paychecks. It's ironic how Teachers, Public service workers can Poor Bash but when Teachers etc are told they have to get a pay freeze, they flip their lid, and tout that "your children will suffer, or will be a failure in life". You know why there are failures in our society, it was those who had the most influence in their life as young, their parents and teachers, one or the other or both telling them, they will never be anything, that is a recording that plays over and over and then they are adults who need help or social help. I don't blame the person, I blame those who were suppose to be a positive influence. If everyone is on a computer / iPad, what is the point of a teacher ? Sit there and watch the students tap a screen, then collect a fat pay check ? The fat is not in the low income, the other way around. If you want to be a good teacher, and really care about the students, you will teach for $20K a year, how many will agree to that ?

Look at the lavish Colleges and Universities being built, why do they have to look like one of the seven wonders of the world ? Students walk out of the school looking for a Job and (6) months later a new extension is built on the school for so many millions. Who are they impressing the students, I doubt it, well for them to enroll and get their money, there doing it for the teachers. Nothing wrong making it looking nice and keeping it clean without the need for a Ritz Hotel look, lower tution fees, win, win. All that means nothing, because we are heading into online learning. As long as companies continue to make it harder to get employment because they want Mr and Ms. Perfect, which what they really want is desperate, needy people who will for little money, not a fair amount, as one would expect.

[divx]

True. If you've read what I've read, this topic has been scrutinized and everything points to one fact. School is a Hoax and there are no Jobs. Look at the USA, their Employment is 20%, that is great depression levels. You have a Boomer generation that wants to work as long as possible, either that or retires, then wants to enter the workforce after a few years of retirement, how many actually re-enter I don't have figures for. They want the best for their children GenY at a time when it was them-self who made things more difficult and harder for their own children. GenY has to ask them-self, are we being as selfish as our parents ? The boomers are world wide, yet governments are focusing on them and telling previous generations, specifically GenX and GenY, you do your own paper work for your future.

Bill Gates is pushing for online schooling, GenY doesn't do any social interaction as most have their head in a phone / tablet. The future will consist of no schools, and you learn on your own, and your only interaction is on the internet as we are already seeing, is this what society is changing too, or is it a person or persons changing it who has influence and power ? I'm not completely against learning at home, for one reason. Teachers across North America are getting paid far too much then what they actually do, they want to keep the status quo alive, they want their raises and fat paychecks. It's ironic how Teachers, Public service workers can Poor Bash but when Teachers etc are told they have to get a pay freeze, they flip their lid, and tout that "your children will suffer, or will be a failure in life". You know why there are failures in our society, it was those who had the most influence in their life as young, their parents and teachers, one or the other or both telling them, they will never be anything, that is a recording that plays over and over and then they are adults who need help or social help. I don't blame the person, I blame those who were suppose to be a positive influence. If everyone is on a computer / iPad, what is the point of a teacher ? Sit there and watch the students tap a screen, then collect a fat pay check ? The fat is not in the low income, the other way around. If you want to be a good teacher, and really care about the students, you will teach for $20K a year, how many will agree to that ?

Look at the lavish Colleges and Universities being built, why do they have to look like one of the seven wonders of the world ? Students walk out of the school looking for a Job and (6) months later a new extension is built on the school for so many millions. Who are they impressing the students, I doubt it, well for them to enroll and get their money, there doing it for the teachers. Nothing wrong making it looking nice and keeping it clean without the need for a Ritz Hotel look, lower tution fees, win, win. All that means nothing, because we are heading into online learning. As long as companies continue to make it harder to get employment because they want Mr and Ms. Perfect, which what they really want is desperate, needy people who will for little money, not a fair amount, as one would expect.

great post, something Syne and Mark77 will never understand.

[Syne]

^ I actually found it to be a bit of an onerous read. Which part did you like? He talked about 15 different things in 3 paragraphs.

[sirex]

t if you have a degree, that somehow means you've worked hard enough to suddenly be deservant of a $90K salary.

Meanwhile you can't even tie your shoelaces.

Everyone wants to be "put on." Well step up, life is hard.

[b166er1337]

True. If you've read what I've read, this topic has been scrutinized and everything points to one fact. School is a Hoax and there are no Jobs. Look at the USA, their Employment is 20%, that is great depression levels. You have a Boomer generation that wants to work as long as possible, either that or retires, then wants to enter the workforce after a few years of retirement, how many actually re-enter I don't have figures for. They want the best for their children GenY at a time when it was them-self who made things more difficult and harder for their own children. GenY has to ask them-self, are we being as selfish as our parents ? The boomers are world wide, yet governments are focusing on them and telling previous generations, specifically GenX and GenY, you do your own paper work for your future.

Bill Gates is pushing for online schooling, GenY doesn't do any social interaction as most have their head in a phone / tablet. The future will consist of no schools, and you learn on your own, and your only interaction is on the internet as we are already seeing, is this what society is changing too, or is it a person or persons changing it who has influence and power ? I'm not completely against learning at home, for one reason. Teachers across North America are getting paid far too much then what they actually do, they want to keep the status quo alive, they want their raises and fat paychecks. It's ironic how Teachers, Public service workers can Poor Bash but when Teachers etc are told they have to get a pay freeze, they flip their lid, and tout that "your children will suffer, or will be a failure in life". You know why there are failures in our society, it was those who had the most influence in their life as young, their parents and teachers, one or the other or both telling them, they will never be anything, that is a recording that plays over and over and then they are adults who need help or social help. I don't blame the person, I blame those who were suppose to be a positive influence. If everyone is on a computer / iPad, what is the point of a teacher ? Sit there and watch the students tap a screen, then collect a fat pay check ? The fat is not in the low income, the other way around. If you want to be a good teacher, and really care about the students, you will teach for $20K a year, how many will agree to that ?

Look at the lavish Colleges and Universities being built, why do they have to look like one of the seven wonders of the world ? Students walk out of the school looking for a Job and (6) months later a new extension is built on the school for so many millions. Who are they impressing the students, I doubt it, well for them to enroll and get their money, there doing it for the teachers. Nothing wrong making it looking nice and keeping it clean without the need for a Ritz Hotel look, lower tution fees, win, win. All that means nothing, because we are heading into online learning. As long as companies continue to make it harder to get employment because they want Mr and Ms. Perfect, which what they really want is desperate, needy people who will for little money, not a fair amount, as one would expect.

Excellent post. Pay teachers minimum wage and problem solved!

[underjeep]

Ive heard my history high school teacher give the argument that babysitters get paid $5/hour to babysit a child, and since there's 30 students in a classroom they should get paid 30 x $5/hour = $150/hour or somewhere close to that

[RubberCheese]

... Teachers across North America are getting paid far too much then what they actually do, they want to keep the status quo alive, they want their raises and fat paychecks. It's ironic how Teachers, Public service workers can Poor Bash but when Teachers etc are told they have to get a pay freeze, they flip their lid, and tout that "your children will suffer, or will be a failure in life". You know why there are failures in our society, it was those who had the most influence in their life as young, their parents and teachers, one or the other or both telling them, they will never be anything, that is a recording that plays over and over and then they are adults who need help or social help. I don't blame the person, I blame those who were suppose to be a positive influence. If everyone is on a computer / iPad, what is the point of a teacher ? Sit there and watch the students tap a screen, then collect a fat pay check ? The fat is not in the low income, the other way around. If you want to be a good teacher, and really care about the students, you will teach for $20K a year, how many will agree to that ?.

I don't think teachers in the US are paid particularily well. More of a Canadian argument I think.


Ive heard my history high school teacher give the argument that babysitters get paid $5/hour to babysit a child, and since there's 30 students in a classroom they should get paid 30 x $5/hour = $150/hour or somewhere close to that

That's a ridiculous argument. Does the shift supervisor at a McDonald's or Tim Hortons get paid $5/hour for each of their staff? I think not

[nx6288]

Ive heard my history high school teacher give the argument that babysitters get paid $5/hour to babysit a child, and since there's 30 students in a classroom they should get paid 30 x $5/hour = $150/hour or somewhere close to that

If he wants to demand $150/hr then he can by all means but no one will pay him that.

[SkimGuy]

True. GenY is a mirror image of them and lazy, oh man are they lazy. iPhone in one hand, Star Bucks in another, no job can be done.

Not all of us are lazy... And the smart ones have Android :)

[Engi-Nir]

True. If you've read what I've read, this topic has been scrutinized and everything points to one fact. School is a Hoax and there are no Jobs. Look at the USA, their Employment is 20%, that is great depression levels. You have a Boomer generation that wants to work as long as possible, either that or retires, then wants to enter the workforce after a few years of retirement, how many actually re-enter I don't have figures for. They want the best for their children GenY at a time when it was them-self who made things more difficult and harder for their own children. GenY has to ask them-self, are we being as selfish as our parents ? The boomers are world wide, yet governments are focusing on them and telling previous generations, specifically GenX and GenY, you do your own paper work for your future.

Bill Gates is pushing for online schooling, GenY doesn't do any social interaction as most have their head in a phone / tablet. The future will consist of no schools, and you learn on your own, and your only interaction is on the internet as we are already seeing, is this what society is changing too, or is it a person or persons changing it who has influence and power ? I'm not completely against learning at home, for one reason. Teachers across North America are getting paid far too much then what they actually do, they want to keep the status quo alive, they want their raises and fat paychecks. It's ironic how Teachers, Public service workers can Poor Bash but when Teachers etc are told they have to get a pay freeze, they flip their lid, and tout that "your children will suffer, or will be a failure in life". You know why there are failures in our society, it was those who had the most influence in their life as young, their parents and teachers, one or the other or both telling them, they will never be anything, that is a recording that plays over and over and then they are adults who need help or social help. I don't blame the person, I blame those who were suppose to be a positive influence. If everyone is on a computer / iPad, what is the point of a teacher ? Sit there and watch the students tap a screen, then collect a fat pay check ? The fat is not in the low income, the other way around. If you want to be a good teacher, and really care about the students, you will teach for $20K a year, how many will agree to that ?

Look at the lavish Colleges and Universities being built, why do they have to look like one of the seven wonders of the world ? Students walk out of the school looking for a Job and (6) months later a new extension is built on the school for so many millions. Who are they impressing the students, I doubt it, well for them to enroll and get their money, there doing it for the teachers. Nothing wrong making it looking nice and keeping it clean without the need for a Ritz Hotel look, lower tution fees, win, win. All that means nothing, because we are heading into online learning. As long as companies continue to make it harder to get employment because they want Mr and Ms. Perfect, which what they really want is desperate, needy people who will for little money, not a fair amount, as one would expect.


really? send as some links. :facepalm: 8.2%, but to make your stupid point, let's use 40% unemployment.

[Mark77]

No Mark, no they wouldn't.

Hardly. Most people look for dates "from their same pay grade". Employers too...

Fat people gravitate towards fat people. Dumb breed with the dumb. Meanwhile, top athletes tend to look for....top athletes.

The contemporary economy has been characterized by a bunch of rather mediocre businesses driving most of the employment expansion (ie: government). That's why the mediocre find it easier to get hired.

[Mark77]

EDUCATED =/= Employable or experienced. I say this time and time again. You can have all the education and book smarts and grades and still be too inexperienced to get employed.


Everyone has to start somewhere, the real tragedy is that a lot of top talent these days doesn't even get the chance for their 'first' job, appropriately matched, or at least with some nexus to their skillset.

For instance, someone might be an awesome mower of lawns, for example, but a really terrible engineer. Or vice versa, might suck at mowing lawns, but be an awesome engineer. It is highly problematic that there are employers out there that will judge people heavily on non-relevant 'experience', while ignoring their skills and aptitude towards what they are good at doing.

[Mark77]

great post, something Syne and Mark77 will never understand.

The post was barely coherent, but it is highly problematic that society makes a huge investment in education, but then fails to make use of it.

I know in my own situation, nobody in the mid 1990s could have forseen the collapse of the Canadian technology/IT industry. So to spend huge amounts of $$$ to send me to school to study that wasn't unreasonable at the time.

But does anyone really believe that there will be a massive demand for endless numbers of BA grads in the future? From mediocre colleges?

[peanutz]

The post was barely coherent, but it is highly problematic that society makes a huge investment in education, but then fails to make use of it.

I know in my own situation, nobody in the mid 1990s could have forseen the collapse of the Canadian technology/IT industry. So to spend huge amounts of $$$ to send me to school to study that wasn't unreasonable at the time.

But does anyone really believe that there will be a massive demand for endless numbers of BA grads in the future? From mediocre colleges?Perhaps it's time for a paradigm shift; to start looking at university/college as businesses, not benevolent institutions that have some interest in investing in their students.

[WildWolf]

really? send as some links. :facepalm: 8.2%, but to make your stupid point, let's use 40% unemployment.

You want some links, while you lick your palm.

Link A (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-bridges-roads-built-chinese-firms-14594513?tab=9482930?ion=1206853&playlist=14594944)
Link B (http://rt.com/news/gallup-polls-clifton-americans-753/)

[chicken_little]

Perhaps it's time for a paradigm shift; to start looking at university/college as businesses, not benevolent institutions that have some interest in investing in their students.

+1

Check out a documentary called The College Conspiracy on youtube.

[Mark77]

Perhaps it's time for a paradigm shift; to start looking at university/college as businesses, not benevolent institutions that have some interest in investing in their students.

It would have been nice if the US (and Canadian) governments had allowed the natural response of the labour market towards shortages in engineering that existed at the time, to run their course -- instead of importing 1 million foreigners, largely from India, to take the jobs that me and my classmates were trained to do.

India suffers a brain drain. Canada/USA suffers high unemployment. Only the executives and bankers got richer because of this nonsense. And a decade after the first tech collapse, we still have a ton of profit-less businesses with no business plans masquerading around as being valuable.

[ungattbrock]

This quote really hits hard:

“On one hand they are being told to start saving early because that will help them in retirement,” says Fong. “But if you want to buy a home or start a family without going significantly into debt, it’s basically impossible to do both.”

This is pretty much true. Say you finish university between the ages of 22-24 and have no luck finding a solid permanent job for 2 years and still have student dept (avg. is like $25k), how do you expect to save up to get married, buy a house and start a family before your 30??..it just pushes you life progression back.

[mastercool]

This quote really hits hard:

“On one hand they are being told to start saving early because that will help them in retirement,” says Fong. “But if you want to buy a home or start a family without going significantly into debt, it’s basically impossible to do both.”

This is pretty much true. Say you finish university between the ages of 22-24 and have no luck finding a solid permanent job for 2 years and still have student dept (avg. is like $25k), how do you expect to save up to get married, buy a house and start a family before your 30??..it just pushes you life progression back.

A lot of employers won't consider hiring people who have huge resume gaps as well.

I was talking to an HR manager and she complained that while there is people who apply to her company, a lot of them simply weren't hireable due to years w/o work between jobs.

[Dilton]

A lot of employers won't consider hiring people who have huge resume gaps as well.

I was talking to an HR manager and she complained that while there is people who apply to her company, a lot of them simply weren't hireable due to years w/o work between jobs.
It's things like this that make people lie on their resumes.

[Blanket_Man]

It's things like this that make people lie on their resumes.

Exactly. I knew that the gap in mine would raise a red flag so I buffered up 6 mos of inactivity by 'extending' my customer service experience.

[BananaHunter]

Perhaps it's time for a paradigm shift; to start looking at university/college as businesses, not benevolent institutions that have some interest in investing in their students.

+1. I find it appalling that we're at a stage where many people willingly put themselves in thousands of debt just to have a chance to get a job that isn't minimum wage. I'll be frank and say that there's no easy solution to the over education problem. Though out history, people have always competed with each other for various things. If it isn't education, it'd be another thing that people use to compete for jobs.

I don't really blame the employers. Offshoring jobs is cheaper: period. If there's $100 bill on the ground and someone takes it, do you blame them? No. You should not design a system that has to rely purely on honesty or patriotism.

What I do blame is the public sector. Wages are too high. I'm not a fan of public sector jobs because many of them don't add real value and there's intrinsic problem with efficiency. Public sector jobs come out of taxpayers. Instead, I think we should privatize more functions of government. You don't necessarily lose the jobs. You lose PUBLIC jobs but you can have a private company to do the same function. Without the government's "forced" high wages, you can do a lot of good like making it more attractive to START businesses. Yes that's the root of the problem. People need to stop relying for governments to spoon feed them. It's not governments that create "REAL" jobs. It's entrepreneurs. Government jobs are basically just shifting income from some people to some other people.

[Mark77]

A lot of employers won't consider hiring people who have huge resume gaps as well.

I was talking to an HR manager and she complained that while there is people who apply to her company, a lot of them simply weren't hireable due to years w/o work between jobs.

Pretty ignorant employers, IMHO. Who makes these "not hireable" decisions anyways?

With so much of the workforce involuntarily unemployed (especially the young), as well as the usual reasons why someone may be voluntarily unemployed (pregnancy, elder care, etc., etc.) -- employers run very real risks of litigation if they are rejecting resumes on such a systemic ground, instead of actually assessing qualifications. Employers' counsel should take note (and then die in a fire).

[WildWolf]

Pretty ignorant employers, IMHO. Who makes these "not hireable" decisions anyways?

With so much of the workforce involuntarily unemployed (especially the young), as well as the usual reasons why someone may be voluntarily unemployed (pregnancy, elder care, etc., etc.) -- employers run very real risks of litigation if they are rejecting resumes on such a systemic ground, instead of actually assessing qualifications. Employers' counsel should take note (and then die in a fire).

True. What if the person was ill ? ETC ETC ETC ETC. Who are these people in HR who are in charge of hiring, if I can't personally talk to them face to face, they should come online, I have a few question they probably couldn't answer. This may sound sexist, maybe it is, have you noticed that alot of these hiring managers are young women (20-30) who I think take their job way to seriously (cough, sounds like a generation, can we say boomers together) They have a Job to do, I understand but their making it as though they own the company.

[got_it_4_cheap]

it is even worse in usa


1 in 2 new graduates are jobless or underemployed

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/04/22/national/w070232D21.DTL&ao=all#ixzz1snfE4BGC


not looking for 2012 graduates

[adehbone]

Perhaps it's time for a paradigm shift; to start looking at university/college as businesses, not benevolent institutions that have some interest in investing in their students.

Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny don't exist also
It's been a while since all you engineers had a sob fest and sharing circle. Good to see this thread.

Funny how you are all on a site dedicated to deals and lowest prices to consumers. Yet when a corporation or a government does what is needed to achieve the lowest and most utility to the consumer you all freak out.

[mastercool]

Pretty ignorant employers, IMHO. Who makes these "not hireable" decisions anyways?

With so much of the workforce involuntarily unemployed (especially the young), as well as the usual reasons why someone may be voluntarily unemployed (pregnancy, elder care, etc., etc.) -- employers run very real risks of litigation if they are rejecting resumes on such a systemic ground, instead of actually assessing qualifications. Employers' counsel should take note (and then die in a fire).

No kidding. I think it's absolutely disgusting that we're part of a society where lying gets you ahead. Whatever happened to being honest?

With that said, I've done it. I've "extended" my work-related experience/changed the employment dates on my resume to make myself appear "prettier" to employers...Am I proud of it? Not at all - but I know how it is out there and I also know how completely delusional most HR employees are...

I also know I can't be the only one who is guilty of this...

Perhaps the future outlook on how hiring decisions are done will be different in the future...most of those HR tools grew up in a different timeline...

[Abel4Life]

Very

I think it depends. Management or senior level engineers yes. Exceptions will always exist.

Well I know of some engineering grads from 2007 and none of them are close to 100k. Very talented group too.

[Cress]

I think mtmp5k was being sarcastic ...


I think it depends. Management or senior level engineers yes. Exceptions will always exist.

Well I know of some engineering grads from 2007 and none of them are close to 100k. Very talented group too.

[C_C]

1 in 2 new graduates are jobless or underemployed (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OVERQUALIFIED_COLLEGE_GRADS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

[divx]

^ I actually found it to be a bit of an onerous read. Which part did you like? He talked about 15 different things in 3 paragraphs.

situations keeps on changing, and for now it's rather unfavorable to the most of us, however what made us humans better than other animals is that we are the best at adapting to change. If normally you would get a $100k+ job but in this recession you have to settle for 80k, then so be it, don't be like Mark77 who would reject a salary "below" his expectations. While Mark is right that engineers should be paid 6 figures, but in a recession you should settle for less.

[GonePostal]

No kidding. I think it's absolutely disgusting that we're part of a society where lying gets you ahead. Whatever happened to being honest?

With that said, I've done it. I've "extended" my work-related experience/changed the employment dates on my resume to make myself appear "prettier" to employers...Am I proud of it? Not at all - but I know how it is out there and I also know how completely delusional most HR employees are...

I also know I can't be the only one who is guilty of this...

Perhaps the future outlook on how hiring decisions are done will be different in the future...most of those HR tools grew up in a different timeline...

I've done a moderate amount of interviewing/hiring. So to give some perspective on the hiring side:

Resume gaps are bad in the sense that they a big ?. Why is there a gap? I won't exclude someone just because they have a gap. But more often then not a resume gap will be an negative indicator of a problem with the candidate. It is much more likely the candidate is one of the following:

1) Lazy
2) Under-qualified, applying to positions that their "education" applies but have zero experience.
3) Poor social skills
4) Poor candidate for a slew of other reasons.

That occurs much more often then the person that was ill, traveling the world, or burnt out and needed a break. That is why resume gaps need to be addressed in interviews and need to be addressed head on. I myself had a 6+ month resume gap, and that was one of the hurdles that I had to get over. I had a consistent and truthful story that explained the gap, and during the interviews I had, I never had a negative reaction to it. I've seen too many people skirt around the issue and thus result in eliminating themselves from the process.

[Mark77]

don't be like Mark77 who would reject a salary "below" his expectations. While Mark is right that engineers should be paid 6 figures, but in a recession you should settle for less.

Don't put words into my mouth, I've never advocated rejecting a salary 'below' expectations, nor have I done it myself. However, at a certain point, it becomes not-so-professional to work in a profession for less than a mere janitor makes sweeping floors.

[divx]

Not all of us are lazy... And the smart ones have Android :)

android is kinda hard to use, and I have both android and iphone.

[Mark77]

1) Lazy
2) Under-qualified, applying to positions that their "education" applies but have zero experience.
3) Poor social skills
4) Poor candidate for a slew of other reasons.

I've seen too many people skirt around the issue and thus result in eliminating themselves from the process.

But certainly you do realize that a lot of very good people have been caught up in the pass of unemployment, with employment not meaningfully expanding in over a decade, right?

Also, you speak of #2 as being negative, but why would that be viewed as negative?

[divx]

Hardly. Most people look for dates "from their same pay grade". Employers too...

Fat people gravitate towards fat people. Dumb breed with the dumb. Meanwhile, top athletes tend to look for....top athletes.

The contemporary economy has been characterized by a bunch of rather mediocre businesses driving most of the employment expansion (ie: government). That's why the mediocre find it easier to get hired.

I find that "fact" is hard to believe, it's more like employer looking for the best employee with minimum pay, fat people are desperate and will take whatever they can get, athletes seems to rape drunken whores, it seems everyone is mediocre to you, perhaps your bar is set to high.

Everyone has to start somewhere, the real tragedy is that a lot of top talent these days doesn't even get the chance for their 'first' job, appropriately matched, or at least with some nexus to their skillset.

For instance, someone might be an awesome mower of lawns, for example, but a really terrible engineer. Or vice versa, might suck at mowing lawns, but be an awesome engineer. It is highly problematic that there are employers out there that will judge people heavily on non-relevant 'experience', while ignoring their skills and aptitude towards what they are good at doing.
non-relevant experience don't matter for a real job, some people are delusional but you are I aren't fooled.

The post was barely coherent, but it is highly problematic that society makes a huge investment in education, but then fails to make use of it.

I know in my own situation, nobody in the mid 1990s could have forseen the collapse of the Canadian technology/IT industry. So to spend huge amounts of $$$ to send me to school to study that wasn't unreasonable at the time.

But does anyone really believe that there will be a massive demand for endless numbers of BA grads in the future? From mediocre colleges?

we make huge investments in education that doesn't mean we produce competent results, if you look at today's high school graduates, most of them can't find their a$$ with both hands.

[divx]

This quote really hits hard:

“On one hand they are being told to start saving early because that will help them in retirement,” says Fong. “But if you want to buy a home or start a family without going significantly into debt, it’s basically impossible to do both.”

This is pretty much true. Say you finish university between the ages of 22-24 and have no luck finding a solid permanent job for 2 years and still have student dept (avg. is like $25k), how do you expect to save up to get married, buy a house and start a family before your 30??..it just pushes you life progression back.

this is what happens with our education system pumping out mediocre candidates.

[divx]

A lot of employers won't consider hiring people who have huge resume gaps as well.

I was talking to an HR manager and she complained that while there is people who apply to her company, a lot of them simply weren't hireable due to years w/o work between jobs.

it seems the general censuses is that competent people find jobs quickly, and those with jobs are lured away by other companies with better offer. this is usually the case but not true during a recession like the current one we are having. Unfortunately it's hard to change people's views so you just have to deal with it.

[divx]

Pretty ignorant employers, IMHO. Who makes these "not hireable" decisions anyways?

With so much of the workforce involuntarily unemployed (especially the young), as well as the usual reasons why someone may be voluntarily unemployed (pregnancy, elder care, etc., etc.) -- employers run very real risks of litigation if they are rejecting resumes on such a systemic ground, instead of actually assessing qualifications. Employers' counsel should take note (and then die in a fire).

it takes a great deal of time and money to train someone, but if you have experience, then that's instant saving right there.

[divx]

Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny don't exist also
It's been a while since all you engineers had a sob fest and sharing circle. Good to see this thread.

Funny how you are all on a site dedicated to deals and lowest prices to consumers. Yet when a corporation or a government does what is needed to achieve the lowest and most utility to the consumer you all freak out.

today's economical reality hurts us all

[Kappa21]

Great Thread!

Sorry I came late.


All I can input about this is that the market will hurt itself more and more because Gen Y cant find its standing. Mind you, the whole theory of a lost generation does not work well because you can also focus on Generation Net (or whatever you wanna call them 1990 and on) who unlike my generation (1980-1990) had part time jobs, the Gen Net cant even find part time jobs. Once they hit University, getting a job at Wal Mart or Shoppers looks dim.

I understand the need about competition and that in recession people are hesistant to hire, but there is a chain reaction that ruins things here. About 85% of my friends are unemployed or underemployed... They have burntout. Giving up hope in many circumstances.

Alot of it have to do with the fact that this is the first recession since the dot com burst and before that fax and calling employees became irrelevant and most people apply online to find out they are competition with roughly 70+ other people with the same position. Lots of rejections occur.

I dont blame Gen Y for asking for more. We are the ones with a majority of our peers who have a post secondary education, yet ..... its being undervalued heavily. The whole application game has got out of hand where people post for the sake of it and made people waste hours upon hours to apply to jobs they will never get (cause its not there).

I dont know why people talk differently in the real world. Those who always 'say' they have it easy are just kidding themselves, especially my nemesis, the baby boomers who are soon to retire (sometime between now and the end of this century). They are making 2 full generations of unqualified, underemployed individuals. They are living off their assets and their parents assets..... but their real estate has no value or soon will have no value since most of my generation cant afford their 1.5 million dollar homes or even a 300K downtown condo. If this keeps up ontop of uncertainty, on top of temp/contract work for young people and a door wide shut for them....then we will have volatility and a predicting recession ever 2-5 years from now on....
Stop the cycle fast!!!

I recommend before (and i will go indepth with it) that the government should tax those who decide to work over the retirement age. They ruin the economy and like alchahol and cigarrettes they do harm to themselves and then have us pay for it. Get them taxed double!! and give benefits to companies who hire the young!!

[divx]

Don't put words into my mouth, I've never advocated rejecting a salary 'below' expectations, nor have I done it myself. However, at a certain point, it becomes not-so-professional to work in a profession for less than a mere janitor makes sweeping floors.

so what if you have to get paid less? you make do for the moment and when you get a chance you can jump ship.

[divx]

But certainly you do realize that a lot of very good people have been caught up in the pass of unemployment, with employment not meaningfully expanding in over a decade, right?

Also, you speak of #2 as being negative, but why would that be viewed as negative?

when you get hundreds of resumes, surely you can find a better candidate with relevant experience?

[kevv]

todays kids have no goals to reach...... unlike their parents who started at the bottom and worked their way up the ladder,bought houses and raised kids .
they wanted a better life than they had, now kids get everything they want and think they should live in the style they are use to,not start at the bottom like us... unforunately most of their parents feel the same so they coddle them like their their royalty and finance their every whim..no wonder their lazy and have high expectations on how they should start out

[Kappa21]

todays kids have no goals to reach...... unlike their parents who started at the bottom and worked their way up the ladder,bought houses and raised kids .

Their parents had a job for life with benefits and security. This encouraged them to buy houses and raise a family. These parents created the suburbs and built new divisions in Markham, Vaughan, Oakville, Brampton (RIP), Missisauga and Ajax.....
They had 30-60K job, worked hard with little or not education and their houses cost them 150 to 250K.

Turn to today. Their kids went to school and trying to work from the bottom makes them overqualified and working at their level with their degree makes them compete. They arent given benefits and theyre work isnt secured enough to buy a house or raise a family. When their parents had them at 27 and got married at 25....todays kids cant even afford a wedding...... let alone raising a kid..... its pretty grim. Not everyone was born with a silver spoon.


they wanted a better life than they had, now kids get everything they want and yhink they should live in the style they are use to,not start at the bottom like us... unforunately most of their parents feel the same so they coddle them like their their royalty and finance their every whim..no wonder their lazy and have high expectations on how they should start out

Tell their parents thanks for financing them ontop of introducing post-ww2 volitility and make it impossible to have a secured job.
Your statement contradicts itself since most people would agree that their kids are far worse than they were at the same time frame.

[divx]

Their parents had a job for life with benefits and security. This encouraged them to buy houses and raise a family. These parents created the suburbs and built new divisions in Markham, Vaughan, Oakville, Brampton (RIP), Missisauga and Ajax.....
They had 30-60K job, worked hard with little or not education and their houses cost them 150 to 250K.

Turn to today. Their kids went to school and trying to work from the bottom makes them overqualified and working at their level with their degree makes them compete. They arent given benefits and theyre work isnt secured enough to buy a house or raise a family. When their parents had them at 27 and got married at 25....todays kids cant even afford a wedding...... let alone raising a kid..... its pretty grim. Not everyone was born with a silver spoon.



Tell their parents thanks for financing them ontop of introducing post-ww2 volitility and make it impossible to have a secured job.
Your statement contradicts itself since most people would agree that their kids are far worse than they were at the same time frame.

it's true but that's because each generation are becoming less competent than the previous one, kids these days are coddled more so than their parents did, and probably will continue to the future generation as well.

[Kappa21]

it's true but that's because each generation are becoming less competent than the previous one, kids these days are coddled more so than their parents did, and probably will continue to the future generation as well.


Your going to have a crisis with less kids being born and born to parents who are 35+
The 2.5 kids ration is going down to 1 kid.

Smaller, more expensive lifestyles than what we had before.........

back in the early 80s...minimum wage could have gotten you some fair living......the inflation boom, gas prices and living skyrocketed since 2000....
this cycle has so much damage.... as its not reflecting relative means of what people actually make. (40K cannot get you to live in in Ajax).

And also..... speaking of coddled....
how can you compare a stay at home mom from 1950-1980 to 2 parents working these days?
I wish kids had a mom to stay at home like there was.

[Mark77]

I find that "fact" is hard to believe, it's more like employer looking for the best employee with minimum pay, fat people are desperate and will take whatever they can get, athletes seems to rape drunken whores, it seems everyone is mediocre to you, perhaps your bar is set to high.


In actual practice, sure, there are mismatches, but you don't tend to have too many female doctors married to garbage men or truckers. Geez, I wonder why? The public servants who are doing most of the hiring these days were the product of an 80s and 90s economy with a vibrant private sector, meaning, if they ended up in the public service, they weren't exactly the brightest tools in the shed. Especially in engineering.


we make huge investments in education that doesn't mean we produce competent results, if you look at today's high school graduates, most of them can't find their a$$ with both hands.

Every generation of high school graduates has been like that, in some form or another. They seem to survive. You could probably go into the history books for thousands of years and find the same claims being made of the 'newbies'.

[GonePostal]

But certainly you do realize that a lot of very good people have been caught up in the pass of unemployment, with employment not meaningfully expanding in over a decade, right?

Also, you speak of #2 as being negative, but why would that be viewed as negative?

If you have been caught up with unemployment for a significant amount of time there is a reason. More often then not that's because you aren't better then the current employable pool. If you think that is untrue (as almost all of this group) then you need to address it with the potential employer and explain the gap and why the gap should be of no concern. Anything short of that puts you at a disadvantage to other candidates.

#2 is a negative as most people that I interview/talk to that have a certain level of education, are woefully over-confident in their abilities. They think just because they have a degree in X that they should be Y. Where when I talk to them, I can tell they are missing some fundamental knowledge/experience. They are too green to even know this so they continue to bang their head against a wall.

[divx]

Your going to have a crisis with less kids being born and born to parents who are 35+
The 2.5 kids ration is going down to 1 kid.

Smaller, more expensive lifestyles than what we had before.........

back in the early 80s...minimum wage could have gotten you some fair living......the inflation boom, gas prices and living skyrocketed since 2000....
this cycle has so much damage.... as its not reflecting relative means of what people actually make. (40K cannot get you to live in in Ajax).

And also..... speaking of coddled....
how can you compare a stay at home mom from 1950-1980 to 2 parents working these days?
I wish kids had a mom to stay at home like there was.

back then you had multiple kids sharing a mom while today only couple kids share a mom, even if mom isn't around all the time, you get all the high tech toys to keep you entertained, pretty cushy life.

[divx]

In actual practice, sure, there are mismatches, but you don't tend to have too many female doctors married to garbage men or truckers. Geez, I wonder why? The public servants who are doing most of the hiring these days were the product of an 80s and 90s economy with a vibrant private sector, meaning, if they ended up in the public service, they weren't exactly the brightest tools in the shed. Especially in engineering.



Every generation of high school graduates has been like that, in some form or another. They seem to survive. You could probably go into the history books for thousands of years and find the same claims being made of the 'newbies'.

well back then we had less technology, so there was more demand for manual labor, which means higher demand and thus higher pay. We managed to replace most of the repetitive manual labour with machines so there is less demand, translates into lower pay which is why you can't just settle with a mere high school education. You'd think someone with the level of brain power such as yourself would have figured that out by now.

[sirex]

If you have been caught up with unemployment for a significant amount of time there is a reason. More often then not that's because you aren't better then the current employable pool. If you think that is untrue (as almost all of this group) then you need to address it with the potential employer and explain the gap and why the gap should be of no concern. Anything short of that puts you at a disadvantage to other candidates.

#2 is a negative as most people that I interview/talk to that have a certain level of education, are woefully over-confident in their abilities. They think just because they have a degree in X that they should be Y. Where when I talk to them, I can tell they are missing some fundamental knowledge/experience. They are too green to even know this so they continue to bang their head against a wall.

BOOM THERE GOES THE DYNAMITE.

Best post in this thread hands down. I already said, and have said it before. Just because you have a degree/education, does NOT QUALIFY you to be employed. Academia is not EMPLOYMENT And is not the same thing.

[phenakami]

It seems like there is a constant back and forth argument about the cause and who's at fault. But does anybody actually have a solution to this? It doesn't have to be an absolute solution, even some tips or past experiences can be helpful. I have been underemployed since graduating last year and I've been gradually applying less as time went on because it feels like my applications just goes straight to the trash. My last interview was a little over a month ago and in the end I was placed in the applicant pool(Ford/Iard).

[divx]

It seems like there is a constant back and forth argument about the cause and who's at fault. But does anybody actually have a solution to this? It doesn't have to be an absolute solution, even some tips or past experiences can be helpful. I have been underemployed since graduating last year and I've been gradually applying less as time went on because it feels like my applications just goes straight to the trash. My last interview was a little over a month ago and in the end I was placed in the applicant pool(Ford/Iard).

immediate solution is to find work in western Canada, long term solution is much more complicated.

[kevv]

Your going to have a crisis with less kids being born and born to parents who are 35+
The 2.5 kids ration is going down to 1 kid.

Smaller, more expensive lifestyles than what we had before.........

back in the early 80s...minimum wage could have gotten you some fair living......the inflation boom, gas prices and living skyrocketed since 2000....
this cycle has so much damage.... as its not reflecting relative means of what people actually make. (40K cannot get you to live in in Ajax).

And also..... speaking of coddled....
how can you compare a stay at home mom from 1950-1980 to 2 parents working these days?
I wish kids had a mom to stay at home like there was.

early 80s...minimum wage could have gotten you some fair living......are kidding $3.50 you could live where?.70/ltre gas,13cent a kilowatt electricity,24cu/mtr for gas ...600 a year for insurance young drivers making 3.50 or 150 a week.
we struggled when we started out ,the new gen. won't have any of that...

[kevv]

Your going to have a crisis with less kids being born and born to parents who are 35+
The 2.5 kids ration is going down to 1 kid.

Smaller, more expensive lifestyles than what we had before.........

back in the early 80s...minimum wage could have gotten you some fair living......the inflation boom, gas prices and living skyrocketed since 2000....
this cycle has so much damage.... as its not reflecting relative means of what people actually make. (40K cannot get you to live in in Ajax).

And also..... speaking of coddled....
how can you compare a stay at home mom from 1950-1980 to 2 parents working these days?
I wish kids had a mom to stay at home like there was.

going up in the sixties and seventies most women were working at least part time to make ends meet. so that shoots the mom at home theory..i grew up then and very few moms didn't work, nurses ,teachers etc you think they were all men?

[world25]

New batch of 2012 grads almost done with school! Have fun being unemployed. :D

[sirex]

It seems like there is a constant back and forth argument about the cause and who's at fault. But does anybody actually have a solution to this? It doesn't have to be an absolute solution, even some tips or past experiences can be helpful. I have been underemployed since graduating last year and I've been gradually applying less as time went on because it feels like my applications just goes straight to the trash. My last interview was a little over a month ago and in the end I was placed in the applicant pool(Ford/Iard).

Ya, there is a solution. It's called communism. The problem is it will never work properly because there is too much greed/nonsense. Look to the Federation.

[Scythe89]

Old blaming young.

Young blaming old.

Who's to blame? Probably both, to one degree or another.

But I hardly doubt one side will convince the other... however I guess it's good to vent once in a while.

[Blanket_Man]

so much doom and gloom in this thread. the situation will have to pick up eventually ... if you're an old young fella like myself (still in post secondary) just make sure your credentials are straight in time for the next economic upswing.

yea sure things could be better for a lot of people but look at it relative to the situation in other areas of the world. i'm an immigrant from a third world country ... you think you have it bad here??

trust me everything could be much MUCH worse.

[nasa25]

so much doom and gloom in this thread. the situation will have to pick up eventually ... if you're an old young fella like myself (still in post secondary) just make sure your credentials are straight in time for the next economic upswing.

yea sure things could be better for a lot of people but look at it relative to the situation in other areas of the world. i'm an immigrant from a third world country ... you think you have it bad here??

trust me everything could be much MUCH worse.

We are in the midst of a fundamental shift in the economic landscape. Recession or boom, things will be forever different (well, for at least the next 100 years I'd say).

[Kappa21]

back then you had multiple kids sharing a mom while today only couple kids share a mom, even if mom isn't around all the time, you get all the high tech toys to keep you entertained, pretty cushy life.

I dont get what that meant?
You referring to people sleeping with other people and having 1 mom for 5 kids who are not from the same family?


early 80s...minimum wage could have gotten you some fair living......are kidding $3.50 you could live where?.70/ltre gas,13cent a kilowatt electricity,24cu/mtr for gas ...600 a year for insurance young drivers making 3.50 or 150 a week.
we struggled when we started out ,the new gen. won't have any of that...

I dont know if it was 3.50 min wage, but lets say if the daily was 35 dollars for 8 hour work..i think that most people had rentals in the early 80s at 400-500 dollars. Gas was definately not .70/ltre. more like like .20 cents.. I remember when i started to drive in 2001, it was like .68 cents. But my point is that when you compare a 25 year old in 1982 vs a 25 year old in 2012, you have someone who has a good backbone vs someone who struggles.


going up in the sixties and seventies most women were working at least part time to make ends meet. so that shoots the mom at home theory..i grew up then and very few moms didn't work, nurses ,teachers etc you think they were all men?

No! My theory may have been misunderstood. I think that the housewife was and to some degree is still occuring, especially with the new wave of immigrants and other family cultures. There was ofcourse females in the workforce right after WW2, but there was also a culture of 1 parent working while a mom would either volunteer (Church, school etc) or work (like you said) part time.... but you still had someone at home and that was the norms.
Look at how Toronto is made up and the houses that were constructed back then.... bungalows and small houses that a person who made 1 pay check could afford.... turn to the 80's boom and the decline of female housewives and you get the death of the house moms and the sprawl of the suburban/white collar/9-5/office lads

[GonePostal]

It seems like there is a constant back and forth argument about the cause and who's at fault. But does anybody actually have a solution to this? It doesn't have to be an absolute solution, even some tips or past experiences can be helpful. I have been underemployed since graduating last year and I've been gradually applying less as time went on because it feels like my applications just goes straight to the trash. My last interview was a little over a month ago and in the end I was placed in the applicant pool(Ford/Iard).

Most people are too concerned about "who's fault it is". They end up letting that consume their focus and end up in the staying in same place.

The "solution" is different for every individual but the most important thing someone can do is take an accurate inventory of themselves and what is preventing them from attaining their goals. If your answer is "someone else" you are forever doomed to failure. Just because the simple fact that you can not change "someone else". Are you missing education? experience? social skills? contacts? What are you missing and take clear action to attain it.

Also don't be afraid to take a "lesser" position then what you think you "should" be hired at. But with the very specific requirement that the position should have a clear progression path to where you "should" be. If you feel you should be a intermediate web developer, don't take a call center position, but maybe don't turn down junior web developer roles.

[Truemana]

Most people are too concerned about "who's fault it is". They end up letting that consume their focus and end up in the staying in same place.

The "solution" is different for every individual but the most important thing someone can do is take an accurate inventory of themselves and what is preventing them from attaining their goals. If your answer is "someone else" you are forever doomed to failure. Just because the simple fact that you can not change "someone else". Are you missing education? experience? social skills? contacts? What are you missing and take clear action to attain it.

Also don't be afraid to take a "lesser" position then what you think you "should" be hired at. But with the very specific requirement that the position should have a clear progression path to where you "should" be. If you feel you should be a intermediate web developer, don't take a call center position, but maybe don't turn down junior web developer roles.

Agreed! Nothing else required.

[Le Loon]

Your going to have a crisis with less kids being born and born to parents who are 35+
The 2.5 kids ration is going down to 1 kid.



Down syndrome is a terrible disease.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Maternal_Age_Effect.png

[divx]

I dont get what that meant?
You referring to people sleeping with other people and having 1 mom for 5 kids who are not from the same family?



I dont know if it was 3.50 min wage, but lets say if the daily was 35 dollars for 8 hour work..i think that most people had rentals in the early 80s at 400-500 dollars. Gas was definately not .70/ltre. more like like .20 cents.. I remember when i started to drive in 2001, it was like .68 cents. But my point is that when you compare a 25 year old in 1982 vs a 25 year old in 2012, you have someone who has a good backbone vs someone who struggles.



No! My theory may have been misunderstood. I think that the housewife was and to some degree is still occuring, especially with the new wave of immigrants and other family cultures. There was ofcourse females in the workforce right after WW2, but there was also a culture of 1 parent working while a mom would either volunteer (Church, school etc) or work (like you said) part time.... but you still had someone at home and that was the norms.
Look at how Toronto is made up and the houses that were constructed back then.... bungalows and small houses that a person who made 1 pay check could afford.... turn to the 80's boom and the decline of female housewives and you get the death of the house moms and the sprawl of the suburban/white collar/9-5/office lads

back then family are bigger, more kids, it make sense for 1 parent to stay at home, but people were poor, nowadays it's the opposite. housing is kinda expensive but is still affordable by 1 person.

[menaknow]

Most people are too concerned about "who's fault it is". They end up letting that consume their focus and end up in the staying in same place.

The "solution" is different for every individual but the most important thing someone can do is take an accurate inventory of themselves and what is preventing them from attaining their goals. If your answer is "someone else" you are forever doomed to failure. Just because the simple fact that you can not change "someone else". Are you missing education? experience? social skills? contacts? What are you missing and take clear action to attain it.

Also don't be afraid to take a "lesser" position then what you think you "should" be hired at. But with the very specific requirement that the position should have a clear progression path to where you "should" be. If you feel you should be a intermediate web developer, don't take a call center position, but maybe don't turn down junior web developer roles.

Well said... this post is one to be taken seriously!

[flight878]

I've done a moderate amount of interviewing/hiring. So to give some perspective on the hiring side:

Resume gaps are bad in the sense that they a big ?. Why is there a gap? I won't exclude someone just because they have a gap. But more often then not a resume gap will be an negative indicator of a problem with the candidate. It is much more likely the candidate is one of the following:

1) Lazy
2) Under-qualified, applying to positions that their "education" applies but have zero experience.
3) Poor social skills
4) Poor candidate for a slew of other reasons.

That occurs much more often then the person that was ill, traveling the world, or burnt out and needed a break. That is why resume gaps need to be addressed in interviews and need to be addressed head on. I myself had a 6+ month resume gap, and that was one of the hurdles that I had to get over. I had a consistent and truthful story that explained the gap, and during the interviews I had, I never had a negative reaction to it. I've seen too many people skirt around the issue and thus result in eliminating themselves from the process.


If you have been caught up with unemployment for a significant amount of time there is a reason. More often then not that's because you aren't better then the current employable pool. If you think that is untrue (as almost all of this group) then you need to address it with the potential employer and explain the gap and why the gap should be of no concern. Anything short of that puts you at a disadvantage to other candidates.


Having a significant employment gap, or a significant gaps such that the resume resembles Swiss cheese, must be a tough predicament in which to be. Employers have their legitimate concerns, but how does one in such a situation go about re-entering the workforce towards meaningful employment, in your view? Those gaps will never go away, akin to a permanent scar left over from a festering carbuncle.

If a person with the right education and moderate experience (say, transferable skills from underemployment) hasn't been employed in a significant while, it seems like they'll have to climb Mount Everest in world-record time while only wearing a Speedo and a pair of socks to get a decent job, particularly today. If that person tries to rebuild himself at say, minimum wage underemployment to "build experience", certain employers may see that as worse, as the relevant skills they were supposed to be using are atrophying, plus that unsightly gap. Go back to school to pad the resume with more education, but that gap... Volunteering is nice, but irrelevant experience! And that gap! NO JOB FOR YOU! What is there to do (omitting the extremes of lotto 649 addiction and welfare cocktail mix, earning through commercialized vices, or joining the Taliban)? I put it this way to parallel with Mark77's past posts describing people in the engineering sector who have been underemployed or unemployed for a long period of time (years?).

[Mark77]

! What is there to do (omitting the extremes of lotto 649 addiction and welfare cocktail mix, earning through commercialized vices, or joining the Taliban)? I put it this way to parallel with Mark77's past posts describing people in the engineering sector who have been underemployed or unemployed for a long period of time (years?).

I don't remember what I said about people in the engineering sector, but a huge problem that engineers face is that, even for highly technical positions, engineers generally aren't evaluating the skills of other engineers. Rather, some young HR clerk has a pile of resumes, and essentially ends up looking for buzzwords or arbitrary claims of 'experience', without really understanding the meaning of that 'experience'.

Much like car dealers sell poor quality cars to car neophytes with no mechanical knowledge (notice how most TV advertising for cars is all about lifestyle...and practically nothing about the more nitty gritty aspects) -- when employers turn the recruitment of highly specialized/technical staff over to people without deep and rich domain expertise -- they're going to end up making really bad decisions. And that's exactly what's happening. Top grads are going unemployed and their resumes ignored because some stupid entry-level HR person would rather look at some low-marks guy who took an internship instead of actually looking for talent and professionalism.

[Syne]

Having a significant employment gap, or a significant gaps such that the resume resembles Swiss cheese, must be a tough predicament in which to be. Employers have their legitimate concerns, but how does one in such a situation go about re-entering the workforce towards meaningful employment, in your view? Those gaps will never go away, akin to a permanent scar left over from a festering carbuncle.

Easy, they lie. Employers openly admit to discriminating based on employment gaps, so people fill them in and hope that employers don't dig too deep. Happens all the time.

[GonePostal]

Having a significant employment gap, or a significant gaps such that the resume resembles Swiss cheese, must be a tough predicament in which to be. Employers have their legitimate concerns, but how does one in such a situation go about re-entering the workforce towards meaningful employment, in your view? Those gaps will never go away, akin to a permanent scar left over from a festering carbuncle.

If a person with the right education and moderate experience (say, transferable skills from underemployment) hasn't been employed in a significant while, it seems like they'll have to climb Mount Everest in world-record time while only wearing a Speedo and a pair of socks to get a decent job, particularly today. If that person tries to rebuild himself at say, minimum wage underemployment to "build experience", certain employers may see that as worse, as the relevant skills they were supposed to be using are atrophying, plus that unsightly gap. Go back to school to pad the resume with more education, but that gap... Volunteering is nice, but irrelevant experience! And that gap! NO JOB FOR YOU! What is there to do (omitting the extremes of lotto 649 addiction and welfare cocktail mix, earning through commercialized vices, or joining the Taliban)? I put it this way to parallel with Mark77's past posts describing people in the engineering sector who have been underemployed or unemployed for a long period of time (years?).

The only real answer (and it sounds like a cop-out) is to get work experience. Once you have the stigma of having employment or underemployment gaps, it is a long and tough road. There are going to be employers that filter your resume just based on this fact without looking at the contents of your resume. You have to make peace with that and just know that not everyone is going to filter your resume. Once you do have an interview you have to address the issue head on and have a very compelling answer.

The one problem alot of people have are they think they are more qualified then they actually are. So underemployed people believe they should be a senior X but are employed as an intermediate X. Once there is a gap you can't just step back in and assume you are going to get the intermediate X again. You might and many people do. But once 6, 8, 10 months pass that's life telling you that you aren't qualified. Maybe it's time to take a position as a junior X and if you are as good as you think you are, you are going to be an intermediate X in a very short period of time.

It might sound like I'm over simplifying things, but I'm speaking more to mindset and strategy. Then actual actionable details, as actual actionable items are specific to one's situation and resources. Just know 99/100 when something is wrong, it's because of you not because of someone else.

[Intotheblue12]

WAAAY more women work now and for a lot of families it has become a necessity but when you think about it, we created this mess ourselves. If every women just stopped working right now and stayed at home to raise families economic activity would decline, prices would drop, and everything would all be relative. If all households were a 1 income family --- guess what? Life would be affordable on one salary! Its quite simple economics. Instead, we have burnt out families with both parents working, unemployed youth, high prices and high costs of living. There are less children being born, more people avoiding getting married and having families, and more women having kids in their 30's and 40's -- All because of the lure of wanting to focus on their career.

What we need is a paradigm shift....The double income household started once started as an anomaly. When it first started, these families enjoyed high amounts of disposable income -- Greed kicks in and others realize that they too can have the finer things in life on dual incomes ---the next thing you know, the entire economy is based upon every family being a dual income household and it is the new norm to support the average lifestyle. What's next? I am predicting polygamy becomes the new norm so a household can get 3, 4 or 5 incomes going to chase the path of luxuries and consumption long before I see us shifting back to the "stay at home mom" model.

:(

[Mark77]

The one problem alot of people have are they think they are more qualified then they actually are.

Actually from what I've seen out there, people tend to self-assess fairly accurately (some professions actually will impose professional discipline if one offers to do a job that they're not qualified to do -- such as engineering). However, HR folks have a tendecy to under-assess the skills of people.

One thing that has really frustrated me about the engineering 'profession' is that certain employers are quick to throw resumes in the garbage claiming "not qualified", yet those same employers will neither explain their actions and offer feedback, nor refer the applicants for professional discipline if they are offering to do a job they're not qualified to do. Applicants essentially end up sending their resumes into black holes, not knowing if there is a qualifications gap.

[Mark77]

The one problem alot of people have are they think they are more qualified then they actually are. So underemployed people believe they should be a senior X but are employed as an intermediate X. Once there is a gap you can't just step back in and assume you are going to get the intermediate X again. You might and many people do. But once 6, 8, 10 months pass that's life telling you that you aren't qualified. Maybe it's time to take a position as a junior X and if you are as good as you think you are, you are going to be an intermediate X in a very short period of time.


I strongly disagree here. Plenty of people remain fully qualified even for those senior type positions, but can't even get noticed in the marketplace because there's a glut of other individuals with similar or better qualifications, relative to the limited demand for their services.

Thousands of engineers have lost their jobs and countless new grads didn't even get their first jobs, because of the glut in Canada's telecom/IT sector. Is that to say that they're all applying for positions at the wrong skill level? Of course not. That's just saying that there's a glut.

And employers really don't like hiring people with skill/age mismatches. They want their entry-level workers to be young. Their senior managers to be....senior. The option of merely taking a 'lesser job' usually isn't available to contemporary workers.



it's because of you not because of someone else.

So the middle-aged Nortel engineer with deep technical skills, who had absolutely no participation in market strategy/positioning, their financial accounting, or Nortel's crazy late 1990s acquisition binge, is at fault for their personal job loss?

Pretty ridiculous to suggest that its always the individual's fault that they're in a bad predicament.

[JK400]

I strongly disagree here. Plenty of people remain fully qualified even for those senior type positions, but can't even get noticed in the marketplace because there's a glut of other individuals with similar or better qualifications, relative to the limited demand for their services.

Thousands of engineers have lost their jobs and countless new grads didn't even get their first jobs, because of the glut in Canada's telecom/IT sector. Is that to say that they're all applying for positions at the wrong skill level? Of course not. That's just saying that there's a glut.

And employers really don't like hiring people with skill/age mismatches. They want their entry-level workers to be young. Their senior managers to be....senior. The option of merely taking a 'lesser job' usually isn't available to contemporary workers.



So the middle-aged Nortel engineer with deep technical skills, who had absolutely no participation in market strategy/positioning, their financial accounting, or Nortel's crazy late 1990s acquisition binge, is at fault for their personal job loss?

Pretty ridiculous to suggest that its always the individual's fault that they're in a bad predicament.

It sounds like GonePostal is either trying to talk himself into believing his own stories by repetition or has never experienced what it's like to be at the mercy of forces beyond your control in the job market. I don't have any unusual gaps or anything on my resume (luckily) but I'm not naive and inexperienced enough to actually believe it could never happen to me (by my own doing or other factors beyond my control) or know anyone it's happened to. It happens all the time. GonePostal is most likely a recent grad who's never experienced any of this.

[Syne]

I strongly disagree here. Plenty of people remain fully qualified even for those senior type positions, but can't even get noticed in the marketplace because there's a glut of other individuals with similar or better qualifications, relative to the limited demand for their services.

Thousands of engineers have lost their jobs and countless new grads didn't even get their first jobs, because of the glut in Canada's telecom/IT sector. Is that to say that they're all applying for positions at the wrong skill level? Of course not. That's just saying that there's a glut.

And employers really don't like hiring people with skill/age mismatches. They want their entry-level workers to be young. Their senior managers to be....senior. The option of merely taking a 'lesser job' usually isn't available to contemporary workers.


I'll be graduating from university around this time next year and I honestly don't see myself as the prototype of what private businesses are looking for in a new graduate. They say they want work experience, but I'm not sure they really mean it. Sometimes it feels like they're looking for someone in that perfect Goldilocks Zone, where they have just enough, but not too much. Smart enough to be trained, but not smart enough to ask a lot of questions. Keen with the vigor of youth, without having experienced the bitterness of disappointment.

I've considered removing all of my experience prior to university off of my resume, including my college diplomas. It will cut my 3-page resume in half and will give no clues as to my age. At least then I could get an interview before they decide to disqualify me.

[GonePostal]

It sounds like GonePostal is either trying to talk himself into believing his own stories by repetition or has never experienced what it's like to be at the mercy of forces beyond your control in the job market. I don't have any unusual gaps or anything on my resume (luckily) but I'm not naive and inexperienced enough to actually believe it could never happen to me (by my own doing or other factors beyond my control) or know anyone it's happened to. It happens all the time. GonePostal is most likely a recent grad who's never experienced any of this.

This is just my point of view. It has served me well. I've been in the work force for ~7 years with one 6 month gap on my resume. I've done my fair share of resume filtering and some hiring. So I do think I provide a holistic point of view to this discussion. My opinions are formed by my experience and the experience other successful peers.

I'm not trying to sugar coat it. If you have a weak/porous employment history it is not going to be easy. You really have 2 options though:
1) Blame others and continue doing more of the same. Because you have no power over others, hence cannot change them.
2) Self evaluate and find what you can change about yourself to become more employable

Choosing #2 isn't some silver bullet that will make things all better. Rather it's the choice that has a much higher probability at succeeding. In the end life sometimes isn't fair and no matter what you do things won't turn out the way you want them to. I'd rather give it my absolute best effort instead of sitting around and complaining about how things are.

[GonePostal]

I'll be graduating from university around this time next year and I honestly don't see myself as the prototype of what private businesses are looking for in a new graduate. They say they want work experience, but I'm not sure they really mean it. Sometimes it feels like they're looking for someone in that perfect Goldilocks Zone, where they have just enough, but not too much. Smart enough to be trained, but not smart enough to ask a lot of questions. Keen with the vigor of youth, without having experienced the bitterness of disappointment.

I've considered removing all of my experience prior to university off of my resume, including my college diplomas. It will cut my 3-page resume in half and will give no clues as to my age. At least then I could get an interview before they decide to disqualify me.

Without knowing anything about you or the industry you are going into. A 3 page resume is WAY too long for a new grad. You have to think about the employer that is scanning a stack of resumes. What are the chances they are going to read the entire 3 pages? Zero.

Condense it to the most important and RELEVANT points. Put the most important things earlier. All fluff should be removed like "Objective: I want a job".

[Syne]

There really isn't too much fluff. I've worked a lot of jobs in my life and done a lot of volunteer work and have a lot of technical hardware/software experience. I kind of feel I should get it all down on paper. My logic is that it can't hurt and omitting it would fail to capture the breadth of it all.

That said, I still leave a lot of stuff off, like the year I worked in a cement plant when I was 19. I learned so much stuff in that job along with doing a lot of lab work and it seems like the sort of thing that employers mean when they say they want 'work experience'. That's but one job of many. I leave it off because it was a long time ago. I also leave off my time doing truck wash and my co-op experience at my local newspaper in high school. I'm also thinking of taking off my three years experience waiting tables through college.

That still leaves me with 3 full-time jobs, 2 college co-ops, 2 university work study jobs, volleyball reffing, DJ'ing, my work at the local radio station and another part-time IT job.

This is why it drives me nuts when people snidely remark that education is worthless without experience. I have plenty of both and it doesn't seem to matter. Like Mark said, employers are just looking for red flags to disqualify and 'too much experience' or 'career ADD' seems to be what is hurting me right now. If it's not one thing, it's another. Employers just keep moving the goalposts.

At some point, I'm just going to make up a resume loosely based on my life story. No matter what job I get, chances are I've done something related or at least studied in that area. I figure I can do just about anything at the entry level with a decent level of competence. The problem is that I get bored easily.

[GonePostal]

I strongly disagree here. Plenty of people remain fully qualified even for those senior type positions, but can't even get noticed in the marketplace because there's a glut of other individuals with similar or better qualifications, relative to the limited demand for their services.

Thousands of engineers have lost their jobs and countless new grads didn't even get their first jobs, because of the glut in Canada's telecom/IT sector. Is that to say that they're all applying for positions at the wrong skill level? Of course not. That's just saying that there's a glut.

And employers really don't like hiring people with skill/age mismatches. They want their entry-level workers to be young. Their senior managers to be....senior. The option of merely taking a 'lesser job' usually isn't available to contemporary workers.



So the middle-aged Nortel engineer with deep technical skills, who had absolutely no participation in market strategy/positioning, their financial accounting, or Nortel's crazy late 1990s acquisition binge, is at fault for their personal job loss?

Pretty ridiculous to suggest that its always the individual's fault that they're in a bad predicament.

You are too busy analyzing the situation for fault and "how it should be". If you are "qualified" for a senior role and are not getting hired by any company there is something wrong with you. Period. The market has spoken and the longer you go banging your head against that wall the more unemployable you are. Just because "Nortel" hired you as a senior X doesn't mean you should be a senior X at another company.

Once unemployed you have a time sensitive window to find another position. If you spend too long banging your head against what "should" happen you end up losing a lot more. I see this with many new grads where they think they should become X. They apply around and get rejected every time, even after interviews. 6-8 months pass and they don't realize that with everyday their "new grad" status slips away. Their education is becoming less and less relevant. Then at 1 year+ they can't even get the positions that were being offered at a lower level when they first graduated.

[BMW_7]

You are too busy analyzing the situation for fault and "how it should be". If you are "qualified" for a senior role and are not getting hired by any company there is something wrong with you. Period. The market has spoken and the longer you go banging your head against that wall the more unemployable you are. Just because "Nortel" hired you as a senior X doesn't mean you should be a senior X at another company.

Once unemployed you have a time sensitive window to find another position. If you spend too long banging your head against what "should" happen you end up losing a lot more. I see this with many new grads where they think they should become X. They apply around and get rejected every time, even after interviews. 6-8 months pass and they don't realize that with everyday their "new grad" status slips away. Their education is becoming less and less relevant. Then at 1 year+ they can't even get the positions that were being offered at a lower level when they first graduated.

Funny, because that describes my situation fairly well. It went from me getting laid off, 2 months into being unemployed I looked at positions similar to the one I held, 5 months in it was winter (I am in construction / architecture, so obviously had to wait it out). When weather started looking up I was aiming for pretty much anything I can get, and now I sort of took a pause to recollect and re-evaluate how I am applying..

It's really not easy and I definitely think I am loosing my skills that I used one year ago.

[Mark77]

You are too busy analyzing the situation for fault and "how it should be". If you are "qualified" for a senior role and are not getting hired by any company there is something wrong with you. Period.


Wrong. It only means that there is a mismatch between skills, and the current market demand for those skills. Positions that most of the ex-Nortel engineers apply to often receive 100+ resumes -- other than getting the h*ll out of that industry altogether (if that's even possible without a major downgrading of lifestyle), it is pretty ignorant to suggest that the job seeker is unemployed because of applications to the wrong 'level' of position.



The market has spoken and the longer you go banging your head against that wall the more unemployable you are. Just because "Nortel" hired you as a senior X doesn't mean you should be a senior X at another company.


Maybe the market has spoken that demand doesn't exist for those skills anymore, but it doesn't mean that a person is automatically not a 'senior' individual just because there is a glut. As we all know, most firms won't hire an old person into an entry level job, or vice versa. A senior engineer, doesn't magically just become a junior engineer in another operation (for example). Skills mismatch and/or a simple glut, can explain a lot of the unemployment out there across many sectors.

I know I tend to concentrate on engineers because thats what I am -- but the same applies to bankers, Realtors, civil servants, etc. Your beliefs pretty much centre on skills not being transferrable between industries. And nothing could be further from the truth. Someone who engineered at Nortel can easily go and engineer over at, for instance, OPG. The only reason why OPG's engineering ranks weren't filled with ex-Nortel'ers is because of OPG's incompetent structured HR process that tends to emphasize seniority and experience within OPG's operations, rather than transferrable skills. OPG's shareholders, thus, pay dearly for the HR incompetence in that organization when they exclude qualified engineers from jobs.



Once unemployed you have a time sensitive window to find another position. If you spend too long banging your head against what "should" happen you end up losing a lot more. I see this with many new grads where they think they should become X. They apply around and get rejected every time, even after interviews. 6-8 months pass and they don't realize that with everyday their "new grad" status slips away. Their education is becoming less and less relevant. Then at 1 year+ they can't even get the positions that were being offered at a lower level when they first graduated.

Well, as has been the case in many areas of engineering, its not that people have refused 'lower level' positions, rather, they haven't received *any* offers at all. The 'new grad' thing only happens because of the glut in the labour market, whereby employers are extremely selective. The same glut keeps salaries very low, and working conditions very poor for individuals in the field, whether they actually get a job or not.

In the engineering context, usually employers are not hiring for specific skills, but rather, for aptitude, and the demonstrated ability to understand and manage very complex processes/systems. Whether one is 6 months, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years out of school doesn't really matter -- aptitude and understanding, brain damage aside, never really dissappear.

[Mark77]

It sounds like GonePostal is either trying to talk himself into believing his own stories by repetition or has never experienced what it's like to be at the mercy of forces beyond your control in the job market. I don't have any unusual gaps or anything on my resume (luckily) but I'm not naive and inexperienced enough to actually believe it could never happen to me (by my own doing or other factors beyond my control) or know anyone it's happened to. It happens all the time. GonePostal is most likely a recent grad who's never experienced any of this.

JK400, people who aren't professionals, usually don't understand that the job market is not some neat and linear continuum or spectrum, but rather, is more discretized into buckets and categories. With certain categories having great levels of upwards mobility, and others not so much. As much as I criticize engineering as a profession, engineering is one of the few career paths within an organization that has a career path pretty much straight to the top for some (the CEOs and boardrooms, although increasingly less so in the past 20-30 years, have traditionally been dominated by engineers).

Talk to a non-professional -- and they'll tell you that the job market is something that one can 'work their way up in', ie: start as a janitor or at McDonalds, work one's way up to the mailroom, eventually become an 'engineer', then a manager, then a vice president, and ultimately the CEO.

Of course, we both know it doesn't work that way, as a professional that applies outside his/her 'station' in a business, is certain to have their application rejected, or to be placed on some sort of dead-end career path.

[JK400]

JK400, people who aren't professionals, usually don't understand that the job market is not some neat and linear continuum or spectrum, but rather, is more discretized into buckets and categories. With certain categories having great levels of upwards mobility, and others not so much. As much as I criticize engineering as a profession, engineering is one of the few career paths within an organization that has a career path pretty much straight to the top for some (the CEOs and boardrooms, although increasingly less so in the past 20-30 years, have traditionally been dominated by engineers).

Talk to a non-professional -- and they'll tell you that the job market is something that one can 'work their way up in', ie: start as a janitor or at McDonalds, work one's way up to the mailroom, eventually become an 'engineer', then a manager, then a vice president, and ultimately the CEO.

Of course, we both know it doesn't work that way, as a professional that applies outside his/her 'station' in a business, is certain to have their application rejected, or to be placed on some sort of dead-end career path.

I completely agree. I've dealt with people like 'GonePostal' before. They're high and mighty when the odds are in their favour, and when the tables turn they cry like little babies. Better to just admit there's things you have no control over rather than have reality come crashing down on you in a terrible way.

[webdoctors]

you guys should look for work in the USA, or in Asia. The economy has rebounded quite a bit, ppl with degrees are gainfully employed again, Silicon Valley is really booming again. $100K jobs for everyone in SV.

[BMW_7]

you guys should look for work in the USA, or in Asia. The economy has rebounded quite a bit, ppl with degrees are gainfully employed again, Silicon Valley is really booming again. $100K jobs for everyone in SV.

I went to a conference in NJ last month and companies were very weary of hiring. After asking them how thing are, I got the idea that it has been a steady past 3-4 months in the right direction (out of the recession). Before that, however things were in the dumps. Im talking about the building industry as that's what I'm in.

[Mark77]

you guys should look for work in the USA, or in Asia. The economy has rebounded quite a bit, ppl with degrees are gainfully employed again, Silicon Valley is really booming again. $100K jobs for everyone in SV.


Nothing could be further from the truth. The SV startups, unlike the startups a decade ago, employ extremely few people. And most of the larger firms with stable funding get hundreds, if not thousands of resumes per position.

[GonePostal]

I completely agree. I've dealt with people like 'GonePostal' before. They're high and mighty when the odds are in their favour, and when the tables turn they cry like little babies. Better to just admit there's things you have no control over rather than have reality come crashing down on you in a terrible way.

This is the fallacy in your logic. I don't deny that that there are factors out of your control. What I'm saying is it is almost impossible to conclusively come to a conclusion that your unemployability or failure to secure a position is due to factors out of your control.
So that leaves 2 scenarios:

1) Can't find employment because of factors out of your control. Therefore anything you do or don't do won't change the outcome.
2) Can't find employment because of factors in your control. Therefore if you changes these things you will be employed.

Since you can't tell if it is scenario #1 or #2, why not just assume it's #2 all the time? All that you are positioned to lose is some time and effort. It's a modification of Pascal's Wager.

Too many people assume it's #1 and don't bother to change themselves to become more employable.

Take it for what it's worth, free advice. You sound like you have your mind made up already and don't really want to hear other points of view.

[JK400]

This is the fallacy in your logic. I don't deny that that there are factors out of your control. What I'm saying is it is almost impossible to conclusively come to a conclusion that your unemployability or failure to secure a position is due to factors out of your control.
So that leaves 2 scenarios:

1) Can't find employment because of factors out of your control. Therefore anything you do or don't do won't change the outcome.
2) Can't find employment because of factors in your control. Therefore if you changes these things you will be employed.

Since you can't tell if it is scenario #1 or #2, why not just assume it's #2 all the time? All that you are positioned to lose is some time and effort. It's a modification of Pascal's Wager.

Too many people assume it's #1 and don't bother to change themselves to become more employable.

Take it for what it's worth, free advice. You sound like you have your mind made up already and don't really want to hear other points of view.

Wow dude you're such a good employee, we're all very impressed.

I'm not talking about your advice you're giving to people, I'm talking about your dumb-assed statements like

"it's because of you not because of someone else. "

Which anyone who has worked full time in a real, professional job knows is complete utter bullcrap.

Also I don't need your 'advice' if you can even call it that, I don't have any gaps in my resumes, I have a secure job making $70,000 a year now and could probably hop to even higher pay if I felt like it, which I don't. I'm just experienced enough to know how to spot a blow-hard who's puffing his chest. Really dude save your 'company man' attitude for your parents or whatever (who I'm sure are very proud of you), no one here wants to hear it.

[Cress]

However harsh this message might be, I've seen it work for a few people. Sometimes, the change has to be radical like switching careers. The job market is ridiculously rough these days, having a job in your field is a big achievement...


This is the fallacy in your logic. I don't deny that that there are factors out of your control. What I'm saying is it is almost impossible to conclusively come to a conclusion that your unemployability or failure to secure a position is due to factors out of your control.
So that leaves 2 scenarios:

1) Can't find employment because of factors out of your control. Therefore anything you do or don't do won't change the outcome.
2) Can't find employment because of factors in your control. Therefore if you changes these things you will be employed.

Since you can't tell if it is scenario #1 or #2, why not just assume it's #2 all the time? All that you are positioned to lose is some time and effort. It's a modification of Pascal's Wager.

Too many people assume it's #1 and don't bother to change themselves to become more employable.

Take it for what it's worth, free advice. You sound like you have your mind made up already and don't really want to hear other points of view.

[Mark77]

Which anyone who has worked full time in a real, professional job knows is complete utter bullcrap.


Yup, he pays lip service to the numerous grads who come out of the university programs, do extremely well at them, only to hit a brick wall when hundreds of resume submissions literally receive litttle or no response. Because that's what's been happening in some fields that have been out of favour in the Canadian economy, especially in some areas of engineering (ie: electrical/computer) and manufacturing.





experienced enough to know how to spot a blow-hard who's puffing his chest. Really dude save your 'company man' attitude for your parents or whatever (who I'm sure are very proud of you), no one here wants to hear it.

Yup, if the labour market was lliquid, if the best people were being hired for the jobs, if people had mobility, I doubt we'd have much of our current economic mess. If someone's a drunk, rude, a thief, etc., then I can see why they're unemployed, but when you have top grads in Electrical/Computer Engineering unemployed, not a trivial course, not even receiving replies to resumes that disclose a high level of qualifications, it speaks to structural problems in the economy that run deeper than just a shortage of ECE jobs. It also speaks volumes about the employers who simply are too intransigent to recognize the sheer levels of talent out there.

Every few months/years, we have an industry lobby group coming out with statistics showing Canada has a 'productivity problem', yet the employers won't pick up the phone and start hiring some of our most innovative people. Its almost like businesses want to remain mediocre in Canada.

[GonePostal]

Wow dude you're such a good employee, we're all very impressed.

I'm not talking about your advice you're giving to people, I'm talking about your dumb-assed statements like

"it's because of you not because of someone else. "

Which anyone who has worked full time in a real, professional job knows is complete utter bullcrap.

Also I don't need your 'advice' if you can even call it that, I don't have any gaps in my resumes, I have a secure job making $70,000 a year now and could probably hop to even higher pay if I felt like it, which I don't. I'm just experienced enough to know how to spot a blow-hard who's puffing his chest. Really dude save your 'company man' attitude for your parents or whatever (who I'm sure are very proud of you), no one here wants to hear it.

You really need to just take a step back and calm down. I wasn't criticizing or belittling you in any way. I'm glad you are gainfully employed and happy.

It does speak volumes that instead of addressing the substance of my posts you go into character assassination.

[Mark77]

You really need to just take a step back and calm down. I wasn't criticizing or belittling you in any way. I'm glad you are gainfully employed and happy.

It does speak volumes that instead of addressing the substance of my posts you go into character assassination.

I think you have a hard time understanding that if there are 12 million jobs, and 14 million people (not real numbers...) who want those jobs, 2 million are going to go unemployed. And there's a pretty good chance that those 2 million unemployed people will not be the least suitable for employment, but rather, tend to be newer grads (very high unemployment amongst grads these days), people with deep skills in industries in long-term cyclical decline (ie: the engineers right now, perhaps the Realtors in a few years when the housing bubble crashes), and groups that have been affected very negatively by immigration. Some will be just plain unlucky as well, the victim of circumstances, whether it be that they grew up in the wrong part of Canada, whether it be that they're the wrong gender, the wrong race, etc. Or simply didn't take an internship or co-op because they were pursuing better (at the time) opportunities.

Some people need explicit retraining, no doubt about it, and its totally their fault if they don't get that retraining. But is it realistic to expect a 52-year-old Nortel PhD physicist to retrain themselves as a Realtor, selling houses to borderline mentally re-tarded individuals taking on subprime loans?

The huge tragedy about the contemporary situation of high unemployment is that there is a lot of dishonesty out there. We have folks even in this forum claiming the IT job market is hot, yet firms can receive 100, 1000 resumes for each position they hire for. The government deliberately understates unemployment in its 'official' statistics by double-counting employed people in multiple jobs (my father received T4's from 6 different employers in addition to his full-time professional employment and his own small business last year -- the government counts that as 7 jobs!). Even the universities generally refuse to publish comprehensive and proper statistics about graduate outcomes. This dishonesty unfortunately invokes malinvestment in education, and career misdirection, hurting not only the malinvestor, but individuals who are already established in a career path.

[GonePostal]

I think you have a hard time understanding that if there are 12 million jobs, and 14 million people (not real numbers...) who want those jobs, 2 million are going to go unemployed. And there's a pretty good chance that those 2 million unemployed people will not be the least suitable for employment, but rather, tend to be newer grads (very high unemployment amongst grads these days), people with deep skills in industries in long-term cyclical decline (ie: the engineers right now, perhaps the Realtors in a few years when the housing bubble crashes), and groups that have been affected very negatively by immigration. Some will be just plain unlucky as well, the victim of circumstances, whether it be that they grew up in the wrong part of Canada, whether it be that they're the wrong gender, the wrong race, etc. Or simply didn't take an internship or co-op because they were pursuing better (at the time) opportunities.

Some people need explicit retraining, no doubt about it, and its totally their fault if they don't get that retraining. But is it realistic to expect a 52-year-old Nortel PhD physicist to retrain themselves as a Realtor, selling houses to borderline mentally re-tarded individuals taking on subprime loans?

The huge tragedy about the contemporary situation of high unemployment is that there is a lot of dishonesty out there. We have folks even in this forum claiming the IT job market is hot, yet firms can receive 100, 1000 resumes for each position they hire for. The government deliberately understates unemployment in its 'official' statistics by double-counting employed people in multiple jobs (my father received T4's from 6 different employers in addition to his full-time professional employment and his own small business last year -- the government counts that as 7 jobs!). Even the universities generally refuse to publish comprehensive and proper statistics about graduate outcomes. This dishonesty unfortunately invokes malinvestment in education, and career misdirection, hurting not only the malinvestor, but individuals who are already established in a career path.

Just different viewpoints on the world. I'm not trying to solve the employment situation, rather help an individual make a change for the better. I'm not naive, I know that life isn't fair. Sometimes even when you do the right thing, it doesn't turn out as "expected". Doesn't mean you shouldn't at least try.

[Syne]

I think all Mark is saying is that we need to address the zero-sum nature of any job pool before we go around pointing fingers at people for not being motivated enough.

[divx]

I think all Mark is saying is that we need to address the zero-sum nature of any job pool before we go around pointing fingers at people for not being motivated enough.

mark77 is a highly intelligent person and he knows it, it's unfortunate that he can't ever step off his high horse and work with the rest of us peasants.

[Pep]

The article seems to think that the situation will resolve itself when the economy gets back on track, but I'm not as optimistic as them.

The recession started it all. To survive, company's learned to do more with less, and they won't stop just because the economy gets better.

Not only it's now hard to get an entry level job, but since the entry level jobs are now occupied with experienced and educated (master degree, mba, etc.) people (working below their skill set level, and below their worth) you need less supervision for those workers so many management positions are getting cancelled. It's hard to find work and there's hardly any vertical mobility...

It's vicious circle... Overskilled people in entry level jobs = less entry level jobs people needed = less bosses needed = less promotions possibilities = them staying at entry level = no entry level jobs opening

Well said! The current job market is very depressing. My 23 year old son graduated last April from Sheridan College, Marketing program. He has been looking for full-time employment in his field but there's been virtually no serious movement. He has gotten so desperate that he has even applied for general office work. His biggest downfall is lack of experience. He's thinking of going back to school to do another program related to his field. Who knows when things will pick up.

[admiralstupid]

Well said! The current job market is very depressing. My 23 year old son graduated last April from Sheridan College, Marketing program. He has been looking for full-time employment in his field but there's been virtually no serious movement. He has gotten so desperate that he has even applied for general office work. His biggest downfall is lack of experience. He's thinking of going back to school to do another program related to his field. Who knows when things will pick up.

Not sure if trolling...

[resu]

Seems to be a global trend. Japan, China, Korea, most of the EU, US, Middle East/North Africa, ...

So where did all the jobs go? Were there enough jobs to begin with to match the supply of ever-increasing post-secondary graduates?

[Eli1111]

This is the fallacy in your logic. I don't deny that that there are factors out of your control. What I'm saying is it is almost impossible to conclusively come to a conclusion that your unemployability or failure to secure a position is due to factors out of your control.
So that leaves 2 scenarios:

1) Can't find employment because of factors out of your control. Therefore anything you do or don't do won't change the outcome.
2) Can't find employment because of factors in your control. Therefore if you changes these things you will be employed.

Since you can't tell if it is scenario #1 or #2, why not just assume it's #2 all the time? All that you are positioned to lose is some time and effort. It's a modification of Pascal's Wager.

Too many people assume it's #1 and don't bother to change themselves to become more employable.

Take it for what it's worth, free advice. You sound like you have your mind made up already and don't really want to hear other points of view.


You see, it's not that black and white. In many occasions scenario 2 is a less or more direct result of scenario 1. The share of the long-term unemployed (those who's unemployed for 27 weeks and longer) in Ontario increased from 14% in 2008 to 25% in 2011, that is, every 4th unemployed is unemployed for at least half a year. Ava rage duration of unemployment made 22 weeks. What do you think happens to someone who's unemployed for such long periods of time? Right, they experience things like learned helplessness and deteriorated motivation. It's like getting cold after being exposed to germs. It's human nature. It's basically same things as war veterans experiencing mood disorders and depression. People lower their expectations, go to school and for welfare (number of welfare recipients increased by 100,000 for these two years). It's a vicious cycle we are caught into: bad economy --> much less jobs ---> prevailing long-term unemployment ---> low motivation to be engaged in a job search ----> propagated unemployment because of that.

Lack of motivation is usually a reaction to the lack of desired response after having sent 100-1000 resumes. It cannot just improve. There are certain mechanisms involved. Even you can't keep a positive motivation and outlook for ever. The threshold after which someone breaks down is different for different people, but I hope you won't deny its existence.

Another thing is that as a rational person you don't want to ignore scenario 1. A classic example, in early 80s firms engaged in manufacture of typing machines were experiencing downfall because of expansion of PCs. According to you, people should've kept looking for employment in the almost non-existent field. Today many fields and occupations experience pretty much similar trends.

[Mark77]

Seems to be a global trend. Japan, China, Korea, most of the EU, US, Middle East/North Africa, ...

So where did all the jobs go? Were there enough jobs to begin with to match the supply of ever-increasing post-secondary graduates?

Obviously there are some groups of post-secondary graduates that are probably massively over-produced.

However, in engineering, I've observed plenty of instances where investments that were originally specified to have a 30 or 40-year lifespan, have been extended, sometimes against the advice of engineers, over considerably longer periods of serviceable life.

For instance, nuclear power is a great example. Nuclear reactors were, in many cases, to protect the public's safety, over-designed relative to their specified 'engineering lifespan'.

Instead of building new ones, which involves a ton of engineering employment, accountants and finance guys have basically decided to run the existing ones for sometimes an extra 30 years over and above the original design specification, often eating into the safety margins originally specified by the engineers.

This practice is potentially dangerous (just look at the Japanese disaster -- those old nukes were supposed to have been retired 5-10 years ago!), but when it happens, the engineers that trained for the impending demand for new nuclear reactors, essentially are left unemployed.

Similar deal in IT. We know that the IT security of most major businesses and government institutions in Canada/USA are full of more holes than Swiss cheese, in terms of security. Yet firms choose to do little about it, instead, praying that they'll avoid major catastrophe. The result -- IT engineers go unemployed, even though businesses definitely would save a huge pile of money with a little bit of prevention.

[Swswswish]

Well said! The current job market is very depressing. My 23 year old son graduated last April from Sheridan College, Marketing program. He has been looking for full-time employment in his field but there's been virtually no serious movement. He has gotten so desperate that he has even applied for general office work. His biggest downfall is lack of experience. He's thinking of going back to school to do another program related to his field. Who knows when things will pick up.

Maybe he should get experience instead of schooling.....?

[divx]

Maybe he should get experience instead of schooling.....?

shhhhhh keep that secret to ourselves :lol:

[spike1128]

Maybe he should get experience instead of schooling.....?

No, it's because he went to Sheridan college. The job market is brutal right now because university marketing grad will take the top job. Then the average ones that don't make the cut end up taking the lower jobs that once belong to college grads.

He would have gotten a better chance if he took up trades in college.

Of course, it also have to do with lack of experience.

[Mark77]

No, it's because he went to Sheridan college. The job market is brutal right now because university marketing grad will take the top job. Then the average ones that don't make the cut end up taking the lower jobs that once belong to college grads.

He would have gotten a better chance if he took up trades in college.

Of course, it also have to do with lack of experience.

Marketing has always been a tough sell of a degree, experience, top university or college, etc., aside. I doubt you'll find any part of the economic cycle where marketing grads just breezed into very good paying jobs universally.

Perhaps the ease of which a 'marketing' degree is obtained has something to do with this -- low barriers of entry means that salaries and opportunities aren't going to be particularly great.

[resu]

Obviously there are some groups of post-secondary graduates that are probably massively over-produced.

However, in engineering, I've observed plenty of instances where investments that were originally specified to have a 30 or 40-year lifespan, have been extended, sometimes against the advice of engineers, over considerably longer periods of serviceable life.

For instance, nuclear power is a great example. Nuclear reactors were, in many cases, to protect the public's safety, over-designed relative to their specified 'engineering lifespan'.

Instead of building new ones, which involves a ton of engineering employment, accountants and finance guys have basically decided to run the existing ones for sometimes an extra 30 years over and above the original design specification, often eating into the safety margins originally specified by the engineers.

This practice is potentially dangerous (just look at the Japanese disaster -- those old nukes were supposed to have been retired 5-10 years ago!), but when it happens, the engineers that trained for the impending demand for new nuclear reactors, essentially are left unemployed.

Similar deal in IT. We know that the IT security of most major businesses and government institutions in Canada/USA are full of more holes than Swiss cheese, in terms of security. Yet firms choose to do little about it, instead, praying that they'll avoid major catastrophe. The result -- IT engineers go unemployed, even though businesses definitely would save a huge pile of money with a little bit of prevention.

But this is an overarching problem endemic in most industries, on all the continents, and not just engineering or IT. The middle class is taking over the world due to the relative stability and prosperity of the last 30-40 years and access to universities/colleges has improved all over the world. So where do you put all these ever-increasing graduating classes?

[Mark77]

. So where do you put all these ever-increasing graduating classes?

For starters, there is a massive amount of modernization that could be done in the 3rd world and 'developing' world. 600 million people in India, for instance, don't have access to running water. Yet large numbers of Indian civil engineers, for instance, are enticed to America, retrained to write computer software, and find jobs as relatively low paid workers writing business software for outsourcing firms.

Also, the work could be distributed more equitably throughout the world and throughout the workforce. All too common is the story of the lawyer, the engineer, or the doctor who ends up working a 70-hour week, while there are numerous people in those fields who are either unemployed or underemployed. Child labour is still prevalent in many parts of theh world. A domestic factory-owner or software company probably will find it very hard to compete with offshore companies that essentially are able to abuse workers in a sort of free-for-all.

And in the case of those nuclear reactors...the regulators simply needs to say "no" to finance/accounting types who want to substitute their judgement for that of the engineers' that originally built the plants and know best.

[underjeep]

For starters, there is a massive amount of modernization that could be done in the 3rd world and 'developing' world. 600 million people in India, for instance, don't have access to running water. Yet large numbers of Indian civil engineers, for instance, are enticed to America, retrained to write computer software, and find jobs as relatively low paid workers writing business software for outsourcing firms.

Also, the work could be distributed more equitably throughout the world and throughout the workforce. All too common is the story of the lawyer, the engineer, or the doctor who ends up working a 70-hour week, while there are numerous people in those fields who are either unemployed or underemployed. Child labour is still prevalent in many parts of theh world. A domestic factory-owner or software company probably will find it very hard to compete with offshore companies that essentially are able to abuse workers in a sort of free-for-all.

And in the case of those nuclear reactors...the regulators simply needs to say "no" to finance/accounting types who want to substitute their judgement for that of the engineers' that originally built the plants and know best.

as a dictator I'd assume you would enact all those plans that you've suggested, but I'd have to disagree with most of them and they would infact be more dangerous to implement in the long run, if I was a dictator I would implement the opposite policies

-theres nothing you can do for poor people, as long as people exist on some parts of the barren African continent or there is over population there will be suffering, there is nothing you can do about it
-the alternative to these "abused workers" that are offshore, is that they don't have these jobs and are forced to beg or go into prostitution. We believe we have some sort of moral connection to do more when we buy these products, but not when we buy rice from the same country
-nuclear power is the way to go, lets stop our foreign dependance on oil

[Mark77]

as a dictator I'd assume you would enact all those plans that you've suggested,


Well, certainly, I'd cut off immigration from countries that underdeveloped, especially of the people in those countries who have the greatest ability to make a big difference (ie: engineers, intellectuals, etc.)



-nuclear power is the way to go, lets stop our foreign dependance on oil

I don't disagree, but when lawyers and accountants are making the decisions, rather than engineers, its a giant problem. And that pretty much describes our current regulatory system. When disaster strikes, of course, they 'blame' the engineers as scapegoats.

[JK400]

as a dictator I'd assume you would enact all those plans that you've suggested, but I'd have to disagree with most of them and they would infact be more dangerous to implement in the long run, if I was a dictator I would implement the opposite policies

-theres nothing you can do for poor people, as long as people exist on some parts of the barren African continent or there is over population there will be suffering, there is nothing you can do about it
-the alternative to these "abused workers" that are offshore, is that they don't have these jobs and are forced to beg or go into prostitution. We believe we have some sort of moral connection to do more when we buy these products, but not when we buy rice from the same country
-nuclear power is the way to go, lets stop our foreign dependance on oil

That's what I'd call the 'Febreeze solution' to the problem. You're taking care of short term problems without really looking at the underlying causes of the poverty. If you're looking to actually implement social and socio-economic change in these countries, it would be best to implement the 'clothes wash solution' and invest in the people there who are able to create economic and socio-economic changes via job creation and the like such as engineers. By bringing them over to Canada and the U.S they're just contributing to societies that are already socially stable and don't have the problems that many of the third world or heavily over populated countries do. Just buying products from these places is a short sighted solution and doesn't really fix the long term underlying problems.

[squagles]

Similar deal in IT. We know that the IT security of most major businesses and government institutions in Canada/USA are full of more holes than Swiss cheese, in terms of security. Yet firms choose to do little about it, instead, praying that they'll avoid major catastrophe. The result -- IT engineers go unemployed, even though businesses definitely would save a huge pile of money with a little bit of prevention.

Most security threats are an attempt to get customer data, so no real sweat off the target's back. If it costed them money they'd do something about it. If it really becomes a problem I could see the government forcing companies that hold financial data to get some sort of liability insurance for data security.

[WildWolf]

Hardly. They are amongst one of the most educated categories of workers ever to come out of the high schools. The skill of typing is universal, something that wasn't universal when I personally graduated high school in the mid 1990s. Their money management skills are second to none because they never received the bailout of rising stock markets, house prices, inflation, etc., unlike the boomers. Most of them live extremely frugally. Graduating in a recession/depression will do that, after all.

GenerationY are the most educated and the most frugal and have excellent money managing skills and they live extremely frugal, really ? Living in a recession, no they are living off their parents, and at home you can't call that recession living when the roof they live
under is paid for by their parents, while they go to work and spend like a wild hedge hog, and if you deny that, explain some of the high price markets that are selling their goods to this exact same generation. I hardly would call that recession living.


Not just that, but there's plenty of jobs that are occupied with people that are far above their skill levels. Especially in government, where seniority, not skill and education, is a large driving force behind the selection process.


That is funny, rather ironic. It is the opposite.


Job market is crap in Toronto and most parts of Ontario. I graduated from the top university in Canada and has a masters degree from the States, with work experiences in Federal, municipal and state government. Couldn't land a job (not even entry level positions) in TO for six months. First week I moved to Alberta, I landed a fantastic job with pay I could only dream about 2months ago. So if you are reading this and struggling in TO, make the move. There are way more opportunities in the west.

I would never move west. The problems in Vancouver alone is horrible and as for Alberta, yuk.


todays kids have no goals to reach...... unlike their parents who started at the bottom and worked their way up the ladder,bought houses and raised kids .
they wanted a better life than they had, now kids get everything they want and think they should live in the style they are use to,not start at the bottom like us... unforunately most of their parents feel the same so they coddle them like their their royalty and finance their every whim..no wonder their lazy and have high expectations on how they should start out

Those of you who work for the Government and picking on your mirror image, should think twice. You are following in the same steps as your parents, you are working for the government. Why are you working for the government, because of the salary, paid holidays and benefits and, maybe, that is a maybe a good retirement. Ironically you haven't worked 25 years and you are already planning for your retirement, that is cute, you can say you are planning head, but Life is unexcepted, and GenY assumes that everything will be fine at retirement, just like there parents !

Generation Y is like their parents except in a time when they won't have what their parents had because, their parents are making sure of this. Another issue is that is what baffled me is the comment that GenerationY have excellent money managing skills etc, that is rich. It has been demonstrated on numerous occasions they don't handle money very well and they do feel entitled. A prime example, they want the good Job, they want the nice car, they want the house, they want marriage, they want the child. What do some do, they do it all, and get them-self in financial ruins by the time they are 30. This is all because they are living above their means. Why you say, they don't live above their means or I don't live above my means. There may be a reason you don't, you can't make the $70K you want, only to pretend you living off $110K. And if GenerationY was so good with their money, as I mentioned earlier, some markets are making big profits off this generation, and one of those markets is fast food industry. They are doing so well with GenY, McDonalds went ahead and installed WiFi in there restaurants, that is how much profit they are making off GenY. I would hardly call eating out / dining out watching your finances. GenY are a mold of their parents the Boomers, they don't have it better, they are not special, and the world doesn't love them as much as they think they are loved.

And as for the Boomers, yes they will fade away some sooner then others. There is a tiny group amongst both these groups, that most of you were not even born and are over looking and was the smallest Generation is GenX. Sand witched between an aging generation that wants to hang onto everything, and never let it go, and GenY whos parents feel they know what is right for them. GenX is grabbing onto what the boomers are holding onto, and pulling it slowly from their fingers. To GenY if you are angry, and as twisted sister would say, "your not going to take it anymore" but have been somewhat brain washed by your boomer parents, team up with GenX as they are fighting hard take what little is left from the boomers, GenX can't wait for GenY to decide, they have already started and won't wait for your decision.

[Swswswish]

No, it's because he went to Sheridan college. The job market is brutal right now because university marketing grad will take the top job. Then the average ones that don't make the cut end up taking the lower jobs that once belong to college grads.

He would have gotten a better chance if he took up trades in college.

Of course, it also have to do with lack of experience.

Except you're wrong. You're claiming that a University grad will beat a College grad when competing for a job. While it's true that "X University" Looks better than "X College" on a piece of paper, saying that's the only reason to employment is completely ridiculous. So many other factors are considered when getting hired, your personality, your references, your confidence, your previous work experience. No business that wants to last for more than one day will ever discriminate on a college vs university grad. Do you really think that your son is unemployed because he graduated from a college, or is it because he only learned to write essays about work, but never actually worked?

Should I even mention that marketing was always a hit or miss degree?

[spike1128]

GenerationY are the most educated and the most frugal and have excellent money managing skills and they live extremely frugal, really ? Living in a recession, no they are living off their parents, and at home you can't call that recession living when the roof they live
under is paid for by their parents, while they go to work and spend like a wild hedge hog, and if you deny that, explain some of the high price markets that are selling their goods to this exact same generation. I hardly would call that recession living.



That is funny, rather ironic. It is the opposite.



I would never move west. The problems in Vancouver alone is horrible and as for Alberta, yuk.



Those of you who work for the Government and picking on your mirror image, should think twice. You are following in the same steps as your parents, you are working for the government. Why are you working for the government, because of the salary, paid holidays and benefits and, maybe, that is a maybe a good retirement. Ironically you haven't worked 25 years and you are already planning for your retirement, that is cute, you can say you are planning head, but Life is unexcepted, and GenY assumes that everything will be fine at retirement, just like there parents !

Generation Y is like their parents except in a time when they won't have what their parents had because, their parents are making sure of this. Another issue is that is what baffled me is the comment that GenerationY have excellent money managing skills etc, that is rich. It has been demonstrated on numerous occasions they don't handle money very well and they do feel entitled. A prime example, they want the good Job, they want the nice car, they want the house, they want marriage, they want the child. What do some do, they do it all, and get them-self in financial ruins by the time they are 30. This is all because they are living above their means. Why you say, they don't live above their means or I don't live above my means. There may be a reason you don't, you can't make the $70K you want, only to pretend you living off $110K. And if GenerationY was so good with their money, as I mentioned earlier, some markets are making big profits off this generation, and one of those markets is fast food industry. They are doing so well with GenY, McDonalds went ahead and installed WiFi in there restaurants, that is how much profit they are making off GenY. I would hardly call eating out / dining out watching your finances. GenY are a mold of their parents the Boomers, they don't have it better, they are not special, and the world doesn't love them as much as they think they are loved.

And as for the Boomers, yes they will fade away some sooner then others. There is a tiny group amongst both these groups, that most of you were not even born and are over looking and was the smallest Generation is GenX. Sand witched between an aging generation that wants to hang onto everything, and never let it go, and GenY whos parents feel they know what is right for them. GenX is grabbing onto what the boomers are holding onto, and pulling it slowly from their fingers. To GenY if you are angry, and as twisted sister would say, "your not going to take it anymore" but have been somewhat brain washed by your boomer parents, team up with GenX as they are fighting hard take what little is left from the boomers, GenX can't wait for GenY to decide, they have already started and won't wait for your decision.

Early generation of the Y group already decide to ripe it straight out of the Boomers fingers. Starting with their own parents.

The first generation of the Y group is already in their 30s. Most of them are already sick and tired of Boomers getting their way all the time. Like I said on the previous post in threads that the globalization is totally their fault. Little did they know, the Boomers also bankrupted themselves.

[SnoopDop]

There many available IT jobs in Quebec, just learn decent French and you can easily land a job there. Plus, housing is more affordable.
Oh and delay having a family, so you can be free to quickly move anywhere

[spike1128]

Except you're wrong. You're claiming that a University grad will beat a College grad when competing for a job. While it's true that "X University" Looks better than "X College" on a piece of paper, saying that's the only reason to employment is completely ridiculous. So many other factors are considered when getting hired, your personality, your references, your confidence, your previous work experience. No business that wants to last for more than one day will ever discriminate on a college vs university grad. Do you really think that your son is unemployed because he graduated from a college, or is it because he only learned to write essays about work, but never actually worked?

Should I even mention that marketing was always a hit or miss degree?

I am not wrong, I didn't say it was the sole criteria companies hire by. In terms of many other factors "being equal", the company will take an university graduate in a heartbeat. The practical skills can always be taught, but it's the problem solving skills the university graduate has is more valuable. I am not saying college graduates can't problem solve or think. The university graduate generally is able to keep going to higher learning such as research, not possible for a college graduate unless he does a bachelor. That's why in the field of engineering, colleges are not accredited to join the Engineering associations. There is a reason why most people go into university than college. I have never seen a A+ high school graduate doing advanced courses choose college over university. There is a reason for this.

There is a large number of applicants during a recession. The company has decided that they will pay 30k a year for a technical position. Given that the job can be done both a college and university graduate. Usually, given that the company is willing to train the employee.

During recessions, the university graduate will take whatever they can get, meaning even if it's a underpaid/underemployed position. The company will usually choose to hire the university graduate given that all the other factors are equal on all levels that you described.

Moreover, I would think a smaller company will want to hire a college graduate because they don't really have the resources to train a new hire. So if for example a technician are trained hands on in college, then of course a small company will be happy not to train. It's not the case for larger companies, where the hiring is done by HR department. Generally, the HR department value the university degree more than a college degree. They have resources to train, so being hand on right off the bat is not necessary.

I can't speak for the field of marketing. But for technical field, that's how it is usually.

[Eli1111]

Generally, the HR department value the university degree more than a college degree. They have resources to train, so being hand on right off the bat is not necessary.

I can't speak for the field of marketing. But for technical field, that's how it is usually.

Generally, during a recession HR people and expansive training programs are first to be considered for cuts, as companies do not anticipate massive hire.

[starbright]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-professional-class-bubble-is-bursting/article2416390/

Article that showed up in the Globe today. I get the criticisms of the article as lined out in the comments, but I think the over-arching theme is that there is no way for a smart, driven kid to guarantee success these days. University is required for, but by no means guarantees, a non-trades job - and tuition is rising disproportionate to wages and the cost of living. Companies have switched recruitment to the internet, but that means hundreds to thousands of applications for a single position and no efficient way to pick the best candidate; hence hiring is done by connections or luck. Society brushes off the unemployed as 'not willing to go where the work is' but doesn't actually state what industry is tripping over itself for labour. Trades? I have friends in construction whose business is tapering off. We need more doctors? Medical seats are restricted in Canada and are already bursting with applicants. Why are kids these days too lazy to go into STEM areas? Ontario mathematics graduates have have the 3rd highest unemployment 2 years after graduation out of 26 surveyed majors. If a field is reported as 'hot' with a 'huge shortage looming' then enrollment soars and by the time your schooling is done you're stuck in a glutted field yet again (see pharmacy).

Yes, some people succeed. But success isn't guaranteed by intelligence and hard work alone. And with the state of the economy, intelligence and hard work can't guarantee that you can have steady employment, buy a house, get married and have some kids. That is what I think is missed in the Gen Y entitlement debates; the smart kids aren't pissed they're not getting $100k jobs on Bay Street out of school, they're pissed they can graduate in the top 10% of a STEM program and still not afford to move out of their parent's house and start a life.

The fact that the media, and much of society is so oblivious to this is also frustrating. Debilitating engineer shortage that forces the government to import 10,000 foreign engineers on visas? 'About time' says society 'our kids are just too lazy to get a technical education'. The unemployed engineering grad working in retail gets a pang of hopelessness. Canadian prisons pay for prisoners to get a university education? 'Of course' says society 'they must be re-integrating into society eventually. What kind of life will they live if they can't get a good job?' The 20 year old university student, a law-abiding citizen who works summers and part-time during the year to cover the cost of her degree, cringes knowing that the 100 applications she's sent out have yet to yield a single reply.

This situation is more than sad; it's downright dangerous. The brightest minds of our generation, many of whom want nothing more than a family and stable life, are not able to achieve those goals. What do you get when you have 50,000 pissed off people who are smarter than the government and have nothing to lose? I've been pondering that question myself for the past year or so.

[Mark77]

Very well put starbright, and an accurate description of what is happening "on the ground".

Certainly doesn't help that a lot of companies out there actually either lie about their needs for labour, or are very hostile towards up and comers who go out of their way to join firms.

Firms have spent a huge amount of money in the past decade on what is known as "Customer Relationship Management", seeking to tailor the communications of their business to the needs of the customer, in hope of achieving better sales.

I suspect, as we go into a future labour shortage, that HR will have to finally start cleaning itself up, and adopt a more concillatory approach to the talent that is out there. There's a ton of very wouded people out there from how regressive things have been over the past decade of fake 'jobless recoveries', rampant outsourcing, and outright lies from HR types.

[Truemana]

I would never move west. The problems in Vancouver alone is horrible and as for Alberta, yuk.

Huh? Care to elaborate?

[JK400]

Very well put starbright, and an accurate description of what is happening "on the ground".

Certainly doesn't help that a lot of companies out there actually either lie about their needs for labour, or are very hostile towards up and comers who go out of their way to join firms.

Firms have spent a huge amount of money in the past decade on what is known as "Customer Relationship Management", seeking to tailor the communications of their business to the needs of the customer, in hope of achieving better sales.

I suspect, as we go into a future labour shortage, that HR will have to finally start cleaning itself up, and adopt a more concillatory approach to the talent that is out there. There's a ton of very wouded people out there from how regressive things have been over the past decade of fake 'jobless recoveries', rampant outsourcing, and outright lies from HR types.

It gets even worse. Even the ones that make it through the recruitment selection lottery usually end up at a bottom of the barrel institution that's relatively desperate for employees in some low level position, like at a consulting firm. It's very common to have the management pay you below 40k on salary, work you 12 hours a day, treat you worse than a dog and tell you how lucky you are to have a job and that if you don't like it there's 100 applicants waiting in line to take your place. Then when they complain that 4 or 5 years of intense schooling and $50,000 worth of tuition isn't worth this treatment, and sometimes end up quitting because they would make more as a janitor or at mcdonalds, they're labelled as 'whiners' and 'entitled Gen-Ys'. This also adds to the problem of discouraging top (or even mediocre) talent from sticking with a career in engineering. It's really bad out there right now.

[kabza]

The globalists' agenda is going as planned.

[WildWolf]

I am not wrong, I didn't say it was the sole criteria companies hire by. In terms of many other factors "being equal", the company will take an university graduate in a heartbeat. The practical skills can always be taught, but it's the problem solving skills the university graduate has is more valuable. I am not saying college graduates can't problem solve or think. The university graduate generally is able to keep going to higher learning such as research, not possible for a college graduate unless he does a bachelor. That's why in the field of engineering, colleges are not accredited to join the Engineering associations. There is a reason why most people go into university than college. I have never seen a A+ high school graduate doing advanced courses choose college over university. There is a reason for this.

There is a large number of applicants during a recession. The company has decided that they will pay 30k a year for a technical position. Given that the job can be done both a college and university graduate. Usually, given that the company is willing to train the employee.

During recessions, the university graduate will take whatever they can get, meaning even if it's a underpaid/underemployed position. The company will usually choose to hire the university graduate given that all the other factors are equal on all levels that you described.

Moreover, I would think a smaller company will want to hire a college graduate because they don't really have the resources to train a new hire. So if for example a technician are trained hands on in college, then of course a small company will be happy not to train. It's not the case for larger companies, where the hiring is done by HR department. Generally, the HR department value the university degree more than a college degree. They have resources to train, so being hand on right off the bat is not necessary.

I can't speak for the field of marketing. But for technical field, that's how it is usually.

You don't see why school is a hoax. There are researchers and economics who have a solid, accurate track record are saying this. You go to Post Secondary school, you are expected to pay anywhere from $2K - $50K on average for school. Coming out of school you need a Job to pay off your debts. The Jobs are going to hire you, not because you are smart, because you are desperate, you need to pay off your debts, heck maybe you even have a car. You still live at home with mom and dad, and you are not paying any rent, I mean market rent prices which are on average close to, or exceeding $1K a month.

After you are hired you feel, you succeeded, especially if you got hired in your chosen career. If you haven't well, maybe your happy cause you think all that schooling landed you a pretty salary. Lets factor in a few other things, there are plenty of people out there looking for work in their field who have been out of school for years, and have to grab anything. Then there are people out there who can be molded better then you coming out of school, to the way the company operates they usually are self-taught and to a company be it small or big, they can mold them into the ultimate, smart worker, although most jobs follow the "school notion" as well, one day the light will shine on this. The school person is more rigid, from all those books and teacher talk, ow teacher talk, yuk. Then you have GenY taking away average jobs because they can't get into their field, from ordinary people who may not be a master at anything, they just want to earn some cash, nothing wrong with that at any age. Unfortunately this person can't get hired at Shoppers Drug Mart or Tim Hortons because the GenY got school to pay off, yet talk out of the side of their mouth, because they want to party, their young, understandable.

The Boomers have told their children, without school you are nothing. Untrue the boomers have fell into the hoax, and so have many people, look in the past. Everyone path in life is different, but with millions going to school and very few jobs around, ask yourself, is it worth to owe money to a school and possible never land in your field and if you do stay locked in a position for years, or is it better to try to start something own your own, that is logical and possible and take that risk ? The worst that can happen is you make minor head way and still manage to do something, somewhat you like, by working for someone.

[boredsilly]

Instead the 26-year-old, armed with a useless B.Sc. in biology

lol ouch

[niroopg]

You don't see why school is a hoax. There are researchers and economics who have a solid, accurate track record are saying this. You go to Post Secondary school, you are expected to pay anywhere from $2K - $50K on average for school. Coming out of school you need a Job to pay off your debts. The Jobs are going to hire you, not because you are smart, because you are desperate, you need to pay off your debts, heck maybe you even have a car. You still live at home with mom and dad, and you are not paying any rent, I mean market rent prices which are on average close to, or exceeding $1K a month.

After you are hired you feel, you succeeded, especially if you got hired in your chosen career. If you haven't well, maybe your happy cause you think all that schooling landed you a pretty salary. Lets factor in a few other things, there are plenty of people out there looking for work in their field who have been out of school for years, and have to grab anything. Then there are people out there who can be molded better then you coming out of school, to the way the company operates they usually are self-taught and to a company be it small or big, they can mold them into the ultimate, smart worker, although most jobs follow the "school notion" as well, one day the light will shine on this. The school person is more rigid, from all those books and teacher talk, ow teacher talk, yuk. Then you have GenY taking away average jobs because they can't get into their field, from ordinary people who may not be a master at anything, they just want to earn some cash, nothing wrong with that at any age. Unfortunately this person can't get hired at Shoppers Drug Mart or Tim Hortons because the GenY got school to pay off, yet talk out of the side of their mouth, because they want to party, their young, understandable.

The Boomers have told their children, without school you are nothing. Untrue the boomers have fell into the hoax, and so have many people, look in the past. Everyone path in life is different, but with millions going to school and very few jobs around, ask yourself, is it worth to owe money to a school and possible never land in your field and if you do stay locked in a position for years, or is it better to try to start something own your own, that is logical and possible and take that risk ? The worst that can happen is you make minor head way and still manage to do something, somewhat you like, by working for someone.

Start something on your own? You think its that easy? You can't just "start something". Starting something requires money. Banks aren't going to give you anything because you have no certifiable skills or assets. Even if they tossed you 30K, what is that going to do. That is not enough capital, unless you are planning on starting a 365-day lemonade stand.

And people go to school to avoid working at SDM and Tim's. Those aren't careers. Those are middle school and high school jobs. Those jobs can be done by monkeys. Even if you were to stay there for 5 years, your potential for income growth would be small because you, as an individual, don't bring anything to the table that is unique with respect to that particular job. They can hire a new middle schooler and have them trained in a few weeks and save the 5 grand you are requesting for a raise.

[spike1128]

You don't see why school is a hoax. There are researchers and economics who have a solid, accurate track record are saying this. You go to Post Secondary school, you are expected to pay anywhere from $2K - $50K on average for school. Coming out of school you need a Job to pay off your debts. The Jobs are going to hire you, not because you are smart, because you are desperate, you need to pay off your debts, heck maybe you even have a car. You still live at home with mom and dad, and you are not paying any rent, I mean market rent prices which are on average close to, or exceeding $1K a month.

After you are hired you feel, you succeeded, especially if you got hired in your chosen career. If you haven't well, maybe your happy cause you think all that schooling landed you a pretty salary. Lets factor in a few other things, there are plenty of people out there looking for work in their field who have been out of school for years, and have to grab anything. Then there are people out there who can be molded better then you coming out of school, to the way the company operates they usually are self-taught and to a company be it small or big, they can mold them into the ultimate, smart worker, although most jobs follow the "school notion" as well, one day the light will shine on this. The school person is more rigid, from all those books and teacher talk, ow teacher talk, yuk. Then you have GenY taking away average jobs because they can't get into their field, from ordinary people who may not be a master at anything, they just want to earn some cash, nothing wrong with that at any age. Unfortunately this person can't get hired at Shoppers Drug Mart or Tim Hortons because the GenY got school to pay off, yet talk out of the side of their mouth, because they want to party, their young, understandable.

The Boomers have told their children, without school you are nothing. Untrue the boomers have fell into the hoax, and so have many people, look in the past. Everyone path in life is different, but with millions going to school and very few jobs around, ask yourself, is it worth to owe money to a school and possible never land in your field and if you do stay locked in a position for years, or is it better to try to start something own your own, that is logical and possible and take that risk ? The worst that can happen is you make minor head way and still manage to do something, somewhat you like, by working for someone.

I can't completely agree on the fact that school is completely a hoax. It's a hoax for the percentage of people who is going to university just to become paper pushers and taking majors that won't land them a job. Having education is still better than no education in terms of human advancement. First hand seen how stupid workers are doing the same task, one educated (thinking) and the other non educated (not thinking).

I agree on your argument for paying up x number of $ to get an education. Only to have to pay it back and forced to take lower jobs, but it's the way things are. That's why I say university graduate will put a downward pressure on people who don't have education. At least they can speak English. The immigrates should not complain when the overqualified candidate take their jobs for the low pay they are already earning. The younger Gen Y will be in parent's basements for years doing those jobs, that's reality.

As for borrowing to go to school, I understand that it can be a complete hoax. University were always meant to rich people, not for poor people. That's why in the 1800s, the inventors were all noble background. They can afford to take time to do unfruitful experiments instead of putting hard labour into farming the field to produce food. Again, some people that take risk to borrow for education end up higher in the economical/social ladder.

Your argument for being rigid and flexible of learning does not stick. Going to university doesn't make you more rigid, university allows for free thinking. That's why going to university is NOT a ultimate ticket that guarantee a job. That's why I said previously that business prefer to hire university graduates than that of college graduate. College education is rigid.

To tell you the truth, I would have rather I didn't pay to go get an education if I am able to find a job that the companies tailor to their needs. I get paid while I am educated, instead of me paying while I am educated.

[spike1128]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-professional-class-bubble-is-bursting/article2416390/

Article that showed up in the Globe today. I get the criticisms of the article as lined out in the comments, but I think the over-arching theme is that there is no way for a smart, driven kid to guarantee success these days. University is required for, but by no means guarantees, a non-trades job - and tuition is rising disproportionate to wages and the cost of living. Companies have switched recruitment to the internet, but that means hundreds to thousands of applications for a single position and no efficient way to pick the best candidate; hence hiring is done by connections or luck. Society brushes off the unemployed as 'not willing to go where the work is' but doesn't actually state what industry is tripping over itself for labour. Trades? I have friends in construction whose business is tapering off. We need more doctors? Medical seats are restricted in Canada and are already bursting with applicants. Why are kids these days too lazy to go into STEM areas? Ontario mathematics graduates have have the 3rd highest unemployment 2 years after graduation out of 26 surveyed majors. If a field is reported as 'hot' with a 'huge shortage looming' then enrollment soars and by the time your schooling is done you're stuck in a glutted field yet again (see pharmacy).

Yes, some people succeed. But success isn't guaranteed by intelligence and hard work alone. And with the state of the economy, intelligence and hard work can't guarantee that you can have steady employment, buy a house, get married and have some kids. That is what I think is missed in the Gen Y entitlement debates; the smart kids aren't pissed they're not getting $100k jobs on Bay Street out of school, they're pissed they can graduate in the top 10% of a STEM program and still not afford to move out of their parent's house and start a life.

The fact that the media, and much of society is so oblivious to this is also frustrating. Debilitating engineer shortage that forces the government to import 10,000 foreign engineers on visas? 'About time' says society 'our kids are just too lazy to get a technical education'. The unemployed engineering grad working in retail gets a pang of hopelessness. Canadian prisons pay for prisoners to get a university education? 'Of course' says society 'they must be re-integrating into society eventually. What kind of life will they live if they can't get a good job?' The 20 year old university student, a law-abiding citizen who works summers and part-time during the year to cover the cost of her degree, cringes knowing that the 100 applications she's sent out have yet to yield a single reply.

This situation is more than sad; it's downright dangerous. The brightest minds of our generation, many of whom want nothing more than a family and stable life, are not able to achieve those goals. What do you get when you have 50,000 pissed off people who are smarter than the government and have nothing to lose? I've been pondering that question myself for the past year or so.

Starbright, your post has hit straight into the head of the nail. +1.

[nasa25]

Start something on your own? You think its that easy? You can't just "start something". Starting something requires money. Banks aren't going to give you anything because you have no certifiable skills or assets. Even if they tossed you 30K, what is that going to do. That is not enough capital, unless you are planning on starting a 365-day lemonade stand.

And people go to school to avoid working at SDM and Tim's. Those aren't careers. Those are middle school and high school jobs. Those jobs can be done by monkeys. Even if you were to stay there for 5 years, your potential for income growth would be small because you, as an individual, don't bring anything to the table that is unique with respect to that particular job. They can hire a new middle schooler and have them trained in a few weeks and save the 5 grand you are requesting for a raise.

Agreed. Couple that with the fact that most people are leveraged to the point that they need to have a steady income to cover, at the very least, fixed expenses and minimal variable expenses such as food. Most don't have the savings to sustain financial commitments while toiling through the unprofitable first years of a new business - especially the young that aren't fortunate enough to be bankrolled by well off parents.

[nasa25]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-professional-class-bubble-is-bursting/article2416390/

Article that showed up in the Globe today. I get the criticisms of the article as lined out in the comments, but I think the over-arching theme is that there is no way for a smart, driven kid to guarantee success these days. University is required for, but by no means guarantees, a non-trades job - and tuition is rising disproportionate to wages and the cost of living. Companies have switched recruitment to the internet, but that means hundreds to thousands of applications for a single position and no efficient way to pick the best candidate; hence hiring is done by connections or luck. Society brushes off the unemployed as 'not willing to go where the work is' but doesn't actually state what industry is tripping over itself for labour. Trades? I have friends in construction whose business is tapering off. We need more doctors? Medical seats are restricted in Canada and are already bursting with applicants. Why are kids these days too lazy to go into STEM areas? Ontario mathematics graduates have have the 3rd highest unemployment 2 years after graduation out of 26 surveyed majors. If a field is reported as 'hot' with a 'huge shortage looming' then enrollment soars and by the time your schooling is done you're stuck in a glutted field yet again (see pharmacy).

Yes, some people succeed. But success isn't guaranteed by intelligence and hard work alone. And with the state of the economy, intelligence and hard work can't guarantee that you can have steady employment, buy a house, get married and have some kids. That is what I think is missed in the Gen Y entitlement debates; the smart kids aren't pissed they're not getting $100k jobs on Bay Street out of school, they're pissed they can graduate in the top 10% of a STEM program and still not afford to move out of their parent's house and start a life.

The fact that the media, and much of society is so oblivious to this is also frustrating. Debilitating engineer shortage that forces the government to import 10,000 foreign engineers on visas? 'About time' says society 'our kids are just too lazy to get a technical education'. The unemployed engineering grad working in retail gets a pang of hopelessness. Canadian prisons pay for prisoners to get a university education? 'Of course' says society 'they must be re-integrating into society eventually. What kind of life will they live if they can't get a good job?' The 20 year old university student, a law-abiding citizen who works summers and part-time during the year to cover the cost of her degree, cringes knowing that the 100 applications she's sent out have yet to yield a single reply.

This situation is more than sad; it's downright dangerous. The brightest minds of our generation, many of whom want nothing more than a family and stable life, are not able to achieve those goals. What do you get when you have 50,000 pissed off people who are smarter than the government and have nothing to lose? I've been pondering that question myself for the past year or so.

100% Agree. Great post.

[flight878]

And people go to school to avoid working at SDM and Tim's. Those aren't careers. Those are middle school and high school jobs. Those jobs can be done by monkeys. Even if you were to stay there for 5 years, your potential for income growth would be small because you, as an individual, don't bring anything to the table that is unique with respect to that particular job. They can hire a new middle schooler and have them trained in a few weeks and save the 5 grand you are requesting for a raise.

Right, but this type of talk will be dismissed as "typical Gen-Y entitlement" by some of the blowhards on these forums. This is the what the "entitlement" proponents have trouble understanding. Resorting to the "entitlement" argument is frankly a cheap, cop-out argument that doesn't address the multiple issues as to why the youth are being shafted. It'd be nice it if were as simple as that. From my experience, the ones who resort to this argument are typically indignant towards youth that are rapidly catching up to them in their careers (or surpassed them), plain ignorant, or still believe one can become an executive by starting out in the mail room. Let's wait for their entitlement complex to surface when it's time to claim OAS and strain the health care system.

Reading these articles on G&M, I'm not surprised by the readers who've invoked the "entitlement" argument too with a Pavlovian reflex, and if politically convenient, more clueless will lap it up like how a dog licks up vomit. But nobody has offered real solutions. In the US it's even worse.

[anon666]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-professional-class-bubble-is-bursting/article2416390/

Article that showed up in the Globe today. I get the criticisms of the article as lined out in the comments, but I think the over-arching theme is that there is no way for a smart, driven kid to guarantee success these days. University is required for, but by no means guarantees, a non-trades job - and tuition is rising disproportionate to wages and the cost of living. Companies have switched recruitment to the internet, but that means hundreds to thousands of applications for a single position and no efficient way to pick the best candidate; hence hiring is done by connections or luck. Society brushes off the unemployed as 'not willing to go where the work is' but doesn't actually state what industry is tripping over itself for labour. Trades? I have friends in construction whose business is tapering off. We need more doctors? Medical seats are restricted in Canada and are already bursting with applicants. Why are kids these days too lazy to go into STEM areas? Ontario mathematics graduates have have the 3rd highest unemployment 2 years after graduation out of 26 surveyed majors. If a field is reported as 'hot' with a 'huge shortage looming' then enrollment soars and by the time your schooling is done you're stuck in a glutted field yet again (see pharmacy).

Yes, some people succeed. But success isn't guaranteed by intelligence and hard work alone. And with the state of the economy, intelligence and hard work can't guarantee that you can have steady employment, buy a house, get married and have some kids. That is what I think is missed in the Gen Y entitlement debates; the smart kids aren't pissed they're not getting $100k jobs on Bay Street out of school, they're pissed they can graduate in the top 10% of a STEM program and still not afford to move out of their parent's house and start a life.

The fact that the media, and much of society is so oblivious to this is also frustrating. Debilitating engineer shortage that forces the government to import 10,000 foreign engineers on visas? 'About time' says society 'our kids are just too lazy to get a technical education'. The unemployed engineering grad working in retail gets a pang of hopelessness. Canadian prisons pay for prisoners to get a university education? 'Of course' says society 'they must be re-integrating into society eventually. What kind of life will they live if they can't get a good job?' The 20 year old university student, a law-abiding citizen who works summers and part-time during the year to cover the cost of her degree, cringes knowing that the 100 applications she's sent out have yet to yield a single reply.

This situation is more than sad; it's downright dangerous. The brightest minds of our generation, many of whom want nothing more than a family and stable life, are not able to achieve those goals. What do you get when you have 50,000 pissed off people who are smarter than the government and have nothing to lose? I've been pondering that question myself for the past year or so.

lol, who takes Wente seriously? She doesn't know her ******* from her elbow.

[dsg512]

Be thankful we aren't like Spain, where 1 in 2 youth don't have a job.

[CatDog]

Start something on your own? You think its that easy? You can't just "start something". Starting something requires money. Banks aren't going to give you anything because you have no certifiable skills or assets. Even if they tossed you 30K, what is that going to do. That is not enough capital, unless you are planning on starting a 365-day lemonade stand.



Agreed. Couple that with the fact that most people are leveraged to the point that they need to have a steady income to cover, at the very least, fixed expenses and minimal variable expenses such as food. Most don't have the savings to sustain financial commitments while toiling through the unprofitable first years of a new business - especially the young that aren't fortunate enough to be bankrolled by well off parents.

You are both wrong. It is that easy to start something. I suspect you don't see opportunity because of a generation gap.

You do not need thousands of dollars to start a business - get real. This is such an old and outdated way of thinking. Both of you sound like corporate slaves - no disrespect meant, prove me wrong.

[nasa25]

You are both wrong. It is that easy to start something. I suspect you don't see opportunity because of a generation gap.

You do not need thousands of dollars to start a business - get real. This is such an old and outdated way of thinking. Both of you sound like corporate slaves - no disrespect meant, prove me wrong.

I wasnt talking about capital requirements. I was referring to the opportunity cost of dedicating all of ones time to a new venture - basically, not being able to earn a steady income at a stable job.

Internet based ventures aren't particularly capital intensive and can be quite lucrative. But, some people need to pay the bills and cant afford a non-steady income for any period of time.

[Jruuu]

Never fear! Our government is working hard to make Canada more competitive!

"...the Government of Canada will work in partnership with the provinces and territories, and other stakeholders, to further improve foreign credential recognition, so that internationally trained workers are able to find meaningful employment and, in turn, contribute to Canada’s economy and overall competitiveness."..."Wages that are up to 15% below the average wage for an occupation in a specific region will be accepted; however, employers must clearly demonstrate that the wage is consistent with that of Canadian workers based on Statistics Canada data."

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?nid=670919


If you are feeling gloomy, go to Statscan's website and read about all the "new" jobs being created...And try not to think whom they are going to.

[CatDog]

I wasnt talking about capital requirements. I was referring to the opportunity cost of dedicating all of ones time to a new venture - basically, not being able to earn a steady income at a stable job.


I agree somewhat - although alot of fresh grads who are getting offers aren't getting paid much and some aren't receiving offers at all. It's possible to do part time at Starbuck and full time online if an individuals ambitious.

[resu]

I agree somewhat - although alot of fresh grads who are getting offers aren't getting paid much and some aren't receiving offers at all. It's possible to do part time at Starbuck and full time online if an individuals ambitious.

As in creating a service/startup or running some blog/SEO and living off ads?

[nasa25]

True. Arbitrage can be lucrative if you're diligent and know what you're doing. I know a few people doing quite well with it.

[CatDog]

As in creating a service/startup or running some blog/SEO and living off ads?


Startup in service or product..distribution, ecommerce, etc.

I don't know how many bloggers are making $100k+ off ads.. but for those that do, awesome.

[resu]

Startup in service or product..distribution, ecommerce, etc.

I don't know how many bloggers are making $100k+ off ads.. but for those that do, awesome.

You're talking about an online business with no storefront right? There are very few grads with the technical background that can pull something like that off. Plus, in the first couple of years, startups are much more likely to burn through money than turn a profit. Not many new grads have the financial strength to even consider this option unless they've done a lot of part-time/internship work during school.

[divx]

Well, certainly, I'd cut off immigration from countries that underdeveloped, especially of the people in those countries who have the greatest ability to make a big difference (ie: engineers, intellectuals, etc.)




I don't disagree, but when lawyers and accountants are making the decisions, rather than engineers, its a giant problem. And that pretty much describes our current regulatory system. When disaster strikes, of course, they 'blame' the engineers as scapegoats.

mark, you disappoint me.

[divx]

GenerationY are the most educated and the most frugal and have excellent money managing skills and they live extremely frugal, really ? Living in a recession, no they are living off their parents, and at home you can't call that recession living when the roof they live
under is paid for by their parents, while they go to work and spend like a wild hedge hog, and if you deny that, explain some of the high price markets that are selling their goods to this exact same generation. I hardly would call that recession living.



That is funny, rather ironic. It is the opposite.



I would never move west. The problems in Vancouver alone is horrible and as for Alberta, yuk.



Those of you who work for the Government and picking on your mirror image, should think twice. You are following in the same steps as your parents, you are working for the government. Why are you working for the government, because of the salary, paid holidays and benefits and, maybe, that is a maybe a good retirement. Ironically you haven't worked 25 years and you are already planning for your retirement, that is cute, you can say you are planning head, but Life is unexcepted, and GenY assumes that everything will be fine at retirement, just like there parents !

Generation Y is like their parents except in a time when they won't have what their parents had because, their parents are making sure of this. Another issue is that is what baffled me is the comment that GenerationY have excellent money managing skills etc, that is rich. It has been demonstrated on numerous occasions they don't handle money very well and they do feel entitled. A prime example, they want the good Job, they want the nice car, they want the house, they want marriage, they want the child. What do some do, they do it all, and get them-self in financial ruins by the time they are 30. This is all because they are living above their means. Why you say, they don't live above their means or I don't live above my means. There may be a reason you don't, you can't make the $70K you want, only to pretend you living off $110K. And if GenerationY was so good with their money, as I mentioned earlier, some markets are making big profits off this generation, and one of those markets is fast food industry. They are doing so well with GenY, McDonalds went ahead and installed WiFi in there restaurants, that is how much profit they are making off GenY. I would hardly call eating out / dining out watching your finances. GenY are a mold of their parents the Boomers, they don't have it better, they are not special, and the world doesn't love them as much as they think they are loved.

And as for the Boomers, yes they will fade away some sooner then others. There is a tiny group amongst both these groups, that most of you were not even born and are over looking and was the smallest Generation is GenX. Sand witched between an aging generation that wants to hang onto everything, and never let it go, and GenY whos parents feel they know what is right for them. GenX is grabbing onto what the boomers are holding onto, and pulling it slowly from their fingers. To GenY if you are angry, and as twisted sister would say, "your not going to take it anymore" but have been somewhat brain washed by your boomer parents, team up with GenX as they are fighting hard take what little is left from the boomers, GenX can't wait for GenY to decide, they have already started and won't wait for your decision.

well, apparently this is actually true from my observation, a lot of genY are bunch of idiots

[divx]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-professional-class-bubble-is-bursting/article2416390/

Article that showed up in the Globe today. I get the criticisms of the article as lined out in the comments, but I think the over-arching theme is that there is no way for a smart, driven kid to guarantee success these days. University is required for, but by no means guarantees, a non-trades job - and tuition is rising disproportionate to wages and the cost of living. Companies have switched recruitment to the internet, but that means hundreds to thousands of applications for a single position and no efficient way to pick the best candidate; hence hiring is done by connections or luck. Society brushes off the unemployed as 'not willing to go where the work is' but doesn't actually state what industry is tripping over itself for labour. Trades? I have friends in construction whose business is tapering off. We need more doctors? Medical seats are restricted in Canada and are already bursting with applicants. Why are kids these days too lazy to go into STEM areas? Ontario mathematics graduates have have the 3rd highest unemployment 2 years after graduation out of 26 surveyed majors. If a field is reported as 'hot' with a 'huge shortage looming' then enrollment soars and by the time your schooling is done you're stuck in a glutted field yet again (see pharmacy).

Yes, some people succeed. But success isn't guaranteed by intelligence and hard work alone. And with the state of the economy, intelligence and hard work can't guarantee that you can have steady employment, buy a house, get married and have some kids. That is what I think is missed in the Gen Y entitlement debates; the smart kids aren't pissed they're not getting $100k jobs on Bay Street out of school, they're pissed they can graduate in the top 10% of a STEM program and still not afford to move out of their parent's house and start a life.

The fact that the media, and much of society is so oblivious to this is also frustrating. Debilitating engineer shortage that forces the government to import 10,000 foreign engineers on visas? 'About time' says society 'our kids are just too lazy to get a technical education'. The unemployed engineering grad working in retail gets a pang of hopelessness. Canadian prisons pay for prisoners to get a university education? 'Of course' says society 'they must be re-integrating into society eventually. What kind of life will they live if they can't get a good job?' The 20 year old university student, a law-abiding citizen who works summers and part-time during the year to cover the cost of her degree, cringes knowing that the 100 applications she's sent out have yet to yield a single reply.

This situation is more than sad; it's downright dangerous. The brightest minds of our generation, many of whom want nothing more than a family and stable life, are not able to achieve those goals. What do you get when you have 50,000 pissed off people who are smarter than the government and have nothing to lose? I've been pondering that question myself for the past year or so.

i can understand how to feel, i couldn't find any jobs in toronto either.

[divx]

It gets even worse. Even the ones that make it through the recruitment selection lottery usually end up at a bottom of the barrel institution that's relatively desperate for employees in some low level position, like at a consulting firm. It's very common to have the management pay you below 40k on salary, work you 12 hours a day, treat you worse than a dog and tell you how lucky you are to have a job and that if you don't like it there's 100 applicants waiting in line to take your place. Then when they complain that 4 or 5 years of intense schooling and $50,000 worth of tuition isn't worth this treatment, and sometimes end up quitting because they would make more as a janitor or at mcdonalds, they're labelled as 'whiners' and 'entitled Gen-Ys'. This also adds to the problem of discouraging top (or even mediocre) talent from sticking with a career in engineering. It's really bad out there right now.

:arrowu:false statement

[divx]

You don't see why school is a hoax. There are researchers and economics who have a solid, accurate track record are saying this. You go to Post Secondary school, you are expected to pay anywhere from $2K - $50K on average for school. Coming out of school you need a Job to pay off your debts. The Jobs are going to hire you, not because you are smart, because you are desperate, you need to pay off your debts, heck maybe you even have a car. You still live at home with mom and dad, and you are not paying any rent, I mean market rent prices which are on average close to, or exceeding $1K a month.

After you are hired you feel, you succeeded, especially if you got hired in your chosen career. If you haven't well, maybe your happy cause you think all that schooling landed you a pretty salary. Lets factor in a few other things, there are plenty of people out there looking for work in their field who have been out of school for years, and have to grab anything. Then there are people out there who can be molded better then you coming out of school, to the way the company operates they usually are self-taught and to a company be it small or big, they can mold them into the ultimate, smart worker, although most jobs follow the "school notion" as well, one day the light will shine on this. The school person is more rigid, from all those books and teacher talk, ow teacher talk, yuk. Then you have GenY taking away average jobs because they can't get into their field, from ordinary people who may not be a master at anything, they just want to earn some cash, nothing wrong with that at any age. Unfortunately this person can't get hired at Shoppers Drug Mart or Tim Hortons because the GenY got school to pay off, yet talk out of the side of their mouth, because they want to party, their young, understandable.

The Boomers have told their children, without school you are nothing. Untrue the boomers have fell into the hoax, and so have many people, look in the past. Everyone path in life is different, but with millions going to school and very few jobs around, ask yourself, is it worth to owe money to a school and possible never land in your field and if you do stay locked in a position for years, or is it better to try to start something own your own, that is logical and possible and take that risk ? The worst that can happen is you make minor head way and still manage to do something, somewhat you like, by working for someone.

yes please, tell everyone not to bother with school, tell them all hope is lost so it's pointless to even try

[divx]

I can't completely agree on the fact that school is completely a hoax. It's a hoax for the percentage of people who is going to university just to become paper pushers and taking majors that won't land them a job. Having education is still better than no education in terms of human advancement. First hand seen how stupid workers are doing the same task, one educated (thinking) and the other non educated (not thinking).

I agree on your argument for paying up x number of $ to get an education. Only to have to pay it back and forced to take lower jobs, but it's the way things are. That's why I say university graduate will put a downward pressure on people who don't have education. At least they can speak English. The immigrates should not complain when the overqualified candidate take their jobs for the low pay they are already earning. The younger Gen Y will be in parent's basements for years doing those jobs, that's reality.

As for borrowing to go to school, I understand that it can be a complete hoax. University were always meant to rich people, not for poor people. That's why in the 1800s, the inventors were all noble background. They can afford to take time to do unfruitful experiments instead of putting hard labour into farming the field to produce food. Again, some people that take risk to borrow for education end up higher in the economical/social ladder.

Your argument for being rigid and flexible of learning does not stick. Going to university doesn't make you more rigid, university allows for free thinking. That's why going to university is NOT a ultimate ticket that guarantee a job. That's why I said previously that business prefer to hire university graduates than that of college graduate. College education is rigid.

To tell you the truth, I would have rather I didn't pay to go get an education if I am able to find a job that the companies tailor to their needs. I get paid while I am educated, instead of me paying while I am educated.

i'm gonna assume you are referring to all the useless programs that university offers

[JK400]

Nah divx it's not a false statement, I've seen it first hand and experienced it myself to a degree as well. Also, did you know there is a multi-quote function?

On top of this, a good portion of the employees are unphased by this kind of treatment because they came from countries where being treated like a dog was standard practice. Being worked 12-13 hours a day for under 40k while being harassed with verbal abuse and working in a toxic environment is like being treated like a king to these people.

[Yorker86]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-professional-class-bubble-is-bursting/article2416390/

Article that showed up in the Globe today. I get the criticisms of the article as lined out in the comments, but I think the over-arching theme is that there is no way for a smart, driven kid to guarantee success these days. University is required for, but by no means guarantees, a non-trades job - and tuition is rising disproportionate to wages and the cost of living. Companies have switched recruitment to the internet, but that means hundreds to thousands of applications for a single position and no efficient way to pick the best candidate; hence hiring is done by connections or luck. Society brushes off the unemployed as 'not willing to go where the work is' but doesn't actually state what industry is tripping over itself for labour. Trades? I have friends in construction whose business is tapering off. We need more doctors? Medical seats are restricted in Canada and are already bursting with applicants. Why are kids these days too lazy to go into STEM areas? Ontario mathematics graduates have have the 3rd highest unemployment 2 years after graduation out of 26 surveyed majors. If a field is reported as 'hot' with a 'huge shortage looming' then enrollment soars and by the time your schooling is done you're stuck in a glutted field yet again (see pharmacy).

Yes, some people succeed. But success isn't guaranteed by intelligence and hard work alone. And with the state of the economy, intelligence and hard work can't guarantee that you can have steady employment, buy a house, get married and have some kids. That is what I think is missed in the Gen Y entitlement debates; the smart kids aren't pissed they're not getting $100k jobs on Bay Street out of school, they're pissed they can graduate in the top 10% of a STEM program and still not afford to move out of their parent's house and start a life.

The fact that the media, and much of society is so oblivious to this is also frustrating. Debilitating engineer shortage that forces the government to import 10,000 foreign engineers on visas? 'About time' says society 'our kids are just too lazy to get a technical education'. The unemployed engineering grad working in retail gets a pang of hopelessness. Canadian prisons pay for prisoners to get a university education? 'Of course' says society 'they must be re-integrating into society eventually. What kind of life will they live if they can't get a good job?' The 20 year old university student, a law-abiding citizen who works summers and part-time during the year to cover the cost of her degree, cringes knowing that the 100 applications she's sent out have yet to yield a single reply.

This situation is more than sad; it's downright dangerous. The brightest minds of our generation, many of whom want nothing more than a family and stable life, are not able to achieve those goals. What do you get when you have 50,000 pissed off people who are smarter than the government and have nothing to lose? I've been pondering that question myself for the past year or so.


Great post starbright.

Nowadays it feels like whoever got in, got in. I am not one of them and so I look from the outside. I am a 2008 university graduate currently enrolled in a 2 year college program. I can only dream of having a stable job and moving out of my parents house.

Good luck to all those searching.

[divx]

Nah divx it's not a false statement, I've seen it first hand and experienced it myself to a degree as well. Also, did you know there is a multi-quote function?

On top of this, a good portion of the employees are unphased by this kind of treatment because they came from countries where being treated like a dog was standard practice. Being worked 12-13 hours a day for under 40k while being harassed with verbal abuse and working in a toxic environment is like being treated like a king to these people.

i'm aware of the gta problem, but once you get out of gta, it's not as bad.

[Truemana]

Since when is anyone entitled to any level of success just by sitting in a classroom for four years? No one, not even the most academically successful are entitled to a job. The market dictates what you're worth to the market, not the other way around. Unfortunately, this means than some people have to work harder and change their approach more often than others, but that's also why we are always told to play the cards we are dealt.

[kenchau66]

Since when is anyone entitled to any level of success just by sitting in a classroom for four years? No one, not even the most academically successful are entitled to a job. The market dictates what you're worth to the market, not the other way around. Unfortunately, this means than some people have to work harder and change their approach more often than others, but that's also why we are always told to play the cards we are dealt.

+1

I'm glad so many grads are out of work. Thinking they can drop 4 years on some U and then make 50k a year.

If that was the case, Who gon flip the burgers @ burger king yo?

[Rainne]

The job market can be unfair, but it is what it is.

Some people got a job because their parents have connections. Others luck out and apply at the right time. There are those who are the right "fit" + "image" for the company (which you happen not to be).

[Syne]

+1

I'm glad so many grads are out of work. Thinking they can drop 4 years on some U and then make 50k a year.

If that was the case, Who gon flip the burgers @ burger king yo?

The 75% of adults who don't pursue university yo.

[spike1128]

+1

I'm glad so many grads are out of work. Thinking they can drop 4 years on some U and then make 50k a year.

If that was the case, Who gon flip the burgers @ burger king yo?

Who gonna flip the burgers @ burger king? The uneducated/educated immigrants yo! That's what it was all about.

Now if you think this. Maybe it's you who would be flipping burgers yo.

[divx]

Who gonna flip the burgers @ burger king? The uneducated/educated immigrants yo! That's what it was all about.

Now if you think this. Maybe it's you who would be flipping burgers yo.

lulwut?! you look down on people who flip burgers? there is nothing wrong with that? somebody gotta to make me burgers.

i'm aware the job market being terrible, but i don't see any problems amongst any of my associates from university, few went to MIT, others work for AMD, qualcomm, OPG, etc, compared to them, I'm lesser successful, even so, they don't look down to me that I can't make over $100k this year.

[NorthYorker]

+1

I'm glad so many grads are out of work. Thinking they can drop 4 years on some U and then make 50k a year.

If that was the case, Who gon flip the burgers @ burger king yo?On average, University grads are doing better than those with lower level of education. Always were, always are, always will be.

[kenchau66]

Who gonna flip the burgers @ burger king? The uneducated/educated immigrants yo! That's what it was all about.

Now if you think this. Maybe it's you who would be flipping burgers yo.

u prob >30 and <$100k, u ragin' bro?

[divx]

u prob >30 and <$100k, u ragin' bro?

we are stuck at sub 100k for now because of the recession, spike can't look far enough to get past it, the recession will be over eventually.

[kenchau66]

we are stuck at sub 100k for now because of the recession, spike can't look far enough to get past it, the recession will be over eventually.

looked at location: SK, comment is void

[jabmalassie]

I read some stat that one out 1000 resumes sent online get a response. I believe it. It doesn't work well for most people.

[divx]

looked at location: SK, comment is void

please stay in gta forever, the bigger the shortage we have over here, the bigger raise i get.

[anyasok]

Since when is anyone entitled to any level of success just by sitting in a classroom for four years? No one, not even the most academically successful are entitled to a job. The market dictates what you're worth to the market, not the other way around. Unfortunately, this means than some people have to work harder and change their approach more often than others, but that's also why we are always told to play the cards we are dealt.
Biggest crap I've ever heard. Are you and DearSummer sharing a room?

[jabmalassie]

+1. I find it appalling that we're at a stage where many people willingly put themselves in thousands of debt just to have a chance to get a job that isn't minimum wage. I'll be frank and say that there's no easy solution to the over education problem. Though out history, people have always competed with each other for various things. If it isn't education, it'd be another thing that people use to compete for jobs.

I don't really blame the employers. Offshoring jobs is cheaper: period. If there's $100 bill on the ground and someone takes it, do you blame them? No. You should not design a system that has to rely purely on honesty or patriotism.

What I do blame is the public sector. Wages are too high. I'm not a fan of public sector jobs because many of them don't add real value and there's intrinsic problem with efficiency. Public sector jobs come out of taxpayers. Instead, I think we should privatize more functions of government. You don't necessarily lose the jobs. You lose PUBLIC jobs but you can have a private company to do the same function. Without the government's "forced" high wages, you can do a lot of good like making it more attractive to START businesses. Yes that's the root of the problem. People need to stop relying for governments to spoon feed them. It's not governments that create "REAL" jobs. It's entrepreneurs. Government jobs are basically just shifting income from some people to some other people.

Many of the Government jobs provide essential services. I have never worked in the government but there was a time when the jobs were "low paying" compared to private enterprise. Toronto is an expensive city. The Real estate market is jacked up by foreign buyers paying 1 million for an old house from world war two. Government jobs don't pay that much.

At the same time bringing in all kinds of cheap labour driving the salaries down. Wages are stagnant. All kinds of education required for some simple jobs. It does not make sense

[jabmalassie]

todays kids have no goals to reach...... unlike their parents who started at the bottom and worked their way up the ladder,bought houses and raised kids .
they wanted a better life than they had, now kids get everything they want and think they should live in the style they are use to,not start at the bottom like us... unforunately most of their parents feel the same so they coddle them like their their royalty and finance their every whim..no wonder their lazy and have high expectations on how they should start out

I am a bit older than some of these kids and though you are right in some ways it is not everything.I grew up fixing cars and mowing lawns, cooking and cleaning. The kids of today don't do that kind of stuff. They have way more homework though. I think back in my parents day if you put in the effort you could achieve your goals. There seems to be this global competition for everything.
More dogs than bones.

[flight878]

Since when is anyone entitled to any level of success just by sitting in a classroom for four years? No one, not even the most academically successful are entitled to a job. The market dictates what you're worth to the market, not the other way around. Unfortunately, this means than some people have to work harder and change their approach more often than others, but that's also why we are always told to play the cards we are dealt.

You've mostly spoken words of truth, but we mustn't get careless with the bolded statement, for it is misleading, often carelessly stated, and not entirely accurate. GOOD employers, who value their employees as investments more than expenses, will fairly appraise what you're worth. It depends on the industry, but if this type of employer's workers earn on average, say, more than 60k, but offers its neophytes a humble 35k, it warrants giving this employer serious consideration. It'll be worth it, for example, if it offers upward mobility, eventually gives responsibilities that exploit the employee's relevant skills, and creates the conditions and incentives that will get the best out of the employee so that ultimately, the employer will profit from the hire's increased output. Let's not forget the power of incentive in the free market.

However, it would be presumptuous to assume that ALL employers are like this, and therefore lump them all in to the generic "market". Crappy employers, who value their workers purely as disposable human resources, if not Untermenschen, will not be able to determine what you're worth, but rather, how low they can go. Some of these won't offer references, professional development, motivation to get the best out of you, or relevant experience. Bosses might be verbally abusive, racist, and hostile, and the perpetual cogwheel may be rusting and falling apart. This doesn't mean that people who are in desperate situations shouldn't work for them--that is a big market for these type of employers--but in now way does their lowballing constitute what you're truly worth. The relevant market often responds to these, since low employee morale and high turnover can result in increased costs to such companies, reduced profits long-term, and make them less competitive in the long run.

[divx]

You've mostly spoken words of truth, but we mustn't get careless with the bolded statement, for it is misleading, often carelessly stated, and not entirely accurate. GOOD employers, who value their employees as investments more than expenses, will fairly appraise what you're worth. It depends on the industry, but if this type of employer's workers earn on average, say, more than 60k, but offers its neophytes a humble 35k, it warrants giving this employer serious consideration. It'll be worth it, for example, if it offers upward mobility, eventually gives responsibilities that exploit the employee's relevant skills, and creates the conditions and incentives that will get the best out of the employee so that ultimately, the employer will profit from the hire's increased output. Let's not forget the power of incentive in the free market.

However, it would be presumptuous to assume that ALL employers are like this, and therefore lump them all in to the generic "market". Crappy employers, who value their workers purely as disposable human resources, if not Untermenschen, will not be able to determine what you're worth, but rather, how low they can go. Some of these won't offer references, professional development, motivation to get the best out of you, or relevant experience. Bosses might be verbally abusive, racist, and hostile, and the perpetual cogwheel may be rusting and falling apart. This doesn't mean that people who are in desperate situations shouldn't work for them--that is a big market for these type of employers--but in now way does their lowballing constitute what you're truly worth. The relevant market often responds to these, since low employee morale and high turnover can result in increased costs to such companies, reduced profits long-term, and make them less competitive in the long run.

those are the things that everyone should know, but since our education system is so broken, we have to figure out these things on our own, which leaves a vast majority clueless about things and they just end up complaining.

[Syne]

Since when is anyone entitled to any level of success just by sitting in a classroom for four years? No one, not even the most academically successful are entitled to a job. The market dictates what you're worth to the market, not the other way around. Unfortunately, this means than some people have to work harder and change their approach more often than others, but that's also why we are always told to play the cards we are dealt.

Awww, someone didn't graduate university. :D

[JK400]

Awww, someone didn't graduate university. :D

He's an engineer who graduated about 10 years earlier than you even began university. Stop taking out your poor upbringing and frustrations out on people who made something of themselves, it's getting annoying.

[Syne]

He's an engineer who graduated about 10 years earlier than you even began university. Stop taking out your poor upbringing and frustrations out on people who made something of themselves, it's getting annoying.

Like you, he's just another nobody on RFD. How would I know if he made something of himself? He's probably lying about his station in life like every other clown who posts on here. I'll start believing people are six-figure engineers when I start seeing some humility and self-deprecation from people other than myself, rather than super-human bragging and pious condemnation of others.

It's funny seeing you criticize me for whining, when you slurp all over Mark77's knob about the poor state of things these days for engineers. I've never once crapped all over you like most of the other people do. I was being courteous by letting it go. Maybe from now on I'll just pile on the laughter for your and Mark's whiny and incessant rants. Waahh, no jobs in engineering. Waaahh, Nortel laid me off. Waahh, I did a more important major in university and nobody loves me. Lulz.

[JK400]

Yes Syne we've never worked in engineering, gone to university, or even graduated high school for that matter, it's all a big facade we use to build ourselves up on a forum. I don't believe any of the regulars you get from here in engineering boast about a $100,000 salary, but I'm sure some of them have gotten to that level. Posting on RFD has no correlation to career success.

[Le Loon]

More dogs than bones.

Eventually the dogs will be nothing but bones.

[spike1128]

Yes Syne we've never worked in engineering, gone to university, or even graduated high school for that matter, it's all a big facade we use to build ourselves up on a forum. I don't believe any of the regulars you get from here in engineering boast about a $100,000 salary, but I'm sure some of them have gotten to that level. Posting on RFD has no correlation to career success.

I think if there are 6 figures engineers here. They would be working hard on their projects instead of talking crap on RFD forum.

We all know Syne is a career student. So of course is gone to university, just never left.

Just like DearSummer claim to be a successful business owner. How does he find all this time to troll here is beyonds me. It's not like his whining about taxation will do anything being in Canada and all.

[starbright]

There's a lot of personal attacks building up, so to (hopefully) redirect the conversation, I want to remind everyone that you can dislike the people involved at a personal level but still recognize that a systemic problem exists. Today is tax filing day so to provide a topical example: if you don't pay your taxes, you have a problem; if 20,000,000 people don't pay their taxes, the government has a problem. In this case, the problem is growing unemployment and under-employment amongst today's youth. There are two main arguments I see against this in this thread, so I wanted to briefly address them.

The first scenario is when someone says 'should've gotten better marks' or 'should've worked harder'. If you have 20 monkeys in a cage and throw in a banana, you will have one well-fed monkey and 19 pissed off monkeys. To any individual monkey you may say 'tough bones - if you wanted the banana you could have had it, you just didn't fight hard enough'. On an individual scale this is, of course, true. But looking at the situation from a systemic point of view, you can't have a society that functions where only students in the top 5% of their graduating class get jobs. By definition, 95% of other people will be out of luck with no income, no contribution to society and nothing to lose.

The second scenario is when someone says 'should've been a doctor' or 'should've been a carpenter' etc. I will agree that there is a point to be made about shifting young people away from over-saturated industries and towards industries with labour shortages. However, many of the areas suggested are already saturated (ex. medical school seats, new businesses) and have high failure rates with a tough fight to get to the top, which brings me back to the banana argument above. We also can't all be engineers; obviously a society needs people in many different roles to flourish. I would be in support of a government initiative to officially track labour demand in various industries and provide incentives (or at the very least public information) towards young people seeking a career. I don't really blame a young person today for listening to their parents and guidance counselors regarding career information versus a random commenter on the internet who knows a tip about a 'hot' industry. Often times they're in their teens and listening to the most trustworthy sources they can find. Instead of blaming a 22 year old for believing trustworthy sources at 16, we should focus on making sure those trustworthy sources are providing trustworthy information.

Getting back to my original point, having so many young people unemployed and under-employed has the potential to impact many lives in the future. For one, when the Baby Boomers start retiring, there will be few people to 'bump' up to manger roles since many young people were able to break into the market at entry level jobs. Further, the skills of those in low-pay unrelated areas will have eroded as they forget what they've learned or new and unfamiliar technological advancements are introduced in their field. I predict innovation will slow as organizations lose momentum and workers struggle to get up to speed. Financial insecurity and the ubiquity of higher education will have Gen Y-ers delaying marriage and having kids, or perhaps putting it off altogether. The decreasing birth rate could result in even higher immigration, where imported wealth could keep house prices out of reach for decades more. Lower household wealth will either decrease consumer spending (and slow the economy) or result in higher debt levels that, along with student loans, will amount to quite a recession in 30 years or so. As for older generations, there may not be enough tax revenue to fund their CPP or health care. Their children, barely afloat themselves, won't be able to help out their financially strapped parents.

Or maybe none of that will happen. But I can guarantee that future (and perhaps older) generations will feel the reverberation from this situation. And that is why you should care, regardless of whether or not you hate the guts of every unemployed Gen Y-er.

[JK400]

I think if there are 6 figures engineers here. They would be working hard on their projects instead of talking crap on RFD forum.

We all know Syne is a career student. So of course is gone to university, just never left.

Just like DearSummer claim to be a successful business owner. How does he find all this time to troll here is beyonds me. It's not like his whining about taxation will do anything being in Canada and all.

Don't know if you've ever worked in engineering before, but it might surprise you that there's in general a slight negative correlation between actual work done and money made in engineering. And yes it would be obvious to the rest of the engineers here if someone was simply pretending to be an engineer by the way they post. For example, anyone with a year or more experience would see the following as a red flag:

"I think if there are 6 figures engineers here. They would be working hard on their projects instead of talking crap on RFD forum. "

As they would obviously know of all the BS that goes on in engineering by that point and that there is no direct (or any) correlation with work done and money earned.

Also, not really familiar with DearSummer so not going to comment on that.

[divx]

There's a lot of personal attacks building up, so to (hopefully) redirect the conversation, I want to remind everyone that you can dislike the people involved at a personal level but still recognize that a systemic problem exists. Today is tax filing day so to provide a topical example: if you don't pay your taxes, you have a problem; if 20,000,000 people don't pay their taxes, the government has a problem. In this case, the problem is growing unemployment and under-employment amongst today's youth. There are two main arguments I see against this in this thread, so I wanted to briefly address them.

The first scenario is when someone says 'should've gotten better marks' or 'should've worked harder'. If you have 20 monkeys in a cage and throw in a banana, you will have one well-fed monkey and 19 pissed off monkeys. To any individual monkey you may say 'tough bones - if you wanted the banana you could have had it, you just didn't fight hard enough'. On an individual scale this is, of course, true. But looking at the situation from a systemic point of view, you can't have a society that functions where only students in the top 5% of their graduating class get jobs. By definition, 95% of other people will be out of luck with no income, no contribution to society and nothing to lose.

The second scenario is when someone says 'should've been a doctor' or 'should've been a carpenter' etc. I will agree that there is a point to be made about shifting young people away from over-saturated industries and towards industries with labour shortages. However, many of the areas suggested are already saturated (ex. medical school seats, new businesses) and have high failure rates with a tough fight to get to the top, which brings me back to the banana argument above. We also can't all be engineers; obviously a society needs people in many different roles to flourish. I would be in support of a government initiative to officially track labour demand in various industries and provide incentives (or at the very least public information) towards young people seeking a career. I don't really blame a young person today for listening to their parents and guidance counselors regarding career information versus a random commenter on the internet who knows a tip about a 'hot' industry. Often times they're in their teens and listening to the most trustworthy sources they can find. Instead of blaming a 22 year old for believing trustworthy sources at 16, we should focus on making sure those trustworthy sources are providing trustworthy information.

Getting back to my original point, having so many young people unemployed and under-employed has the potential to impact many lives in the future. For one, when the Baby Boomers start retiring, there will be few people to 'bump' up to manger roles since many young people were able to break into the market at entry level jobs. Further, the skills of those in low-pay unrelated areas will have eroded as they forget what they've learned or new and unfamiliar technological advancements are introduced in their field. I predict innovation will slow as organizations lose momentum and workers struggle to get up to speed. Financial insecurity and the ubiquity of higher education will have Gen Y-ers delaying marriage and having kids, or perhaps putting it off altogether. The decreasing birth rate could result in even higher immigration, where imported wealth could keep house prices out of reach for decades more. Lower household wealth will either decrease consumer spending (and slow the economy) or result in higher debt levels that, along with student loans, will amount to quite a recession in 30 years or so. As for older generations, there may not be enough tax revenue to fund their CPP or health care. Their children, barely afloat themselves, won't be able to help out their financially strapped parents.

Or maybe none of that will happen. But I can guarantee that future (and perhaps older) generations will feel the reverberation from this situation. And that is why you should care, regardless of whether or not you hate the guts of every unemployed Gen Y-er.

those info are pretty well known these days, the articles i read covered all of them. we humans are the superior specie for a reason, that we can adapt, so basically all you need to do in Canada is to think ahead and plan ahead, do more research and figure out the system better, then use it to your advantage.

[spookie149]

Starbright another excellent post. Thanks for sharing.

[spike1128]

There's a lot of personal attacks building up, so to (hopefully) redirect the conversation, I want to remind everyone that you can dislike the people involved at a personal level but still recognize that a systemic problem exists. Today is tax filing day so to provide a topical example: if you don't pay your taxes, you have a problem; if 20,000,000 people don't pay their taxes, the government has a problem. In this case, the problem is growing unemployment and under-employment amongst today's youth. There are two main arguments I see against this in this thread, so I wanted to briefly address them.

The first scenario is when someone says 'should've gotten better marks' or 'should've worked harder'. If you have 20 monkeys in a cage and throw in a banana, you will have one well-fed monkey and 19 pissed off monkeys. To any individual monkey you may say 'tough bones - if you wanted the banana you could have had it, you just didn't fight hard enough'. On an individual scale this is, of course, true. But looking at the situation from a systemic point of view, you can't have a society that functions where only students in the top 5% of their graduating class get jobs. By definition, 95% of other people will be out of luck with no income, no contribution to society and nothing to lose.

The second scenario is when someone says 'should've been a doctor' or 'should've been a carpenter' etc. I will agree that there is a point to be made about shifting young people away from over-saturated industries and towards industries with labour shortages. However, many of the areas suggested are already saturated (ex. medical school seats, new businesses) and have high failure rates with a tough fight to get to the top, which brings me back to the banana argument above. We also can't all be engineers; obviously a society needs people in many different roles to flourish. I would be in support of a government initiative to officially track labour demand in various industries and provide incentives (or at the very least public information) towards young people seeking a career. I don't really blame a young person today for listening to their parents and guidance counselors regarding career information versus a random commenter on the internet who knows a tip about a 'hot' industry. Often times they're in their teens and listening to the most trustworthy sources they can find. Instead of blaming a 22 year old for believing trustworthy sources at 16, we should focus on making sure those trustworthy sources are providing trustworthy information.

Getting back to my original point, having so many young people unemployed and under-employed has the potential to impact many lives in the future. For one, when the Baby Boomers start retiring, there will be few people to 'bump' up to manger roles since many young people were able to break into the market at entry level jobs. Further, the skills of those in low-pay unrelated areas will have eroded as they forget what they've learned or new and unfamiliar technological advancements are introduced in their field. I predict innovation will slow as organizations lose momentum and workers struggle to get up to speed. Financial insecurity and the ubiquity of higher education will have Gen Y-ers delaying marriage and having kids, or perhaps putting it off altogether. The decreasing birth rate could result in even higher immigration, where imported wealth could keep house prices out of reach for decades more. Lower household wealth will either decrease consumer spending (and slow the economy) or result in higher debt levels that, along with student loans, will amount to quite a recession in 30 years or so. As for older generations, there may not be enough tax revenue to fund their CPP or health care. Their children, barely afloat themselves, won't be able to help out their financially strapped parents.

Or maybe none of that will happen. But I can guarantee that future (and perhaps older) generations will feel the reverberation from this situation. And that is why you should care, regardless of whether or not you hate the guts of every unemployed Gen Y-er.

Exactly +1 with your post again. Not sure what kinda of crack those two are on.

If JK400 think so, then he think so. I am not going to comment about engineering on this post, it's irrelevant about Gen Y Joblessness. I am not about to take the role of Mark77. I personally don't give a crap about Joblessness in the Gen Y. As long as I got a job, that's all it matters. With other people making a lot less than I am the better. Then my money will go further.

[sirex]

Exactly +1 with your post again. Not sure what kinda of crack those two are on.

If JK400 think so, then he think so. I am not going to comment about engineering on this post, it's irrelevant about Gen Y Joblessness. I am not about to take the role of Mark77. I personally don't give a crap about Joblessness in the Gen Y. As long as I got a job, that's all it matters. With other people making a lot less than I am the better. Then my money will go further.

Thats a very poor way of looking at things. You think you can make $1 million dollars, while everyone else starves? Your mansion won't last long in a sea of shacks sir. Thats precisely what the problem is here in this country. That type of thinking.

Screw everyone as long as I get mine.

[WildWolf]

Part 1 of 2



I can't completely agree on the fact that school is completely a hoax. It's a hoax for the percentage of people who is going to university just to become paper pushers and taking majors that won't land them a job. Having education is still better than no education in terms of human advancement. First hand seen how stupid workers are doing the same task, one educated (thinking) and the other non educated (not thinking).

I agree on your argument for paying up x number of $ to get an education. Only to have to pay it back and forced to take lower jobs, but it's the way things are. That's why I say university graduate will put a downward pressure on people who don't have education. At least they can speak English. The immigrates should not complain when the overqualified candidate take their jobs for the low pay they are already earning. The younger Gen Y will be in parent's basements for years doing those jobs, that's reality.

As for borrowing to go to school, I understand that it can be a complete hoax. University were always meant to rich people, not for poor people. That's why in the 1800s, the inventors were all noble background. They can afford to take time to do unfruitful experiments instead of putting hard labour into farming the field to produce food. Again, some people that take risk to borrow for education end up higher in the economical/social ladder.

Your argument for being rigid and flexible of learning does not stick. Going to university doesn't make you more rigid, university allows for free thinking. That's why going to university is NOT a ultimate ticket that guarantee a job. That's why I said previously that business prefer to hire university graduates than that of college graduate. College education is rigid.

To tell you the truth, I would have rather I didn't pay to go get an education if I am able to find a job that the companies tailor to their needs. I get paid while I am educated, instead of me paying while I am educated.

How educated do you feel you are ?



yes please, tell everyone not to bother with school, tell them all hope is lost so it's pointless to even try
You saying it's not true ?



Great post starbright.

Nowadays it feels like whoever got in, got in. I am not one of them and so I look from the outside. I am a 2008 university graduate currently enrolled in a 2 year college program. I can only dream of having a stable job and moving out of my parents house.

Good luck to all those searching.


True, they feel entitled, like their parents, the boomers. Immigrants, are also fed the spoon of dirt.

There's a lot of personal attacks building up, so to (hopefully) redirect the conversation, I want to remind everyone that you can dislike the people involved at a personal level but still recognize that a systemic problem exists. Today is tax filing day so to provide a topical example: if you don't pay your taxes, you have a problem; if 20,000,000 people don't pay their taxes, the government has a problem. In this case, the problem is growing unemployment and under-employment amongst today's youth. There are two main arguments I see against this in this thread, so I wanted to briefly address them.

The first scenario is when someone says 'should've gotten better marks' or 'should've worked harder'. If you have 20 monkeys in a cage and throw in a banana, you will have one well-fed monkey and 19 pissed off monkeys. To any individual monkey you may say 'tough bones - if you wanted the banana you could have had it, you just didn't fight hard enough'. On an individual scale this is, of course, true. But looking at the situation from a systemic point of view, you can't have a society that functions where only students in the top 5% of their graduating class get jobs. By definition, 95% of other people will be out of luck with no income, no contribution to society and nothing to lose.

The second scenario is when someone says 'should've been a doctor' or 'should've been a carpenter' etc. I will agree that there is a point to be made about shifting young people away from over-saturated industries and towards industries with labour shortages. However, many of the areas suggested are already saturated (ex. medical school seats, new businesses) and have high failure rates with a tough fight to get to the top, which brings me back to the banana argument above. We also can't all be engineers; obviously a society needs people in many different roles to flourish. I would be in support of a government initiative to officially track labour demand in various industries and provide incentives (or at the very least public information) towards young people seeking a career. I don't really blame a young person today for listening to their parents and guidance counselors regarding career information versus a random commenter on the internet who knows a tip about a 'hot' industry. Often times they're in their teens and listening to the most trustworthy sources they can find. Instead of blaming a 22 year old for believing trustworthy sources at 16, we should focus on making sure those trustworthy sources are providing trustworthy information.

Getting back to my original point, having so many young people unemployed and under-employed has the potential to impact many lives in the future. For one, when the Baby Boomers start retiring, there will be few people to 'bump' up to manger roles since many young people were able to break into the market at entry level jobs. Further, the skills of those in low-pay unrelated areas will have eroded as they forget what they've learned or new and unfamiliar technological advancements are introduced in their field. I predict innovation will slow as organizations lose momentum and workers struggle to get up to speed. Financial insecurity and the ubiquity of higher education will have Gen Y-ers delaying marriage and having kids, or perhaps putting it off altogether. The decreasing birth rate could result in even higher immigration, where imported wealth could keep house prices out of reach for decades more. Lower household wealth will either decrease consumer spending (and slow the economy) or result in higher debt levels that, along with student loans, will amount to quite a recession in 30 years or so. As for older generations, there may not be enough tax revenue to fund their CPP or health care. Their children, barely afloat themselves, won't be able to help out their financially strapped parents.

Or maybe none of that will happen. But I can guarantee that future (and perhaps older) generations will feel the reverberation from this situation. And that is why you should care, regardless of whether or not you hate the guts of every unemployed Gen Y-er.

If you don't pay your taxes, the government will have a problem how is that so ? Regardless if your left or right, governments don't create Jobs, period. If you expect Governments to create Jobs, you'll be waiting a long time, that is no longer their agenda, this is not just in Canada, rather around the world.


The first scenario is when someone says 'should've gotten better marks' or 'should've worked harder'. If you have 20 monkeys in a cage and throw in a banana, you will have one well-fed monkey and 19 pissed off monkeys. To any individual monkey you may say 'tough bones - if you wanted the banana you could have had it, you just didn't fight hard enough'. On an individual scale this is, of course, true. But looking at the situation from a systemic point of view, you can't have a society that functions where only students in the top 5% of their graduating class get jobs. By definition, 95% of other people will be out of luck with no income, no contribution to society and nothing to lose.

What exactly do you mean ? The monkey and banana analogy was out of touch with the statement, you were trying to make.

[WildWolf]

Part 2 of 2


The second scenario is when someone says 'should've been a doctor' or 'should've been a carpenter' etc. I will agree that there is a point to be made about shifting young people away from over-saturated industries and towards industries with labour shortages. However, many of the areas suggested are already saturated (ex. medical school seats, new businesses) and have high failure rates with a tough fight to get to the top, which brings me back to the banana argument above. We also can't all be engineers; obviously a society needs people in many different roles to flourish. I would be in support of a government initiative to officially track labour demand in various industries and provide incentives (or at the very least public information) towards young people seeking a career. I don't really blame a young person today for listening to their parents and guidance counselors regarding career information versus a random commenter on the internet who knows a tip about a 'hot' industry. Often times they're in their teens and listening to the most trustworthy sources they can find. Instead of blaming a 22 year old for believing trustworthy sources at 16, we should focus on making sure those trustworthy sources are providing trustworthy information.

Once again the Banana analogy, it's not working for your message. Regardless what interested me was the fact that you put Guidance counselors and parents, on a pedestal. What makes you think that their knowledge is better then getting different perspectives on a forum. I find those same peoples knowledge to be pre-programmed, in all honest don't really care what you do, or the direction you take in life. Quoting a Pink Floyd song, "you are just another brick in the wall". The School system is just that, a system. Just like the system used to make a iPhone that GenY is very familiar with. You are just another gear in the system, when you, the gear leaves, another gear comes in and replaces you. What you do, does not interest the teacher no longer, it doesn't interest the teacher when you are sitting their, never mind when the teacher doesn't see you no longer.


Getting back to my original point, having so many young people unemployed and under-employed has the potential to impact many lives in the future. For one, when the Baby Boomers start retiring, there will be few people to 'bump' up to manger roles since many young people were able to break into the market at entry level jobs. Further, the skills of those in low-pay unrelated areas will have eroded as they forget what they've learned or new and unfamiliar technological advancements are introduced in their field. I predict innovation will slow as organizations lose momentum and workers struggle to get up to speed. Financial insecurity and the ubiquity of higher education will have Gen Y-ers delaying marriage and having kids, or perhaps putting it off altogether. The decreasing birth rate could result in even higher immigration, where imported wealth could keep house prices out of reach for decades more. Lower household wealth will either decrease consumer spending (and slow the economy) or result in higher debt levels that, along with student loans, will amount to quite a recession in 30 years or so. As for older generations, there may not be enough tax revenue to fund their CPP or health care. Their children, barely afloat themselves, won't be able to help out their financially strapped parents.

There is some truth to this statement. Although the part about recession happening in thirty years, is happening now. The collapse of the economy will happen in the world, it is just a matter of time. This is in part because they want a central bank, a world bank. Money has no value, we need to go back to using precious metals for currency or exchange of goods. That is not happening, instead we are heading towards a cash less society and that will have major repercussions.

Technology has not made our life quicker, it has slowed it down. The time it takes for a customer to insert a card, enter the pin number, is slower despite any argument against it, then cash. It is not that GenY is hated, it is how they grew up, what they were told. This is a generation that has been assembled. There entire make up on life and how they live their life on a daily bases is programmed. They don't have the freedom they think they have, technology is not the means to a end, this is a generation that thinks it is. Their life is FaceBook and Smart Phones. Without either they feel hopeless, lost, confused, lonely. Interaction is no longer seeing a person and talking face to face, where you can read body language and more. Interaction is a text. GenY is not to blame for this assemble, as they don't know anything else. It is the generation that was for free love and say no to authority, that ended up becoming the generation that wanted to be respected for their authority, ironic isn't it.

GenY won't be the ones to change, anything, contrary to what they have been told or believe. The Generation that comes after them, will change it, because they will live though something that none of us has ever lived though, they will be the ones to finally make the change that will be long overdue, we hope !

[spike1128]

Thats a very poor way of looking at things. You think you can make $1 million dollars, while everyone else starves? Your mansion won't last long in a sea of shacks sir. Thats precisely what the problem is here in this country. That type of thinking.

Screw everyone as long as I get mine.

No one thinks I think that, if you read what I say on the threads in RFD. This reply is just BS I am trying to illustrate to those who have no constructive option on this thread. I believe it's for the better good to help out the poor and give them education so they can move up the ladder. We all know, most people have things handed to them then proceed to call everybody Jelly. Of course then those will have no compassion for the poor and less fortunate. It's not the fault of children who was borned into troubled/poor areas.

The extreme right believe in what you are saying on your reply. I am not sure if JK400 is extreme right. I know Syne is extremely left. DearSummer is the extremely terrorist right leaning. So don't ask DearSummer if he would like to make 1 million dollar and let all of us to starve. I am sure he will let us all starve, if he could.

Take it easy bro.

[spike1128]

Part 1 of 2



How educated do you feel you are ?


What I believe is. By going to university, people are suppose to use their brain and use free thinking. Hence university graduates who hold an arts or literature degree should be the best degree, because university is suppose to teach you how to think and not be held back by the black box. That's where "thinking outside the box" comes from.

Instead, the system punishes the arts graduates and rewards the people with professional degrees. The professional material are a bit more structured, hence less free thinking. I believe the system has been set up to make us a headcount to a faceless corporation instead wanting us to be free thinking. The market is just interested in having hands to do work without much thinking, hence more obedience.

How educated do I think I am, hardly. Nowadays, even a master degree is consider the norm. Soon we need to go for PHD as the norm. There is always more things to learn in terms of knowledge, it doesn't have to be going to school to learn. Hence, I think I am still learning. How do you think I feel about my own education if I say this?

The system is what it is. It comes down to knowing the system and choosing to stay in the system. Part of the system. Or against the system. Or staying part of the system until it correct itself. Knowing this, maybe in 2008, the world should be left to crash. At least, then the system got a reset. Short term pain (collapse of the unstable system), to get a stable long term gain (a new stable system). Without hardship, the people will never learn. That's why the baby boomers need to learn it like their parents who live through the depression.

[resu]

What I believe is. By going to university, people are suppose to use their brain and use free thinking. Hence university graduates who hold an arts or literature degree should be the best degree, because university is suppose to teach you how to think and not be held back by the black box. That's where "thinking outside the box" comes from.

That's ridiculous. If all we concerned ourselves with is 'how to think', we'd still be a bunch of hunter gatherers living in caves.



The system is what it is. It comes down to knowing the system and choosing to stay in the system. Part of the system. Or against the system. Or staying part of the system until it correct itself. Knowing this, maybe in 2008, the world should be left to crash. At least, then the system got a reset. Short term pain (collapse of the unstable system), to get a stable long term gain (a new stable system). Without hardship, the people will never learn. That's why the baby boomers need to learn it like their parents who live through the depression.

Which system are you talking about? The whole world crashed in 2008 and it was pretty serious. That's not enough for you? Not enough 'short term pain'? We still haven't recovered and looking at how Europe is doing, we're headed for another crash very soon...

[WildWolf]

What I believe is. By going to university, people are suppose to use their brain and use free thinking. Hence university graduates who hold an arts or literature degree should be the best degree, because university is suppose to teach you how to think and not be held back by the black box. That's where "thinking outside the box" comes from.

Instead, the system punishes the arts graduates and rewards the people with professional degrees. The professional material are a bit more structured, hence less free thinking. I believe the system has been set up to make us a headcount to a faceless corporation instead wanting us to be free thinking. The market is just interested in having hands to do work without much thinking, hence more obedience.

How educated do I think I am, hardly. Nowadays, even a master degree is consider the norm. Soon we need to go for PHD as the norm. There is always more things to learn in terms of knowledge, it doesn't have to be going to school to learn. Hence, I think I am still learning. How do you think I feel about my own education if I say this?

The system is what it is. It comes down to knowing the system and choosing to stay in the system. Part of the system. Or against the system. Or staying part of the system until it correct itself. Knowing this, maybe in 2008, the world should be left to crash. At least, then the system got a reset. Short term pain (collapse of the unstable system), to get a stable long term gain (a new stable system). Without hardship, the people will never learn. That's why the baby boomers need to learn it like their parents who live through the depression.

You mean you and others depend on a University to teach you how to think. That explains GenY in a nut shell, or maybe anyone for that matter, no wonder ! The term "thinking outside of the box" does not come from a University, it is a cliche. This is why I asked you how educated you feel you are. You are saying that University is teaching you how to be unorthodox, that is rich, it is the opposite. The system crashed in 2008 and never recovered, it is not meant to recover, period.
As long as everyone relies on banks and governments, from Jobs to holding our money secure, we are all in trouble. Banks are cartels, they make money from your money, they make money from a house that had not value, you pay the bank. Who benefits, it surely is not the person who bought the house, it's the bank. And even when you pay off the house, the house is still not yours, cause the land that the house sits on the government owns. It's all a false sense of ownership.

[Blanket_Man]

Exactly +1 with your post again. Not sure what kinda of crack those two are on.

If JK400 think so, then he think so. I am not going to comment about engineering on this post, it's irrelevant about Gen Y Joblessness. I am not about to take the role of Mark77. I personally don't give a crap about Joblessness in the Gen Y. As long as I got a job, that's all it matters. With other people making a lot less than I am the better. Then my money will go further.

so you really think that everybody else earning less than you will get you further? :|

[peanutz]

If you don't pay your taxes, the government will have a problem how is that so ? Regardless if your left or right, governments don't create Jobs, period. If you expect Governments to create Jobs, you'll be waiting a long time, that is no longer their agenda, this is not just in Canada, rather around the world.Uh, "government making jobs" was never the point. It's about the government being a vampire that subsists on the blood of taxpayers. Without a strong taxpayer base, it's going to break down.


Regardless what interested me was the fact that you put Guidance counselors and parents, on a pedestal.You can't seem to put 2+2 together. starbright was making the point that instead of blaming individuals, specifically the unemployed Gen Y, we should think about looking at the issues from a systemic perspective.


Their life is FaceBook and Smart Phones. Without either they feel hopeless, lost, confused, lonely. Interaction is no longer seeing a person and talking face to face, where you can read body language and more. Interaction is a text.You are confusing Gen Y with Gen Z (or the Net generation). Gen Y's like me who were born in the early-mid 80's experienced the growth of PC's and the widespread popularity of mobile phones but also knew of life before them, and as such, those things are not viewed as "necessities" of life by my peers. I only got my smartphone recently, just after I started my new job and could pay for it myself instead of having my parents shoulder the bills. The FaceBook-addicts are actually usually born in the 90's and after.


It is the generation that was for free love and say no to authority, that ended up becoming the generation that wanted to be respected for their authority, ironic isn't it.Oh, yes. This irony was never lost on me. Further, I laugh at how my generation is criticized for staying home longer, having cell phones, etc., when the reality of our society today is that we require more schooling than the Boomers did to compete for decent jobs, we are saddled with greater tuition debts, have a harder overall time getting hired, and the salaries the lucky ones of us make don't go proportionately as far as money back then did. They can continue looking down on my peers for having cell phones, when many of them had CARS of their own when they were only teenagers.

By the way, there was also less information disseminated on the internet and other sources outside of close family/friends and high school counsellors when I was graduating. So please, stop blaming my generation for not knowing how screwed we would be, and whatever our faults are, we did not cause the markets to crash while getting bailout packages for the companies we buried.

[Syne]

those info are pretty well known these days, the articles i read covered all of them. we humans are the superior specie for a reason, that we can adapt, so basically all you need to do in Canada is to think ahead and plan ahead, do more research and figure out the system better, then use it to your advantage.

I think you completely missed the point if that's honestly all you took from his post.

[spike1128]

Uh, "government making jobs" was never the point. It's about the government being a vampire that subsists on the blood of taxpayers. Without a strong taxpayer base, it's going to break down.

You can't seem to put 2+2 together. starbright was making the point that instead of blaming individuals, specifically the unemployed Gen Y, we should think about looking at the issues from a systemic perspective.

You are confusing Gen Y with Gen Z (or the Net generation). Gen Y's like me who were born in the early-mid 80's experienced the growth of PC's and the widespread popularity of mobile phones but also knew of life before them, and as such, those things are not viewed as "necessities" of life by my peers. I only got my smartphone recently, just after I started my new job and could pay for it myself instead of having my parents shoulder the bills. The FaceBook-addicts are actually usually born in the 90's and after.

Oh, yes. This irony was never lost on me. Further, I laugh at how my generation is criticized for staying home longer, having cell phones, etc., when the reality of our society today is that we require more schooling than the Boomers did to compete for decent jobs, we are saddled with greater tuition debts, have a harder overall time getting hired, and the salaries the lucky ones of us make don't go proportionately as far as money back then did. They can continue looking down on my peers for having cell phones, when many of them had CARS of their own when they were only teenagers.

By the way, there was also less information disseminated on the internet and other sources outside of close family/friends and high school counsellors when I was graduating. So please, stop blaming my generation for not knowing how screwed we would be, and whatever our faults are, we did not cause the markets to crash while getting bailout packages for the companies we buried.

Agree with you completely peanutz. Wolf been smoking too much pot in the basement.

[Le Loon]

Instead, the system punishes the arts graduates and rewards the people with professional degrees. The professional material are a bit more structured, hence less free thinking. I believe the system has been set up to make us a headcount to a faceless corporation instead wanting us to be free thinking. The market is just interested in having hands to do work without much thinking, hence more obedience.


I think the notion of obedient workers is engendered at a much earlier age, perhaps even in grade school.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ Starts at 1:25.

But what is wrong with this? Somebody has to do the monkey work. We can't all be managers.

[medalgo]

What I believe is. By going to university, people are suppose to use their brain and use free thinking. Hence university graduates who hold an arts or literature degree should be the best degree, because university is suppose to teach you how to think and not be held back by the black box. That's where "thinking outside the box" comes from.

Instead, the system punishes the arts graduates and rewards the people with professional degrees. The professional material are a bit more structured, hence less free thinking. I believe the system has been set up to make us a headcount to a faceless corporation instead wanting us to be free thinking. The market is just interested in having hands to do work without much thinking, hence more obedience.

How educated do I think I am, hardly. Nowadays, even a master degree is consider the norm. Soon we need to go for PHD as the norm. There is always more things to learn in terms of knowledge, it doesn't have to be going to school to learn. Hence, I think I am still learning. How do you think I feel about my own education if I say this?

The system is what it is. It comes down to knowing the system and choosing to stay in the system. Part of the system. Or against the system. Or staying part of the system until it correct itself. Knowing this, maybe in 2008, the world should be left to crash. At least, then the system got a reset. Short term pain (collapse of the unstable system), to get a stable long term gain (a new stable system). Without hardship, the people will never learn. That's why the baby boomers need to learn it like their parents who live through the depression.

I completely disagree. Free thinking from an Arts graduate does not advance technology, science, or society and in terms of practicality their ideas are useless and that's why they're not valued. Free thinking requires a certain pre-requisite knowledge that differentiates useless jibberish and innovation. You're also missing a category besides Arts and Professional degrees, there's the regular Science people.

Arts programs lets you freely think because the pre-requisite knowledge is usually not very high, unless it's something set in stone like history you really can't be proven wrong with your "idea", where as in science you build upon your knowledge gradually year by year and because there are so many facts you need to know before making a rational assumption (aka a Thesis), you can't freely think until you know in depth of the subject area or else you'll look like a total idiot. Science students are more modest because they realize how much they don't know, where as an Arts student usually sound more opinionated because rarely can their opinion be proven wrong, but no matter how much BS they pump out it doesn't mean anything whereas a science student can continue on and do useful research.

Professional programs are specific towards professions that are the pillars of society, obviously given it's purpose there's less free thinking. That's like saying a knife is useless because you can't make origami. There's the regular Science degrees that focus on research.

Bottom line is, a society filled with Arts graduates will not function, I don't know what foundational purpose they provide to society and hence they receive less monetary reward for their existence. Sure, they make an established society more fun and entertaining, but if you were to pick a group you can do without, it would be the Arts graduates. Simple as that.

You've got to be kidding me if you think someone that can draw deserves more money than say a doctor (although obviously the rare one does, I'm talking about in general)

If you're going to argue with me, first name me an Arts related contribution from an Arts graduate that served a purpose society cannot function or will be severely impaired without. I can start with Science: vaccines

[Le Loon]

If you're going to argue with me, first name me an Arts related contribution from an Arts graduate that served a purpose society cannot function or will be severely impaired without. I can start with Science: vaccines

Fractional reserve banking, Economics is an art after all.

For an example with somebody's name on it: the Black–Scholes-Merton. It has been very helpful with pricing all kinds of financial products.

[medalgo]

Fractional reserve banking, Economics is an art after all.

For an example with somebody's name on it: the Black–Scholes-Merton. It has been very helpful with pricing all kinds of financial products.

You knew full well what I was referring to and what the argument was about, not going to start an argument with you whether economics is an art or math/science but at best its a blend hence not purely arts, if you think the regular arts student takes economics and makes great economic contributions then good for you your opinion cannot be proven wrong

I know I said arts related before, pardon my wording but my tone was rather clear

[nauru]

Well some medics are much less useful than others. And compensation in medicine tends to be inversely correlated with usefulness. (i.e. get paid the most for giving women fake boobs and westernized eyelids, clearing people's acne, running a lasik shop, and performing unnecessary c-sections; get paid the least for actually spending time with people in deprived communities with serious social, economic and health problems, and helping them toward a healthier lifestyle -- without creating as many appointments as possible and having one hand on the doorknob the whole time).

[nauru]

Fractional reserve banking, Economics is an art after all.

For an example with somebody's name on it: the Black–Scholes-Merton. It has been very helpful with pricing all kinds of financial products.

Both of these examples are finance, not economics.

And finance and economics are generally not considered arts; they lead to science degrees in nearly all countries. Canada and the US are anomalies in that they award arts degrees for these subjects.

[Zelig]

For an example with somebody's name on it: the Black–Scholes-Merton. It has been very helpful with pricing all kinds of financial products.

As a mathematician, I would fiercely disagree with that.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1012075
http://www.wilmott.com/blogs/paul/index.cfm/2008/4/29/Science-in-Finance-IX-In-defence-of-Black-Scholes-and-Merton

[medalgo]

Well some medics are much less useful than others. And compensation in medicine tends to be inversely correlated with usefulness. (i.e. get paid the most for giving women fake boobs and westernized eyelids, clearing people's acne, running a lasik shop, and performing unnecessary c-sections; get paid the least for actually spending time with people in deprived communities with serious social, economic and health problems, and helping them toward a healthier lifestyle -- without creating as many appointments as possible and having one hand on the doorknob the whole time).

If those MDs wanted to, they could've specialized in something to save lives instead of going for the money, but plastic surgeons are not representative of the usefulness of doctors to society, agreed? They're the exception. The same cannot be said for Arts graduates, there are no exceptions that would justify that they have a foundational purpose to society (ie. society for sure can not do without)

[Rainne]

I think the notion of obedient workers is engendered at a much earlier age, perhaps even in grade school..

Well, this is no surprise.

School teaches you to respect/brown nose the teacher (your boss), get along with your classmates (co-workers), make friends (network), and ultimately, how to learn, organize and get your work done (your job).

[divx]

Thats a very poor way of looking at things. You think you can make $1 million dollars, while everyone else starves? Your mansion won't last long in a sea of shacks sir. Thats precisely what the problem is here in this country. That type of thinking.

Screw everyone as long as I get mine.

well this is what makes our country the best in the world, he can try to make $1 million, so can you, both of you are given the fair chance in this country to be as successful as you want. i make decent coin myself, and that's only possible because i live in the best country in the world.

[Yorker86]

+1

I'm glad so many grads are out of work. Thinking they can drop 4 years on some U and then make 50k a year.

If that was the case, Who gon flip the burgers @ burger king yo?


Very disturbing comment but believe me, what goes around usually comes around.

[anon666]

well this is what makes our country the best in the world, he can try to make $1 million, so can you, both of you are given the fair chance in this country to be as successful as you want. i make decent coin myself, and that's only possible because i live in the best country in the world.

lol, yeah we're a nation of 'haves' and 'soon-to-haves.' lol.

best in the world? we're most certainly not. there isn't a 'best.' I deplore such a chauvinistic attitude. once you start pounding your chest and saying you're the best, there isn't much need to reflect and try to improve and learn from others.

http://500motivators.com/plog-content/thumbs/motivate/me/large/379-reaganomics-we-told-them-the-wealth-would-trickle-down.jpg

[yads12]

Sure, they make an established society more fun and entertaining, but if you were to pick a group you can do without, it would be the Arts graduates. Simple as that.

Your definition of an artist is very narrow and only encompasses entertainers. Leonardo da Vinci was a great artist and a great inventor as well. Not sure if you ever watched the show "The Colony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colony_(U.S._season_2))" on Discovery? One of the most useful members on the team was an industrial artist/architect. You may want to redefine whom you consider an artist.

[medalgo]

Your definition of an artist is very narrow and only encompasses entertainers. Leonardo da Vinci was a great artist and a great inventor as well. Not sure if you ever watched the show "The Colony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colony_(U.S._season_2))" on Discovery? One of the most useful members on the team was an industrial artist/architect. You may want to redefine whom you consider an artist.

So to make an arts graduate be useful they can't just be doing pure art, am I allowed to say that? Sounds like that just proves my point why arts people deserve to be paid less though

[nauru]

If those MDs wanted to, they could've specialized in something to save lives instead of going for the money, but plastic surgeons are not representative of the usefulness of doctors to society, agreed? They're the exception. The same cannot be said for Arts graduates, there are no exceptions that would justify that they have a foundational purpose to society (ie. society for sure can not do without)

My example of paid the most included a plastic surgeon, a dermatologist, an ophthomologist, and an unscrupulous OB/GYN. My example of paid the least was an honest family practitioner whose primary goal is to help people in need rather than billing the maximum possible. BTW most physicians are not "saving lives" in the traditional sense, there are relatively few "life saving" operations to be done. Doctors are for the most part assisting people in managing common mundane maladies.

[kabza]

More dogs than bones.


Eventually the dogs will be nothing but bones.

Or the dogs will start eating other dogs.

[Truemana]

Since when is anyone entitled to any level of success just by sitting in a classroom for four years? No one, not even the most academically successful are entitled to a job. The market dictates what you're worth to the market, not the other way around. Unfortunately, this means than some people have to work harder and change their approach more often than others, but that's also why we are always told to play the cards we are dealt.


Bigget crap I've ever heard. Are you and DearSummer sharing a room?

Yeah I rolled over and woke him up this morning.

Okay, let's start on the assumption that every able-bodied person with a degree deserves a job. No matter how much of a trust-fund baby they are with no sense of what employers want, they deserve a job. They might be a jerk to everyone around them, be condescending, and do poor work. Would you agree that this person needs to improve their skills and reflect on their choices?

I think reality checks are great for everyone. Sometimes, we have to remember that 8% unemployment still means that 92% of the population are working. Unfortunately, we all grew up (including me) being told that a degree is a great way to never worry about work or finances again. We've found out its not true. So what do we do? Complain the market is against us or start changing our approach and improving ourselves, sometimes outside our comfort zone?

The greatest danger is to stay the same and wait for the market to change. Sure, it might. But when we have another recession in 10 years we'll be in the same postition as we are now and without learning anything. If you consider applying for a job as a form of marketing yourself, then you could make a person's career analogous to a company selling a product. Would you invest in a company that is intent on losing money and not changing their marketing strategy in 10 years? Sound familiar, ie RIM?

[Truemana]

best in the world? we're most certainly not. there isn't a 'best.' I deplore such a chauvinistic attitude. once you start pounding your chest and saying you're the best, there isn't much need to reflect and try to improve and learn from others.

Yes. So true.

[mavrik13]

Two problems imo:

1) People going to university without a sweet clue about what they want to do with their lives, and/or whether that idea is actually feasible (if I had a dollar for every time a teenage boy told me he want to do video game design...)

2) People unwilling to move where the work is. Toronto is over-saturated. So is the majority of Ontario. Why do you assume that there will be a job within the GTA for you? Be prepared to move.

[divx]

No one thinks I think that, if you read what I say on the threads in RFD. This reply is just BS I am trying to illustrate to those who have no constructive option on this thread. I believe it's for the better good to help out the poor and give them education so they can move up the ladder. We all know, most people have things handed to them then proceed to call everybody Jelly. Of course then those will have no compassion for the poor and less fortunate. It's not the fault of children who was borned into troubled/poor areas.

The extreme right believe in what you are saying on your reply. I am not sure if JK400 is extreme right. I know Syne is extremely left. DearSummer is the extremely terrorist right leaning. So don't ask DearSummer if he would like to make 1 million dollar and let all of us to starve. I am sure he will let us all starve, if he could.

Take it easy bro.

we are doing just that, free education and healthcare for all. it's kinda annoying that people still have excuses for being a failure.

[divx]

lol, yeah we're a nation of 'haves' and 'soon-to-haves.' lol.

best in the world? we're most certainly not. there isn't a 'best.' I deplore such a chauvinistic attitude. once you start pounding your chest and saying you're the best, there isn't much need to reflect and try to improve and learn from others.

http://500motivators.com/plog-content/thumbs/motivate/me/large/379-reaganomics-we-told-them-the-wealth-would-trickle-down.jpg

we are the best, and there is no need to learn from others. it's pretty evident from the recent financial crash that we are doing the best, while there are always room to improve, it's certainly won't be from following anyone else' example.

[medalgo]

My example of paid the most included a plastic surgeon, a dermatologist, an ophthomologist, and an unscrupulous OB/GYN. My example of paid the least was an honest family practitioner whose primary goal is to help people in need rather than billing the maximum possible. BTW most physicians are not "saving lives" in the traditional sense, there are relatively few "life saving" operations to be done. Doctors are for the most part assisting people in managing common mundane maladies.

alright, let's say you make sense, now explain the other part, how does an arts graduate deserve more?

[nauru]

I never said they deserve more.

It's already well known that people who study technical subjects such as math, physics, economics, any engineering field other than civil, computer science, quantitative finance, statistics, or medicine earn higher salaries on average than people who study non-technical subjects such as literature, history, dance, education, social work, divinity, psychology, and languages. Semi-technical subjects like architecture, accounting, biology, and others tend to be in between. The more technical also tend to have higher employment rates than the less technical.

With the exception of medicine and medicine-related fields whose compensation is artificially inflated by government policies in Canada, compensation for the above fields is generally determined by the market.

So what's the problem? Other than the problematic health field, the rest of the labour market seems to be shaping up as could reasonably be predicted.

[resu]

we are the best, and there is no need to learn from others. it's pretty evident from the recent financial crash that we are doing the best, while there are always room to improve, it's certainly won't be from following anyone else' example.

Scandinavia (they are decades ahead of Canada in terms of... well, everything), Germany, Japan, and the list goes on...

Pretty evident? Did you read the news about the 'stealth' recapitalization of Canadian banks? We are sitting on a big pile of natural resources. That's about it.

[sirex]

Im pretty sure he's being sarcastic.

[Truemana]

we are the best, and there is no need to learn from others. it's pretty evident from the recent financial crash that we are doing the best, while there are always room to improve, it's certainly won't be from following anyone else' example.

I'm gonna assume you're being serious.

Well, that's how the Americans have viewed themselves for the past half century. It was correct at one point, but assuming you'll do it right in the future just because you did right in the past is far from wise. It's straight up asking to get blindsided. We learn from others' mistakes as well as triumphs.

[Needinghelp]

I made this post in a thread a long ways back, but I believe that it applies to this thread as well in regards to this situation.

If the job postings are meant for new grads, then:

1. More experienced professionals are moving down the chain and applying for new grad positions because they can't find work at their current level. Thus, these new grad positions are being taken by experienced professionals that are desperate to get any job so employers will continue to post over-inflated expectations like this. Until the economy improves and it's no longer an employer's market, this will continue to happen unfortunately.

2. Of course, people apply anyway. But there is almost a guarantee that they won't get the job due to point #1, let alone even a pre-screening phone interview. You'd likely have to apply to thousands of positions to even get a few phone interviews that probably won't even translate into offers once they realize how little experience the new grad has (and rightfully so, since students are in... you know... studying in school). Many employers don't even recognize co-op experience as professional experience, and even if you do co-op, it'd translate to maybe a year of experience.

[Mark77]

1. More experienced professionals are moving down the chain and applying for new grad positions because they can't find work at their current level. Thus, these new grad positions are being taken by experienced professionals that are desperate to get any job so employers will continue to post over-inflated expectations like this. Until the economy improves and it's no longer an employer's market, this will continue to happen unfortunately.


I think the people who are probably the most scr*wed are those who are neither new grads, nor are they highly (ie: 10+ years) experienced. Most 'big' businesses have realized a need, over the years, to hire new grads, so they have elaborate HR programs (such as "EIT programs" for engineers) that facilitate new grad hiring. But once you're a year or two out of school, most of those new-grad HR programs won't even look at your resume. Nor will they consider you for the experienced positions either.

So if one graduates during a recession, their career essentially gets destroyed because the employers want to hire the new grads versus the grads who have been out of school for a few years, either unemployed, or working outside the field.

Its really a disgusting situation. One's talent and business value, not one's graduation date, should determine how well a person does in the workforce.



Of course, people apply anyway. But there is almost a guarantee that they won't get the job due to point #1, let alone even a pre-screening phone interview. You'd likely have to apply to thousands of positions to even get a few phone interviews that probably won't even translate into offers once they realize how little experience the new grad has (and rightfully so, since students are in... you know... studying in school). Many employers don't even recognize co-op experience as professional experience, and even if you do co-op, it'd translate to maybe a year of experience.

That really depends upon who you talk to. Some employers view "co-op" experience (ie: internships) as being highly valuable. Some will scold you if you dare even call it/consider it to be 'experience' in terms of qualifying for positions. Its been my 'experience' that "co-op" positions really aren't of much value unless you're returning to the same employer, in which case, the employer certainly prefers someone who has familiarized themselves with the business policies and processes in use.

[Mark77]

2) People unwilling to move where the work is. Toronto is over-saturated. So is the majority of Ontario. Why do you assume that there will be a job within the GTA for you? Be prepared to move.

Why should Torontonians be thrown out of their own city (or the effective equivalent, undercut wage-wise) by the hoardes of immigrants who obviously didn't bother to study a map of Canada and realize there's life outside of Toronto before they bought a ticket to Pearson?

[Syne]

Mark has a point. Toronto is not my cup of tea, but if it was my community and I strongly identified with it as my home, then I'd be insulted if I was told to move elsewhere, because I wasn't willing to compete with immigrants undercutting my wages.

On your home turf you should have some traction.

[archdemon]

yay I finally got a job interview at something worthwhile. Only took 2.5 years, and a lot of resumes. Still, minimum wage and ONLY because I am a graduated uni student and because the division accepts students as part of some kickback program.

In Spain, right now unemployment is 20+%. Egypt worse. Greece worse. USA is about there but the numbers are skewed and misrepresented so they are kept in the 9-10% range (on purpose).


I know a lot of people that are unemployed in Toronto, either student, cannot find job, etc. It is definitely something in the air, and not because they are not capable of work. There ARE jobs sure, networking helps of course, friends of friends, luck, etc. There is the whiner crowd who complains and gives up, and there is the 'old hand' crowd where they are secure in their employment and look down on the unemployed as lazy, stupid, etc...

This is definitely an on-going TREND that will not let-up until we have another world war unfortunately. War is great for jump starting a sick economy. Maybe if they bomb Iran you can work at a munitions factory like your grandparents before you.

Don't get down even though you wish you had money and cars and hot women like in the rap videos. That is NOT how the working honest man/woman lives. Money is NOT what makes us human. remember that.

[Syne]

yay I finally got a job interview at something worthwhile. Only took 2.5 years, and a lot of resumes. Still, minimum wage and ONLY because I am a graduated uni student and because the division accepts students as part of some kickback program.

So they agreed to pay you minimum wage because you're a university graduate, and they get some of that minimum wage back in government subsidies? :facepalm: Oh boy.. If that's not fuel for the fire, I don't know what is.


This is definitely an on-going TREND that will not let-up until we have another world war unfortunately. War is great for jump starting a sick economy. Maybe if they bomb Iran you can work at a munitions factory like your grandparents before you.

I don't think the war we need is a world war, I think it's a class war. 99% vs. 1%. Money vs. Sheer numbers. If what you're saying is true, things are getting ridiculous and the rich need to be held accountable.


Don't get down even though you wish you had money and cars and hot women like in the rap videos. That is NOT how the working honest man/woman lives. Money is NOT what makes us human. remember that.

Oh, I'm not jelly. My days of jealousy are over. What's the point of being jealous over something that even if you did obtain, would feel empty because you know it would be at the expense of so many others? All that's left now is just anger and a burning drive to settle the score. Instead of celebrating over your minimum wage job that took you 2.5 years to obtain, I would think you'd be supportive of some massive reform.

I know it seems noble to appreciate your lot in life and it's cute to celebrate the little things in life, but what is more noble is helping others avoid what you had to go through. If nothing else, keep telling your story. You don't even need to do anything else. The subtext speaks volumes.

[FlyingSquirrel]

This is definitely an on-going TREND that will not let-up until we have another world war unfortunately. War is great for jump starting a sick economy. Maybe if they bomb Iran you can work at a munitions factory like your grandparents before you.

Of all the dumb things I've skimmed through in this thread, this is probably the dumbest.

You know what's the biggest reason another world war will "jump start" the economy?

Millions of people killed reduces the labour supply, it's a lot easier finding a job as a young professional when a lot of your competition has been killed.

Might as well suggest another holocaust while you're at it.

[WildWolf]

Of all the dumb things I've skimmed through in this thread, this is probably the dumbest.

You know what's the biggest reason another world war will "jump start" the economy?

Millions of people killed reduces the labour supply, it's a lot easier finding a job as a young professional when a lot of your competition has been killed.

Might as well suggest another holocaust while you're at it.

Actually what archdemon said is somewhat correct. Do the research, war is money, if you don't already know that by now.

When you have a war you can create Jobs, WWII is a prime example when WWII happened the US was in the great depression, it created Jobs. The Great depression was from 1929 - 1939 during that time WWII came about, near the late 1930's at a time when Unemployment was at 20-25% which is today in the US. What you wrote that killing people will create jobs, that is dumb.

[MLVancouver]

Just freshly graduating so I can relate to this story. It seems there just isn't a lot of opportunity as there once was. It seemed the parents of these Gen Y's did quite well by just sticking with a job of any sort and working hard. Nowadays everywhere is paying minimum wage and they always have a cap on how much you can make. My mother is a cashier at save-on-foods and she earns roughly $28/hr because of old contracts and slowly building up raises. Nowadays, there is not a way in hell you could help support a family working at a grocery store for us young people.

Just need to keep persistent and positive!

[FlyingSquirrel]

Actually what archdemon said is somewhat correct. Do the research, war is money, if you don't already know that by now.

When you have a war you can create Jobs, WWII is a prime example when WWII happened the US was in the great depression, it created Jobs. The Great depression was from 1929 - 1939 during that time WWII came about, near the late 1930's at a time when Unemployment was at 20-25% which is today in the US. What you wrote that killing people will create jobs, that is dumb.

uh huh

The US has been at war constantly for the past 11 years fighting two countries at once. They've gone through two major recessions in that time period, where's all the "war jobs?"

The difference between WW2 and war now is we've become significantly more efficient at killing others without getting killed ourselves. They don't have to send as much soldiers over and the majority of them are actually making it back alive to work.

Two of the world's largest population countries is also the countries with the world's cheapest labour. Coincidence?

This is basic supply and demand economics.

[Aburrido]

Actually what archdemon said is somewhat correct. Do the research, war is money, if you don't already know that by now.

When you have a war you can create Jobs, WWII is a prime example when WWII happened the US was in the great depression, it created Jobs. The Great depression was from 1929 - 1939 during that time WWII came about, near the late 1930's at a time when Unemployment was at 20-25% which is today in the US. What you wrote that killing people will create jobs, that is dumb.

For every economics professor that says war is good for the health of the state, I really want to key their car and break their windows to "create jobs for auto repairers". What war really does is relocate resources/jobs, for example the professor now has to spend money to repair their car instead spending their money the way they want.

As for WW2, the jobs "created" were mostly factory jobs with dangerous work condition, low wages, and long hours on both the US and German sides. That's really not the answer most people are looking for.

[WildWolf]

For every economics professor that says war is good for the health of the state, I really want to key their car and break their windows to "create jobs for auto repairers". What war really does is relocate resources/jobs, for example the professor now has to spend money to repair their car instead spending their money the way they want.

As for WW2, the jobs "created" were mostly factory jobs with dangerous work condition, low wages, and long hours on both the US and German sides. That's really not the answer most people are looking for.

It was a Job, regardless the working conditions. When there is a war going on, and you want some money for food, the last thing you worry about is wages and long hours. What is the answer most people are looking for ? Willy Wonka's Chocolate factory ! :rolleyes:

[Syne]

It was a Job, regardless the working conditions. When there is a war going on, and you want some money for food, the last thing you worry about is wages and long hours. What is the answer most people are looking for ? Willy Wonka's Chocolate factory ! :rolleyes:

No, we should just celebrate jobs for the sake of jobs. Huzzah!

[Aburrido]

It was a Job, regardless the working conditions. When there is a war going on, and you want some money for food, the last thing you worry about is wages and long hours. What is the answer most people are looking for ? Willy Wonka's Chocolate factory ! :rolleyes:

The money made in WW2 by factory workers are extremely minimal and almost pointless because the food they brought was crap and limited due to rationing. The entire standard of living dropped even after the war began. Would you really advocate another total war just to give people jobs, how sustainable do you think it would be? If you love death and destruction so much, then I cannot reason with you.

Don't forget slaves also have jobs, but unsurprisingly their productivity and efficiency is unmatched by someone working by choice.

[WildWolf]

The money made in WW2 by factory workers are extremely minimal and almost pointless because the food they brought was crap and limited due to rationing. The entire standard of living dropped even after the war began. Would you really advocate another total war just to give people jobs, how sustainable do you think it would be? If you love death and destruction so much, then I cannot reason with you.

Don't forget slaves also have jobs, but unsurprisingly their productivity and efficiency is unmatched by someone working by choice.

It won't be me, that would create the war, it is governments. That is silly thing to ask someone, if they love death and destruction and want a war to create jobs. Maybe it's not, plenty of people do love death and destruction, we see it from day to day.

[Aburrido]

It won't be me, that would create the war, it is governments. That is silly thing to ask someone, if they love death and destruction and want a war to create jobs. Maybe it's not, plenty of people do love death and destruction, we see it from day to day.

I'm glad to hear that's not the case. You'd be even more surprised with people you meet in academia.

[FlyingSquirrel]

For every economics professor that says war is good for the health of the state, I really want to key their car and break their windows to "create jobs for auto repairers". What war really does is relocate resources/jobs, for example the professor now has to spend money to repair their car instead spending their money the way they want.

no legit economics professors will say this. The only "teachers" i've seen that say this are high school history teachers with no knowledge of how economics work.

[anyasok]

So what do we do? Complain the market is against us or start changing our approach and improving ourselves, sometimes outside our comfort zone?

The greatest danger is to stay the same and wait for the market to change.
We shut down the system and the agencies that allow this sort of nightmare to perpetuate itself and move to a truly sustanable one. Baby steps within the system itself will always end in failure.

[Rainne]

yay I finally got a job interview at something worthwhile. Only took 2.5 years, and a lot of resumes. Still, minimum wage and ONLY because I am a graduated uni student and because the division accepts students as part of some kickback program.

In Spain, right now unemployment is 20+%. Egypt worse. Greece worse. USA is about there but the numbers are skewed and misrepresented so they are kept in the 9-10% range (on purpose).


I know a lot of people that are unemployed in Toronto, either student, cannot find job, etc. It is definitely something in the air, and not because they are not capable of work. There ARE jobs sure, networking helps of course, friends of friends, luck, etc. There is the whiner crowd who complains and gives up, and there is the 'old hand' crowd where they are secure in their employment and look down on the unemployed as lazy, stupid, etc...

This is definitely an on-going TREND that will not let-up until we have another world war unfortunately. War is great for jump starting a sick economy. Maybe if they bomb Iran you can work at a munitions factory like your grandparents before you.

Don't get down even though you wish you had money and cars and hot women like in the rap videos. That is NOT how the working honest man/woman lives. Money is NOT what makes us human. remember that.

A lot of new grads I know are making only $12-18/hr range (culinary/junior acct/AP/coding), it's not so great right now haha. What's worse is the jobs are just contracts..

But at least you're getting experience in your field.

[sirex]

Tell you guys what.. Since you think war is good for the economy, and working as a slave to buy a loaf of bread is a good thing;

Any of you that want to work for me are free to do so. What I will provide you is 2 meals during your 8 hour shift, and all the juice you can drink. I will also pick you up and drop you off at any destination within 5km from my work site.