« Chicken&Egg#1: The Philippine Media and Government, a Tango or a Tangle? | Home | Continuing Chicken&Egg#1: A Tango or a Tangle? »
Irony 1: The Cycle of Unemployment
By philobean | June 23, 2007
The economists say the labor market is characterized by job surplus (or conversely undersupply of talent). Note the use of the word ‘talent’ and not the word ‘labor’. Most fresh graduates, the companies argue, are underqualified. They simply do not have the skills to perform the duties a job would require. Fair enough. But this begs a question–is there any fresh graduate out there who, upon entering the workforce, is at that point sufficiently skilled to take on the job without need for at least some form of training?
Taking this line of thinking further, we in turn ask, if other companies (albeit few and far between) are willing to ‘invest’ in training fresh graduates, why aren’t you? Most posts for job vacanies require some form of work experience. If a conservative estimate of 50% of all jobs require work experience (something fresh grads are bound *not* to have), then even though (let us say) 120 jobs are available for (let us say) 80 fresh graduates [this sounds like an oversupply of jobs, doesn’t it?], there would only be 60 jobs the 80 graduates are qualified to apply for. Is this characteristic of job surplus, underqualified labor, or neither?
If work experience remains a strict requirement for jobs, then near all fresh graduates would remain immutably underqualified. While near all fresh graduates are underqualified (this taken to mean that they need further training to carry out their jobs adequately), I would reckon only a minority of the fresh graduates are grossly underqualified so as to render them incomptent without recourse. Only in the final case will the industry’s standing rationalization hold its weight. Otherwise…
(I wouldn’t want to jump the gun. So, let’s wait and see, shant we?)
Topics: A little political, Personal |
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
There is a point here. Even the so called “Diploma Mills” can project graduates that are good for something. A data encoding job in a BPO shop does not necessarily need a computer science degree (or a degree in a related course). So an Computer Science graduate who does not know how to program will know how to use a computer to encode right?
So maybe the market does not have a talent shortage per se. Maybe, due to stiff competition, employers are requiring “over-resumed” individuals but not necessarily needing them?
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Forcing fresh graduates to take on jobs for which they are overqualified is a grave grave insult (not to mention it does nothing good for labor development in the long-term).
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Aren’t a lot of employers guilty of that? Maybe of them just want to hedge on a over-qualified candidate?
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
True. True. But I can see how this may be potentially dangerous for the employer. An overqualified employee is almost always just waiting for the next opportunity to jump ship. Work can’t be fulfilling if it doesn’t challenge and provide an opportunity for growth. Such hiring practices may work in the short-term but could be potentially destructive in the long-term (A study could be run with employee turnover as one metric.)
August 29th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Even when switching jobs,you need some form of training, they might use another computer programme in a company where are you applying for a job, and you will need to adjust to that one.
I am actually unemployed for two years, but it does not many i don t have any experience, and i am almost finished with Master of Arts, and i have to hide that, becuase employers assume that I have higher aspiration, of course i have, but with no ufficial work experience when you are 28, what should I ask for? It is a vicious cycle.