Belphegor
Belphegor
Post rating:
+
When you read bourgeois labor statistics or mainstream media on the labor market, two concepts that come up are 'unfilled jobs'/'job openings' and the related 'skills shortage' that propagandists harp on. Mike Rowe, the 'Dirty Jobs' guy is always blaming workers for misallocating their labor.
For example, a graphic I saw comparing four US college majors: "Computing", Life Sciences, Mathematics, Engineering. The point of the graph was that for all but "Computing", the yearly number of graduates exceeds yearly 'unfilled jobs'. The conclusion you are meant to draw is that there is an inefficiency in the way people choose disciplines to study. It is assumed that the purpose of education is for job training, but that isn't my major issue.
There is something funny going on with the way this void is being measured. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics says they base their 'job openings' figures on firms "advertising in
newspapers, on television, or on the radio; posting Internet notices, posting “help wanted” signs,
networking or making “word-of-mouth” announcements; accepting applications; interviewing candidates;
contacting employment agencies; or soliciting employees at job fairs, state or local employment offices, or
similar sources."
But surely if these firms were really wanted workers they would pay them, if they had such a severe 'skills shortage' they would train them? Of course I know about the necessity of having a reserve army of labor for controlling the masses. I don't understand the details, though. Every time I find myself unemployed, or unhappily employed, I read these stats and it fills me with a dull rage. I remember one time a restaurant boss showed me the employer side of the Indeed jobs board. For a line cook position he had over a hundred resumes built up. Or the other time an employment agency sent me to a Jiffy Lube where 40 people were interviewing for three jobs changing oil for minimum wage. All this during ‘record low unemployment’.
What is the deal with labor statistics and why do they all seem so fake?
For example, a graphic I saw comparing four US college majors: "Computing", Life Sciences, Mathematics, Engineering. The point of the graph was that for all but "Computing", the yearly number of graduates exceeds yearly 'unfilled jobs'. The conclusion you are meant to draw is that there is an inefficiency in the way people choose disciplines to study. It is assumed that the purpose of education is for job training, but that isn't my major issue.
There is something funny going on with the way this void is being measured. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics says they base their 'job openings' figures on firms "advertising in
newspapers, on television, or on the radio; posting Internet notices, posting “help wanted” signs,
networking or making “word-of-mouth” announcements; accepting applications; interviewing candidates;
contacting employment agencies; or soliciting employees at job fairs, state or local employment offices, or
similar sources."
But surely if these firms were really wanted workers they would pay them, if they had such a severe 'skills shortage' they would train them? Of course I know about the necessity of having a reserve army of labor for controlling the masses. I don't understand the details, though. Every time I find myself unemployed, or unhappily employed, I read these stats and it fills me with a dull rage. I remember one time a restaurant boss showed me the employer side of the Indeed jobs board. For a line cook position he had over a hundred resumes built up. Or the other time an employment agency sent me to a Jiffy Lube where 40 people were interviewing for three jobs changing oil for minimum wage. All this during ‘record low unemployment’.
What is the deal with labor statistics and why do they all seem so fake?