Unemployed need not apply

It's all on there. It covers different fields but it's still possible to glean pertinent information in terms of teamwork, leadership, etc. from a collection of diverse jobs. And, if nothing else, it shows initiative.

 

Which was my original point.

Your perfect laboratory, the Marketplace, already had these debates and made these decisions. These failed policies are the result.

Now you expect it to correct the problem it created?

 

I don't know about Kermit, but Biofile would want an unemployed person to go into the nearest business and stare down the employer until he got the job.

If companies say that unemployed people are not welcome, they're eliminating them as potential employees right off the bat. Those workers may be the best damn workers in the world, but ended up laid off due to corporate asshatery. But due to their unemployment, they don't even have that chance to make their case to be hrred.

And in this economy, there are an awful lot of good workers out of work, due to no fault of their own. If every company had this policy, anyone laid off would never be able to get a job again, which would then lead to a heckuva lot of problems for both the workers, and the country.

 

The marketplace is perfect, but only under optimum circumstances (i.e. no asymmetry of information, strong property rights, no transaction costs, etc., etc.).

That's what regulation is for - to sand the rough edges off of capitalism.

If policy isn't the solution, then what is? Because right now, it seems like you are advocating blind hope that they will just simultaneously start hiring American workers out of altruism.

 

I didn't say I agreed with that (and I know you didn't say I did), but how is that nuts? It's a class (group) of people being discriminated against for a single reason. Nevermind how an individual became unemployed. Nevermind that an unemployed person just might be the best qualified for the position. Screw 'em - they're unemployed, let 'em stay that way, right?

On another note, why should Iraq and Afghanistan veterans be treated any different if they are unemployed? As a veteran, I feel that there are very few positions in the military (specifically, enlisted Army, as that is my experience) that translate well and/or directly into civilian occupations. If they're not getting picked for the job, maybe it's because they're not the best qualified.

While on active duty, the local (military) medical clinic was staffed by a mix of military and civilians. I remember waiting for this one guy to fiiiiiiiiiinally find my medical records. He was old. He was unable to move very well. And he acknowledged to me he had gotten the job because he's a vet. Chances are, though, there was a more efficient, capable person who had applied.

This is not an anti-veteran statement or post. Rather, it's one against the idea of anti-common sense. Either groups are protected or they're not. To whom do we leave it to pick and choose?

 

Because I think it would be extremely inefficient. It's smoke and mirrors. The employers will end up hiring the people with long employment records anyway while wasting resources on compliance - when they do comply, which seems rare in affirmative action. And it doesn't actually create any jobs. It just scrambles the order of the unemployment line.

 

What is your enforcement mechanism?

What problem does it solve?

 

Does it create new jobs? Or just re-order the hiring line?

And your enforcement mechanism? Remember, you have to expend resources on this. Will it lead to an efficient outcome? For who?

 

No, it solves the problem of companies being obvious about it.

 

Simple.

Company places an ad that says "No Unemployed." Fine their asses enough so they won't do it again.

To use a journalism analogy, Gannett loves (or at least for a lot of years, they did) touting their diversity in stories, to the point of making reporters write down each minority source on a list, and also using that in their employee evaluations. And they would do it under the claim that papers should reflect their communities.

And the thing is, a paper should reflect their community. But flat-out announcing it and making it a policy also did something else. It (along with a lot of other stuff) eroded the credibility of the papers. Readers would see a minority's picture in the paper, and call up to ask if they were in the paper because they were doing something interesting, or because they were following corporate policy.

 

So they don't place that ad. They'll still discriminate. What do you do then?

And, again, this doesn't create a single job in the economy. Not one. Even at its positively utopian best, such a policy just alters the order that people return to work. If that's what you want, that's fine. But don't think for a second that this is a solution to the unemployment issue, writ large. It's not. It's just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

Have you ever looked at an affirmative action regulation? Ever read one? It's a long, scrambled mess. Companies have to hire law firms to help them sort through it and stay in compliance. The administrative agency has to open the whole thing to public comment for a certain period of time. None of this can be done without expending a lot of resources.