"Sorry we are closed nobody wants to work here anymore due to government handouts"

[Katchii]

If one of your options is death there is no choice......

If the option was literally death, I'd agree. But it's not. You do not literally die if you don't accept the job. Acting like that is the case is being overly dramatic. Will life suck and be hard? Of course, I'm not denying that it's a tough choice but the choice is not literally between take the job or die.

That's exactly what it means. Again the gunman holding you at gun point and saying your life or your wallet is also technically offering you a choice. No rational sane person actually accepts that this is actually a choice. You have to be either a psychopath or a right wing libertarian to consider that a choice.

No one is holding a gun to your head to accept a job. Acting like the two situations are identical is crazy.

In the metaphor you're using where you literally have a gun to your head the choice has to be made RIGHT NOW, and the choices are literally, give me your wallet or die. I 100% agree that there's no choice there. That is NOT what happens when choosing to accept a job or not. Choosing to not accept the job will not literally mean you will absolutely 100% die, and certainly not die right then and there, if at all. Yes, life will be hard. Hard =/= death.

- - - Updated - - -

Knowledge is nearly free on the internet. People don't need a piece of paper from a formal institution.

Everyone can learn more, and improve, and gain more skills every day regardless of how poor they are. Simply keep learning how to solve more and harder problems and you'll get better and better jobs overtime as your skillset increases. There is infinite opportunity in the economy going forward.

All of this is so disconnected with reality I don't even know where to start.

1) Where do they get access to the internet?
2) What knowledge should they gain, but more importantly, how effective will it be if you just "learned it from the internet?"
3) What skills should they focus on? How would they KNOW which skills to focus on?
4) What skills can they actually learn and be effective at if they never put them into practice on an actual job site?
5) I can promise you that anyone who says their knowledge and skills came from the internet, and put that on their resume, would likely never even get an interview.

I agree with you that people don't necessarily need a piece of paper from a formal institution (depending on the position, as a degree is required in MANY industries), but they absolutely DO need actual on the job experience proving they know how to do a job.

- - - Updated - - -

I couldn't care less about resume requirements. If I can do a particular job then I'll prove to the employer that I have more merit than the other cookie cutter applicants. Society makes fake rules about what you "officially" need or don't need. Nobody should care about fake rules and fake requirements.

No you won't, because you won't ever be given the opportunity to prove it.

And as @Endus said, in some cases they are not "fake" rules and requirements. It's literally the law.

[Glorious Leader]

No one is holding a gun to your head to accept a job. Acting like the two situations are identical is crazy.

The point is that in the one instance the consequences of the choice are so bad that it really leaves you with no choice. Not accepting the offer means poverty, immiseration, hunger, destitution, homelessness, and precarity. Just like the mugger scenario their is NO CHOICE. You can continue to deny the economic reality of the situation but it does not change the fact. Either you accept that a "choice" with extremely poor consequences is not really a choice (as in the case of the mugger) or you accept it all a choice. Only a psychopath would argue that you had a choice...

[PC2]

doesn't matter how much you've read on internet if you have nothing to show for it...

Okay so create something that shows you are excellent in a given domain. Complete a project. If you're going into software then make a program that addresses an unsolved problem. Or let's say I needed a job as a janitor I could make a video of me turning a disgusting bathroom into a room that is cleaner than a surgery operating room in less than 5 minutes. It will blow their socks off.

People need to get creative and stop playing into the culture of hoop jumping and standardization which just creates cookie cutter people.

[Endus]

Okay so create something that shows you are excellent in a given domain. Complete a project. If you're going into software then make a program that addresses an unsolved problem. Or let's say I needed a job as a janitor I could make a video of me turning a disgusting bathroom into a room that is cleaner than a surgery operating room in less than 5 minutes. It will blow their socks off.

They are not going to evaluate your project. They are just going to toss your application for being unqualified. They do not have time to evaluate your abilities. That's the entire point of accreditation programs; some other entity has taken on the responsibility for ensuring a standard level of skill requirements, so all employers need to do is verify that you have said accreditation.

Ironically, however, some people have created something to let students show they're skilled in a particular domain. That's all those accreditation programs you're dismissing out of hand.

People need to get creative and stop playing into the culture of hoop jumping and standardization which just creates cookie cutter people.

If you're trying to "be creative", you're an artist, not someone seeking employment in a major industry.

Which I'm not crapping on, mind you.

But nobody's going to take the time to evaluate you for hours just to make sure you're as good as anyone with certification; they'll just take someone who's actually certified rather than wasting their time with you. You will not ever get hired pursuing education the way you're describing. Not ever. Even historically, guilds and such have existed for centuries to ensure people making claims to skills have proper credentials and training.

[Shadowferal]

Nepotism is the unsurprising explanation here.

[uuuhname]

Nepotism is the unsurprising explanation here.

I mean, there is a grain of truth to the claim that you don't go to college to learn but to create connections. at the very least when it comes to the clap trap that is Ivy league schools.

[Santti]

Okay so create something that shows you are excellent in a given domain. Complete a project. If you're going into software then make a program that addresses an unsolved problem. Or let's say I needed a job as a janitor I could make a video of me turning a disgusting bathroom into a room that is cleaner than a surgery operating room in less than 5 minutes. It will blow their socks off.

People need to get creative and stop playing into the culture of hoop jumping and standardization which just creates cookie cutter people.

That's nice, but you are still not getting an interview, or anyone to come to take a look at your project. You appear to have some ridiculous, romanticized view of how things work, here.

And lol at making a program to address an unsolved problem with your internet chops. How and where would you even begin to look for such a problem, genius? Ask your government or some industry real nicely? And I believe we are still talking about poor people, mind you. If they had money, they'd get an education and do it like everyone else.

[Katchii]

The point is that in the one instance the consequences of the choice are so bad that it really leaves you with no choice. Not accepting the offer means poverty, immiseration, hunger, destitution, homelessness, and precarity.

100% of the time? In every single case? Every single person who is offered a job has to make the choice between taking the job or living in poverty, hunger, destitution, homelessness and precarity?

If the answer to this was yes, I'd agree with you. But it's not. I'm not pretending that situations might be that bad for some people, but there is a LOT of middle ground here. Not every single scenario is that extreme.

Just like the mugger scenario their is NO CHOICE. You can continue to deny the economic reality of the situation but it does not change the fact. Either you accept that a "choice" with extremely poor consequences is not really a choice (as in the case of the mugger) or you accept it all a choice. Only a psychopath would argue that you had a choice...

You're argument is predicated on the idea that every single scenario is that extreme. That's just not true.

I have never argued that it's a fair choice, it's a shitty one. But their is STILL a choice. Deny that reality all you want, but the fact remains the person being offered the job has to choose to willingly accept it. The employer is not forcing them to take that job. Their individual situations are what dictate how easy or difficult that choice is.

You're focusing too much on my way of thinking about the problem here, and not what the solutions are. You and I seem to be on the same side here as far as how to fix this. Implement things that improve everyone's situation by making it so they know they'll have healthcare, know they'll have some money from UBI, know they'll be able to make a decent living off an increased minimum wage.

[Egomaniac]

If the option was literally death, I'd agree. But it's not. You do not literally die if you don't accept the job. Acting like that is the case is being overly dramatic. Will life suck and be hard? Of course, I'm not denying that it's a tough choice but the choice is not literally between take the job or die.

Sure, technically you can refuse the job. But your rent won't get paid, your family won't eat, your loans won't get paid back and you'll drown in the interest...and someone else will take the job at the rate you refused.

[Katchii]

Okay so create something that shows you are excellent in a given domain. Complete a project.

Creating something requires money. Where are people with no money going to get money to create something?

If you're going into software then make a program that addresses an unsolved problem.

Again, money. How are people with no money going to buy the things they need to do this? Namely a computer (and a decent enough one to actually do the job) and access to the internet.

Or let's say I needed a job as a janitor I could make a video of me turning a disgusting bathroom into a room that is cleaner than a surgery operating room in less than 5 minutes. It will blow their socks off.

You are out of your freaking mind if you think this will blow anyone's socks off. Congratulations, you know how to do something the vast majority of people on this planet are capable of doing and have to do all the time, in their own home/ where they live, without getting paid.

Not to mention, this idea that you need to treat a janitorial position like an artistic position with a portfolio of your work when this kind of job has practically zero required qualifications.

People need to get creative and stop playing into the culture of hoop jumping and standardization which just creates cookie cutter people.

And you need to live in reality.

[Endus]

100% of the time? In every single case? Every single person who is offered a job has to make the choice between taking the job or living in poverty, hunger, destitution, homelessness and precarity?

If the answer to this was yes, I'd agree with you. But it's not. I'm not pretending that situations might be that bad for some people, but there is a LOT of middle ground here. Not every single scenario is that extreme.

This is because of a short set of possibilities, none of which are universal;
1> You've got savings and don't need the job right yet anyway. Could be savings from prior work, or inheritance, whatever.
2> You're being supported by someone and don't need the job, at least until their patience runs out. Kids obviously fit this.
3> You're being supported by the government. This is pretty much guaranteed to either be temporary or so little that, yes, hunger and homelessness and precariousness are what you experience.

In the subset of #3 where you're on long-term welfare, you very much are suffering hardship. That doesn't provide remotely enough support. In any other circumstance, you're enjoying some support benefits that won't last, and you'll eventually fall down to that level when this runs its course. That may be when your spouse divorces you, when you get kicked out of your parents' house, when your savings runs out, whatever. Sure; for some people, it never runs out, but that's not reliably true for all.

And that means, for everyone risking falling down onto welfare support, yes, your choices are often between "take this job" or "live in poverty, hunger, and destitution".

It doesn't really matter if that's true for everyone. Just that it's true for many.

[Katchii]

Sure, technically you can refuse the job. But your rent won't get paid, your family won't eat, your loans won't get paid back and you'll drown in the interest...and someone else will take the job at the rate you refused.

I'll agree that bills (rent, loans, etc...) are likely to go past due/ go unpaid. But that's not guaranteed. Rejecting one job doesn't guarantee you won't have an income at all, as there might be other opportunities, other offers, etc...

Family not eating? I have a harder time believing that. They probably won't be able to eat the food their used to, but there are options out there for people in situations like this to get food. Things will be tough and they might go hungry, but they won't starve.

Someone taking the job you refused is their choice, just as you refusing it was yours.

I am not disagreeing with you here, in principal. But the situation is much more complex than just "take the job or die" as some folks seem to be making it out to be. The only piece of this who discussion that we seem to be in disagreement on is whether there is actually a choice in the matter or not. We agree on practically everything else.

[Zan15]

Nepotism is the unsurprising explanation here.

its how my Ex got their dream job working for a school system with zero experience in that position otherwise my Ex would have been stuck in low wage jobs forever.

The only requirement was she had a rich friend growing up who got a crazy education and became a high level individual in the school system with the power to get people hired just by her recommendation.

Suck up to the decision maker and your school might get something funded that had no shot in hell.

[Endus]

its how my Ex got their dream job working for a school system with zero experience in that position otherwise my Ex would have been stuck in low wage jobs forever.

The only requirement was she had a rich friend growing up who got a crazy education and became a high level individual in the school system with the power to get people hired just by her recommendation.

Suck up to the decision maker and your school might get something funded that had no shot in hell.

Teaching is so glutted in Ontario that it's nearly impossible to break into, or at least was pre-COVID; it's why I describe myself as a "certified teacher" rather than just "teacher"; I don't have a placement with a school, though I maintain my license and membership. Like, when I graduated, the advice was to pick a school or two, volunteer with them for a year or three at least half-time if not full-time doing educational assistant type work, and then you MIGHT get a recommendation from the principal and your colleagues that could get you onto the substitute teaching list. Unless you knew someone who could pull strings for you, of course.

And frankly, I didn't have the option of spending that much time working for free on the chance at getting part-time work.

[Katchii]

This is because of a short set of possibilities, none of which are universal;
1> You've got savings and don't need the job right yet anyway. Could be savings from prior work, or inheritance, whatever.
2> You're being supported by someone and don't need the job, at least until their patience runs out. Kids obviously fit this.
3> You're being supported by the government. This is pretty much guaranteed to either be temporary or so little that, yes, hunger and homelessness and precariousness are what you experience.

In the subset of #3 where you're on long-term welfare, you very much are suffering hardship. That doesn't provide remotely enough support. In any other circumstance, you're enjoying some support benefits that won't last, and you'll eventually fall down to that level when this runs its course. That may be when your spouse divorces you, when you get kicked out of your parents' house, when your savings runs out, whatever. Sure; for some people, it never runs out, but that's not reliably true for all.

And that means, for everyone risking falling down onto welfare support, yes, your choices are often between "take this job" or "live in poverty, hunger, and destitution".

It doesn't really matter if that's true for everyone. Just that it's true for many.

I don't disagree with you about any of this. The only question I have is "how many?" But that doesn't matter, really. The only point of contention here seems to be on whether "choice" is involved. I say, yes. Because technically there is a choice being made. Others are arguing, no because the situations are so bad they have no choice but to take that job.

The end result for both sides of this particular discussion agree this needs to be fixed, to make it so that number is significantly reduced or eliminated by implementing programs like UBI, universal healthcare and increasing the minimum wage.

If I were to change my mind and acquiesce and say "fine OK, there is no choice" what does that actually change about what needs to be done to fix this?

[PC2]

They are not going to evaluate your project. They are just going to toss your application for being unqualified. They do not have time to evaluate your abilities. That's the entire point of accreditation programs; some other entity has taken on the responsibility for ensuring a standard level of skill requirements, so all employers need to do is verify that you have said accreditation.

Ironically, however, some people have created something to let students show they're skilled in a particular domain. That's all those accreditation programs you're dismissing out of hand.

If you're trying to "be creative", you're an artist, not someone seeking employment in a major industry.

Which I'm not crapping on, mind you.

But nobody's going to take the time to evaluate you for hours just to make sure you're as good as anyone with certification; they'll just take someone who's actually certified rather than wasting their time with you. You will not ever get hired pursuing education the way you're describing. Not ever. Even historically, guilds and such have existed for centuries to ensure people making claims to skills have proper credentials and training.

If a job seeker has more merit than anyone else there will always be a way for them to catch the eye of a relevant person and illustrate their merit. Figuring out how won't necessarily be easy but it can be done.

If employers currently make errors by discarding applicants with the most merit(but didn't get their education at the "correct place") then that means there is a flaw in their methodology, which means it can be identified and fixed. You're making it seem like employers are just too dumb and lazy to identify the best people, which is not the case.

[Egomaniac]

Family not eating? I have a harder time believing that. They probably won't be able to eat the food their used to, but there are options out there for people in situations like this to get food. Things will be tough and they might go hungry, but they won't starve.

Yeah, they can always just eat dog food if they are so hungry...

[Endus]

If a job seeker has more merit than anyone else there will always be a way for them to catch the eye of a relevant person and illustrate their merit. Figuring out how won't necessarily be easy but it can be done.

If you don't have the certifications and qualifications required, you do not have the merit needed for the job.

That's what you don't get.

You had the opportunity to demonstrate that, and chose not to.

If employers currently make errors by discarding applicants with the most merit(but didn't get their education at the "correct place") then that means there is a flaw in their methodology, which means it can be identified and fixed. You're making it seem like employers are just too dumb and lazy to identify the best people, which is not the case.

1> The "best people" have the licenses and certifications that protect the employers from liability.
2> The purpose of hiring is not to identify the "best people", it's to identify the best and easiest fit for the role. Being overqualified is grounds for a "no" from employers, just as much as being underqualified.
3> If you're making the employer's life more difficult by demanding individual assessment because you're too much of an individualist to pursue standard certification, you're already demonstrating exactly why you're a terrible candidate that no employer would want to hire.

[Gestopft]

I am not disagreeing with you here, in principal. But the situation is much more complex than just "take the job or die" as some folks seem to be making it out to be. The only piece of this who discussion that we seem to be in disagreement on is whether there is actually a choice in the matter or not. We agree on practically everything else.

Well, and I think this bit of semantics glosses over the main point. However much 'choice' you want to ascribe to the situation, the important point is that there is usually a large disparity in the consequences that a prospective employee could face if they don't take the job versus the consequences that a prospective employer could if the prospective employee refuses the job. This disparity which massively favors the employer is a factor which allows wages to be driven down to levels below where one can reasonably sustain themselves. But saying someone "agrees" to wages that low- that they made a "choice" to accept that job offer, I think, while technically true, ignores the pressures of poverty that an employee in that situation usually faces. My objection with that phraseology- saying someone "agreed" to that insufficient wage- is that it sort of implies that the worker believes their own labor to be worth less than the cost it takes to sustain them. Which, I think, is a ridiculous notion for rather obvious reasons.

[Captain N]

This reeks of somebody with virtually no life experience or at least a lack of any experiences outside of his/her own 'bubble'

Ironically its also someone who lives in Europe who has a bunch of social safety nets expecting Americans to work harder than he ever has to. @Machismo put up a hefty list of this poster bragging about all the social benefits he gets while chastising others for it.