/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>13765706
>Will this country eventually implode due to greed?
Yes. A war with Iran or the dollar losing its value as the world's reserve currency would be two situations in which the entire economic system would collapse as we know it. Wall Street is currently making hay, knowing full well that we cant keep this imaginary system running forever. Probably not much time left.

>>13765706
I have never applied for a job. Always wind up with one in whatever industry I want. This is preferable to NEETdom. No clue how I do it

Hmm well this makes me not want to even try

>>13765706
I have done this at three trades places and one wagecuck phone repair shop and it has not worked yet. God I wish I was a boomer.

>>13765706
The job market is based entirely on the industry. With the decline of manufacturing and mining (First tier employment and second tier employment) service and support exploded. As with all things, the gap between the decline in one and the rise of another created a period of underskilled and undervalued workforce. With that came the rise of underskilled and overpriced degrees and service outlooks that never came true.

The trick is identifying these changes, leveraging skills and services to capitalize on the opportunities, and understanding that the timelines proposed by many are too optimistic.
Truck driving, for instance, is chronically understaffed and thus any resources that get put into them wind up being more valuable on average. Be it drivers or rigs for transportation.

Don't be too enthusiastic with your timelines. And don't assume that the decline of one sector won't correlate with the rise of another one. As history shows us, the decline of the pony express didn't put postmen out of work. It simply shifted the industry and the workforce adapted to suit.

>>13766263
college is the biggest meme of this generation

truck drivers make more than most degree required jobs

>>13765777
>A war with Iran
why would this collapse the economic system?

>>13765706
it took hundreds of applications and tons of interviews to finally land a nice paying job

and all my coworkers are retarded. makes me mad knowing how much strife i went through only to sit next to incompetent mouth breathers who say big words to management while never doing any actual work

>>13766346
welcome to the world of bullshit jobs

it's all humble bragging with linkedin accounts while providing literally zero value to society

>>13765706
I literally landed my current job by basically just shaking the hiring manager's hand.

The problem is, jobs that hire that quickly usually aren't the kind of jobs you want. But a job's a job I guess

>>13765777
checked

>>13766309
I generally agree if the skill they go to college for resides outside of what can be leveraged for decent employment. For example, I would assert that an electrical or mechanical engineer has a higher degree of leverage and thus a higher earning potential than a truck driver. But I wouldn't say one is better than the other. Rather, the decisions of the individual should best reflect their capabilities and the job market rather than going off assertions of the future need for service employment. We like to think we can beat the job market by predicting what it will do 10 years in the future and thus guide our children into what we think it will do. But we can barely even see a quarter into the future employment wise, let alone 10 years.

That's not to say that we cannot estimate the trend as a whole. But that we cannot reasonably expect one trade or job market to open up. Instead, we can only look at what is needed and go from there. We need people who can maintain computer networks. We need people who can design good circuit boards and such. We need people who can build things. We need people who can drive trucks.

It's far better than "We will need feminist dance therapists for our social justice seminars and co-op commune activity centers".
Because those are a thing....

got a call center job interview on Thursday. seems like a trash job. I’ll take it if I get it though. this is what a STEM degree, 3 years of professional experience and a 6 month internship might get me after months of looking.

lots of tall buildings around tho I’m thinking ahead of the curve

>>13766309
It's not always about the money. Truck driving is a shit job with no work-life balance.

>>13766377
I hate linkedin so fucking much

Everyone's schizo as fuck

Ngl my handshake be on fleek and I nail every human encounter with it alone

>>13766731
not necessarily. I know several guys who are home before rush hour and make six figures with a modest pension.

>>13765777

Nice try hellballass Iran will get btfo

>>13766263
>didn't put postmen out of work
>and the workforce adapted to suit.
You honestly think you can retrain a displaced worker to do a job that happens to be in demand (say cs?).

Displaced workers won't just be retrained and "adapt".

>>13766801
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkNaHI603zI

>>13766848
Even your example of cs does, in fact, have examples of workers adapting to the changing job market.
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/05/06/477033781/from-coal-to-code-a-new-path-for-laid-off-miners-in-kentucky

>>13766650
>>13765706
thanks to automation there is only going to be to types of jobs going forward, absolute trash i want to kill my self everytime i wake up jobs or high iq well conected jobs.
not sarcasticallly the the only middle ground would be content creation on streaming platforms. expect alot of chicks who would have been working as secretaries or other admin related jobs to be doing camwhoring or straight up whoring

>>13766808
yeah likely cuz they wake up at 3 am

>>13766881
Not a good source. That was anecdotes and not statistics.

What percent of displaced workers actually successfully become retrained?

This is why I need crypto to succeed

>>13766731
Agree.

I work for the gubbment.

Make 6 figures, work life balance is shit. Work 24 hours minimum, maximum 32 days straight on assignment/deployment.

It's nice to take 2 months off a year in one shot, but it's about balance.

Lots of technical specialized jobs pay well. Hell I could to to the middle east and make half a million with my quals, but that would be 365 days of work on assignment without a day off.

>>13767007
Depends on the displaced workers career fields and the entry point. According to BLS between 12 and 25% of the unemployed workforce completed a successful retraining program. The BLS notes, however, that worker decisions affect these scores. Especially since the drop out or failure of matriculation remained inconclusive due to lack of data about that.
A number of federal retraining program analysts are pessimistic, and rightly so. The failures of funding for these indicate that federal programs do not work on the optimistic scale congress wanted to see. However, the very same studies note an average of 500 dollar wage increase for those who completed the program. But no data exists on private retraining programs at this time.

That being said, that broad dismissal does not address the problems with your rebuttal. That is, I did not say that retraining was completed carte blanche. Nor did I suggest that there was a majority retrain rate. Rather, I pointed out that even though an opportunity is gone, another exists. Further, the manufacturing boom in the U.S. shows that the level of automation does not erase workers from the equation. Even at fast food chains.

>>13767414
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/11/29/one-third-of-us-workers-could-be-jobless-by-2030-due-to-automation.html

You assume more jobs will be created to offset the jobs lost, but estimates say otherwise.

I've gotten interviews before, but always seem to bomb those. I hate HR and the stupid questions they ask.
"tell us about a time you encountered a challenge, and how you overcame it"
"tell us about a problem that arose and how you fixed it"

Literally got both those questions once, like isn't that the exact same thing? I should probably just prepare something ahead, so bad at thinking on the spot.

>>13765706
>Just give a firm handshake!

My father had this mentality a few years ago when I was looking for a job. He literally tried to give me a book from the early 1990's he had received from his company HR about finding a job. It's number one advice was go knocking on corporate doors wearing a suit. It was only after a couple months of looking that he finally realized his view point was completely wrong.

>What do you think will happen? Will this country eventually implode due to greed?

The next step is process and competency based hiring. People are hired on a contract basis on competency evaluations against specific sets of processes. Eventually "jobs" will revolve around singular sets of predefined processes. It's still cheaper and easier for the next few decades to just hire a human being to do inter-automation tasks. Tasks that occur between automated process or in support of the automated processes.

>>13767469
I never said that. Nor was that an assumption.
It is worth noting that the same claims have been bandied about since the 1930s. Hell even the turgid old fool Marx made that same claim in his book. But for all the doomsayers we've seen that the opposite winds up being true.
http://theconversation.com/automation-robots-and-the-end-of-work-myth-89619
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/10/the-true-complexity-of-automation/
https://www.roboticstomorrow.com/article/2018/03/5-myths-about-robots-stealing-jobs/11593
https://www.barrons.com/articles/two-myths-about-automation-and-jobs-1513384286

Your argument tends to be stronger when you at least know what you're talking about.
One of the central misconceptions underpinning the myth of robots taking jobs is that job displacement is permanent, or that it will cause a net job loss.

Four out of every five Americans worked on farms in 1800. Today, just one in 50 do. If job loss were permanent, unemployment would be astronomically high. We'd also see cashiers from video rental stores out on the streets. Instead, these workers found new jobs, possibly in new sectors.

It’s a generally accepted economic theory that when technology eliminates jobs, it creates gains in efficiency, which ultimately leads to the creation of more jobs than were lost. The money that the tech saves companies goes back into the hands of consumers, workers and shareholders, stimulating economic growth.

Economics researchers recently tested this idea. They looked at 19 advanced economies from 1970 and 2007 and found that the theory held true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-robots-wont-steal-all-our-jobs/2017/07/12/cab18c92-6723-11e7-9928-22d00a47778f_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f2dcaafc2f03
https://reason.com/2017/07/11/the-myth-of-technological-unem

When you bandy the same talking points that rarely if ever stand up to scrutiny, one is less inclined to take you seriously.

Word of advice.