Saturday 16 March 2013

Generation Jobless?

   We're living in interesting times, and I have garnished several titles, Gen Y and Gen jobless being the most used. With the 18-26 age group suffering from double unemployment rates compared to other demographics at times it appears joblessness has become a generational issue. Chronic unemployment is a problem found for many skilled workers here in Canada, and for those unwilling to travel across the country for potential work the prospect of unemployment is even wider. Some of my colleagues (and those who are no longer my colleagues) have shown some degree or other of worry for finding employment, which brings up some important questions: is unemployment presumed before research? How hard are today's youth searching, and how many jobs are slipping through their fingers because of the wrong jobs being given to under/over qualified professionals?
     
    There are expert opinions on why this generation is faced with difficulty on the job market, baby boomers not retiring, jobs being created in BRIC nations and leaving Canada, aging government systems and policies that are too inflexible to make relevant enough policy adaptions. But I think there are more micro-solutions available to solve the issue of youth unemployment. The first is a recommendation made by Kevin O'Leary (@kevinolearytv) on CBC television. Mr. O'Leary suggested that government subsidization of post-secondary education should be limited to those programs that have the ability to contribute back into the economy. It is not a bash against the arts, but those classes that have a low employment turn around rate: psychology, history, philosophy, literature...If those students had to pay full, unsubsidized tuition fees I am safe to assume they would take a more practical career path...electrical engineering anyone?

    There, of course is another more worrisome trend that I've found since I've been here at school, and anyone reading this studying in post-secondary is most likely one of those I'm talking about: those of you who have chosen a program, are either beginning or ending it, and have never even bothered to think about what you will do for work. This is by far the largest percentage of people I have met, and there is no excuse for it. Just like parents don't exist to be safety nets, jobs don't exist to be handed out without any resistance. It takes time to build a professional network, see where you need specialize, and see who is hiring not today, but in 1,2,10 years when you're going to be on the market. To all those students in development who haven't researched their field I have some good links for potential work, and if you can't be bothered to check job sites, you can't be bothered to work. So lets try to end this jobless curse, work hard like our parents have, get jobs, and continue to make Canada and the world better places.



Source:
Bartlett, S. (Director), & LeRose, M. (Director) (2012). Generation Jobless. Available from http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/generation-jobless.html Follow on Bloglovin

16 comments:

  1. Interesting information. I like Kevin O'Leary's suggestion; it makes complete sense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know, who would think some InDev students would agree with him

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just find it interesting that Kevin O'Leary is a graduate of ERS here at Waterloo (which btw. the B.ES is considered more of an equivalent to a B.A. than it is a B.Sc) yet he is suggesting this... Seems a little hypocritical to me. It really depends where you choose to take your degree after you graduate. Just because a person pursues history, psychology, english, etc. doesn't mean they intend to limit themselves to that field. He himself is far from an environmentalist by any means and proves this fact.

      Delete
  3. I mean, O'Leary's approach is certainly rational...but what about people who are passionate about literature, philosophy, etc. and are actually taking their time to look for jobs and ARE finding employment? I think while it might be rational to go with O'Leary's proposal, it might not necessarily be fair...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who are these people? I think the only ones who find employment in those fields are teaching in k-12 school (no jobs), or as TA's in universities. Maybe few would suffer, but more would gain. Why not use that tuition subsidy money to fund more sustainability projects like whats going on at ecoopportunity.net? Better than increasing the unemployment line, or the burden on overworked parents.

      Delete
    2. There are jobs, but usually people have to acquire connections and look beyond the internet, possibly get a job on the side to fund graduate studies. Oh... and get above average grades

      Delete
  4. I think it really depends on the particular individual, Corey. Sure, a lot of people might not have the desire to look for jobs...etc... I understand this, and I'm not saying that I think Arts majors are the most "practical" choices when looking at it strictly from the angle of the employability of graduates..

    I just think that the financial incentive that comes with an Engineering degree is enough of an incentive for students to pick that area of study. I read an article recently that discussed this issue, and I actually bookmarked it. Who would have thought it's gonna come in handy...

    "As we grow wealthier as a society, we also devote ever more money and time listening to music, attending performances, reading books, watching film and TV. Somebody has to make this stuff, and I'm certain its full value is not captured in the economists' growth stats. I spent last evening reading a fine Pulitzer prize-winning novel by a graduate of a state-university creative-writing program. I appreciate everything math majors do for us. I really do. But, as far as I know, a math major has never made me cry."

    I think that says it all...with tuition rates already skyrocketing, if we take out even more support for our Arts programs, we might be going down a dangerous road. And I can see why someone like O'Leary would say such a thing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There are plenty of other perverse subsidies that could be used for sustainability projects, but obviously O'Leary would never points some of these out. I say protect the subsidies for Arts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I’ll comment first on Mr. O’Leary’s suggestion of cutting funding to the arts. I’m not a huge fan of the arts to begin with, mainly because I’m not artistic; but that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the arts. I question the merits of attempting to regulate the cultural output of Universities. Mr. O’Leary argues that funding should only go to programs that contribute to the economy (GDP). But what do the arts contribute? I’d argue that they contribute to a hidden cultural economy, something you could call Gross Domestic Culture (GDC). In example, Waterloo is a town full of many large companies, Blackberry and Manulife Financial, as well as the many think tanks and Universities all who contribute to the economy in large ways. Why are these companies based in Waterloo, and not attracted to other cities? I’d argue that Waterloo and its newly revitalized and artistic Downtown has a lot to offer large companies and their employees. I have seen the same revitalization of my hometown Chilliwack, which is in many ways a minor Waterloo. The infrastructure and business are owed to the “practical studies”, but the vibrant and upbeat flow, the true heart is owed to the “artists”.
    But you bring up an interesting point on whether studies that directly contribute to the economy should be subsidized, and that those with lower employability shouldn’t be subsidized. I’d argue that they both should be subsidized, or not at all.
    If practical studies are to be subsidized, the arts should be subsidized if only to be an equal playing field. Letting the government pick favourites, would be the equivalent to having the state regulate the economy, and giving favor to one sector over another. This is not true free market capitalism; education is a commodity, and the market will level off were its needed. But why should there be subsidies anyways?
    I think the better solution is to not have subsidies for any post-secondary education. If people were forced to work and get life experience, they wouldn’t waste so much time, effort and money getting an education in a field where there are no jobs, where they have no interest, and where the market does not need them. Many good jobs require employees to have an education, but often no prior experience. Maybe we have it backwards. One solution to this might be having companies pay for their own employee’s education. This would allow a company to find the best and brightest, and let the economy invest in education.
    Many of your peers confess to not knowing if they will have a job, or what they want to do. Is the cart going before the horse for Indev? It must take a lot of fortitude to go to another country and explain how you’re going to change the world, if you’ve never had to build something with your own hands, plow a field, work a farm, fill a sandbag. Having a degree in Life Experience is going to mean a lot more to a citizen of the Third World that having a degree in Indev. And having both is the golden ticket. For obvious financial reasons, schools will disagree with my prerequisites, but those who are serious about Indev should really reconsider if they are ready for such an undertaking. And I don’t feel that the 4th year placement is the place to garner such experience. Seems like a waste of time using the placement to learn about life, when you should be using that time to refine your skills and make a difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would suggest that having no subsidies for post-secondary education is not the right approach for a number of reasons. First of all, it would prevent many bright young minds from getting an education, regardless of what they might want to study. A second, and related point, is that universities and colleges would be filled with upper-middle class or upper class students; in other words, students whose education has been paid for them by their parents. The rich get richer...I think you ignore the fact that the removal of subsidies would have a disproportionately bigger impact on young people who come from less privileged backgrounds. While this might "force these people to work" (not sure where, but let's go with it), it would fail to present the wealthy with the same incentives because their education is already paid for. Essentially, these people would REMAIN in a more advantageous position without gaining life experience.
      Just one final point to end this off: you mention that companies could pay for their own employees' education...but how would they select the employees to hire? based on what merit? Let's say I work in a factory for 5 years (this is the only type of work that I could find unfortunately) but my goal is to work for a development agency...how would my employee determine if I am a bright? I haven't attended university!

      Perhaps I misunderstood some of your points, and maybe if we get a dialogue going we can start moving towards the same page...

      Delete
    2. I agree on the need for bias-free education subsidies is necessary from the state. As well, there are firms that do cover graduate school. One of the difficulties I'll face upon graduation is my lack of experience , most professional jobs require 3-10 years specific experience on top of post secondary- this is where networking comes into play. The fourth year placement Nathan, will give me time to work with a development agency specifically, to gain that relevant experience that I really don't have.

      Delete
  7. I find that I often wonder the same about people I meet who tell me that they cannot find a job. Sometimes you may have to reduce your expectations and be willing to work in an entry-level job or as a contract worker before you get the full-time, well-paid job that many of my generation take for granted. Good exhortation!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think Mr. O'Leary suggestion of limiting government subsidization to programs that have the "ability to contribute back into the economy" is completely ignorant. Without visual arts, music, literature, etc. there's really no point living. I don't know about you but electrical engineers don't do much for my mental health, despite their undeniable importance in our communities. In my opinion, the key to a successful economy is to sustain a society that's fundamentally built up by the classes you mention having low employment turn around rate. Contributing to society is more important than to contribute to the economy in the long run. Engineering firms come and go but good literature lasts forever.

    Enforcing students to choose a practical career based on potential economic return would be the end of civilization.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'd have to agree with Gudmundur, the arts contribute to society. Could you imagine what life would be like without all the escapes the arts give us? Music, paintings, live plays! Some of my favourite pass times, things I find most relaxing, are to go to a museum, see a play, read a book. I can escape into the world of art and take a break from my busy life.

    I wouldn't want to live in a country where the government chooses which jobs are best and therefore subsidizes them. Why should my government be able to tell me which jobs are most relevant? Why should they be the ones to place value on jobs or fields?

    I like to think we live in a society built off of equal opportunities and free will. If I want to go to school because I am passionate about art, why should I be subjected to bias when it comes to funding my education?

    Affordable education is what helps boost an economy. People of all backgrounds have that opportunity to get an education and shine through. Maybe the issue is not that students are picking the wrong field, but that society doesn't recognize the true benefits these other fields can give us. Let's be honest, not many people really want to spend the rest of their life doing something dull like being an accountant. We want to be athletes, rock stars, writers! Don't create a bias that will stop people from following their dreams.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think Gudmundur put it well. Why is it that a career that may not directly go back into the economy is worse? There are many different ways to contribute to society that don't all have to be economical. Is being a stay-at-home mother less beneficial for Canada than working as an engineer at a Canadian company? I don't think so.
    I find there's too much of a focus on the direct impacts on an economy. For example, I participated in Katimavik (a youth volunteer program), that the government cancelled last year. Participating in that, I gained so many valuable life skills and feel that these are skills that you can't put a price on, yet they probably indirectly affect the economy.

    ReplyDelete