Young and Educated in Europe, but Desperate for Jobs
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I'm not by any means an expert on labor in Europe, but it seems like the obvious way to increase the number of jobs, especially to those who need them most, is to allow employers more flexibility. Instead of artificially creating stratification (some people having no jobs or very temporary jobs, and some having incredibly cushy ones) we would have many more low paying jobs in the middle.
"it was a rare flicker of opportunity after a series of temporary positions, applications that went nowhere and employers who increasingly demanded that young people work long, unpaid stretches just to be considered for something permanent." ?
I am happy that in most European countries workers are entitled to a 40 or 48 hour work week, plenty of holidays, and paid overtime. Because life is not only work...
One area where more flexibility is required in Southern European, and even Western European, countries is making it easier to hire and fire an employee.
In short, in a buyers market (employers purchasing wage labour) -- without regulation, the buyers hold all the keys (starve or work - that's not a choice).
If you have any examples of de-regulation of a labour market benefiting the majority of the population over say a ten or twenty year period, I'd love to hear about it.
>If you have any examples of de-regulation of a labour market
Because that ever happens. C'mon.
> buyers market (employers purchasing wage labour)
That's not what 'buyer's market' means.
That parentheses explain what I mean by market (the labour market) -- was that unclear? The rest of that sentence tried to highlight what "A situation in which supply exceeds demand, giving purchasers an advantage over sellers in negotiations" generally means in the labour market.
If one side might loose a few days of productivity by holding out for a better deal, and the other side will loose their home and starve -- that's a pretty uneven balance of power.
Employers have stopped hiring excessive numbers of people to sit of their asses because companies can now get get more work for less pay from their young, bright employees, as well as outsource and automate other tasks with software.
Bottom line: today, there are simply too many educated potential laborers to expect jobs to keep up with demand.
Maybe. It would be interesting to think of the consequences of having a situation where there are systematically more laborers than work.
In theory, this means that everyone can work less, or perhaps not even work at all, while we are still able to produce enough food, etc. to give everybody a reasonable life. In practice we seem to end up in a completely different situation: those who have work are rich, those who don't become very poor.
Do we really need this? I downvoted you after reading this first sentence, although the rest of the comment is quite good.
Most of the times insulting doesn't help you in raising your point.
You could scrap the minimum wage, scrap labour laws basically (?), at least from the point of view that if someone was let go they'd still be looked after, so it's more about finding the right fit. If someone gets fired 6 times in a row until they find a job they really do well in then so be it.
Basic income sounds a bit socialist, but it actually lubricates the hell out of a capitalist economy.
Not sure about other countries but in my homeland sociology studies are piss easy and that's why they are so popular. People just want to have it all with zero effort. To the really small % of people who study it because they truly love it: 1) you either have to be the best at it in that case 2) if you're not, then get a different job. Not everyone can make a living doing what they love the most. I love gaming but I doubt I could ever get to the point where I'd be able to make a living from it.
No jobs for people with a nursing degree, what?? All over Europe there's a shortage of nurses! I'd love to read the whole story of that person. What she tried, what she did, where did she apply etc. It's a hard job, that's why there are shortages, but if you decided to go into a nursing school I'd guess you know that.
No one will hire you only because you have a degree, geez don't people know that? Nowadays everyone can get a degree! Btw. why didn't they mention in the article any university names? Anyway even if you, somehow, graduate from a distinguished uni but did nothing extra, or did not find what you really want to to then again you should only blame yourself.
As a European who did an exchange in France I met many Italians and Spanish during my life. They were usually quite hard working, focused and new what they want from life. And according to them they were the exceptions. Apparently the majority people from those countries recently prefer to party than work hard.
Young people seriously should stop acting like princesses and princes, taking things for granted just because they are special and instead try to do something by themselves.
Since these kids were literally wearing diapers, every single authority in their lives has told them: Go to college. Go to college and you will get a good job. Go to college and you will have made it. Go to college and you won't flip burgers. Go to college and you are a success.
"In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education." - Barack Obama, State of the Union 2010
"Does The College Major Matter? Not Really" - New York Times editorial (http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/does-the-colle...)
"Your College Major Is a Minor Issue, Employers Say" - Wall Street Journal Careers (http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2013/04/10/your-college-major-is...)
(etc, etc, etc, you can go on forever)
It is the height of audacity to lie to a child, literally every day, for literally twenty years, and then blame them for not being cynical enough to realize it.
If you believe everything you're being told without thinking about it and/or making some research of your own then it's, again, your own fault.
I mean, I agree that a Sociology degree isn't known for 6 figures, but before things went tits up, it would've likely gotten you a decent office job somewhere -- certainly you're capable of more than bagging groceries and stocking shelves. A Master's used to convey a certain amount of willingness to work, learn, and accomplish something. It was a certain amount of mold-able competency that transformed depending on what position you were given.
Now it suddenly isn't worth as much. It would've been another thing entirely if this was a slow shift, which would give society, businesses, and students time to adjust. Now that general usefulness is trash and you're better off partying to network.
The next generation will be able to research what happened, and they'll get more cautious advice, but that wisdom came at a pretty high price.
I'm 26 now, when I entered high school 10 years ago the whole sociology/political science/economy etc. boom started (at least in the part of Europe I was living in). Call me special but the fact that it was too popular made me think twice before entering a high school class profiled for that kind of studies (yes, we have profiles in HS in my country).
Also the fact that more and more people got accepted to universities made me realise that I either have to go to a lousy uni and work really hard on my own to be able to land a decent job or go to a top uni in the country (after entering one I realised that even with such a degree I need to find something I'm good at and do something in that direction, no one else will help me and only the degree won't mean that much).
Yes the system isn't without blame for talking crap, but let's be honest. The people in charge always were full of BS and that won't change.
Ah also, again, I didn't notice which unis those people graduated from. I'm pretty sure that a sociology degree from a top uni still holds some value.
This is what confuses me about the American system. Unlike say the system in India, you lot have an option to choose a different major. I can understand a high schooler who has no exposure to the world making a stupid mistake. I did, doing a degree in something I had no interest in. However, I pivoted fairly early doing enough projects and whatever to show that I had an avid interest/inclination in what I wanted to get into. As a person going to school in America, there is an incredibly rich set of options to you. Hell, you can, if you work hard enough, have your cake (take as many liberal arts courses as can satisfy your soul) and still eat too (take hard science courses).
> I mean, I agree that a Sociology degree isn't known for 6 figures, but before things went tits up, it would've likely gotten you a decent office job somewhere -- certainly you're capable of more than bagging groceries and stocking shelves. A Master's used to convey a certain amount of willingness to work, learn, and accomplish something. It was a certain amount of mold-able competency that transformed depending on what position you were given.
LOL. Seriously, this is a case of closing your eyes to how the world works. If you can't be arsed to do your research and figure out the dollar value of getting a degree, talk to people who have got the degree like a year before you (instead of some old people who think that being personable and having useless bullshit like "mold-able competency" actually means anything), you have proven yourself incompetent to get any sort of a job.
I find the comments here pretty amusing.
Also before it is implied that I am more sympathetic to stupid people in say India or China; I am not. I know enough people there who believe in the group think idea that you can magically turn off your brain, cram and get an education and then get a fucking good job. Those people are stupid. These people are stupid. Stupid people deserve what they get, mediocrity.
Don't get me wrong: I fit in the autodidact category and everything I've achieved has been through not brainlessly following the rules, being curious, eager to learn, and slightly subversive. And sometimes I find myself thinking in a way similar to you. Often, I get frustrated when I see people around my blindly doing what is 'normal', living by default, and missing out on the tons of opportunities that are out there. It's their own fault, right?
And yet, over time, I've come to understand that my lack of 'stupidity' and my lack of 'mediocrity' are, to a large degree, not a result of my own awesomeness and my own awesome choices. They're to a large degree a result of my personality, my intelligence, the unusual way that I've grown up and that I've been raised, a bit of luck, and good timing. These are things I didn't work for.
I'm not saying it all just happened and I did nothing for it; I'm proud of the work I did to get here. I'm just saying that it's too easy to call everyone else stupid because they haven't enjoyed the unique concoction of nature and nurture that contributed significantly to what i am.
Plus, if anything, these stupid, mediocre people need sympathy and help from those like us, rather than arrogance and high-horse bullshit, don't they?
Nope. I merely pointed out that thoughtlessness exists everywhere. Never said that means that the majority was thoughtless; I have no evidence to prove that one way or the other, do I?
As far as the rest of your post, unless you have well defined connections like a rich uncle who got you educated or that cool dad with a bunch of connections who got you your first big break, you are either underselling yourself or you are casting a lot to fate than really is true.
Oh, also to clarify a point on "stupidity" and "intelligence". I will be the first one to be clear that a load of the people who make these thoughtless mistakes are smarter than me by other metrics, either they are better educated or they are just faster at math/whatever you may have it. All I have done is work harder and kept a nose in the wind for change, that is not that hard to do. There are people out there who spend more time deciding what icecream they want for dessert than they do about where their life is going. And really, I am supposed to go around clutching their hand and telling them what they don't want to hear? Who is on their high horse now?
My last degree I decided to err on the side of "practical" and got a degree in higher ed counseling - a broad and growing field with tons of opportunity. It was the closest thing to my interests that had practical application. I had some misgivings, but didn't see any other "practical" alternative. So instead of going the sociology-type princess route, I went where the jobs were.
During my internship I hated the job so much I began getting insomnia and a variety of other persistent ailments. After graduating I was so burned out I could barely do anything for 3 months. Now I work as a barista making the same exact money I made prior to starting college 7 years ago.
Sometimes the choice is between something that makes you sick and something that has no "practical" application. Sometimes what you are most passionate about is not what is valued by your culture.
I'd think about that next time I judged someone who decided not to follow the crowd towards a lucrative or middle-class values type of job.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to live in a world where everyone could do what they truly love but taking into account human nature I highly doubt such an utopia is possible.
Kind of ironical that you are inherently judging those who hold lucrative jobs as crowd followers or inherently having "middle-class values". One could argue that following the crowd can also be defined as being a poorly paid barista who is doing "art" on the side. There is nothing inherently different from say programming as a day job or working as a barista as a day job and spending your nights doing something creative. Not all who go into this shit are following the crowd or have "middle class" values.
Besides housing and stuff like restaurants in that small area, cost of living in Amsterdam is about the same as anywhere else in NL. Plus lots of students == lots of cheap options.
Amsterdam is not London.
2. Lack of liquidity: what bank, already in perilous condition, is going to lend to these young people?
3. Lack of savings to compensate for ( 2 )
Spanish financial indicators: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/consumer-spending
I don't remember learning how to run a simple little business for myself in school and I studied International Business.
Institutional, because there are endless bureaucracy and taxes you have to fight until the company if finally up and running.
Social, because in many European countries you are only allowed to fail once. Where in US, failure is seen as a mean to learn from the mistakes for the next company, here it is seen as a failure to be an Entrepreneur at all.
The right wing media likes to paint a picture of how bad the "socialist" state an Europe is functioning. The left wing media likes to paint a picture of unemployment and the failure of capitalism.
There's plenty of other things happening. Yes, it's harder in Southern Europe because of both cultural and regulatory issues. But that doesn't mean everyone is just sitting on their asses waiting to get hired.
At that point, what will they have to lose?
And university is espansive, so people that doesn't expect to gain enough by graduating don't go there. In manu EU countries university education is free.
From another perspective, the title says you should care about these folks because they are educated, middle-class kids, just like you or your kids. The idea here is that your average upper-middle class person probably doesn't have as much sympathy for the unemployed people in the lower classes. But if you frame the situation as general downward social mobility for the middle classes, it looks a lot more alarming (I mean, to other middle-class people)
I thought the journalist was directly pointing out that this assumption was not as true as it once was. They were pointing that out in a very "this is shocking" kind of way... but it /is/ shocking. The vast majority of students go to college thinking that they will be able to get a white-collar job upon graduation. The only way that thinking will change is with more articles like this.
The other thing to consider is that there is still an extremely strong correlation between having a degree and having a white-collar job. We can argue on what direction causation runs, but the correlation is inarguable.
Her example is one of them. In most European countries, nursing is a degree that shares part of the education with medicine.
A degree would also help me move into management in another person's company, the traditional upwards path for aging computer operators.
A degree would also come in handy if I want to emigrate to a first-world country before I become rich. Again, it's not required, but the process is rather longer and more nasty without a degree.
I'm not saying a degree has zero value. It doesn't have infinite value, though, and the cost of a degree is not zero.
To bring the conversation back to me, I got out of high school in '97. I immediately got a really good programming/sysadmin job because, well, it was 1997. They were hiring any idiot with a pulse. I was able to turn that opportunity into a solid reputation with solid experience that I was able to use to remain employed through the crash. If I had gone to college, and got out in 2001? I bet I would have been unemployed for another five years after graduating. The job market for people with my skillset was brutal.
I think that if you have a good chance to start your career? you should take it, even if that means delaying school. Of course, if you have a chance to go to school for free, and that chance will go away if you don't take it right away? you should take that, too... but I think the former is more common than the latter. Usually, if you can go to school now, you can go to school four years from now, but it's dramatically easier to start your career when there is a lot of demand in your field.
Now, I'm mostly speaking of finances. there is a psychological aspect to school, too. There is value to learning how to fit in, but again, that value is not infinite, and the cost is not zero.
In my opinion, not everyone is able to code. Not because it's some sort of exclusive club but because being a programmer involves thinking differently in order to find some sort of solution.
Generally, I agree (having seen people who really can't do it continuously struggle through coding exercises). That being said, I'd be interested in hearing if people even try. Surely some could manage it.
I mean, I get that you're just coming from a place of decency and trying to help, but suppose tomorrow every unemployed person decides to become a programmer - does that really help? Or does it just make the market for programmers worse?
I get that you're trying to help, but there are systemic problems to be resolved here.
Yes, I do. Obviously (and, from a selfish perspective, thankfully) not everyone is inclined or able to learn programming.
I'm more interested in how counter-cyclical programming is. Does it allow you to weather a tough labor market, or are young developers seeing similar difficulties in Europe?
Speaking of which, these characters kinda deserve their fates by choosing such pointless career paths. Hopefully others will learn from their mistakes.
also, hope you're doing well Morgante :) - fellow '13
There's such a shortage here in Amsterdam that companies are hiring non-EU citizens (with all the visa crap that comes with it). There's lots of Southern European engineers here, but a lot more sitting back home whining about how bad things are.
This is why I don't feel awfully sorry for our young Southern friends. There's well-paid work a cheap two and a half hour flight away. No visas, no work permits and getting paid in familiar currency. Hell, the IRS will even throw in a 30% tax rebate for your troubles.
On the other hand you can earn 4 times more in other EU countries for the same job. In my city Java/C# developer with a few years experience earns around 1000 Euro after taxes.