@@TheChillishamrockBecause they do nothing but act as a pointless middleman. Legal departments should cover legal issues at work. Finance and payroll departments cover the payroll and money. Managers should be doing the hiring of their subordinates. HR is nothing but a massive drain on company resources and budgets, all while injecting a lot of nonsense.
Education system capitalism is and still the problem here. Talents is vast but most of the highest paid salary jobs with stupid requirements need qualification that have very expensive college/universities fees. So that alone have eliminated many talented future exectives because they dont have the fund to futher their talents.
Unemployment is an odd concept in an economy where for so many folks it’s necessary to work multiple jobs just to get by. Loose one and you’re counted as employed but suddenly don’t have enough money to live.
The economy is grappling with uncertainties, global fluctuations, and pandemic aftermath, causing instability. Rising inflation, sluggish growth, and trade disruptions need urgent attention from all sectors to restore stability and stimulate growth.
Things are strange right now. The US dollar is becoming less valuable because of inflation, but it's getting stronger compared to other currencies and things like gold and property. People are turning to the dollar because they think it's safer. I'm worried about my retirement savings of about $420,000 losing value because of high inflation. Where else can we keep our money?
Due to my demanding job, I lack the time to thoroughly assess my investments and analyze individual stocks. Consequently, for the past seven years, I have enlisted the services of a fiduciary who actively manages my portfolio to adapt to the current market conditions. This strategy has allowed me to navigate the financial landscape successfully, making informed decisions on when to buy and sell. Perhaps you should consider a similar approach.
I'm intrigued by this. I've searched for financial advisors online but it's kind of hard to get in touch with one. Okay if I ask you for a recommendation?
Finding financial advisors like Sophia Maurine Lanting who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them.
More skilled than I’ve ever been in my life. My education and work experience put me in the top 5% of all employers in education/education administration/education policy. Not qualified for anything except teaching apparently 🤷♂️
But never talking about the "pay shortage" when a skilled individual arrives. They expect someone that spent half a decade on practicing and honing his skills to work on the same wage as fast food employee. there's a huge iq shortage in the Hiring department
The "AI can find them" is one of the stupidest ideas I have heard of AI is biased because it relies on info provided by people we over 5 years if research showing AI hiring systems are biased and repeat the same biased mistakes because they are trained on past hiring practices and measurements people determine about what is needed in a job and what likely shows that.😂
in some cases as well sometimes i think there is a disconnect between what the Hiring Manager wants versus what actually is available in the job market and it's HR's responsibility to bridge that gap.. as oppose to just saying to the Hiring Manager... "tell me what you want, give me the major job description.." then bam they just post and facilitate it... ... just like what you said... sometimes it can the HR itself that is the issue lol.
I remember about 8 years ago when I saw a data science role that wanted Hadoop experience in excess of the years that Hadoop existed. The problem is HR existing as an organization within any business. Fire all of HR, and require managers to do the hiring. That's part of their job (and I say this as a manager who spends a LOT of time hiring).
And they expect you to still know mainframes and Fortran whilst demanding your degree program or Masters is up to date with all the new technologies they pile on every year.
Most companies expect you to know everything yesterday. There's no on the job training. I'm not going to bust my hump hyper-focused on learning one particular role when it could be gone tomorrow and there's only a 5% chance of actually getting hired.
theres a little bit of bull crap game theory that makes businesses not want to "waste" money training someone for them to goto a different job somewhere else
@@ericcartmann then they should make the attractive enough to keep people at it... Most people aren't eager to pack up and leave steady work at a moments notice... If the job works for them... They'll work for it... Companies could even consider making a certain period of work contractual... To ensure they get some service out of your training...
Most places that do training contracts have a clause where you have to stay for at least a year or you will pay for your training, so it can be done easily, it's just directors and HR departments haven't a clue and think anyone applying for a job has got it easy
@@dekev7503all they have to do is raise wages once training is completed to have their wages competitive with the other guys, but they dont and act like you owe them something.
Recruitment crisis??? What about the fully qualified and talented folks who've been out of work for months and years?? Companies need to be bold, bite the bullet, and hire candidates that could potentially do the job instead of waiting for their perfect unicorns.. Newsflash, your unicorn does not exist!
Yeah, if someone's smart, works hard and is a quick leaner, which if they have a good degree they probably are, then why not hire them? How long could it really take to get them up to scratch with whatever tech and software you use?
1. Disclose how much you’re going to pay, 2. Offer salaries that actually pay what is due, 3. Look for growth and not just a damn checklist, 4. Stop requesting people to subscribe to your site to apply, 5. Stop using AI to filter candidates.
Ok, 100 people apply not even knowing the salary range. How many people you think would apply if they announced they have an actually competitive salary?? HR is evil, but their problem is real, it is yet unclear how to churn through fake applications at reasonable speed
@@samjones9600ok, let's say you are a company and you fire your hr. You post a position on a careers website and get 1000 applications in the first week. What do you do?
@@ArgumentumAdHominemi disagree. If you let people know what the salary is, you’ll lose less people along the way and there will be plenty of people who just won’t apply because the salary is not within their desired range. It also keeps employers from underpaying people within their own workplace.
My mother got her first job in finance with no degree. Someone believed in her determination, took a chance on her and trained her with little education and 0 work experience. She rose up to senior management and only got a degree 14 years later. Today, the same company recruits' masters' graduates from target schools with prestigious internships. There is no skills shortage. Talent is there. No one is training or taking a chance on young people. Recruiters are looking for perfect Unicorns and using AI to lift the bar
It's funny how firms are complaining about not being able to hire whilst they have huge pools of talent to pick from and also don't pay good wages given the current inflationary environment we're in lol. Someone working in accountancy in a top London firm only gets paid 27-30k what a sham for working 10 hour plus days. Yet they still expect 'top talent'.
Completely agree. I work for one of the biggest wealth advice and management firms in my country and the disconnect between their expectations of employees/demands of job vs pay and training is just mind bending. Everyone ends up unhappy because the employees are completely overworked and underpaid whilst simultaneously never meeting the expectations of the employer because their expectations are so ridiculous. These firms want everyone to be a high level professional, with professional qualifications, tonnes of experience and preexisting in-house training before they even set foot in the firm for their first day.
I used to fix copiers for Lexmark working as a contractor. I was trained by Lexmark. I moved to a new state. I applied for a job with Lexmark. I wasn't qualified.
"We'd like to pay you minimum wage, whilest simultaneously intensifying the societal hypercompetition and demanding skills and experience vastly in excess of what is reasonable, and then refuse to even suggest job security, in a market where even affording basic accomodation is becoming unattainable." YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW.
The "aptitude tests" most these companies uses are tedious at best and insulting at worst. Ive applied for engineering jobs before that essentially have you playing minigames, like the ones in this video, they're a joke. Its insulting to a candidates skills and experience, you think people applying for a serious job are going jump through flash games to get it? These games are designed to find well behaved drones, not skilled workers. If you've got 1000 applications pick out 30 at random and assess them and hire theres talent there, you're to lazy to look for it, or invest in training of your staff!
I tried one of those spinning lock puzzles, and they progressively get more and more difficult to the point where it becomes impossible to solve. I think I maxed out at level 3 and spent about 30 minutes playing. Another game involved clicking left or right when a certain sign appeared. They’re trying to simplify things and fit everyone into one box, but experience, skills, and behaviours are much more nuanced than that.
That test just treats people like monkey. The sad part is that after the test, moneys will get bananas, and people will just get a AI-generated thank-you letter.
When I did the test first I was confused and upset but I completed it successfully for another role. In all honesty its quite smart and the report it provides at the end is actually quite spot on which is why I like it.
@@cammie83 it's nice to hear it worked out for yourself in the end. It always makes me laugh though if you were told "don't worry the engineers who built this bridge popped the most balloons before the timer ran out, youre in safe hands" before crossing you might have second thoughts!
In the 50's my Dad worked a modest job, Mom stayed at home and raised the kids, and they lived a nice middle class lifestyle including owning a home. Nowadays both I and my partner works and can barely afford to make ends meet. Soon the kids and family dog will need to work to keep this household going. It's the destruction of the American dream right before our eyes.
I was a stay at Home disabled dad with no money in my IRA or any savings of my own, which was scary at 53 years of age. Three years ago I got a part time job and save everything I make. After 3 years, I am 56 yo and have put $9,000 in an IRA and $40,000 in my portfolio with CFA, Abby Joseph Cohen. Since the goal of getting a job was to invest for retirement and NOT up my lifestyle, I was able to scale this quickly to $150,000. If I can do this in a year, anyone can.
@VonNothias I know this FA, Abby Joseph Cohen Services but only by her reputation at Goldman Sachs; even though she's now involved in managing portfolios and providing investmnt guidance to clients. I have been trying to get in contact since I watched her interview on WSJ last month
I went from no money to lnvest with to busting my A** off on Uber eats for four months to raise about $20k to start trading with Abby Joseph Cohen. I am at $128k right now and LOVING that you have to bring this up here
you are completely clueless as to what the American Dream actually is. Its not a promise of material things if you work a 9 to 5. Nosir... its the promise of opportunity for hard working and innovative folks, regardless of who they are, where they come from and what class they were born in to. THAT is the American Dream. Opportunity for all... and its still available today.
as someone who is looking for a job for months I find this recruitment with AI stupid. I applied for the same job with almost the same criteria as my last job and I didn't even get a phone call, so of course you have a shortage of people. Humans can't be replaced!!
About 18 months ago I applied for a job where the hiring manager knew me and knew that I was absolutely the best candidate that could be hired. The stupid AI filter used by HR filtered me out, so he had to cancel the entire recruitment process and go to a senior director to override HR.
For real. I don't believe there's a shortage of people. I think it's quite the opposite. That's why most hiring today is done through connections, because it speeds up the process of filtering through thousands of applicants.
So people aren't having enough kids... So we need to get all the people over 50 to go back to work, earn more money, buy more rental properties to let out to 4 to 5 people in their 20's and 30's... 20 years later: "We have a serious shortage of young workers and the ones that we have are all depressed, what's going on?"
Exactly, right now, we have a very high youth population, people in their 20-35s and we are having a shortage of workers, because we are unemployed. By employing 50 year old they are only going to make the situation worse. Because they can be of help for the next 10 years. But what happens after 10 years? there next generation of seniors will not be prepared to lead. Instead of employing youth, so that they can improve in skill and wages so that they would have children and also the expertise to lead the future, but by employing the same pool of old people ad not giving a chance to the current youth, the are wasting raw talent and making it more difficult for them to afford to have kids.
What a load of codswollap. 10 years ago, businesses would give you a chance based on showing good behaviour skills and teach you on the job. Now firms are expecting you to have 3-5 years hard experience for a junior position, on the same pay they were offering those 10 years prior. It’s not applicants that have changed, it’s unrealistic expectations and unfair wages.
Thank you! Exactly what I was thinking. No one wants to give a chance to recent graduates who’d be grateful for the opportunity to learn and in perspective bring value to the company. They want a perfect candidate with experience willing to work on a junior position for a small salary.
one of the big issues is that recruiters aren't former workers of the same industry and have no real idea what the work actually is, destroy the institution of professional recruiters and have people that actually do the work be a hiring manager/recruiter replace HR with a training department
But people don’t want to be HR. HR involves some boring jobs that are not appealing. They should just streamline the hiring process and just hire first instead of doing multiple rounds and waste all the money and time of both the company and applicants. 😂
Perhaps companies and recruiters need to start evaluating potential rather than work experience. Particularly in tech where things are moving really fast, msc and phds become redundant after two years, companies ought to invest in upskilling candidates with potential. Create the finished product rather than looking for one
Agreed. Also it is an interesting world where it is easier to find work but harder to get a job. People are making themselves busy and trying to earn money, nonetheless. (of course, having references is a must)
they already mentioned "aptitude tests", be careful what you wish for though, this may easily shift towards illegal IQ tests, discriminating people with experience to more genetically or family blessed... actual on-the-job training is a cost and rarely exists, which is natural for profit-seeking firms, already trying to save on salaries and with redundancies
I'm confused, we dont have enough young people applying for jobs and yet there are 1000s of applications per job advert. Even with a PhD in biology, i'm struggling to get a job. How exactly is there a skill shortage when most people have a bachelors and it takes 100+ applications to land a job.
Seriously, they say skill shortage and yet the younger population have never been more skilled than today (everyone single person goes to college now, and the vast majority also grad school.) Older generations love to talk badly of younger people, but what I see are bosses that can't even open a pdf file complain of skill shortage in new candidates. Candidates that can manage multiple programming languages, have read hundreds of cutting edge papers in their field, worked in final projects with statistical approaches their prospective bosses can't even understand, speak 4+ languages at a fluent level and yet... they hear nothing back when they apply to jobs. Like.... how much more qualified can you be for an entry level job that pays barely above minimum wage!?
@@hungcapitalllUniversity teaches you a way to think and how to approach a problem. The job specific challenges are usual no problem, 1-3 months learning on the job and you are set. But how you approach these first 1-3 months, how to teach yourself on the job - that skill (which can't be quantified) you will learn through a higher education. But somehow, some people can't comprehend that
Lol, This has been one of the most pathetic videos I have seen. This is the business world you wanted and are now crying about it. Also, I can't believe companies are still talking about skill shortages. More like a decent pay shortage 😅😅. Humans and AI working together still struggle to find the right candidates 😅😅. You couldn't make this up.
yeah, the CV with the crazy additions only got through because she put Microsoft and other big companies on! The AI is only looking for big companies, there's no serendipity to prove your worth unless they change the hiring game asap
You mean you don't want to work full time, 5 days a week, on as little as we can get away with paying you in our company driven by shareholders, in a capitalist society!?
It's not a 'skills-shortage'. It's recruiters asking for EVERYTHING under pre-requisites and not bothering to train staff anymore. I cite one example when someone programmed something from scratch and got interviewed by people who wanted the programme. They choose not to employ him because he didn't have the 3 years + experience on the software they had requested. Also how does a year's experience make any difference from knowing how to do something? I did a 0 hours' contract a few years' ago and I was let-go as the HR person failed to understand how basic law in recruitment works (I discussed an employee's holiday with her) and finished my contract. They hired for the position full-time. With experience with the software which no one has. Also have you been on dating apps as a man? It's impossible. Every woman wants top ten percent man which is impossible. And I've got a lot of work experience and worked in technical management and have a disability before anyone starts. Average job application is 75-100 people and it's impossible. Also there's degrees but nothing which prepares people for work which would actually halp companies recruit a lot more. Plus the lack of awareness of neurodivergent talant is staggering....
Recruiters, whether internal or external, really don't have a clue. Poor analysis. Incorrect conclusions drawn from the analysis. Year on year, they come out with some new approach, which is as flawed as the prior.
Why they are making it sound like, companies are suffering and applicants are not 😂😂 Hire a applicant with right stride and train them, I have seen that work.
Exactly. Specially when it comes to entry level jobs, hire people who are capable of learning and TRAIN them, don’t look for 3 years experience for those positions. It’s hilarious how they expect that someone experienced would look for an entry level job 😅
Companies don’t train and they concentrate on getting rid of the over 55’s as they are considered expensive and slow ( ie won’t work every waking hour for nonsense targets)- time to train and retain, simple
.its the millenial generation and beyond...my dad said people nowadays want to work in an office with aircon/ proper heating and a butler...., and no more than - at least - 5 hours per day, ( calculate lunchtime, break times, coffee times, meetings, fresh air break while checking your apps on your mobile all day...), so when do they genuinely work?...
@@MT-kr8cnstop acting like a 5 year old…”my dad said” please younger generation are not performing work and that’s the difference! I work with older generation gen X and above and they see and resolve less than I see in your questionable“5h”
@@MT-kr8cn how dare they expect an aircon or a proper heating 😂 It’s not an 18th century, you know. Such basic things are normal nowadays. Lunch and fresh air breaks are also good, people can’t be productive for 8 hrs straight, there are multiple researches proving that a human brain performs much better when you get breaks throughout the day. Also, slavery doesn’t exist anymore, thank god. People have rights.
Absolute nonsense. As an engineer who has recently been looking to change jobs, whilst I have a few years experience, getting interviews is very easy, but the terms and pay offered by companies are ridiculous, as is their treatment of potential recruits. In general I've invariably found that there's a heap of companies on industrial estates somewhere off in a backwater town 30mins-1h commute away that will categorically not consider remote or hybrid. You go in for the interview and they go on for an hour about how great the company is doing financially and expanding, then you talk about your CV and they say they're impressed, but then you discuss wages and excuses start, a first class degree, a few years experience in all the software they use in applications closely aligned with their usecase , with experience in design and documentation to the same standards they use suddenly isn't good enough because you've not specifically designed the exact product type they produce, so they underbid you by 10k vs the advertised salary. These companies deserve to struggle to hire.
"skills shortage" - you mixed up a couple letters here, a common mistake. What you actually meant is "slaves shortage" - yep, there aren't many people around willing to give up their entire lives for a pay that barely covers living expenses. Shocker, I know.
This is absolute garbage reporting. I am a hiring manager and this is the 1st time in decades where I've seen more qualified candidates than available roles. Recruiting is broken because HR doesn't know what they're recruiting for, and I've often had to request the book of 300+ resumes because HR is outsourced at most companies now and they have a limited understanding of what is required, thus never sending the correct profiles. This is not to say the wrong candidates are not qualified either. We just had an applicant who was an advisor to Obama, but we were looking for a data engineer. Also, ChatGPT is not good enough to write job applications or fix resumes yet. It's very obvious when someone is using an AI tool to write their work. These task and personality tests are also useless in determining a candidate's fit. Please do some more research and interview frustrated job seekers, not the "woe is me" HR hacks!
And then the newspapers complain that advertising revenues are falling... I.e., FT is a newspaper, it reports poorly as mentioned above, so why would people pay to read it?
Ask any university student how hard it is to get an entry level job in many of these industries. Maybe companies need to focus more on developing and encouraging younger individuals to grow in a company
Who would have thought that letting banks run whole economies to the ground and making people pay for it whilst letting their behaviour go unchecked would have lead to a demographic crisis? Who would have thought that relegating a whole generation to either sub-employment or "gig economies" to prop up a whole new societal sector that lives lavishly off of rents would have resulted in this? Surprised pikachu doesn't even begin to cover it.
The problem is not applications made with AI but UNSKILLED recruiters judging a candidate based on a CV. Most recruiters, especially in the US and now in the City, are treating recruitment as selling! They are not connecting with the candidates; they are not networking. They are just patter-matching sentences on a CV without knowing a single thing about it (I'm talking about tech-related industries). The big problem with the job is the recruitment industry. Most of the recruitment agencies are the real problem (and the ones putting the same job ads on so many platforms)
Recruiter want so called 100% PERFECT candidate, don't want to provide training. And Automation of Resume Shortlisting process rejected alot of Great candidates.
It’s all lovely, but we’ve known for decades that the standard CV, cover letter, interview format is about the worst way possible to hire the right candidate. I see no reason why AI should be more effective than any of the other advances that have shown the inadequacies of this approach in getting companies to stop doing it. 9/10 times the ‘this is how we’ve always done it’ crowd wins at big firms.
Well, if you keep looking for all the skills an ENTIRE TEAM possesses in one person - you must be able to write, conceptualize, make excellent presentations, and make videos, AT LEAST - then maybe you're really going to either NOT get someone onboard or get one who lied they could and guess where that gets you. I don't know where the problem starts in those... over optimistic job posts. Do the managers asking HR for these candidates don't know what the job requires? Do HR? But isn't the latter supposed to be the experts in this regard? Make it make sense. People want to work. You're making it unnecessarily hard for ALL of us, including you. Don't wait for the torches and nooses to come out.
WAAAAAIT a second... HR is using AI in 100% of the application process and punishes candidates using AI to optimize their time during the interview process?!!?!!
Thing is...companies are hiring to replace their existing (and more costly) talent pool. Suppose there is someone with a huge repertoire of skills who had been working there for several years. That person would have been drawing a huge salary. The company would then look to hire someone with that exact skill set, but who costs a fraction of the salary that the person had been drawing. That's why we see "entry level" jobs requiring 3-5 years of experience...because that's usually the amount of time people stay with a company before hopping or getting fired.
I would love to see study that compares hiring randomly from an applicant pool within a month of the job posting vs a lengthy 6 month vetting process to see which applicant is more productive and valuable after 2 years from when the each job was initially posted. I would bet a good amount of money the former route wins everytime. So many recruiters and managers are trying so hard to find the perfect hire for today's needs while completely disregarding the opportumity cost of quickly hiring a applicant who is good enough today and then training them to become the perfect candidate tomorrow. Even if you do find the perfect applicant within the first month. Businesses are constantly changing, so what was once a perfect candidate in Q1 might not align well with what the team needs a year from now. So why spend the extra time vetting candidates if the shelf life of that advantage is shortlived. As Bill Withers says, "Good things might come to those who wait but not to those who wait to late"
I'm currently going through job applications. Here are my observations: - Ironically, over 60% of the job descriptions on LinkedIn are clearly written with the help of AI. - Most application tips emphasise meeting ATS criteria. Therefore, my career prospects depend on correctly formatting my resume and nailing the keywords. Again, this process involves AI, which literally compares words from your resume with the job description that another AI has likely written. - The outcome is not just that your application's success depends on understanding the tools recruiters use, but also a significant convergence of skillsets and expectations. Some listings state that qualified people sometimes don't apply because they don't quite meet the criteria. However, the reality is that there's a high chance their application wouldn't pass the AI scan anyway. - Psychometric assessments work well for neurotypical individuals but can discriminate against neurodivergent candidates.
No one cares to listen to these clowns cry, since human resources has long since been bereft of anything human or anything resourceful. They created the problems that they're now complaining about.... nobody wants to hear it
absolutely no! i graduated with a good grade and experience and still spent a whole year getting rejected and ignored by ileterate people in HR who actually don't want to do their jobs and read people's CVs. it disgusts me to see this lie being tossed around when there's thousands like me who are just the right person for the job but reading my cv is too much work for you so instead you spend your hours yapping with your other equally useless HR people.
immediately you send a misrepresentation to the public. there IS NO SKILLS SHORTAGE. this is true for just about all sectors of the market. some sectors have SERVICE shortage, but that is linked to antitrust and anticompetitiveness of those markets. but here is NO SKILLS SHORTAGE. in just about ALL FIELDS OF WORK. anyone who tells you othersides is deliberately misrepresenting the market conditions to fool the public. you are presenting to the public false information about the markets. it still bothers me to hear it. for example werner enterprises the trucking company would misrepresent the market when trying to fool the government and new recruits. but their company size has stayed 9k employees for 15 years strait, they hire 1000s of people each year. they OVER HIRE, and generally this leads to bad treatment of all of the workers as a whole, intolerable work place. but this reckless behavior is still occuring and stems from their misrepresentation that keeps enabling it. it's reckless overhiring with fraud attached, they misrepresent the market conditions while harming alot of workers.
could it just be that maybe FT caters to the owners (shareholders) class, and it tells its audience what they want to hear like most of the media e.g. in US
Rigid AI screening tools have wrecked havoc and will make the market worse. I see success only when applying through a network as I’m assessed for skills and potential
Maybe the recruiters should look at the stereotypes that they are looking for - 30 years old 2 phds and 25 years of experience. Seniors > 55 are not considered and being experienced but autodidact does not count.
Whenever you hear 'skill gap,' keep in mind that it's often more about a salary gap. Companies struggle to find people with the 'right skills' when what they really mean is they don't want to pay for the experience or expertise those skills demand.
I work as a consultant in the tech industry. The last 2/3 years have been a nightmare with layoffs. Honestly, if/when I lose my job, I am starting a UA-cam channel or becoming a photographer. I really feel jobs don't pay enough per unit of effort. So may as well take a risk and take ownership of your outcomes. A family member of mine is a yoga teacher. She does online classes, has a 100 people join a 1 hour class at £10 each.... Needless to say, she is loving life and doing pretty well for herself.
The reason you don't have enough people with skills is because you are not training enough people, it is as simple as that. There are no entry level jobs or internships or work placements to train people so therefore this "shortage of skills" will keep getting worse.
I agree with that, but also to get an entry level job, you need to have a minimum of 2-3 years experience. This is a joke! Why would I look for an entry level job with a minimum pay if I had experience? I have a good degree, it should be enough to be able to enter the market, work and acquire more skills.
The UK economy is predominantly filled with SMEs - the concept of a "hiring manager" is probably alien to most of them, they just haven't got the budget. The other thing about SMEs is that, for many, the environment is far preferable to big corporations. Documentaries like this only ever seem to view the world through the assumption that most employment is via big companies.
Businesses have over complicated EVERYTHING. It used to be, can you do the job? Yes or No, if yes, prove it. Now they want you to be an expert in your field right out of college, have YEARS of experience, work for Nickles and dimes…so on so forth it’s crazy. Just go back to basics and keep it simple
create better teaching systems that integrate with the workforce (skills or knowledge whatever is demanded). When you don't invest in young people's development and only want the rewards of those talents. It's no surprise that recruitment is facing these problems. Make better academies (not literally, and you will find a greater talent pool). Invest in people is more important than random businesses and companies that doesn't align and give u a ROI
The thing is Gen Z/Millenials are the most educated generations in history. There isn't a genuine skill shortage in those terms, companies are just simply uninterested in putting in the work to train new workers. Government can take the bill to an extent through free college and such, but at some point they can't fund skills training in literally every possible field. In the 60's a high school education was good enough to get you a middle class salary, now we have people with MsCs and PhDs struggling to make ends meet.
Na, just the modern world. All the low end work is being done by machines these days anyways. You want a job (with a livable income), you need skills and a lot of them which costs money. And that's the best birth control for a society
13:03 perhaps that's the problem - companies shouldn't be approaching hiring as a potential marriage arrangement. Spend less time trying to vet out the perfect candidate and hire the candidate who is good enough for a 3-12 month contract. If you like them, convert them. If they were just okay, help them find a new job and then hire another contractor to fill their role for another cycle. By doing this you allow people to surprise you. It instills a growth mindset for your staff. Some candidates look great on paper but don't adapt or learn new things, while others have the aptitude to amaze you but don't have the background to warrant hiring them FT from the get-go. The best way to see how well a candidate will do in a role is to have them do work in that role. It's similar to how professional athletes get jobs - you trial with a team, you go on loan, you get brought into the first team or down to the second. Eventually they sign the best players while still giving a large number of 'applicants' a chance to prove themselves.
For those who don't know, you write the cover letter that is generic and describes you, then you ask it to write for this job.. then you ask it to make it more human. If you skip the last step they can detect AI usage, which is why you start with the generic template.
There's this silly idea that school must prepare you to enter a job immediately by giving you the skills. That may be true for professions that change more slowly (painter, mason, hairdresser) but cannot be true for professions that evolve rapidly. We must go back to candidates who have a vast basic education that, combined with the aptitude, will allow them to tackle any job. Language, foreign languages, maths, physics are more necessary than they ever were because they are the cultural fundation for any career a person is intending to pursue.
Jobs like painter, mason, hairdresser were taught in further education colleges not schools. They are expensive to teach so were often cut during the austerity years.
@@johnclements6614 I used school in the most generic way possible, thus including every kind of institution where something is being taught. I didn't think I would have to specify this. Besides, you are clearly referring to the situation in your area/country while my argument was, again, much more generic and applicable in different parts of the world. Anything else you need to nitpick about?
@@idraote In the UK we do not refer to further education collages as schools. This video was produced by the FT about the UK. If you want to refer to the school system in another place why not say.
@@johnclements6614 because it should have been implicit to the point of being absolutely obvious? Please, don't project the limited moulds of your proprietary thinking processes: it doesn't work.
notice how companies are *desperate* to incentivize behavior that reduces pay? skill-based recruiting vs. degree = less pay upfront. incentivizing workforce to move laterally within the same company? = less pay over time. increased tenure? longer time between promotions = less pay.
For a recent role, 70% of the take-home tasks I received were AI generated (in my view). I think I'm better than most at spotting where AI has been used, and I know I'm missing things. You need to assume you're missing things too, and design your take-home tasks accordingly. For my 2 take home tasks questions now I say: “Scroll down to see what GPT-4 gives you for this question, and now please do this differently, drawing on your experience.” AI might be capable, but it can’t replicate lived experience, nor can it tie it to specific companies and projects.
It’s just a game to hide nepotism and age-based discrimination in favor of older employees when nepotism doesn’t provide a usable candidate. That way the children of the rich do not have competition from talented people outside their class. Fix it or lose it- last time we were here you lost it, and that isn’t likely to be different this time around.
All those stupid interviews and hoops they used to make ppl jump.. ppl dont care no more.. ppl are making money with A.I and investing. Most of that money is going untaxed coz Ai can also be your financial advisor.. i love it..
We Are in Unchartered Financial Waters! every day we encounter challenges that have become the new standard. Although we previously perceived it as a crisis, we now acknowledge it as the new normal and must adapt accordingly. Given the current economic difficulties that the country is experiencing in 2024, how can we enhance our earnings during this period of adjustment? I cannot let my $680,000 savings vanish after putting in so much effort to accumulate them.
Retaining some gold is typically a prudent move. Given the state of the market and everything that is at stake in the current economy, you would be better off staying away from stocks for a while or, even better, getting guidance from a professional.
Thats sad you really hurting. But, what about people that don't have a $1000 dollars or living pay check to pay check. And Kamala taking their tax dollars to feed illegals, Medicare and social security. And to mention $25,000 to build a home. Maybe you should give them several grand of that $680, 000 to build them a home. Vote Trump and fix the problem.
You have a very valid point, I started investing on my own and for a long time, the market was really ripping me off. I decided to hire a CFA, even though I was skeptical at first, and I beat the market by more than 9%. I thought it was a fluke until it happened two years in a row, and so I’ve been sticking to investing via an analyst
There are many advisors to choose from. But I work with *Layan Talia Chokr* and we've been working together for years and she's fantastic. You could check her if she meets your requirements. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with
That would solve most of the problem. If you can't be bothered to use a stamp maybe you should not be applying. If HR can't be bothered to open an envelope and read maybe they should not be hiring.
I believe corporations will always look for a candidate whose face fits, an amicable (better if boot licker), somebody who reacts on a carrot stick. Those tests aim at showing these traits. The level of narcissism in corpos stops some genuine people from applying for jobs there. Second: I am not quite comfortable with psycho tests done by recruiters. It borders with medical tests and records are clinical.
"Skill shortage" means they can't find those with the skills that will accept their low salaries. I'd love for them to provide evidence the skills they want are missing in the US.
If the answer isn't nepotism, I would like to see what it is. Also isn't it funny how they are saying skills are limited but never want to hire skilless people and train them? BAAAAHAAA
A we really going down the right route by rushing to use AI in any way possible, rather than stopping to think whether we are just over-engineering society for the sake of marketing hype?
Surely employers could use AI to analyse the CVs and covering letters of their best employees and then use those data to identify the best candidates? Although that would require employers to know who their best employees are, which is another kettle of fish altogether.
the only real skill shortage is in HR departments
Amen
Abolish HR
Why?
@@TheChillishamrockBecause they do nothing but act as a pointless middleman. Legal departments should cover legal issues at work. Finance and payroll departments cover the payroll and money. Managers should be doing the hiring of their subordinates. HR is nothing but a massive drain on company resources and budgets, all while injecting a lot of nonsense.
Education system capitalism is and still the problem here. Talents is vast but most of the highest paid salary jobs with stupid requirements need qualification that have very expensive college/universities fees. So that alone have eliminated many talented future exectives because they dont have the fund to futher their talents.
Unemployment is an odd concept in an economy where for so many folks it’s necessary to work multiple jobs just to get by. Loose one and you’re counted as employed but suddenly don’t have enough money to live.
The economy is grappling with uncertainties, global fluctuations, and pandemic aftermath, causing instability. Rising inflation, sluggish growth, and trade disruptions need urgent attention from all sectors to restore stability and stimulate growth.
Things are strange right now. The US dollar is becoming less valuable because of inflation, but it's getting stronger compared to other currencies and things like gold and property. People are turning to the dollar because they think it's safer. I'm worried about my retirement savings of about $420,000 losing value because of high inflation. Where else can we keep our money?
Due to my demanding job, I lack the time to thoroughly assess my investments and analyze individual stocks. Consequently, for the past seven years, I have enlisted the services of a fiduciary who actively manages my portfolio to adapt to the current market conditions. This strategy has allowed me to navigate the financial landscape successfully, making informed decisions on when to buy and sell. Perhaps you should consider a similar approach.
I'm intrigued by this. I've searched for financial advisors online but it's kind of hard to get in touch with one. Okay if I ask you for a recommendation?
Finding financial advisors like Sophia Maurine Lanting who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them.
"skills shortage"
been gaslighting us with the same buzzwords for 20 years now.
Same old, same old.
Skill issue
More skilled than I’ve ever been in my life. My education and work experience put me in the top 5% of all employers in education/education administration/education policy.
Not qualified for anything except teaching apparently 🤷♂️
But never talking about the "pay shortage" when a skilled individual arrives.
They expect someone that spent half a decade on practicing and honing his skills to work on the same wage as fast food employee.
there's a huge iq shortage in the Hiring department
@@angelg3642The sad thing is they always find people desperate enough
So according to HR departments they can use AI to sort out candidates but it's not fair when these candidates also use AI to apply...
HR and Companies very often have a semi-feudal idea of the world, where the peasant should be happy to be considered and show himself ready to serve.
and they spread herpes to people in their cv
Its cool when they do it, its a problem when you do it 😂
exactly how it feels LMAO then complain why they can't find talents
The "AI can find them" is one of the stupidest ideas I have heard of AI is biased because it relies on info provided by people we over 5 years if research showing AI hiring systems are biased and repeat the same biased mistakes because they are trained on past hiring practices and measurements people determine about what is needed in a job and what likely shows that.😂
"Skill shortage" ... they ask 10 years of experience on tech that only has 3 years of existing....
in some cases as well sometimes i think there is a disconnect between what the Hiring Manager wants versus what actually is available in the job market and it's HR's responsibility to bridge that gap.. as oppose to just saying to the Hiring Manager... "tell me what you want, give me the major job description.." then bam they just post and facilitate it... ... just like what you said... sometimes it can the HR itself that is the issue lol.
@@RolopIsHere that’s because HR write the job ads lol
I remember about 8 years ago when I saw a data science role that wanted Hadoop experience in excess of the years that Hadoop existed.
The problem is HR existing as an organization within any business. Fire all of HR, and require managers to do the hiring. That's part of their job (and I say this as a manager who spends a LOT of time hiring).
How would they know?
And they expect you to still know mainframes and Fortran whilst demanding your degree program or Masters is up to date with all the new technologies they pile on every year.
There is no "labor shortage", there's a wage shortage.
thats called labor abundence
"...lets just scroll down to the comments to find out the actual problem expressed in a single sentence."
LOL personal attack
mind reader!
Most companies expect you to know everything yesterday. There's no on the job training. I'm not going to bust my hump hyper-focused on learning one particular role when it could be gone tomorrow and there's only a 5% chance of actually getting hired.
theres a little bit of bull crap game theory that makes businesses not want to "waste" money training someone for them to goto a different job somewhere else
Yeah no one wants to train you to get a better job elsewhere
@@ericcartmann then they should make the attractive enough to keep people at it... Most people aren't eager to pack up and leave steady work at a moments notice... If the job works for them... They'll work for it... Companies could even consider making a certain period of work contractual... To ensure they get some service out of your training...
Most places that do training contracts have a clause where you have to stay for at least a year or you will pay for your training, so it can be done easily, it's just directors and HR departments haven't a clue and think anyone applying for a job has got it easy
@@dekev7503all they have to do is raise wages once training is completed to have their wages competitive with the other guys, but they dont and act like you owe them something.
Recruitment crisis??? What about the fully qualified and talented folks who've been out of work for months and years?? Companies need to be bold, bite the bullet, and hire candidates that could potentially do the job instead of waiting for their perfect unicorns.. Newsflash, your unicorn does not exist!
Yeah, if someone's smart, works hard and is a quick leaner, which if they have a good degree they probably are, then why not hire them? How long could it really take to get them up to scratch with whatever tech and software you use?
Can't tell you the amount of times I've been rejected for something that was 1 quick google search away lol
Complaining always brings more results with less effort than doing the work
1. Disclose how much you’re going to pay,
2. Offer salaries that actually pay what is due,
3. Look for growth and not just a damn checklist,
4. Stop requesting people to subscribe to your site to apply,
5. Stop using AI to filter candidates.
Ok, 100 people apply not even knowing the salary range. How many people you think would apply if they announced they have an actually competitive salary?? HR is evil, but their problem is real, it is yet unclear how to churn through fake applications at reasonable speed
depends on salary.
Just bring back in person hiring and remove hr. There problem solved.
@@samjones9600ok, let's say you are a company and you fire your hr. You post a position on a careers website and get 1000 applications in the first week. What do you do?
@@ArgumentumAdHominemi disagree. If you let people know what the salary is, you’ll lose less people along the way and there will be plenty of people who just won’t apply because the salary is not within their desired range. It also keeps employers from underpaying people within their own workplace.
My mother got her first job in finance with no degree. Someone believed in her determination, took a chance on her and trained her with little education and 0 work experience. She rose up to senior management and only got a degree 14 years later. Today, the same company recruits' masters' graduates from target schools with prestigious internships. There is no skills shortage. Talent is there. No one is training or taking a chance on young people. Recruiters are looking for perfect Unicorns and using AI to lift the bar
💯 Great example
It's funny how firms are complaining about not being able to hire whilst they have huge pools of talent to pick from and also don't pay good wages given the current inflationary environment we're in lol. Someone working in accountancy in a top London firm only gets paid 27-30k what a sham for working 10 hour plus days. Yet they still expect 'top talent'.
It's the gatekeeper problem.
What are they gatekeeping? Shtty jobs, lol?
@@07Flash11MRC more about being in the club. I've realized this on my current job that it gives them a very 'exclusive' stance in their own office
I agree with u on that since I am on the same space as u. 😢It’s sad
Completely agree.
I work for one of the biggest wealth advice and management firms in my country and the disconnect between their expectations of employees/demands of job vs pay and training is just mind bending. Everyone ends up unhappy because the employees are completely overworked and underpaid whilst simultaneously never meeting the expectations of the employer because their expectations are so ridiculous.
These firms want everyone to be a high level professional, with professional qualifications, tonnes of experience and preexisting in-house training before they even set foot in the firm for their first day.
I used to fix copiers for Lexmark working as a contractor. I was trained by Lexmark. I moved to a new state. I applied for a job with Lexmark. I wasn't qualified.
skill shortage in my country is just an excuse to hire experts from abroad for half the wage.
"We'd like to pay you minimum wage, whilest simultaneously intensifying the societal hypercompetition and demanding skills and experience vastly in excess of what is reasonable, and then refuse to even suggest job security, in a market where even affording basic accomodation is becoming unattainable."
YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW.
Well phrased. This is it right here.
The "aptitude tests" most these companies uses are tedious at best and insulting at worst. Ive applied for engineering jobs before that essentially have you playing minigames, like the ones in this video, they're a joke. Its insulting to a candidates skills and experience, you think people applying for a serious job are going jump through flash games to get it? These games are designed to find well behaved drones, not skilled workers. If you've got 1000 applications pick out 30 at random and assess them and hire theres talent there, you're to lazy to look for it, or invest in training of your staff!
If i ever get a link to one of these i just click randomly and finish in under a minute instead of wasting my time.
I tried one of those spinning lock puzzles, and they progressively get more and more difficult to the point where it becomes impossible to solve. I think I maxed out at level 3 and spent about 30 minutes playing. Another game involved clicking left or right when a certain sign appeared. They’re trying to simplify things and fit everyone into one box, but experience, skills, and behaviours are much more nuanced than that.
That test just treats people like monkey. The sad part is that after the test, moneys will get bananas, and people will just get a AI-generated thank-you letter.
When I did the test first I was confused and upset but I completed it successfully for another role. In all honesty its quite smart and the report it provides at the end is actually quite spot on which is why I like it.
@@cammie83 it's nice to hear it worked out for yourself in the end. It always makes me laugh though if you were told "don't worry the engineers who built this bridge popped the most balloons before the timer ran out, youre in safe hands" before crossing you might have second thoughts!
In the 50's my Dad worked a modest job, Mom stayed at home and raised the kids, and they lived a nice middle class lifestyle including owning a home. Nowadays both I and my partner works and can barely afford to make ends meet. Soon the kids and family dog will need to work to keep this household going. It's the destruction of the American dream right before our eyes.
I was a stay at Home disabled dad with no money in my IRA or any savings of my own, which was scary at 53 years of age. Three years ago I got a part time job and save everything I make. After 3 years, I am 56 yo and have put $9,000 in an IRA and $40,000 in my portfolio with CFA, Abby Joseph Cohen. Since the goal of getting a job was to invest for retirement and NOT up my lifestyle, I was able to scale this quickly to $150,000. If I can do this in a year, anyone can.
@VonNothias I know this FA, Abby Joseph Cohen Services but only by her reputation at Goldman Sachs; even though she's now involved in managing portfolios and providing investmnt guidance to clients. I have been trying to get in contact since I watched her interview on WSJ last month
@@VernesaGunzWell her name is 'ABBY JOSEPH COHEN SERVICES'. Just research the name. You'd find necessary details to set up an appointment.
I went from no money to lnvest with to busting my A** off on Uber eats for four months to raise about $20k to start trading with Abby Joseph Cohen. I am at $128k right now and LOVING that you have to bring this up here
you are completely clueless as to what the American Dream actually is. Its not a promise of material things if you work a 9 to 5. Nosir... its the promise of opportunity for hard working and innovative folks, regardless of who they are, where they come from and what class they were born in to. THAT is the American Dream. Opportunity for all... and its still available today.
as someone who is looking for a job for months I find this recruitment with AI stupid. I applied for the same job with almost the same criteria as my last job and I didn't even get a phone call, so of course you have a shortage of people. Humans can't be replaced!!
And then they complain that candidates use AI...
About 18 months ago I applied for a job where the hiring manager knew me and knew that I was absolutely the best candidate that could be hired.
The stupid AI filter used by HR filtered me out, so he had to cancel the entire recruitment process and go to a senior director to override HR.
Yeah, robots are actually NOT helping lol. That's why theft is up where robot tellers take money.
The ai thing is just another way these lazy and incompetent HR people try to get out of doing their damn job.
For real. I don't believe there's a shortage of people. I think it's quite the opposite. That's why most hiring today is done through connections, because it speeds up the process of filtering through thousands of applicants.
So people aren't having enough kids...
So we need to get all the people over 50 to go back to work, earn more money, buy more rental properties to let out to 4 to 5 people in their 20's and 30's...
20 years later: "We have a serious shortage of young workers and the ones that we have are all depressed, what's going on?"
Its an excuse to bring in more migrants and keep wages down
Exactly, right now, we have a very high youth population, people in their 20-35s and we are having a shortage of workers, because we are unemployed. By employing 50 year old they are only going to make the situation worse. Because they can be of help for the next 10 years. But what happens after 10 years? there next generation of seniors will not be prepared to lead.
Instead of employing youth, so that they can improve in skill and wages so that they would have children and also the expertise to lead the future, but by employing the same pool of old people ad not giving a chance to the current youth, the are wasting raw talent and making it more difficult for them to afford to have kids.
Want all the experience and skills but also want to offer wages that haven’t increased in real terms since 2008.
What a load of codswollap. 10 years ago, businesses would give you a chance based on showing good behaviour skills and teach you on the job. Now firms are expecting you to have 3-5 years hard experience for a junior position, on the same pay they were offering those 10 years prior. It’s not applicants that have changed, it’s unrealistic expectations and unfair wages.
Thank you! Exactly what I was thinking. No one wants to give a chance to recent graduates who’d be grateful for the opportunity to learn and in perspective bring value to the company. They want a perfect candidate with experience willing to work on a junior position for a small salary.
one of the big issues is that recruiters aren't former workers of the same industry and have no real idea what the work actually is,
destroy the institution of professional recruiters and have people that actually do the work be a hiring manager/recruiter
replace HR with a training department
Good point
But people don’t want to be HR. HR involves some boring jobs that are not appealing. They should just streamline the hiring process and just hire first instead of doing multiple rounds and waste all the money and time of both the company and applicants. 😂
Sponsored by workday? A recruitment and talent management agency hmmmmm interesting
That Siemens guy is clueless. Your candidates didn't abandon your job offer to another company. It's because your offers were pathetic.
There is no shortage of skilled workers. There is shortage of workers who are happy to be exploited and be underpaid.
i came here from a cnbc video on the rise of ghost jobs
Mee too 👍
Perhaps companies and recruiters need to start evaluating potential rather than work experience. Particularly in tech where things are moving really fast, msc and phds become redundant after two years, companies ought to invest in upskilling candidates with potential. Create the finished product rather than looking for one
Agreed. Also it is an interesting world where it is easier to find work but harder to get a job. People are making themselves busy and trying to earn money, nonetheless. (of course, having references is a must)
that would require the hiring manager to not be an old fart who still thinks its 1982, not happening
they already mentioned "aptitude tests", be careful what you wish for though, this may easily shift towards illegal IQ tests, discriminating people with experience to more genetically or family blessed...
actual on-the-job training is a cost and rarely exists, which is natural for profit-seeking firms, already trying to save on salaries and with redundancies
I'm confused, we dont have enough young people applying for jobs and yet there are 1000s of applications per job advert. Even with a PhD in biology, i'm struggling to get a job. How exactly is there a skill shortage when most people have a bachelors and it takes 100+ applications to land a job.
i guess there is a skill shortage in the HR department
Seriously, they say skill shortage and yet the younger population have never been more skilled than today (everyone single person goes to college now, and the vast majority also grad school.)
Older generations love to talk badly of younger people, but what I see are bosses that can't even open a pdf file complain of skill shortage in new candidates. Candidates that can manage multiple programming languages, have read hundreds of cutting edge papers in their field, worked in final projects with statistical approaches their prospective bosses can't even understand, speak 4+ languages at a fluent level and yet... they hear nothing back when they apply to jobs.
Like.... how much more qualified can you be for an entry level job that pays barely above minimum wage!?
Skilled doesnt equal education. University doesnt teach skills
@@hungcapitalllUniversity teaches you a way to think and how to approach a problem.
The job specific challenges are usual no problem, 1-3 months learning on the job and you are set.
But how you approach these first 1-3 months, how to teach yourself on the job - that skill (which can't be quantified) you will learn through a higher education.
But somehow, some people can't comprehend that
@@hungcapitalll and where exactly you’re supposed to learn skills if companies refuse to hire people without experience?
Lol,
This has been one of the most pathetic videos I have seen. This is the business world you wanted and are now crying about it. Also, I can't believe companies are still talking about skill shortages. More like a decent pay shortage 😅😅. Humans and AI working together still struggle to find the right candidates 😅😅.
You couldn't make this up.
yeah, the CV with the crazy additions only got through because she put Microsoft and other big companies on! The AI is only looking for big companies, there's no serendipity to prove your worth unless they change the hiring game asap
You mean you don't want to work full time, 5 days a week, on as little as we can get away with paying you in our company driven by shareholders, in a capitalist society!?
PRETTY MUCH. Lol ladies I tell ya.
in a world with 8 billion people, there is no shortage of talent .... there is a shortage of training and an abundance od discrimination
It's not a 'skills-shortage'. It's recruiters asking for EVERYTHING under pre-requisites and not bothering to train staff anymore. I cite one example when someone programmed something from scratch and got interviewed by people who wanted the programme. They choose not to employ him because he didn't have the 3 years + experience on the software they had requested. Also how does a year's experience make any difference from knowing how to do something? I did a 0 hours' contract a few years' ago and I was let-go as the HR person failed to understand how basic law in recruitment works (I discussed an employee's holiday with her) and finished my contract. They hired for the position full-time. With experience with the software which no one has. Also have you been on dating apps as a man? It's impossible. Every woman wants top ten percent man which is impossible. And I've got a lot of work experience and worked in technical management and have a disability before anyone starts. Average job application is 75-100 people and it's impossible. Also there's degrees but nothing which prepares people for work which would actually halp companies recruit a lot more. Plus the lack of awareness of neurodivergent talant is staggering....
Hr is also staffed primarily with women go figure.
HR is also primarily staffed with women go figure.
Recruiters, whether internal or external, really don't have a clue. Poor analysis. Incorrect conclusions drawn from the analysis. Year on year, they come out with some new approach, which is as flawed as the prior.
Why they are making it sound like, companies are suffering and applicants are not 😂😂
Hire a applicant with right stride and train them, I have seen that work.
Exactly. Specially when it comes to entry level jobs, hire people who are capable of learning and TRAIN them, don’t look for 3 years experience for those positions. It’s hilarious how they expect that someone experienced would look for an entry level job 😅
Companies don’t train and they concentrate on getting rid of the over 55’s as they are considered expensive and slow ( ie won’t work every waking hour for nonsense targets)- time to train and retain, simple
.its the millenial generation and beyond...my dad said people nowadays want to work in an office with aircon/ proper heating and a butler...., and no more than - at least - 5 hours per day, ( calculate lunchtime, break times, coffee times, meetings, fresh air break while checking your apps on your mobile all day...), so when do they genuinely work?...
@@MT-kr8cnstop acting like a 5 year old…”my dad said” please younger generation are not performing work and that’s the difference! I work with older generation gen X and above and they see and resolve less than I see in your questionable“5h”
@@MT-kr8cn how dare they expect an aircon or a proper heating 😂 It’s not an 18th century, you know. Such basic things are normal nowadays. Lunch and fresh air breaks are also good, people can’t be productive for 8 hrs straight, there are multiple researches proving that a human brain performs much better when you get breaks throughout the day. Also, slavery doesn’t exist anymore, thank god. People have rights.
Absolute nonsense. As an engineer who has recently been looking to change jobs, whilst I have a few years experience, getting interviews is very easy, but the terms and pay offered by companies are ridiculous, as is their treatment of potential recruits. In general I've invariably found that there's a heap of companies on industrial estates somewhere off in a backwater town 30mins-1h commute away that will categorically not consider remote or hybrid. You go in for the interview and they go on for an hour about how great the company is doing financially and expanding, then you talk about your CV and they say they're impressed, but then you discuss wages and excuses start, a first class degree, a few years experience in all the software they use in applications closely aligned with their usecase , with experience in design and documentation to the same standards they use suddenly isn't good enough because you've not specifically designed the exact product type they produce, so they underbid you by 10k vs the advertised salary. These companies deserve to struggle to hire.
There is also the problem of Ghost Jobs created by some businesses causing employment seekers frustration
"skills shortage" - you mixed up a couple letters here, a common mistake. What you actually meant is "slaves shortage" - yep, there aren't many people around willing to give up their entire lives for a pay that barely covers living expenses. Shocker, I know.
This is absolute garbage reporting. I am a hiring manager and this is the 1st time in decades where I've seen more qualified candidates than available roles. Recruiting is broken because HR doesn't know what they're recruiting for, and I've often had to request the book of 300+ resumes because HR is outsourced at most companies now and they have a limited understanding of what is required, thus never sending the correct profiles. This is not to say the wrong candidates are not qualified either. We just had an applicant who was an advisor to Obama, but we were looking for a data engineer.
Also, ChatGPT is not good enough to write job applications or fix resumes yet. It's very obvious when someone is using an AI tool to write their work. These task and personality tests are also useless in determining a candidate's fit. Please do some more research and interview frustrated job seekers, not the "woe is me" HR hacks!
And then the newspapers complain that advertising revenues are falling... I.e., FT is a newspaper, it reports poorly as mentioned above, so why would people pay to read it?
...
...
So you say you're a hiring manager...?
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
It they own fault for not training young people and going to third world and importing cheaper labour.
Ask any university student how hard it is to get an entry level job in many of these industries. Maybe companies need to focus more on developing and encouraging younger individuals to grow in a company
Who would have thought that letting banks run whole economies to the ground and making people pay for it whilst letting their behaviour go unchecked would have lead to a demographic crisis?
Who would have thought that relegating a whole generation to either sub-employment or "gig economies" to prop up a whole new societal sector that lives lavishly off of rents would have resulted in this?
Surprised pikachu doesn't even begin to cover it.
The problem is not applications made with AI but UNSKILLED recruiters judging a candidate based on a CV. Most recruiters, especially in the US and now in the City, are treating recruitment as selling! They are not connecting with the candidates; they are not networking. They are just patter-matching sentences on a CV without knowing a single thing about it (I'm talking about tech-related industries). The big problem with the job is the recruitment industry. Most of the recruitment agencies are the real problem (and the ones putting the same job ads on so many platforms)
Recruiter want so called 100% PERFECT candidate, don't want to provide training. And Automation of Resume Shortlisting process rejected alot of Great candidates.
I wonder how long it will be until those game type application processes (if not already) begin to be undertaken by a program.
AND they want them to work for 80% of what the listed the job for.
It’s all lovely, but we’ve known for decades that the standard CV, cover letter, interview format is about the worst way possible to hire the right candidate. I see no reason why AI should be more effective than any of the other advances that have shown the inadequacies of this approach in getting companies to stop doing it. 9/10 times the ‘this is how we’ve always done it’ crowd wins at big firms.
Well, if you keep looking for all the skills an ENTIRE TEAM possesses in one person - you must be able to write, conceptualize, make excellent presentations, and make videos, AT LEAST - then maybe you're really going to either NOT get someone onboard or get one who lied they could and guess where that gets you.
I don't know where the problem starts in those... over optimistic job posts. Do the managers asking HR for these candidates don't know what the job requires? Do HR? But isn't the latter supposed to be the experts in this regard?
Make it make sense.
People want to work. You're making it unnecessarily hard for ALL of us, including you.
Don't wait for the torches and nooses to come out.
WAAAAAIT a second... HR is using AI in 100% of the application process and punishes candidates using AI to optimize their time during the interview process?!!?!!
This whole video focused on how it's a problem for companies not the common worker.
Well, yeah. Take a guess who main stream media cares about.
Thing is...companies are hiring to replace their existing (and more costly) talent pool. Suppose there is someone with a huge repertoire of skills who had been working there for several years. That person would have been drawing a huge salary. The company would then look to hire someone with that exact skill set, but who costs a fraction of the salary that the person had been drawing. That's why we see "entry level" jobs requiring 3-5 years of experience...because that's usually the amount of time people stay with a company before hopping or getting fired.
I would love to see study that compares hiring randomly from an applicant pool within a month of the job posting vs a lengthy 6 month vetting process to see which applicant is more productive and valuable after 2 years from when the each job was initially posted. I would bet a good amount of money the former route wins everytime.
So many recruiters and managers are trying so hard to find the perfect hire for today's needs while completely disregarding the opportumity cost of quickly hiring a applicant who is good enough today and then training them to become the perfect candidate tomorrow. Even if you do find the perfect applicant within the first month. Businesses are constantly changing, so what was once a perfect candidate in Q1 might not align well with what the team needs a year from now. So why spend the extra time vetting candidates if the shelf life of that advantage is shortlived. As Bill Withers says, "Good things might come to those who wait but not to those who wait to late"
I'm currently going through job applications. Here are my observations:
- Ironically, over 60% of the job descriptions on LinkedIn are clearly written with the help of AI.
- Most application tips emphasise meeting ATS criteria. Therefore, my career prospects depend on correctly formatting my resume and nailing the keywords. Again, this process involves AI, which literally compares words from your resume with the job description that another AI has likely written.
- The outcome is not just that your application's success depends on understanding the tools recruiters use, but also a significant convergence of skillsets and expectations. Some listings state that qualified people sometimes don't apply because they don't quite meet the criteria. However, the reality is that there's a high chance their application wouldn't pass the AI scan anyway.
- Psychometric assessments work well for neurotypical individuals but can discriminate against neurodivergent candidates.
No one cares to listen to these clowns cry, since human resources has long since been bereft of anything human or anything resourceful. They created the problems that they're now complaining about.... nobody wants to hear it
absolutely no! i graduated with a good grade and experience and still spent a whole year getting rejected and ignored by ileterate people in HR who actually don't want to do their jobs and read people's CVs. it disgusts me to see this lie being tossed around when there's thousands like me who are just the right person for the job but reading my cv is too much work for you so instead you spend your hours yapping with your other equally useless HR people.
Could not agree more.
Saving on overpaid CEOs and consultants to reward skills faiirly would fix the problem.
They want a rocket scientist to flip burgers, or take burger flipping pay, at least.
immediately you send a misrepresentation to the public. there IS NO SKILLS SHORTAGE. this is true for just about all sectors of the market.
some sectors have SERVICE shortage, but that is linked to antitrust and anticompetitiveness of those markets. but here is NO SKILLS SHORTAGE. in just about ALL FIELDS OF WORK. anyone who tells you othersides is deliberately misrepresenting the market conditions to fool the public.
you are presenting to the public false information about the markets. it still bothers me to hear it. for example werner enterprises the trucking company would misrepresent the market when trying to fool the government and new recruits. but their company size has stayed 9k employees for 15 years strait, they hire 1000s of people each year. they OVER HIRE, and generally this leads to bad treatment of all of the workers as a whole, intolerable work place. but this reckless behavior is still occuring and stems from their misrepresentation that keeps enabling it. it's reckless overhiring with fraud attached, they misrepresent the market conditions while harming alot of workers.
could it just be that maybe FT caters to the owners (shareholders) class, and it tells its audience what they want to hear like most of the media e.g. in US
Rigid AI screening tools have wrecked havoc and will make the market worse. I see success only when applying through a network as I’m assessed for skills and potential
Maybe the recruiters should look at the stereotypes that they are looking for - 30 years old 2 phds and 25 years of experience. Seniors > 55 are not considered and being experienced but autodidact does not count.
“25 years of experience required, no older than 24.”
Whenever you hear 'skill gap,' keep in mind that it's often more about a salary gap. Companies struggle to find people with the 'right skills' when what they really mean is they don't want to pay for the experience or expertise those skills demand.
The CV edit results mentioned at 11:40 are the funniest and most poinient thing I have seen on YT this year.
That’s shocking
@@mollymo6229that’s not shocking. She knew she’d get that result.
Bloody hell
AI is also wrong more than often. There's a plenty of hr-related horror stories on how recruiters are doing sh*t job because they're using ai tools
I work as a consultant in the tech industry. The last 2/3 years have been a nightmare with layoffs. Honestly, if/when I lose my job, I am starting a UA-cam channel or becoming a photographer. I really feel jobs don't pay enough per unit of effort. So may as well take a risk and take ownership of your outcomes.
A family member of mine is a yoga teacher. She does online classes, has a 100 people join a 1 hour class at £10 each.... Needless to say, she is loving life and doing pretty well for herself.
Companies using AI to identify applicants using AI....and then crying about it haha
The reason you don't have enough people with skills is because you are not training enough people, it is as simple as that. There are no entry level jobs or internships or work placements to train people so therefore this "shortage of skills" will keep getting worse.
not only that but a lot of the jobs themselves have become a lot more demanding and with lower pay in real terms than 10 years ago
I agree with that, but also to get an entry level job, you need to have a minimum of 2-3 years experience. This is a joke! Why would I look for an entry level job with a minimum pay if I had experience? I have a good degree, it should be enough to be able to enter the market, work and acquire more skills.
The UK economy is predominantly filled with SMEs - the concept of a "hiring manager" is probably alien to most of them, they just haven't got the budget. The other thing about SMEs is that, for many, the environment is far preferable to big corporations. Documentaries like this only ever seem to view the world through the assumption that most employment is via big companies.
Businesses have over complicated EVERYTHING. It used to be, can you do the job? Yes or No, if yes, prove it.
Now they want you to be an expert in your field right out of college, have YEARS of experience, work for Nickles and dimes…so on so forth it’s crazy. Just go back to basics and keep it simple
create better teaching systems that integrate with the workforce (skills or knowledge whatever is demanded). When you don't invest in young people's development and only want the rewards of those talents. It's no surprise that recruitment is facing these problems. Make better academies (not literally, and you will find a greater talent pool). Invest in people is more important than random businesses and companies that doesn't align and give u a ROI
The thing is Gen Z/Millenials are the most educated generations in history. There isn't a genuine skill shortage in those terms, companies are just simply uninterested in putting in the work to train new workers. Government can take the bill to an extent through free college and such, but at some point they can't fund skills training in literally every possible field. In the 60's a high school education was good enough to get you a middle class salary, now we have people with MsCs and PhDs struggling to make ends meet.
Tbf, futureproofing ia mostly tech related, you outta know that this saturates tech and makes them true
@@morisan42 Right. Ms degree comes from future Mcdonalds employee..
Well the best birth control is an educated society
Na, just the modern world. All the low end work is being done by machines these days anyways. You want a job (with a livable income), you need skills and a lot of them which costs money. And that's the best birth control for a society
13:03 perhaps that's the problem - companies shouldn't be approaching hiring as a potential marriage arrangement. Spend less time trying to vet out the perfect candidate and hire the candidate who is good enough for a 3-12 month contract. If you like them, convert them. If they were just okay, help them find a new job and then hire another contractor to fill their role for another cycle. By doing this you allow people to surprise you. It instills a growth mindset for your staff. Some candidates look great on paper but don't adapt or learn new things, while others have the aptitude to amaze you but don't have the background to warrant hiring them FT from the get-go. The best way to see how well a candidate will do in a role is to have them do work in that role. It's similar to how professional athletes get jobs - you trial with a team, you go on loan, you get brought into the first team or down to the second. Eventually they sign the best players while still giving a large number of 'applicants' a chance to prove themselves.
Ageism is a major issue in the employment market.
For those who don't know, you write the cover letter that is generic and describes you, then you ask it to write for this job.. then you ask it to make it more human.
If you skip the last step they can detect AI usage, which is why you start with the generic template.
There's this silly idea that school must prepare you to enter a job immediately by giving you the skills.
That may be true for professions that change more slowly (painter, mason, hairdresser) but cannot be true for professions that evolve rapidly.
We must go back to candidates who have a vast basic education that, combined with the aptitude, will allow them to tackle any job. Language, foreign languages, maths, physics are more necessary than they ever were because they are the cultural fundation for any career a person is intending to pursue.
Jobs like painter, mason, hairdresser were taught in further education colleges not schools. They are expensive to teach so were often cut during the austerity years.
@@johnclements6614 I used school in the most generic way possible, thus including every kind of institution where something is being taught. I didn't think I would have to specify this.
Besides, you are clearly referring to the situation in your area/country while my argument was, again, much more generic and applicable in different parts of the world.
Anything else you need to nitpick about?
@@idraote In the UK we do not refer to further education collages as schools. This video was produced by the FT about the UK. If you want to refer to the school system in another place why not say.
@@johnclements6614 because it should have been implicit to the point of being absolutely obvious?
Please, don't project the limited moulds of your proprietary thinking processes: it doesn't work.
@@idraote In the UK school means something different to college. I do not know where you live but this is a UK video.
notice how companies are *desperate* to incentivize behavior that reduces pay? skill-based recruiting vs. degree = less pay upfront. incentivizing workforce to move laterally within the same company? = less pay over time. increased tenure? longer time between promotions = less pay.
Have you spoken with a recruiter recently? Lord have mercy!
Yes brother! Every month... God help us 🙏 (agency recruiter are garbage)
Man these companies are going to try everything except for hiring and training inexperienced employees aren't they?
😅Get rid of those damn ATS systems
Pay 400k per year.
Suddenly no skill shortage anymore. And ppl work on weekends too and are available by phone 24/7.
For a recent role, 70% of the take-home tasks I received were AI generated (in my view).
I think I'm better than most at spotting where AI has been used, and I know I'm missing things. You need to assume you're missing things too, and design your take-home tasks accordingly.
For my 2 take home tasks questions now I say: “Scroll down to see what GPT-4 gives you for this question, and now please do this differently, drawing on your experience.”
AI might be capable, but it can’t replicate lived experience, nor can it tie it to specific companies and projects.
Umm, here in the USA, many tech jobs get 100 applicants. Is this considered a talent shortage???
100? someone i know works somewhere that just had an ai dev job posting receive 5000 applicants
It is if none of them are qualified for the job.
People are having children because no young person can afford a house and security, trust the FT to ignore this
Sorry, I don't understand.
@@johnmccracken3473it would seem he intended to say “people are *not* having children…”
The wonders of gaslighting.
It’s just a game to hide nepotism and age-based discrimination in favor of older employees when nepotism doesn’t provide a usable candidate. That way the children of the rich do not have competition from talented people outside their class. Fix it or lose it- last time we were here you lost it, and that isn’t likely to be different this time around.
All those stupid interviews and hoops they used to make ppl jump.. ppl dont care no more.. ppl are making money with A.I and investing. Most of that money is going untaxed coz Ai can also be your financial advisor.. i love it..
Any links or platforms to learn more about this?
Let people retire please
Prolonging a career… you’ve already taken the ‘human’ out of human capital
OMG. There will always be a skills gap with technology advancing. TRAIN PEOPLE ON THE JOB!!!!
We Are in Unchartered Financial Waters! every day we encounter challenges that have become the new standard. Although we previously perceived it as a crisis, we now acknowledge it as the new normal and must adapt accordingly. Given the current economic difficulties that the country is experiencing in 2024, how can we enhance our earnings during this period of adjustment? I cannot let my $680,000 savings vanish after putting in so much effort to accumulate them.
Retaining some gold is typically a prudent move. Given the state of the market and everything that is at stake in the current economy, you would be better off staying away from stocks for a while or, even better, getting guidance from a professional.
Thats sad you really hurting. But, what about people that don't have a $1000 dollars or living pay check to pay check. And Kamala taking their tax dollars to feed illegals, Medicare and social security. And to mention $25,000 to build a home. Maybe you should give them several grand of that $680, 000 to build them a home. Vote Trump and fix the problem.
You have a very valid point, I started investing on my own and for a long time, the market was really ripping me off. I decided to hire a CFA, even though I was skeptical at first, and I beat the market by more than 9%. I thought it was a fluke until it happened two years in a row, and so I’ve been sticking to investing via an analyst
I’m an art collector, this is not very new to me but has a nuance to it. Can you assist me?
There are many advisors to choose from. But I work with *Layan Talia Chokr* and we've been working together for years and she's fantastic. You could check her if she meets your requirements. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with
I remember the days when job adverts asked for hand written covering letters.......
@@kennyphillips6281 remember the days when you just submitted a physical cv
That would solve most of the problem. If you can't be bothered to use a stamp maybe you should not be applying. If HR can't be bothered to open an envelope and read maybe they should not be hiring.
@Kevin : There's a flaw in your logic: At the end of the day HR, the assistants to the owner cl@$$ still get paid, whereas us worker sl@ves don't.
I believe corporations will always look for a candidate whose face fits, an amicable (better if boot licker), somebody who reacts on a carrot stick. Those tests aim at showing these traits. The level of narcissism in corpos stops some genuine people from applying for jobs there. Second: I am not quite comfortable with psycho tests done by recruiters. It borders with medical tests and records are clinical.
You should note the requirement of highly specific skills that are hard to obtain shrinks labor pools. Industry specific skills are particularly hard.
My mate got a job in recruitment and I asked him why did you did you do that? And he said 'Mate there's just no jobs out there'.
Candidates using AI is bad, recruiters using it is ok. Double standards
"Skill shortage" means they can't find those with the skills that will accept their low salaries. I'd love for them to provide evidence the skills they want are missing in the US.
Businesses r not serious about hiring persons with a wealth of experience.
They asked for "good work Attitude" & "Drive". Ok, the next plan will be acting the hell out of their "Expected Best Work Attitude"
Why is HR so useless? This is a solvable problem.
What man in his right mind wants to work in a dangerous, toxic environment?
If the answer isn't nepotism, I would like to see what it is. Also isn't it funny how they are saying skills are limited but never want to hire skilless people and train them? BAAAAHAAA
*sends everyone to university*
Oh no! We have massive skills shortage 🤯
A we really going down the right route by rushing to use AI in any way possible, rather than stopping to think whether we are just over-engineering society for the sake of marketing hype?
Surely employers could use AI to analyse the CVs and covering letters of their best employees and then use those data to identify the best candidates? Although that would require employers to know who their best employees are, which is another kettle of fish altogether.
You can't do this without illegally discriminating against protected groups. So they will probably go ahead and do it anyway
Candidates using AI to respond to job adverts written by AI. Who would have thought it, eh ?