I had a conversation yesterday about the career plans of a young woman of my acquaintance. In her early 20s, she is fortunate to have several successful years of work experience behind her, but believes the time has come to branch out, develop and experiment to make sure that her work experience continues to grow in ways that her current job may not provide. All of that seems sensible, and something that many people will recognise from their own career experience.
What she is going to do next is what differentiates her experience in the current job market from that of many people who might be older than her. Instead of applying for jobs from the position of being employed where she is, she is proactively planning a period of time off work to seek alternative employment. She cannot otherwise work out how the time that is required simply to engage in the task of finding an alternative job would be available, so time-consuming is the process of submitting job applications these days, with the extensive questionnaires that have to be completed and then multiple AI tests that have to be gone through before the chance of even securing an interview with a real-life human being might be secured.
The young woman in question is fortunate. The impression I gained is that she has been able to save enough to take off this period of time between employments. She also has the economic advantage of living at home, and I suspect supportive parents will be assisting this process, at least indirectly.
My point, however, is that in itself this creates the potential for a new form of discrimination within the workplace of a sort that never used to exist. If, to secure new employment, you have to sacrifice income for a period of time, there are only a limited number of people in the fortunate position of being able to do that who can, as a consequence, advance through their careers in a world where it appears increasingly difficult to secure a job of any sort, let alone one that suits your needs and your long-term plans. I am obviously pleased that this person might have that support, and may, as a consequence, find the progression that she desires, and I hope she does. However, what worries me is the systemic implication of what her choices demand of her. In essence, she is being asked to consume her capital to secure the job she wants.
We are used now to young people only getting access to housing if they are supported by what is colloquially called the Bank of Mum and Dad. What her case revealed to me is that the significance of this intergenerational support from parents may be far more important than I had realised in a rapidly changing world.
We have all known that parents have influenced education outcomes, and that this has been true for many past decades. That is indisputable. That the same influence is now seen on the housing ladder is an established fact. But if it is becoming the case that the obstacles to securing work are now so severe that parental support, or significant personal capital that can be consumed in the process of job applications, is now the prerequisite for making progress in your personal development, we will see this discrimination resulting from relative (and I use the word advisedly) privilege become even more significant.
And let's not ignore AI's role in all of this. Many people worry that AI will replace their jobs. Some, at least, have good reason to do so. But if the increasingly labour-intensive and capital-consuming processes AI has imposed on people seeking employment become real obstacles to progress for those trying to secure work that lets them fulfil their potential, then the threat from AI is indirectly much greater than I thought.
It now seems neoliberal capitalism is using its power to prevent progress for all but those with the financial capital required to achieve career progression, in ways nepotism and contact networks once did. Those forms of human capital were always obstructions to progress for some, but now it seems as though a person's ability to consume financial capital to appease the foibles of the neoliberal capitalist system is becoming another prerequisite for success in the quite reasonable desire for career progression.
This is toxic, deeply dangerous to human well-being, damaging to the economy, and costly to us all, as those with ability but without access to capital will inevitably be lost in this process. In other words, it is another deliberate form of inequality designed to reinforce divisions in our society.
We should be worried.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
This does feel very much like the system at the point of collapse. I would not wish collapse on society but I fear more the increasing power being invested in AI (I don’t believe it has any real power of its own) and the desire of those leading the charge to make people irrelevant.
Collapse is my fear right now.
As Simon Farlie points out in the opening words of The Land magazine sadly now defunct nothing is forever – just look at the Eastern Bloc and the USSR one moment there and then it was gone
It’s obscene. We can all see, all around us, that there is so much that is simply not being done. In a rational society, the boot would currently be on the other foot. Employers would be desperately seeking workers, and the workers would be carefully selecting their jobs, and perhaps using AI to help them do so. Yet here we are.
There are clear indications that the inevitable breakdown of neoliberalism has begun. So guess what. Here comes the ultimate distraction. Rumours of war, and probably the reality.
I’m not sure about the UK but in Germany we do have a system in which, if you’ve worked for at least 12 months in the last 30 months and so paid into the unemployment insurance, one receives 60% of the last income for 6 months.
It should be higher but at least it’s not nothing.
There are restrictions though if for example one quits his job on own initiative….. which would be given in this woman’s case you describe.
I would like a system that always gives the benefit of the doubt.
No matter when or why one’s getting unemployed the insurance covers it completely (100% of the last income, a maximum still could be up for discussion, for a certain time), unless the reserves can be assumed to be really big.
This would make looking for a new job way less stressful.
This also would help one making the best possible decision, without feeling forced, which in my opinion would also grant the biggest return for the cost.
And also would give security if the job turns out the be not as suited as one thought at first.
I’ve seen people working themselves to the ground needlessly because of the fear of unemployment / stigmatisation as being lazy, in the end needing even more help to recover again.
Sure, there will be people abusing the system, there always are.
But I think most people will appreciate the help and the return will simply outweigh the cost.
Might it be that Neoliberalism is inately parasitic and so destructive of the societies upon which it has been imposed by plausible, greedy leaders?
Might it be that every sustainable socio-economic theory needs, at least, to care for the following?
1) A robust, questioning population
2) Accessible pro-social work
3) A flourishing eco-environment
4) Governance/goverment which prevents any group in a society from exploiting any other group/groups
Might Neoliberalism harm/destroy all four?
It has, it is, and eventually it will.
Increasingly technology employers are demanding new hires have certifications.
X-years of industry experience is not enough.
The thing is, paradoxically, employers seldomly provide the time or funding for the people they have already doing those jobs to obtain those certifications, so people who want career mobility, have to do so on their own dime and their own time.
And of course, investor owned businesses do their best to suppress wage growth, leaving people with little opportunity for increased pay and career progression.
Agreed
It’s almost as if neoliberal capitalism turns everything to manure and should be abolished.
Alas, this has been attempted and the appalling outcomes are well documented.
Hope what follows is not too off the mark.
https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/111748-006-A/re-second-hand-wind-turbines/
Ignore the title (& the programme is subtitled in English). Towards the end the two chaps that carry out inspections of wind turbines in Germany note that there is a great need from far more inspectors – which is a well paid and skilled job. Putting this into perspective, soon there will be a demand for 30,000 man years of inspections every year. = 30,000 inspectors. Bolt on the maintenance teams on top and you are looking at an industry that employed just on the O&M side probably north of 100,000 people – or rather it should. The UK is not far behind in terms of need but, given the comments from the two inspectors, it would seem that the erm….. “market” is incapable of delivering the people needed. Who would have guessed eh!
(the prog’ is some what quirky but in a nice way).
Thank you, Mike.
The thing is, with inflation caused by wars and and price gouging the net effect on people’s stored wealth that they live off between periods of work will further wear down their economic robustness over time. It’s hardly a recipe for sustainability is it?
I’m reading again R. M. Douglas’ ‘Orderly & Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War’ (2012) just to cheer myself up :).
It’s a harrowing book that examines the behaviour of former Nazi conquered lands towards the ethnic Germans in their midst. It makes for harrowing reading (although there are a few bright spots). But one of the phenomenon noted of ethic Germans in the holding camps (previously noted in Nazi concentration camps of course) was a condition known as cachexia – where the body begins to consume the muscles in the long limbs. Cachexia is related malnutrition, but is also brought about by underlying poor health as well and should be treated by addressing malnutrition and the underlying illness.
The cruelty and suffering revealed in Douglas’s book is is hard to contemplate even though he relates it calmly and factually.
It just struck me though as I read about it that our society is suffering from a form of cachexia in that our very humanity seems to be being consumed/wasted away by an illness (pleonexia?) where money comes before people. This leads to hostels being set on fire, RNLI stations being intimidated.
Neo-liberalism, austerity, fascism all making us ill and the ill made to feel worse. It will not bring out the best in us, will it?
And to think about Europe – all those people and all the dead in the ground already.
My God…………………….
Thank you.
Sobering.
Ask someone unemplyed and homeless or in “supported” accommodation, & on Universal Credit, about the DWP expectations for job hunting, and how they manag to hit the targets for applications competed per week and time (and money) spent. My late son was conscientious about this, but it was very challenging in many ways.
That is the other side of the divide you are talking about. Thank you for mentioning it.
It is, and it all reveals a society that has totally lost all sense of proportion when it comes to those in need, including those in need of work that suits them.
There is a flip side that you can work with an AI to apply to hundreds of jobs in minutes, complete with customised cover letter and potentially filling in as some or all the forms for you, but that does rather push for everyone to have some level of AI sophistication to not be disadvantaged.
As an interviewer it’s become much more normal to have some candidate who do video interviews with something like ChatGTP open to try to pretend experience they don’t have, too, although it’s often caught (N.B. don’t wear glasses if you’re going to do this as the reflection of the screen may give you away).
I’ve not seen companies doing more onerous hiring in general than I’ve seen at times – for decades you’ve had some that have several stages of interviewing (Goldman Sachs being notorious within finance for how many stages they had, for example).
One thing that comes and goes are supply and demand changes – when you’re struggling to hire new employees then you will generally lean towards quicker processes than when you have an excess of candidates. Less experienced workers may be getting hit by this effect right now given the reduction in entry-level and low-experience jobs, making their experience of finding a job seem like there’s more work required.
Note also that some places for finding work are better than others for a given experience level or location. LinkedIn tends to see lots of applicants. A second-tier site like Jooble may have more entry-level jobs and fewer applicants. My son’s experience between the 2 has been night and day.
I have to disagree with you: seeing what young people now have to go through, the demands now are much more onerous than they have ever been, and often insurmountable, e.g., having two years’ required experience for a starter position.
Sadly, I believe that Neoliberalism is altering society in precisely the manner its creators intended it to.
We see destruction and imminent collapse.
They see a programme on track that is doing its job well.
Very good article. Ten years ago, I was struggling to get interviews, and rarely got acknowledgements that my application had been received, let alone considered. I got a job with a local authority, it was 2p over minimum wage, so I had to find another, and turned to agencies. My son has taken to going through the door of businesses with a printed copy of his CV.
I knew things had got shitty, but hadn’t thought through the implications on changing jobs. This situation traps people in the job they have due to lack of time to apply, and could derail anyone made redundant as you are in danger of losing the roof over your head if you don’t start earning soon again.
I briefly claimed universal credit some years back, and the govt website told me I must take any job within 90 mins commute. Driving over an hour, paying for parking and doing a minimum wage job made no sense. I ended up going to my nearest job centre to see a human face, and promptly broke down in tears. I now work in care, which is rewarding but becoming physically harder as I get older, but I doubt I would find another job. It is tough whatever age you are, for many people.
So much to agree with. Go well.
The greenest form of personal transport per mile is an electric bike, slightly edging out a conventional bike as the extra fuel consumption of the normal bike comes from food rather than electricity stored when there is surplus.
I’d have demanded that 90 minute rule equate to a distance of no more than 22.5 miles, or there isn’t a climate emergency and net zero should be repealed.
It’s amazing where progressive logic takes you, but follow it through if it means people like us get to live another day.
My wife works at a SEND school, which of course are run by private companies. She is not allowed any time off outside of school holidays except where she can prove a valid reason for her absence, such as a doctor’s appt, and even then the time taken for that appt is unpaid. The pay there is woeful, barely above minimum wage, so she has been looking for other work, but is in a real bind when she does manage to secure an interview. If she cannot time it for the very end of the working day or during one of the school holidays she is unable to accept it. We are regressing, badly, as a society. Our hard won rights are being eroded and the masses aren’t really paying attention
You highlight another key issue in securing alternative work. Thank you
Today’s gospel reading is the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Your wife’s employer would do well to read it and reflect. As would our Government.
I was under the impression that CVs had to be kept current, so leaving a job to look for work would be frowned upon by prospective employers? I’ve seen some applications say to explain gaps. Or has the system collapsed so much that gaps are now normal? What is an appropriate length of time out of work before your no longer current.
I cannot answer those questions, but I gather things have changed, especially for younger people. If students can have gap periods. so can they. And why not?
Wish someone would right the rules down lol, if it’s changed I don’t feel so bad having gaps now! I always thought it bad.
We aren’t told the rules. But I never understood that one, even when I was an employer.
This exemplifies the politics of cynical carelessness in which we struggle to exist, or the exact opposite of the politics of care. In some ways I’m tempted to say it is a politics of hate because it is so obvious that neoliberals dismiss everyone who is unable to thrive under their system.