It is possible that another kind of structural shift has occurred, such that workers’ skills do not match those demanded by the economy.
This has been echoed by employers - they need to hire but can't find people with the right skills. Liquid unemployment needs skills to be widely transferable across a variety of jobs, which apparently is no longer the case. The work skills that most people have are no longer skills which other people find valuable. To change this state, people have to be trained, and someone has to pay for that - individuals, their parents, a company, governments, private donors, somebody.
ITTET, companies believe they can't afford to hire untrained workers -- to afford to train their employees. Having a current employee do this job is cheaper than hiring, meaning companies really aren't expanding the capacity at which they can supply their respective markets.
The Mulligan perspective is interesting, but it conflicts with the Laffer curve.
Totally agree. It's mostly a problem precipitated by globalization starting with the IBM layoff of '93. Since that layoff, loyalty (employer to employee and employee to employer) has completely eroded to the point, where neither has confidence of how long one will "keep" the other around. This means that employers no longer bet on people with right talent, but not the right skills because it is conceivable that the employee could leave in a few months to a few years after any required skills have been acquired/mastered.
These problems are further precipitated by tech companies giving HR departments exactly the tools they asked for and not the tools they need. HR departments asked for tools to help them perform better skill-to-position matching, often based on keywords, and approach very prone to false negatives (i.e. people ideal for the position not even being considered). What HR departments actually need are tools to help them determine who would likely succeed in positions that need filling based on comparable or transferrable skills.
This has been echoed by employers - they need to hire but can't find people with the right skills. Liquid unemployment needs skills to be widely transferable across a variety of jobs, which apparently is no longer the case. The work skills that most people have are no longer skills which other people find valuable. To change this state, people have to be trained, and someone has to pay for that - individuals, their parents, a company, governments, private donors, somebody.
ITTET, companies believe they can't afford to hire untrained workers -- to afford to train their employees. Having a current employee do this job is cheaper than hiring, meaning companies really aren't expanding the capacity at which they can supply their respective markets.
The Mulligan perspective is interesting, but it conflicts with the Laffer curve.