Evolve or perish.
This statement has often echoed in my ears, primarily when discussing someone’s profession or vocation. It’s generally spoken with an air of smugness by those who have had a successful head start in life, discussing “optimization” or “organizational restructuring.”
Distastefully, I must confess that they’re often correct. For instance, switchboard operators are becoming a rarity.
In the relentless onslaught of technological evolution, many have been confronted with the ultimatum of “evolve or perish.” Countless more are next in line for this challenging decision. First, we advised everyone to pursue a college education. Next, we directed them all to secure jobs in the tech industry—two recommendations that are perhaps too generic, yet they have been heeded by many.
In the face of these dramatic changes, many individuals have been left behind. Take me, for instance, I’ve never been particularly suited to academia, and I’m not alone in this. Many others regret the academic paths they were guided towards. A significant number despise the traditional office environment.
So, why haven’t we posed some of the more apparent queries? Things such as:
- Do these “evolutions” genuinely enhance our society?
- Is the suggested route truly valuable?
- Will these technological advancements prove to be beneficial on a larger scale or the converse?
If we consider the condition of the job market and workforce, it’s evident we’ve made missteps in some areas. Nearly every facet of America’s working society is sending out distress signals — from participation rate, wage versus expenses, recruitment procedure, work/life balance, to industry supply/demand balances and more.
Whatever you choose — it’s malfunctioning.
But why? What’s our next step? How did we end up here? Is there a possibility for change?
The current state of affairs
Clarifying my stance from the beginning, I’m not among those who advocate for a total overthrow of Western civilization in favor of utter chaos. Do we need to buckle down and commit to significant improvements? Without doubt. Are we potentially headed for a gloomier future if we fail to acknowledge and address pressing issues? Definitely.
Will the societal structure implode? I think not. There’s too much inertia and indifference fueling the system, ensuring it’s persistent functionality.
In my perspective, a ‘functional’ system is one that provides value or at least the potential for benefit to the majority of its participants. From that viewpoint, virtually all significant systems in our country are in a state of disrepair.
Take housing for instance — it’s the chief expenditure for the majority, and it’s in chaotic disarray, albeit it profits sizable sections of the population. Mass media, and indeed media at large, has let down its audience, serving its sponsors more loyally than its consumers. The political landscape is ridden with failure too. Even our interpersonal relationships and dating environments are struggling.
Essentially, employment remains the most impacted area, suffering from widespread issues which are challenging to rank in terms of urgency. However, we’re taking on the challenge and addressing them all.
There’s no specific sequence, but we need to examine the following: the influence of US demographics on labor force, existing and upcoming tech changes, enhancement of efficiency at the cost of pitiful wages, work culture, and job-hunting procedures. The inclusion of education in the discussion is inevitable.
Upon an objective analysis of these factors, it becomes evident that the outlook isn’t very promising. Let’s refer to this as the “facts” part, as it lays the groundwork for discussing the job market and labor force.
Since around 2000, there’s been a gradual but consistent drop in labor force involvement, now slightly above 62%. Imagine a room with 100 people needing goods and services, but only 63 are engaged in providing these.
Now, the level of productivity a business can expect from an average employee has significantly risen, potentially balancing that participation deficit. However, wages failed to keep pace with this advancement. Simplified? Greater workload, lesser remuneration. It may be a coincidence or not, but there’s been a severe drop in union membership over the same duration.
Nominal wages for full-time employees have risen nearly 101% since the dawn of the millennium, which initially seems substantial. But when compared to the 550% surge in corporate profits during the same period, it pales.
When adjusted for inflation, wages have grown 18% during that period, primarily from 2012 to 2019. Notwithstanding the praises of a robust economy, we haven’t seen real wages matching 2019’s figures in the subsequent five years.
Readers with more liberal views may argue that the 1% wealthiest population has accrued all this wealth. However, their collective net worth hasn’t grown at a pace consistent enough to substantiate that statement. There must be an avenue where these profits are flowing. Or isn’t there?
In the midst of all this, unsurprisingly, reports indicate record levels of job dissatisfaction. Given that many employees can’t afford to retire, it’s akin to an extended doom sentence. Those trying to break free from this situation enter a “recruitment” procedure where hundreds of job applications only lead to a handful or no interviews. And to make things worse, they receive no rationale behind their non-selection, likely because their applications, cover letters, or resumes were never reviewed.
So, can someone please enlighten us on why there’s so much discontent?
Decay
It should be noted that in our present setup, a substantial number excel. I refer to them as the predominant group, given that the majority of our systems are designed to succeed for a significant fraction, whilst also failing numerous others. Surmising the scenario for hundreds of millions of individuals, one can say this is the optimal one could expect.
The satisfied individuals, often excel in formal and regimented education systems. They are drawn towards office work, with a particular inclination towards finance or technology sectors. They don’t mind maintaining a status quo, continuing in their respective fields until retirement, or even lifelong commitment if need be.
A small group (yet nonetheless existent group) are individuals who, at an early stage, discerned that they were not suited to the traditional career path and decided to embark on a different journey. These people can be spotted in professional trades or even in patrol cars whizzing past you on the motorway.
The rest of us, however, – be it square, triangle, trapezoid, or curvy figures – are persistently nudged into roles unsuited to our unique dimensions throughout our lives. This is where the employment sector’s first fundamental flaw lies: we’re churning out a multitude of professionals perfectly competent for jobs they despise. Moreover, there’s an inclination to steer people away from necessary roles that bypass the university route.
This is nothing more than a supply-demand discrepancy that will in due course correct itself as wages for the trades rise and the salaries for office jobs either remain flat or vanish entirely with the advancement of AI. Having a college degree or a high school diploma assures no certainty these days. With one option being cheaper by $100,000 or more, it’s no surprise that recent generations are less eager to enroll in higher education.
This, however, merely highlights the disparity between education, personal interests, and accessible career paths. This issue has been discussed previously and will continue to be addressed. The labor market has more pressing issues. It was important to establish that the foundation of the workforce itself is unstable.
Demographic trends usually take precedence when discussing other labor market issues. Particularly, the falling worker-to-retiree ratio as the baby boomer generation steps into retirement has wide-ranging effects, from taxes to broader economic scenarios. Nonetheless, it is logical to first examine its impact on the workforce.
The immediate concern is the impending intellect and skills drain as those with decades of experience – most of which saw them remain in top positions – leave their organizations. For non-baby boomers in the workforce, this might seem like a welcome change initially.
An increase in job vacancies and a corresponding rise in wages, along with new opportunities in higher-level positions, could significantly alter our career landscape, paving the way for potential job transitions or lateral shifts. This, however, assumes the labour market remains constant before and after the retirement of the baby boomer generation, disregarding factors like technological advancements, job offshoring, and AI job replacements – a highly improbable scenario.
It’s undeniable that AI will take over certain jobs. The question is, will AI result in a net decrease in jobs, or merely shift job demand to other fields? Judging by the 37% of firms that report AI has already led to job losses, I believe in the former. While I do not entirely agree with Elon Musk’s prediction of AI eliminating all jobs, I am inclined towards this perspective more than the overly optimistic view that AI will add value to the labour market.
Even if AI does not impact the overall number of jobs, a neutral effect is not equivalent to no effect. For instance, are administrative assistants, loan processors, and payables clerks equipped or inclined to transition into UX design? Personally, I would prefer a solitary life in the wilderness over a job in technology, but others might be more receptive.
Still, even if we assume the ideal scenario where AI has a neutral effect on job numbers, it will undoubtedly disrupt job locations and the current balance of skills and demand. In my opinion, any job with titles ending in “assistant”, “clerk”, or “processor” will soon become outdated. Many specialized roles could also become obsolete.
Any routine job that involves making standard decisions based on pre-existing data, or even simply collecting and compiling this data, can be tackled by AI. How many jobs involve the creation of truly original, entirely innovative, non-imitative ideas and concepts? The answer is scant.
This imbalance in supply and demand and the looming threat of job reductions form the fragile pillars on which our job market stands, built atop a fractured foundation. Now, let’s examine the rest of the structure.
Discontentment
Next, we delve into the core hiring procedure itself, which, in my perspective, has evolved into a completely disheartening, impersonal, and hellish labyrinth that not even a Bosch artwork could adequately illustrate.
Prompted by a few past associates, I chose to plunge into this quagmire for this article and scrutinize the process while employing their experiences. It was far from ideal. The alterations to the recruitment and selection procedure represent some of the most significant shifts we’ve witnessed in the recent decades, and this is yet another domain where the “adjustment” hasn’t exactly been splendid.
The modernization of recruitment, which we can term as “Indeed-ization”, has served only a few entities such as Indeed and the companies that design recruitment software for several businesses.
Imagine being an organization in search of an exceptional candidate. In most cases, these organizations rely on job portals, AI-powered in-house software, or both. An extraordinary candidate that meticulously crafts an avant-garde, authentic resume and cover letter for a specific job is likely to be weeded out by the AI or software, unable to decipher such unique applications, long before it reaches the hiring authorities.
So, are exceptional skills and uniqueness overlooked? Quite frequently, yes.
In the meantime, an avalanche of generic applications, often produced by the cookie-cutter Indeed resumes through the “quick apply” feature, floods the recruiter or hiring authorities, leaving them with piles of almost identical, presumably subpar junk to browse through haphazardly.
Reboot
What’s the solution, and where do we begin?
Perhaps we need to reevaluate the convergence of education and career progression. I have had the opportunity to hire or train a number of university graduates, even some with postgraduate degrees. Can you guess how much time their training required for a conventional corporate, finance-related role?
Just as much as it did for the individual with a high school diploma.
At present, education serves as a criterion for job and career opportunities that often have negligible relevance to the education level required. The substantial time and financial investment required to meet these standards also results in a rigid workforce—individuals who have invested four or more years and over $120,000 into an academic degree are less likely to switch careers abruptly.
In today’s volatile labor market, such inflexibility is not tenable.
Higher education might be better utilized as a platform for learning, personal growth, and broadening one’s perspectives.
We might even need to subsidize it to increase accessibility, particularly for those in economically disadvantaged areas. I understand it’s a radical idea.
Potentially, people could be given the freedom to enhance their understanding of the world without the fear of bankruptcy or financial hardship.
Role-specific certificate courses, licensing programs, and hands-on training could demonstrate practical knowledge and career progression. It’s feasible, for instance, to upskill someone into a competent entry-level risk analyst, underwriter, or processor within nine months. Alternatively, these could be broken down into three distinct 90-day intensive training courses.
Irrespective of the job title, a more efficient, cost-effective and role-specific qualification may be preferable to the current practice of requesting a “bachelor’s degree in business” for some positions. With this approach, it would be more logical to reserve educational prerequisites for roles that genuinely necessitate them. This would not only reintroduce meaning to such requirements but would also allow for proper remuneration.
Perhaps we should consider raising the wage baseline.
Achieving financial stability often entails transitioning from the role of an employee to that of an investor. Therefore, it’s paramount to ensure individuals have sufficient means leftover after providing for their basic necessities to be able to make this transition. If union intervention becomes a necessity for this, I am wholly supportive.
Firms genuinely interested in attracting the best and most diverse range of candidates should encourage their HR departments, hiring managers, and recruitment teams to thoroughly evaluate each applicant. Is this laborious, especially when the job market is tight, and hundreds are applying for a single position? Absolutely.
However, even a hasty, detached glance by an uninterested department head proves more effective than randomly discarding half of the applications based on software filters. This is a principle I firmly believe in and stand by.
Our hiring process is as follows: You are rerouted from Indeed. You select the job you wish to apply for. There are two boxes and one attestation. In the first box, you upload your resume—no autofill, just the document. In the second box, you have the option to upload a cover letter. Lastly, you confirm the veracity of the information provided. After this, your application is complete and awaits our evaluation.
In the present employment system, potential employers often overlook educated applicants who lack degrees, original and imaginative applicants who can’t make it past screeners or personality tests, and seasoned managers and senior tech staff who overlook a certain criterion during the multi-step process.
Meanwhile, job seekers are haphazardly applying to hundreds of jobs without receiving a single response or even standardized rejection emails. The financial burden of their student loans is overwhelming, and there is no payoff. Capable applicants are being told they’re not qualified, while adept interviewees and negotiators aren’t given a chance to exhibit their skills.
The only entities benefiting from this system are overpriced educational institutions, consultants, and job platforms, none of whom have a stake in the outcome.
My proposal is to completely exclude them from this process.
