Complex Numbers

Revisited: "Rarity"

One of the reasons I've been randomly digging into the archives on occasion is that things change, especially me.

"Rarity"  is from mid-2009, and it made me wonder just how much some things actually change. The entry was done in what would eventually become my standard format, commenting on an article I found on the internet. Being from 2009, though, the actual article is gone, but hopefully there's enough in my entry to get the general idea: some employers were allegedly having trouble filling positions.

Like I said, made me wonder just how much some things actually change.

In 2009, the US was in the middle of the Great Recession, marked in part by high unemployment rates. It peaked then at about 10%, and that number would steadily decline over the next several years until it shot up again in early 2020 (gosh I wonder what happened then)—but we couldn't have known that at the time. The current value is around 3.5%, close to what it was in the Before Time.

With an unemployment rate that low, I can understand employers not being able to find workers. At 10%, though? Well, I guess the original article was about professionals and trade workers, not unskilled labor.

What stood out for me in my original entry above was this:

Businesses try to create a glut of workers so that they can have more control over the workers. Supply and demand, folks. If there are 30 engineers competing for one position, they'll go with the competent one who can live on the lowest salary. Just business. If, however, there are 30 possible positions for each engineer, the engineer's in the catbird's seat.

I'm not sure why I phrased it that way now, implying that businesses are creating workers somehow. I mean, I guess they do to some extent when they go to the press with "we have a shortage of [nurses|engineers|welders|whatever] so kids should go learn these trades!" But I can't see that making a huge difference.

What I probably should have said was that businesses like it when there's an abundance of workers. And I still think that way. Oversupply of workers leads to management deciding they can make more demands of them, while a scarcity of potential employees means someone looking for a job can be the one doing the demanding.

Embarrassing moment for me in the entry:

Let's play SAT test (don't worry; no math in this one).

Oh, I'll need to pull cash from the ATM machine and use my GPS system to get to the testing facility. Oy. Sorry about the redundancy. I make mistakes from time to time. I know, I know; it was hard to believe when I wrote yesterday that I don't always get everything right. But this is proof.

In any case, i was struck by the similarities of the 2009 article (at least what excerpts survived in my entry) and a lot of the rhetoric businesses are spouting today. I tried to find a similar article from this year or at least last year, to see what "the hardest jobs to fill" are right now, but my search came up with nothing relevant. I did find this  , but there's no date on the page (apart from a copyright that probably updates every January 1), and the salaries listed appear to be from 20 years ago. So I have no idea what the hardest jobs to fill right now are.

I suspect "blogger" isn't on the list, though.