"X years expirence required"

[cab21]

after looking at many job applications, it seems many require years of experience for entry level positions, let alone higher positions. these jobs want people with so much experience first, but then in other area's it's not even possible.

 

there is no "must have 5 years experience in peaceful parenting your own child, before you can have sex to start trying to have your own child"

 

there is no "must have 5 years experience in successful marriage before you can get engaged to be married for the first time"

 

 

 

so it's like some of the most important roles in a society aren't even getting requirements that entry level jobs in the workforce get

[cynicist]

Yeah it's a really dumb way to limit the pool of applicants; HR departments seem to be staffed exclusively by morons. I think it encourages hiring people who will say anything to get a job.

[...]

.

[ribuck]

Gotta laugh when employers ask for "X years of experience", when X is greater than the number of years the technology has existed. It happened when Java was booming, and I predict it won't be long until we see ads for Bitcoin developers with 10 years experience.

[Daniel Unplugged]

Requiring experience for a job will only happen if the market allows it. If applicants were few and far between, that condition would probably not be there. It must be the case that there many more applicants than jobs available, otherwise the minimum standards wouldn't be so high.

 

Government regulations have made becoming a capitalist much more difficult than it used to be. As a result, the relative values of capitalists and workers have changed. This is one or the reasons for the increases in inequality and higher unemployment that have occurred in the last 50 years. Capitalists are in demand, workers are not.

 

Remember, the goal of socialists is to reduce everyone (except the rulers of course) to mere worker ants, and pay them a pittance. They have made great progress.

[Magnus]

I think the specious experience requirements are the result of phony credentialism, which is itself the result of state-run schools. The existence of a diploma or college degree is largely meaningless, as shown by the high percentage of stone cold idiots we all went to school with.

 

From the perspective of the HR moron, they meet dozens of people with similar third-tier education creds, but on the job are unable to add 3 numbers together or write in complete sentences. The public school system has created 150 years of bullshit artists.

 

The military, teaching and other fully statist environments are even worse. Promotion in them is strictly a matter of seniority plus education, so the system rewards (a) people who take no risks (thus ensuring longevity), and (b) spawned the creation of an entire industry of thoroughly worthless career "education" programs that make those diploma factories advertised on TV seem like Oxbridge. My sister-in-law got a "Masters" degree for her gov't teaching job that literally consisted of 2 class sessions and 1 written paper, which was mostly plagiarized with her instructor's assistance.

[HeyMorpheus]

after looking at many job applications, it seems many require years of experience for entry level positions, let alone higher positions. these jobs want people with so much experience first, but then in other area's it's not even possible.

 

there is no "must have 5 years experience in peaceful parenting your own child, before you can have sex to start trying to have your own child"

 

there is no "must have 5 years experience in successful marriage before you can get engaged to be married for the first time"

 

 

 

so it's like some of the most important roles in a society aren't even getting requirements that entry level jobs in the workforce get

 

It's an attempt to weed-out unqualified applicants.

 

I recently went through a job search and saw a lot of this. In my field (Electrical Engineering), there are a lot of recent-grads that can punch numbers in a calculator or explain a theory or principle, but can't produce or do anything. If an employer is looking for an EE that can come in and immediately being contributing to the company with little ramp-up time, they will list a "X years experience" on the listing. 

 

Think of it like this: you have children for the first time, you have zero years experience. You are learning a lot as you go.

 

Same with a job. Some employers are in need of an employee that doesn't need any learning or ramp-up time.

[cab21]

It's an attempt to weed-out unqualified applicants.

 

I recently went through a job search and saw a lot of this. In my field (Electrical Engineering), there are a lot of recent-grads that can punch numbers in a calculator or explain a theory or principle, but can't produce or do anything. If an employer is looking for an EE that can come in and immediately being contributing to the company with little ramp-up time, they will list a "X years experience" on the listing. 

 

Think of it like this: you have children for the first time, you have zero years experience. You are learning a lot as you go.

 

Same with a job. Some employers are in need of an employee that doesn't need any learning or ramp-up time.

 

i'm wondering about how successful the attempt is?

 

if the employee is looking for someone without ramp up time or learning, why not ask for a portfolio of  work rather than what seems to be a random time period of seniority? the portfolio seems more relevant to the job. some people learn quicker and do better jobs than others, so the merit seems more important to the task than the seniority.

 

for parenting Stefan without a child still seems like to have much more merit than other people with 20 years of child spanking experience or whatever.

[Brentb]

Smaller companies tend to hire people with experience because they can't afford to hire someone who turns out to be a dud, and they often don't have the time and resources necessary to properly train new hires.

 

Many larger companies actually prefer to hire people with no experience because they're hiring a lot of people and so the risk of hiring someone is pooled. Thus they can lower their costs by hiring low experience people and training them, which comes with the advantage of training people in accordance with your companies values and quality standards which is much easier to do with someone who doesn't have experience. People with experience will bring in the values and quality standards of their previous jobs, and a lot more effort is needed to get them to unlearn those where necessary.

[Magnus]

if the employee is looking for someone without ramp up time or learning, why not ask for a portfolio of work rather than what seems to be a random time period of seniority? the portfolio seems more relevant to the job. some people learn quicker and do better jobs than others, so the merit seems more important to the task than the seniority.

It's interesting that you mention this -- in the more creative lines of work (which are generally wide-open, free labor markets), like artists, illustrators, advertising, music, and even some software development, the hiring process is based very heavily on one's portfolio. I was an illustrator briefly after college (which was pre-Internet), and I thought about getting back into it a few years ago, and the near-universal consensus is that your credentials mean nothing and your portfolio is everything. Same with music. I have a good friend who is a true virtuoso, who went to one of the best music schools around. A lot of people who go there love it but never graduate, because the degree itself is trivial. It's 100% performance. Same with novels. I don't understand what Creative Writing BFA degrees are for. On the other end of the market-freedom scale are jobs like police and firemen, where there isn't even a way to rate performance, so they go by seniority.