Future hiring will mainly benefit the high-skilled

[GG]

Whenever companies start hiring freely again, job-seekers with specialized skills and education will have plenty of good opportunities. Others will face a choice: Take a job with low pay — or none at all.

Job creation will likely remain weak for months or even years. But once employers do step up hiring, some economists expect job openings to fall mainly into two categories of roughly equal numbers:

• Professional fields with higher pay. Think lawyers, research scientists and software engineers.

• Lower-skill and lower-paying jobs, like home health care aides and store clerks.

And those in between? Their outlook is bleaker. Economists foresee fewer moderately paid factory supervisors, postal workers and office administrators.

That's the sobering message American workers face as they celebrate Labor Day at a time of high unemployment, scant hiring and a widespread loss of job security. Not until 2014 or later is the nation expected to have regained all, or nearly all, the 8.4 million jobs lost to the recession. Millions of lost jobs in real estate, for example, aren't likely to be restored this decade, if ever.

On Friday, the government said the August unemployment rate ticked up to 9.6 percent. Not enough jobs were created to absorb the growing number of people seeking work. The unemployment rate has exceeded 9 percent for 16 months, the longest such stretch in nearly 30 years.

The crisis poses a threat to President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress, whose hold on the House and Senate appears to be at increasing risk because of voter discontent.

Even when the job market picks up, many people will be left behind. The threat stems, in part, from the economy's continuing shift from one driven by manufacturing to one fueled by service industries.

Pay for future service-sector jobs will tend to vary from very high to very low. At the same time, the number of middle-income service-sector jobs will shrink, according to government projections. Any job that can be automated or outsourced overseas is likely to continue to decline.

The service sector's growth could also magnify the nation's income inequality, with more people either affluent or financially squeezed. The nation isn't educating enough people for the higher-skilled service-sector jobs of the future, economists warn.

"There will be jobs," says Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist. "The big question is what they are going to pay, and what kind of lives they will allow people to lead? This will be a big issue for how broad a middle class we are going to have."

Read more:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_employment_future_jobs

[GG]

It does not take Einstein to figure out the better your skills are the more likely you are to be employed. 

I'm in the employment business and when somebody tells me they will do anything, it is code for they have no skills in anything. 

I hope I responded to this fast enough for you Hoss?   Or did I respond too fast?   

You guys on here are persnickety bunch.   

[Hoss]

It does not take Einstein to figure out the better your skills are the more likely you are to be employed.  

I'm in the employment business and when somebody tells me they will do anything, it is code for they have no skills in anything.  

I hope I responded to this fast enough for you Hoss?   Or did I respond too fast?  

You guys on here are persnickety bunch.    

Nope, that was five minutes...

And I was hoping the smiley winking would be a tip...guess some people don't know how to read them anymore...and, have lost all sense of humor.

Guess I know whose posts I'll quit responding to in the future.

[we vs us]

Your chart of the day, courtesy of the excellent econo-blog Calculated Risk:



In other words, your claim above, unreliable, isn't very controversial.  I think we've known for awhile that the money in our society goes to the well educated and/or well-trained.

You'd think the fix would be fairly easy -- spare no expense to educate your populace -- but it's not.