Re: [tlug] [OT] A Question About Degrees

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Attila Kinali writes:
 > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:08:55 +0900
 > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com> wrote:

 > > Still, I don't think it has anything like the impact
 > > that secular changes in the structure of the European economy have.
 > 
 > Could you explain a bit what you mean by "secular changes"?

Where it concerns the labor market, important aspects are
reunification of Germany, accession of former Warsaw Pact countries to
the EU, gradual strengthening of social guarantees, weakening of
competitive advantage (due to technological catchup of flexible/cheap
labor countries like China and India), very rapid increase in the
average level of education, etc.

 > >  > Hence i dont think that those who cannot atain a higher education
 > >  > are fucked.
 > > 
 > > That is not what I said.  What I said is that those who don't get jobs
 > > (corresponding to their educational level) are fucked.  What I have
 > > been told by French and Spanish labor economists is that those who do
 > > not succeed in getting jobs have no alternative but to go to graduate
 > > school or be unemployed (but I repeat myself :-) or work at MacDonald's
 > > (which is arguably somewhat useful to society, but doesn't pay anywhere
 > > near as well as software engineering or architecture).
 > 
 > Hmm... I cannot talk about any country but Switzerland here, as i have
 > very little knowledge about other countries job markets (maybe save
 > Germany, where quite a few of my friends work).
 > If you have an engineering degree (EE, mechanical, CS,...) in Switzerland,
 > you are sure to find a job.

Sure, but according to you a "degree" in Europe even now means
substantially more than a bachelor's degree in the U.S., perhaps in
many fields equivalent to a second-rate MS in the U.S.  The OP in this
thread was talking about an *associate* (2-year) degree; I'm thinking
in terms of some post-high-school education, up to U.S. bachelor's
degree.

 > I also know a few people from architecture and similar field that border
 > between engineering and craft/art who did take an office job in a
 > bank/insurance as well. Either because it was more secure than the
 > alternatives or because of the higher pay.

For the Scandinavian countries, at least, getting a degree in
architecture is pretty much a permanent ticket to underemployment.  So
they come to Japan to get PhDs, and make things worse....

 > > In the U.S. and to some extent in Japan, there are options such as
 > > contract work.  Much less job security, less to no fringe benefits,
 > > but the direct compensation is comparable (and sometimes substantially
 > > higher), and you get experience relevant to permanent positions in
 > > your field.
 > 
 > Same here. But with one big difference. These people count as self-employed
 > in Switzerland. Which means they have to pay insurances, etc themselves.
 > If they want to sustain a business (which most want) then they will
 > also charge a bit extra for the time when they have not enough work to do.

The people I'm talking about don't want to sustain a business.
They're in contract work because they can't find permanent employment,
not because they can do better (in some way) as self-employed than as
employees.

 > This makes them about as expensive or often even more expensive then
 > normal employees. The only benefit left is that you can hire them
 > when you need them and let go afterwards. But in a country where people
 > value stability and count hire-and-fire as inhumane and a busness practice
 > that no moral man would use, people rather like to hire empolyees than
 > contractors.

And when business goes bad, they stop hiring employees, and only
partially compensate with increase in contract work.  This is bad for
everybody.

 > > Japan does have a lot of such friction, more on the side of new
 > > graduates (who have a fourth option sometimes taken: suicide) than on
 > > the side of companies which quite happily (until recently when they
 > > started getting seriously bashed for it) used contract workers.  
 > 
 > I often hear weird and contradicting stories about job oppurtunities,
 > hiring procedures and first jobs of graduates in Japan. How does
 > it really look like?

Right now?  I'd guess it accounts for 20% of the record high suicide
rate, and about 50% of the famous decline in Japanese competitive
advantage as everybody with half a brain tries to get a secure job
either in a large private bureaucracy or in a government bureaucracy
rather than take the risk of doing something productive or creative.
Does that provide a clue?

Foreigners (and here I don't include those unfortunates who are
natives of this archipelago, but don't qualify as citizens) make up
way less than 1% of the population, and are highly concentrated in a
small number of fields.  (About half of them are students restricted
to very limited hours etc, or working in fields where there are no
employment rules because the employment itself has to be hidden, or
dependents, so the fraction in the general labor force is smaller.)
Anything you hear from foreigners about their own experiences is
pretty much irrelevant to the Japanese college student.

Japanese college students start looking for a job early in their third
year (in four-year programs).  They look in employment magazines to
find out what jobs and employers are considered good or bad, and what
companies are recruiting at their school/major (big companies often
have quotas for the first-rank universities by school and major), and
where the job fairs are if they're not at a first-rank university.

Then they start attending meetings with companies in mid-year
(November).  These explanatory meetings are generally considered
mandatory; attendance is taken and many students believe that your
chances are slim-to-none of getting a job if you haven't show
sincerity by going to the company's meeting.  (My wife tells me that's
B.S. from her own experience as a recruiter for the Hankyu Dept Store,
but the students believe it.)  You take a written test for each
company, and then go through a series of interviews, typically three
to five of them.  Very active job seekers will spend 2 or 3 days a
week on this activity for about 9 months.

Really exceptional candidates will have an unofficial decision by the
end of the third year (ie, March); typical candidates will hear by
summer vacation.  Students who do *not* have a job by the end of
summer typically do one of two things: apply for graduate school, or
prepare to take a leave of absence to avoid graduating.

The cycle for public employees is different.  The civil service exams
are given in summer, and the interview process more compressed.  But
they have decisions by early autumn in almost all cases.

In any case, you really want to have either a job or continuing
student status at the end of your fourth year.  In 1991, the Yamaichi
securities firm failed, and all of their first year hires were out on
the street.  But by then the hiring process for the coming year was in
full swing, they had missed the company exams and couldn't catch up to
the normal process.  Almost none got real jobs within a year, and a
year later over 30% were still unemployed.  These were elite
candidates, too; at that time, Yamaichi and Nomura ruled the Japanese
securities industry, and jobs with those companies were considered
second only to elite-track positions in the MOF or MITI (now METI).
Similarly, after the Lehman shock a number of firms cut back their
hiring, and withdrew promises of employment.  Those students didn't
fare much better, for the same reasons.

I don't know much about first jobs; my understanding is that new
graduates employed in general management are not expected to know
anything useful, and aren't expected to be productive at all for about
a year.  They spend that time in formal training of various kinds, and
as gofers for more senior employees until they've started to learn the
ropes.  After that first year expectations rise quite rapidly AIUI.
But that could be completely wrong, it's all second-hand.

Engineers have more specific tasks earlier, I guess.

 > > But I can't see it as a solution to introduce more European-style
 > > rules to create further barriers to hiring here.
 > 
 > Which rules/barriers are you refering to?

Required social insurance, difficulty in firing, restrictions on
working hours, mandatory paid vacation, etc.