There wasn't one.... the goal posts were shifted and good, hard working people are forced to accept economic hardship because the corporations outsourced the manufacturing jobs that actually fueled the economy.  Now people are forced into 'service' jobs to survive, and that merely recycles money and puts it back in the hands of greedy corporations... read profits for the already stinking rich.

The thing is, corporations are not satisfied unless they have 5% - 6% exponential growth, and to achieve that they have to take consumer money... and therein lies the rub.  The gap between the rich and poor is an ever widening to a chasm and the number living below the poverty line increases hourly, so just where does this exponential growth come from when consumers have nothing left to take?

Yep, it'll come down to ruthless corporate takeovers, and only the strongest,,, er, most powerful and adept at thuggery will survive... and one world corporation is just as unacceptable and dangerous as a one world government.

Because post-secondary schooling doesn't develop one's work ethic at all when compared to flipping burgers...

No jobs also means a steady flow of new recruits into the military. Must be funny as hell when they finally figure out they are not playing CoD.

I get this a lot at the hospital.  I work in a spooky old mental hospital, and a lot of the people that are hired for the Mental Health Aid position are kids that have never had a job before.  My job is to train them.  Got two weeks to teach people that can barely tie their own shoes to take care of adults that have severe mental illness.  I don't do the hiring, I'm just in charge of trying to polish a turd.  

When I was a teenager, my day job was bringing back the wooly mammoth for dinner

Seriously, though, I was a teenager in the '70s, and didn't really have much trouble finding work (and as the oldest of five with a single mom, believe me, I *had* to work ).

It is, obviously, somewhat harder today, at least in terms of easily available opportunities, and that can be a bit disheartening when it comes up as often as it seems to.

I think the closest thing to a happy medium (between having job experience, and trying to get it) is to go out of your way to let your prospective employer trust that you *are* willing to do the work. Things like just dropping off a resume, and unrealistic salary or position demands aren't going to get you past the part where HR (or the hiring person) just tosses them in the bin. Whether you do it with grunt jobs while a teenager / college student, or as a probie in an entry level 'pro' job, you gotta pay your dues first, and demonstrate that you are actually willing to come in on time, on schedule, and actually do your work.

As someone who sometimes interviews (and 'approves') job applicants, I will say that I won't consider a lack of job experience for an entry level position to be a showstopper, but if they've never held a job, they have to provide some other way to make me think that they're worth a shot.

Things like actual enthusiasm and a well articulated willingness to do the work are a good start. Usually, for entry levels, there's often a probationary period also.

If it's not entry level, you better have some real experience under your belt.

But, there's no hard and fast rule, it's really about how much you're willing to risk on what can amount to a 'blind hire'.

I've hired kids right out of college, with no job experience, who turned into some of the best I've worked with, and I've hired 'experienced' developers and engineers who had good stats, and talked a good interview, but were less useful than a skin rash (after a while, you do pick up on some of the telltales that let you identify them, though).

What do you think are some of the telltales for the experienced people?   Just curious.

That ain't gonna be the case in the future.  Military will be drawing down.  Many Dems want to do it, as does the Paul faction of Republicans.  When Afghan is done, we're going to lose troops to save money.

That's gonna make things worse. 

I'm not sure that there's anything easy to articulate there For me, at least, it's pretty much just the vibe I get from them (not empirical, I know, but I have a better success rate with that than some of the usual 'bullet point' methods that might work for others).

Mostly, body language is a good one, look for physical reactions that don't agree with the verbal responses (you can usually tell a lie from the eyes or their posture, and it's usually different from just being nervous).

It's not that hard to weed out the actually dishonest, though, the ones I had to try to get a good grip on were the ones who really did have the kind of experience that they claimed, but who weren't really motivated to do the job once they got it (had one guy who actually acted shocked that we expected him to actually meet his deliverables ). Sometimes, you get the feeling that they think they're doing you a favor by applying, and you can get a vibe from that.

Mostly, it's just a matter of going through enough interviews that (probably on a bit of a subconscious level), you can just identify their personality based on the ones you've encountered before.

Mostly, once I've gotten past the experience part (whether they have it or not), it pretty much comes down to a kind of subjective personality test. I've gotten a good feeling, over time, as to what kind of personality will fit well within the existing group and that present an air of commitment and willingness to step up and do the job they're after.

You do make a good point and I am sure you meant no offence but bringing your troops home should not ever be equated with that line. Money from war can easily go to infrastructure and tax incentives to hire vets is a damn good idea.

Just a peace luvin Canadians point of view. 

And I also hear the banging of the war drums for Iran and Irans ally Syria every time the TV is on. 

I think its a pretty logical move not to hire anyone to a company like Stardock without any experience.  Hell, make an intern program for that (hint, you should probably have an intern program if you don't have one).  Even if its paid interns, you can pay them a paltry amount of money for a set duration and then cut them loose if you think they aren't worth the investment.  + that looks great for them on a resume.  Wouldn't you at least take notice if one of your applicants was an intern at GPG or Blizzard?  You do them and yourself a favor (provided they aren't complete wastes...). 

Anyway, don't you have an HR dept that looks at resumes and can quickly screen out ALL resumes with 0 work experience?  I'd think that should happen long before you end up looking at a resume.  King CEO should have a few barriers you know. 

Completely agree re: the parenting stuff though.  It should not be all that hard to convey the concept that a job history should be vital to getting a good job.  If you are being honest though, no job history is one thing.  But you aren't exactly going to be impressed with the guy that worked 1 year at mcdonalds either... its just better than nothing.

I doubt that being cut loose because 'they ain't worth the money' is going to look all that rosy on a resume....

I'm not sure that there's anything easy to articulate there For me, at least, it's pretty much just the vibe I get from them (not empirical, I know, but I have a better success rate with that than some of the usual 'bullet point' methods that might work for others).

I pretty much just bang them hard on the technical.   I rejected behavioral interviewing a long time ago  (that's not to say everyone else has, though).  My logic is if they know their stuff--and least, to the extent that I hammer them--then they had to have a work ethic to get that way.  You don't just know the field overnight.

Yup, I do that, too. The handful of oddballs that I've seen have been actually pretty good at the technical, but when I brought them in, they treated it as a license to slack.

Mostly, though, I agree with you, if they can get through a pretty solid tech, they've at least had to do some work to get that far. It just seems that some small portion of them want to rest on that, and not do anything else

You know that works the other way around too.  If someone actually notices that you're looking for someone with three years experience and they only have two and a half, they may discount the possibility of getting the job at all and move on to consider a different vacancy.  Considering that the actual experience gained in three years can vary considerably, it might just be an idea to not mention a duration but ask for particular things in the person specification instead.

Consider also that someone may not even mention work experience because they don't consider it to be relevant.  Which okay, it's their loss if they haven't mentioned any kind of work on their resume, but that doesn't mean they're a bad candidate.

Jobs are tough to come by in this economy. These days, if you're not already established and you want a job you have to either get really lucky or make it yourself. Making your own job is quite simply beyond the abilities of a many of people, especially young people who don't have work experience and haven't seen a business run from the perspective of an employee, much less an entrepreneur.