Yesterday, I asked a few HR and Recruiting related questions on the social networking site Linked In. I received a bunch of responses.
One a of the few that I found interesting was withdrawn for publishing by the respondent for some reason. However, since they responded to me I will publish the response in my blog for the benefit of everyone to review. I would love to give credit to the writer of this, however the person who actually penned the following statement does not want to have their views published or wishes to remain anonymous. Therefore, I am not identifying them, except to let everyone know that she is a Professional Career Coach with a Global HR Solutions provider.
Typically, "Over-Qualified" for a position in the US is used as a euphemisms for being "too-old" for the particular position or even company culture. Her take -
"I'll respond to being "overqualified." If you are 35 and spent the last 5 yrs in a managerial role and were not "hands-on" then apply for an individual contributor role with no management/supervisory responsibility, you are "overqualified." WHY? Most likely, no matter how much the applicant says they are "ok" not managing people, most likely they will not be a "fit" and will seek a better opportunity before the company sees it's ROI. The applicant isn't "old" but used to working in a different capacity than the job being offered.
Again, if an applicant has 10+ yrs of HR exp at the Dir and above level, they are OVERQUALIFIED to be the HR Assoc responsible for scheduling interviews, processing paperwork, and ordering lunches for the departmental meetings.
Are there cases when applicants may be discriminated against for age? Of course, but a good HR/Recruiter will look for fit and most often we know and have experienced the downside of hiring an overqualified person for a job. Only once in my career did it work and it was because the employee admittedly wanted a "place to hang out" until he retired in 2yrs."
Hope the above helps...
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
What does "Over-Qualified" mean for Today's Workers?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Are the economic experts reallly that stupid...?!?!?!
In the last quarter of 2009 there was great deal of optimism that the global economy was on the verge of turning around, but the US economy was doomed to complete annihilation, which was the reason gold was having such a great run up.
Now I'm not an economist or an expert on the subject, but I have studied it a little and do read a bit, more than anything I like to look at facts before making any kind of predictions.
Anyone who claims to be an economist even as a passing dilettante on the subject usually has reams and gobs of paper pass under their nose that would show factually where the fault lines are in the global economy. Yet, there is either a global conspiracy to suppress the evidence or the academics who teach the subject have no idea what they are talking about these days, or even in the past when were proven dead wrong(!); and still fail to admit that the academic theories they have grown up studying and teaching are fundamentally flawed in this new age of instant global inter-connectedness!
Let's get to the real issue - a great global meltdown is staring at us in the face yet nobody sees - EUROPE!!! All everyone can report about is the failures of the American economy, which are miniscule compared to what has already happened in Europe, is now happening, and will unfold in the coming months!!!
Greece is just the very "tiny" tip of the financial meltdown volcano that will erupt if people these so called economic experts do not take their heads out of places where the sun don't shine, and start initiating more sound economic polices rather than blow air as they did at the WEF recently!
Anyway, to satisfy my own curiosity and see how and why my hypothesis may just be right I created the following tables to analyze and draw my own conclusions. The information is as of 2008, so still current.
| Rank | Country | GDP in Billions | % Debt. Of GDP | External Debt. in Billions | Per Capita Debt | Per Capita GDP |
| 20 | United States | $14,260.00 | 94.35% | $13,454.00 | $43,793.00 | $47,440.00 |
| 19 | Hungary | $196.60 | 105.76% | $207.92 | $20,936.64 | $19,553.00 |
| 18 | Australia | $800.20 | 111.38% | $891.26 | $42,426.18 | $36,918.00 |
| 17 | Italy | $1,823.00 | 126.71% | $2,310.00 | $39,741.00 | $30,631.00 |
| 16 | Greece | $343.00 | 161.17% | $552.80 | $51,483.00 | $30,681.00 |
| 15 | Spain | $1,403.00 | 171.70% | $2,409.00 | $59,457.00 | $30,589.00 |
| 14 | Germany | $2,918.00 | 178.48% | $5,208.00 | $63,263.00 | $36,320.00 |
| 13 | Finland | $193.50 | 188.55% | $364.85 | $69,491.00 | $36,320.00 |
| 12 | Sweden | $344.30 | 194.34% | $669.10 | $73,854.00 | $37,334.00 |
| 11 | Norway | $275.40 | 199.02% | $548.10 | $117,604.00 | $53,738.00 |
| 10 | Hong Kong | $306.60 | 205.85% | $631.13 | $89,457.00 | $43,847.00 |
| 9 | Portugal | $236.50 | 214.38% | $507.00 | $47,348.00 | $22,232.00 |
| 8 | France | $2,128.00 | 235.95% | $5,021.00 | $78,387.00 | $34,205.00 |
| 7 | Austria | $329.50 | 252.63% | $832.42 | $101,387.00 | $39,887.00 |
| 6 | Denmark | $203.60 | 298.32% | $607.38 | $110,422.00 | $37,304.00 |
| 5 | Belgium | $389.00 | 320.31% | $1,246.00 | $119,681.00 | $36,416.00 |
| 4 | Netherlands | $672.00 | 364.88% | $2,452.00 | $146,703.00 | $40,558.00 |
| 3 | United Kingdom | $2,226.00 | 408.22% | $9,087.00 | $148,702.00 | $36,358.00 |
| 2 | Switzerland | $316.70 | 422.48% | $1,338.00 | $176,045.00 | $43,196.00 |
| 1 | Ireland | $188.40 | 1266.45% | $2,386.00 | $576,805.00 | $42,110.00 |
I have highlighted the US and six largest economies in Europe.
Just look at the per capita debt per person vs the per capita GDP and draw your own conclusions from the comparisons. By the way the population of US is approx. 311 million, while the population of European Union for those wanting to do more analysis is approx. 500 million.
Besides the teetering economies that we are already aware of Iceland and Greece, there are greater underlying problems in Europe specially in the realm of politics and it's proximity to Russia and the turbulence that arises from the Middle-East. Let's not factor out geo-politics when it comes to the occurrence, division, and allocation of natural resources, and ethnic tensions in the region.
If anyone of the readers was a betting person and was aware of the geo-political-economic world order which country would you place your bets on... to successfully emerge intact with the least amount of collateral damage from the current economic crisis?
