Market Employability: High Skilled Versus Low Skilled Workers - Essay Example

MARKET EMPLOYABILITY: HIGH SKILLED VERSUS LOW SKILLED WORKERS Thelabour market is increasingly becoming tough for educated potential employees. For this reason, the complexity of jobs is rising. To a great extent, the trend has been necessitated by current innovations in the field of innovation technology. In the wake of the current changes, industry scholars have begun to analyse the competitiveness of high-skilled workers vis-à-vis their low-skilled counterparts when it comes to market suitability and employability. In order to make a precise understanding of this debate, it is important to analyse the skill requirements in the current global market and relate the same to the current levels of education for the new graduates. On the other hand, there is a need to scrutinise the new role of low-skilled workers in the current job and industry requirements. In order to get a succinct understanding of the market competitiveness for skilled workers as compared to their low-skilled counterparts, this paper begins by looking at the theoretical perspective of the issue. This is then followed by a critical analysis of the many factors that influence market competitiveness for both skilled and low-skilled workers. Lastly, these factors are analyzed by using the case study of the labour market in the United States where skilled workers are becoming obsolescent to the advantage of the low-skilled and low-educated workers. One of the theory that explain the circumstance of the labour market where less skilled worker get hired than the skilled work force is the invisible hand theory. Adam Smith coined the term invisible hand denoting that the market should be free of interference from the government (Holcombe, 1999). However, the theory of invisible hand explains that market ought to be guided by the forces of demand and supply. Through this scarce resources are bound to be shared efficiently. This is also the circumstance in the labour sector. The forces of demand and supply supersede the skills more so where the market does not need specialised services (Holcombe, 1999). Therefore, the invisible hand theory explains the competiveness of non-skill workforce to that of skilled labourer (Holcombe, 1999). The high investment in higher education and skills necessary for a particular type of job is no longer fool proof of a better job. This is because the current market for skills is largely driven by laws of supply and demand. For many years, there has been a contemporary belief that high-skilled workers are often granted high priority in the job market. However, low-skilled workers form the bulk of the low-income category (Lloyd &Mayhew, 2010). Those with even lower skills form the majority of the unemployed people in many countries. It is this belief that has made the pursuit for higher education the driving force for many people. However, it is plausible that the current market dynamics have challenged this traditional belief in a very fundamental manner (Maurin, &Thesmar, 2003). There is an increase in comparative skill demand in companies that make considerable investments in research and development. Low-skilled workers usually do not have the skills needed for operating the new technologies and processes (U.S. Department of Labour, 2012). Many scholars argue that it is not just the introduction of information technology that has precipitated skill-biased technological change. Rather, organizational change has also had a big influence in this change. Scholars have made an assumption that the importance for upgrading the skills of the current labour force is driven primarily by related innovations in technology and workplace re-organization (DWP/DIUS, 2007). To some extent, the upgrade of skills is influenced by the introduction of new products and services. This means that the length to which the complexity of jobs rises is much greater than the upgrade of the skills related to technology as such (Grip & Zwick, n.d.). It is plausible that the upgrade of skills required by the present labour market has gained broad recognition in public policy. For instance, the ‘White Paper’ on Growth, Competitiveness, and Employment was developed by the European Commission in 1993(Toporowski, 2002, p. 101). It provides that a highly skilled workforce is needed in order to remain in tandem with technological developments in the developed nations (Bresnahan, Brynjolfsson, & Hitt, 2002). It is important to note that the upgrade of skills required in the job market is not sufficient since occupational and technological changes have also induced major changes in the type of skills needed for the current labour market. It is this major fact that has rendered some high-skilled workers jobless despite their high levels of education and skill levels. According to Green et al. (2004), social, communication and problem-solving skills, as well as computing skills, have become critical in many sectors, even as the demand for manual skills declines. Employees in industry segments experiencing rapid organizational and technological changes may thus experience obsolescence of their high-level skills. This is especially true for workers who experience breaks in their employment tenure. Furthermore, older workers may suffer from skill obsolescence despite the high-level skills that they may have. According to many policy analysts, low-skilled workers stand to benefit from the rapid changes in skill demand and additional training (Leitch, 2006). It is due to this perspective that the 2003 Employment Guidelines agenda of the European Union targeted significant increases in adaptability of low-skilled workers to the changing needs of the labour market (Leitch, 2006). According to Ramirez (2002), the skills of blue-collar workers have been more affected by technological revolution than the skills of white-collar workers. However, workers who bear only field-specific skills have become more prone to skill obsolescence since these skills are often more technology-oriented than the skills of workers who have broader vocational training and experience. With the current level of cut-throat competition for the little available opportunities in the job market, the question of the effectiveness of college education in influencing graduate marketability has come to the forefront. Contemporary beliefs among many people attest to the fact that enrolling into tertiary institutions right after high school premises from the belief that higher education brings a higher return from educational investment. Currently, there are young people who have just graduated from high school, or about to do so. But the great question in their mind right now is whether or not they should proceed to college (Rondinelli 42). Even though most of these young people share in the belief that college education has an avalanche of advantages, hence its choice after high school graduation, there appears to be some disadvantages as well. It is up to young people to take their time and decide what exactly they wish to achieve with their college endeavors. Therefore, they should not just follow the traditional belief that college education will offer them the gate pass to employment opportunities. Rather, higher education should be treated as a way of enhancing individual’s understanding of many concepts of the present market dynamics (Goos, & Manning, 2003). In “Learning by Degrees,” Rebecca Mead presents both sides of the argument regarding the effectiveness of high-level skills and higher education in influencing employment opportunities. Firstly, she presents the argument that higher education not only increases one’s job opportunities, but also helps in influencing the annual income for employed college graduates. However, this depends on their career specialties (Mead, 2014).For instance, holders of business degrees are 44% more likely to land a good job right after college.Moreover, economics graduates are very likely to land a job that would guarantee them an opening salary of up to $ 50,000 per annum (Mead, 2014). These two examples demonstrate that higher education can still be regarded as a perfect investment opportunity (Lee, Almonte, &Youn, 2012: pp 2-3). It is good that higher education is a good investment. But then it should not be treated as the only opportunity through which one can get an employment opportunity. Moreover, neither is it the only way through which one can get a good paying job for their lifetime sustenance. Mead concurs with this fact very well in her second part of the article. She captures that fact that most job opportunities that will be available in the next one decade will not require any college degree (Mead, 2014). Thus, higher education may have been the only route towards employment in the past, but this trend no longer applies in today’s dynamic industrial environment (De Grip, & Van Loo, 2002). Today, jobs have become scarce, and employment is not a guarantee for all college graduates (U.S. Department of Labour, 2009). Thus, investment in higher education and pursuit of advanced skills may not always give the expected return on investment. This fact has been demonstrated by the many people with higher degrees, but they have either jobless or they have been forced to partake jobs that do not match their career specialization.It is important to note that there are people who are just not suited to college education after high school. Nevertheless, it would a mistake to make a proposition that college education serves the sole purpose of leading people to better careers.It is such a perception that has led many people to pursue higher education, not because they love to learn. But because they believe that college marketing has a fundamental influence on employment expectations (McIntosh, & Garrett, 2009). It is high time that people acknowledge the fact that higher education is not the sole determiner between employment and joblessness.Moreover, neither does it serve as the sole influencing factor on who lands better paying jobs, and who lands bad paying jobs. According to Mead, many successful business people, entrepreneurs and innovators such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates achieved their success without the backing of college papers (Mead, 2014). There are people who are likely to question the actual purpose of pursuing higher education if it were not to increase an individual’s employability in the job market. The answer to such opposition is simple: advanced education is supposed to nurture thought, enlighten individuals to the signal achievements of mankind, and develop individuals into intelligent people with impeccable creative and critical thinking skills. Low-skilled individuals who bear these skills are preferred more than people with mere academic theory (McQuaid, & Lindsay, 2005). In conclusion, it is notable that the mere possession of higher education and advanced skills no longer guarantees one of employment in the current job market. Rather, the development in information technology has taken innovation and creativity levels to a new height. In this regard, only individuals with the right critical thinking skills, as well as those with sufficient flexibility to learn the skills have the higher cutting edge in employment opportunities. Most low-skilled workers easily meet these demands owing to the fact their vocational training not only allows greater career flexibility, but also inculcates in them the necessary skills to undertake innovation and adapt to the prevailing industry requirements. In this regard, it is clear that high-skilled individuals are likely to find it hard coping with the current dynamic market, especially for those with field-specific skills. References Bresnahan, F., Brynjolfsson, E., &Hitt, M., 2002. Information Technology, Workplace Organization, and the Demand for Skilled Labour: Firm-Level Evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 338-375. De Grip, A.,& Van Loo, J., 2002. The Economics of Skills Obsolescence.The Economics of Skills Obsolescence.Research in Labour Economics, 21 (1), 1-26 DWP/DIUS, 2007. Opportunity, Employment and Progression: making skills work. London: The Stationery Office Goos, M.,& Manning, A., 2003. Good Jobs and Bad Jobs: Changes in UK Employment 1975-2010. London: CEP/LSE Press. Green, F., Felstead, A., &Gallie, D., 2004. Computers and Changing Skill Intensities of Jobs, Applied Economics. New York: Routledge. Grip, A. d. & Zwick, T., n.d. The employability of low-skilled workers in the knowledge economy.[Online] Available at: http://rlab.lse.ac.uk/lower/final_papers/grip.pdf [Accessed 5 December 2014]. Holcombe, R. G., 1999. Equilibrium Versus the Invisible Hand. Review of Austrian Economics, 12(1), pp. 227-243. Lee, K., Almonte, J., &Youn, M., 2012. What to do next: An Exploratory Study of the Post-Secondary Decisions of American Students. Retrieved 05 December 2014 from . Leitch S., 2006. Prosperity for all in the global economy-world class skills. London: HM Treasury. Lloyd, C., and Mayhew, K., 2010. Skill: The Solution to Low Wage Work? Industrial Relations Journal, 41 (5): 429-445 Maurin, E.,&Thesmar, D., 2003. Changes in the Functional Structure of Firms and the Demand for Skill. London: CEPR McIntosh, S., and Garrett, R., 2009. The Economic Value of Intermediate Vocational Education and Qualifications. Wath-upon Dearne: UKCES McQuaid, R., & Lindsay, C., 2005. The concept of employability. Urban Studies, 42, (2): 198–218 Randinelli, T., 2001. Alternate Routes, Taking a Detour from the 4-Year Path: Careers & Colleges, vol. 22. Retrieved 05 December 2014 from . Rebecca, M., 2010. Learning by Degrees. Retrieved 05 December 2014 from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/06/07/learning-by-degrees> U.S. Department of Labor, 2009. Future-work: Trends and Challenges for Work in the 21st Century. Retrieved 05 December 2014 from .U.S. Department of Labour, Bureau of Labour Statistics, 2012. Employment and Earnings, p. 215. Toporowski, J., 2002. Political Economy and the New Capitalism: Essays in Honour of Sam Aaronovitch. New York: Political Economy and the New Capitalism: Essays in Honour of Sam Aaronovitch. Read More