Where are the jobs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engineering--structural and inspections
Accounting--CPA-tax prep and payroll
Lawyers--Estate Law and Tax

I have friends who own the above small businesses. All are hiring with professional level jobs. The main complaint by the owners is they have a tough time finding people who work the hours that the jobs require.

The problem with being an employee of a small business is that benefits are typically much worse than large companies. As someone in finance who was laid off and found a new job in 2025, I avoided applying to companies with <100 employees and preferred companies >1000 employees. I think that’s why they get stuck with such weak applicants.

Small businesses just don’t have the kind of resources to support their employees. I am a senior accountant at a medium org (3000 global employees). I have a team to handle requests and offshore resources to run code at night, I leave at 5pm on the dot and only work long days should the business have a live deal going on.

Small firm will pay me 66.6% of my current comp and expect me to work until 11pm every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engineering--structural and inspections
Accounting--CPA-tax prep and payroll
Lawyers--Estate Law and Tax

I have friends who own the above small businesses. All are hiring with professional level jobs. The main complaint by the owners is they have a tough time finding people who work the hours that the jobs require.

The problem with being an employee of a small business is that benefits are typically much worse than large companies. As someone in finance who was laid off and found a new job in 2025, I avoided applying to companies with <100 employees and preferred companies >1000 employees. I think that’s why they get stuck with such weak applicants.

I wonder what PP means by “work the hours that the jobs require”?

Like cheap owners who won’t invest in software, everything is handled in house by shitty VBA code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I see first hand, there's a lot of underemployment because schools are open such short hours. Schools are only open 7 hours, but with a commute of 30 min each way, parents can only really work 6 hours. Mom (they would never think of making the dad stay home) can't get a job during school hours. And she also can't get a job that makes enough to afford before and after care. My county's cheap aftercare is $400 a month x 2 kids= $800 just for aftercare when you only need it a hour a day.

Schools are also failing students, so maybe we need to lengthen the school hours and just have 2 hours of tutoring at the end or beginning of school (not making teachers work longer hours but additional staff). A lot of families could make 8-4:30pm work, but cannot make 8-2:30pm work.

Schools also are always causing childcare crises for parents. Yes, schools aren't childcare, but when they don't open, parents can't get childcare instantly. I understand if buses can't run, but parents should be able to drive their kids to school instead and it still be open. Parents can't work when schools are always closed or running half day schedules.

+1

There’s a push for people to have more kids, but a lot of workplaces make it so hard for working parents. I don’t have kids but I watch my colleague struggle with young kids because our boss is not very flexible. It’s something I’m hyper aware as I’ve gotten older even though I don’t even have any kids.

Children are expensive. Anyone failing to consider that before procreating risks finding out that they have deliberately increased their expenses and/or potentially reduced their income, all to their detriment if they have not planned accordingly. Life decisions have consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From what I see first hand, there's a lot of underemployment because schools are open such short hours. Schools are only open 7 hours, but with a commute of 30 min each way, parents can only really work 6 hours. Mom (they would never think of making the dad stay home) can't get a job during school hours. And she also can't get a job that makes enough to afford before and after care. My county's cheap aftercare is $400 a month x 2 kids= $800 just for aftercare when you only need it a hour a day.

Schools are also failing students, so maybe we need to lengthen the school hours and just have 2 hours of tutoring at the end or beginning of school (not making teachers work longer hours but additional staff). A lot of families could make 8-4:30pm work, but cannot make 8-2:30pm work.

Schools also are always causing childcare crises for parents. Yes, schools aren't childcare, but when they don't open, parents can't get childcare instantly. I understand if buses can't run, but parents should be able to drive their kids to school instead and it still be open. Parents can't work when schools are always closed or running half day schedules.

I am happy to pay a lot of money for the schools to bring in outside dance art and martial arts baseball coaches to coach on site. Say school from 9-3, then teachers are done, the theater club can teach from 3-5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I see first hand, there's a lot of underemployment because schools are open such short hours. Schools are only open 7 hours, but with a commute of 30 min each way, parents can only really work 6 hours. Mom (they would never think of making the dad stay home) can't get a job during school hours. And she also can't get a job that makes enough to afford before and after care. My county's cheap aftercare is $400 a month x 2 kids= $800 just for aftercare when you only need it a hour a day.

Schools are also failing students, so maybe we need to lengthen the school hours and just have 2 hours of tutoring at the end or beginning of school (not making teachers work longer hours but additional staff). A lot of families could make 8-4:30pm work, but cannot make 8-2:30pm work.

Schools also are always causing childcare crises for parents. Yes, schools aren't childcare, but when they don't open, parents can't get childcare instantly. I understand if buses can't run, but parents should be able to drive their kids to school instead and it still be open. Parents can't work when schools are always closed or running half day schedules.

unremarkable.

You'll get flamed but this rings true. I work part time and my coworkers (women my age with kids) are snide about it. They all have parents who come here on a revolving door of tourist visas to watch their kids full time and be there when the school bus drops off. It's very clear to the observer that all the "lazy" American born moms at my work are part time and cobbling together childcare and the foreign ones work long hours because they have live-in parental help.

This is a weird flex. Why can’t you ask your selfish boomer parents to help?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Home health aide!! There are so many old people who want to age in their homes and not move to assisted living, and that number is only going to increase in the future.

+1! We have been searching for this for my mom. So many home health care agencies hire illegal immigrants because most citizens don’t want to do this job for the pay. It’s a mess!

Fixed it for you. For the right money, I'd happily take care of your mom, and I'd be great at it. But it's hard work, often with odd hours, and anybody you'd trust is also qualified to do something else that pays at least as well.

We were paying $35 an hour, legal, for home health caregivers for Mom on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. They drove her around, prepared meals, and walked with her (several miles a day.)

I assume you are paying that to a company, I bet the actual worker is getting $20 per hour or less.

They might be getting that rate of pay, but they are employed, which puts them way ahead anyone who is unemployed, no matter how credentialed they are.

This is the core of the issue - jobs most definitely exist, but many people won't deign to take them because of the lack of WFH, the low pay, the lack of prestige, or the perceived/real onerous character of the work. But preferring to be unemployed to feeling underemployed is a choice, and does not mean jobs are not there. Choosing unemployment over underemployment is not at all the same as "but there are no jobs!". You may be able to say you can't find a job you want or like, but that's different.

A job that comes nowhere near paying my bills is not a viable option. Let's say, just as an extreme example, that I work 8 hours a day for $1. Is it really better to be "employed" than unemployed in that case? There are other things I can do with my time, including take care of my kids, try to start a business, go back to school, move to a completely new area. All of those would be better than a job that takes up all of my time but doesn't pay enough for rent and groceries.

And yes, these jobs you have in mind pay more than a dollar a day, but people are making the same calculus when they decide whether to waste their time.

So, you prefer no income to a low income? That's fine, but that's also your choice, and forms no basis for claiming "there are no jobs".

The gig economy sadly inflated the job numbers in recent years. It's the most American thing to say that A job that doesn't pay a living wage is a job. So ridiculous

Yes. My cousin was one of those UPS drivers that lost his job. He became an Uber driver with no benefits and less pay. He is not considered unemployed, but he is definitely underemployed and work more hours hustling for riders than when he worked at UPS with benefits, such as health insurance and PTO days.

I do Uber on Friday nights and Saturday nights for a few extra $$ to save for my kids college. It's very hard to break even and requires planning. I can't believe people do it full time for a living. And yes they are somehow considered employed.

[Anonymous]

Wondering where the IT jobs went??

H1bs (and OPTs and L1s)

A landmark study from Harvard economist George J. Borjas, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has confirmed that the H-1B visa program is being used to undercut American workers.

After analyzing merged federal data from the Department of Labor, the Department of Homeland Security, and the American Community Surveys, Borjas found:

H-1B workers earn 16% less than comparable Americans – a gap of nearly $31,000 per year – after controlling for education, age, gender, occupation, and location.

Over a six-year visa term, each H-1B hire saves employers approximately $100,000 in payroll costs.

American software developers, the largest H-1B occupation, face a 30% wage disadvantage, and the underpayment is systemic: 75% of H-1B hires occur outside the top 25 firms, with a wage gap of -18.5% across those smaller employers.

Perhaps most revealing: when Borjas modeled the impact of charging employers $150,000–$200,000 per visa, demand barely declined – all or nearly all 85,000 annual visas would still be used. The savings from underpaying foreign workers are so large that employers would gladly pay and still profit at the expense of American workers.

George J. Borjas, NBER Working Paper No. 34793 (February 2026)

https://gborjas.scholars....4793_1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engineering--structural and inspections
Accounting--CPA-tax prep and payroll
Lawyers--Estate Law and Tax

I have friends who own the above small businesses. All are hiring with professional level jobs. The main complaint by the owners is they have a tough time finding people who work the hours that the jobs require.

The problem with being an employee of a small business is that benefits are typically much worse than large companies. As someone in finance who was laid off and found a new job in 2025, I avoided applying to companies with <100 employees and preferred companies >1000 employees. I think that’s why they get stuck with such weak applicants.

But small business workers and owners can buy houses and feed their families. Yes, you do work hard. The jobs are not for slackers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone i know who is looking for a job and can't find one "needs" WFH. That well is totally dry. They are willing to take a big pay cut as long as they don't have to actually go in. I know multiple lab scientists (my job) who are trying to do "medical billing" etc at less than half the pay because it's from home. The whole world is fighting over those jobs.
All the unfilled jobs are those that must be done in person.

My friend in Bethesda call me up she was laid off. She wants 100 percent renote, no OT, flex she can go to bus stop, do chores go to kids things at school, in summer have time make meals. She is ok hybrid two days a week as long as within 10 minutes of her house. She want 150base and a 40k bonus with a months vacation action. She is out of work 9 months.

I had a job in McLean in person but she was like no way driving to VA or in person s no thanks.

LOL. She will remain unemployed.

[Anonymous]

I've had 3 friends become RN's and pass their RN boards in the last year.

They are all employed.

All of them were working 2-3 jobs while they were studying nursing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wondering where the IT jobs went??

H1bs (and OPTs and L1s)

A landmark study from Harvard economist George J. Borjas, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has confirmed that the H-1B visa program is being used to undercut American workers.

After analyzing merged federal data from the Department of Labor, the Department of Homeland Security, and the American Community Surveys, Borjas found:

H-1B workers earn 16% less than comparable Americans – a gap of nearly $31,000 per year – after controlling for education, age, gender, occupation, and location.

Over a six-year visa term, each H-1B hire saves employers approximately $100,000 in payroll costs.

American software developers, the largest H-1B occupation, face a 30% wage disadvantage, and the underpayment is systemic: 75% of H-1B hires occur outside the top 25 firms, with a wage gap of -18.5% across those smaller employers.

Perhaps most revealing: when Borjas modeled the impact of charging employers $150,000–$200,000 per visa, demand barely declined – all or nearly all 85,000 annual visas would still be used. The savings from underpaying foreign workers are so large that employers would gladly pay and still profit at the expense of American workers.

George J. Borjas, NBER Working Paper No. 34793 (February 2026)

https://gborjas.scholars....4793_1.pdf

Isn't this in line with the ultra capitalism professed in the USA? buy low sell high, minimize cost maximize profits etc.....All those capital owners in Palm Beach if they could get away if having you work for $0 they would do it. American's greed knows no limit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've had 3 friends become RN's and pass their RN boards in the last year.

They are all employed.

All of them were working 2-3 jobs while they were studying nursing.

Why are we encouraging boys to be nurses. Its interesting, we put all resources ensuring every girl goes to college while we encourage boys to go do HVAC. Then the girl becomes an RN makes good money, the boy becomes an HVAC tech makes ok money, and the girl complains that she can't date a non educated low earning man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wondering where the IT jobs went??

H1bs (and OPTs and L1s)

A landmark study from Harvard economist George J. Borjas, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has confirmed that the H-1B visa program is being used to undercut American workers.

After analyzing merged federal data from the Department of Labor, the Department of Homeland Security, and the American Community Surveys, Borjas found:

H-1B workers earn 16% less than comparable Americans – a gap of nearly $31,000 per year – after controlling for education, age, gender, occupation, and location.

Over a six-year visa term, each H-1B hire saves employers approximately $100,000 in payroll costs.

American software developers, the largest H-1B occupation, face a 30% wage disadvantage, and the underpayment is systemic: 75% of H-1B hires occur outside the top 25 firms, with a wage gap of -18.5% across those smaller employers.

Perhaps most revealing: when Borjas modeled the impact of charging employers $150,000–$200,000 per visa, demand barely declined – all or nearly all 85,000 annual visas would still be used. The savings from underpaying foreign workers are so large that employers would gladly pay and still profit at the expense of American workers.

George J. Borjas, NBER Working Paper No. 34793 (February 2026)

https://gborjas.scholars....4793_1.pdf

Isn't this in line with the ultra capitalism professed in the USA? buy low sell high, minimize cost maximize profits etc.....All those capital owners in Palm Beach if they could get away if having you work for $0 they would do it. American's greed knows no limit.

yep, it's why Trump uses foreign workers on visas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From what I see first hand, there's a lot of underemployment because schools are open such short hours. Schools are only open 7 hours, but with a commute of 30 min each way, parents can only really work 6 hours. Mom (they would never think of making the dad stay home) can't get a job during school hours. And she also can't get a job that makes enough to afford before and after care. My county's cheap aftercare is $400 a month x 2 kids= $800 just for aftercare when you only need it a hour a day.

Schools are also failing students, so maybe we need to lengthen the school hours and just have 2 hours of tutoring at the end or beginning of school (not making teachers work longer hours but additional staff). A lot of families could make 8-4:30pm work, but cannot make 8-2:30pm work.

Schools also are always causing childcare crises for parents. Yes, schools aren't childcare, but when they don't open, parents can't get childcare instantly. I understand if buses can't run, but parents should be able to drive their kids to school instead and it still be open. Parents can't work when schools are always closed or running half day schedules.

You’d have to raise taxes to pay for this, so it will never happen. The majority of voters do not have kids who need school provided childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I see first hand, there's a lot of underemployment because schools are open such short hours. Schools are only open 7 hours, but with a commute of 30 min each way, parents can only really work 6 hours. Mom (they would never think of making the dad stay home) can't get a job during school hours. And she also can't get a job that makes enough to afford before and after care. My county's cheap aftercare is $400 a month x 2 kids= $800 just for aftercare when you only need it a hour a day.

Schools are also failing students, so maybe we need to lengthen the school hours and just have 2 hours of tutoring at the end or beginning of school (not making teachers work longer hours but additional staff). A lot of families could make 8-4:30pm work, but cannot make 8-2:30pm work.

Schools also are always causing childcare crises for parents. Yes, schools aren't childcare, but when they don't open, parents can't get childcare instantly. I understand if buses can't run, but parents should be able to drive their kids to school instead and it still be open. Parents can't work when schools are always closed or running half day schedules.

You’d have to raise taxes to pay for this, so it will never happen. The majority of voters do not have kids who need school provided childcare.

This is by design - they want women home with children, not in the workforce