Types of unemployed workers

NickOttens

Our prize could benefit three types of workers:

1. Those who are already out of work.
2. Those who lose their jobs as a result of a COVID 19-induced recession.
3. Those who lose their jobs as a result of AI and automation (which was our initial focus before the pandemic).

What are the different challenges, and opportunities, we should be aware of when taking these three groups into account?

We know from research, for example, that the longer people are on unemployment, the less likely they are to find a job. So it might make sense to focus on the recently unemployed.

On the other hand, people who are long-term unemployed could benefit the most from upskilling.

As we're discussing elsewhere, certain jobs, for example in delivery, may be in higher demand in the short term as a result of COVID-19, but they are still at risk of automation in the longer term - and they may not be the kind of fulfilling occupations we want to promote.

By contrast, some relatively future-proof professions, like cooks, could see job losses in the short term as a result of the quarantine, with restaurants being closed, but recover once it is lifted. Does it make sense for us to focus on them?

Or do you think these distinctions are irrelevant and any solution teams competing in our competition find will apply equally to all types of unemployed and at-risk workers?

NickOttens

@MichaelGW, @gcaretti, @plazuczek, @AlmaSalazar, @Kstump, what are your thoughts on this?

LiliGangas

Wonder where digital divide comes into the discussion on types of workers from an access point of view and basic digital skills to find opportunities?

serinity

I think there is issue of gender/wealth gap, people of color, digital divide. Not only should we be looking at these three groups but what each groups specific subsets look like. Are they a POC, what resources do they have available and do they have the core skillset to be able to seek empolyment (access to computer, knowledge of sites, resume, etc).

NickOttens

LiliGangas wrote: »

Wonder where digital divide comes into the discussion on types of workers from an access point of view and basic digital skills to find opportunities?

Absolutely! @HeatherSutton raised that very question here.

NickOttens

serinity wrote: »

I think there is issue of gender/wealth gap, people of color, digital divide. Not only should we be looking at these three groups but what each groups specific subsets look like. Are they a POC, what resources do they have available and do they have the core skillset to be able to seek empolyment (access to computer, knowledge of sites, resume, etc).

Could you elaborate? We're also thinking about whether teams competing in this prize should be allowed to screen candidates, and according to which criteria, if we want to retrain and up-skill workers in 100 days. But if we do that, isn't there a risk the most vulnerable populations would be screened out?

@lancemcneill, I saw you commented on this same issue elsewhere, so I'd like to add you to this discussion as well.

Thank you all!

lancemcneill

This is exactly the challenge that arises when you decide to screen out/in some candidates over others - you begin to go down a never ending spiral of disagreement over the selection/rejection criteria that would be accepted for screening.

If, on the other hand, you accept anyone and everyone interested and willing to participate in job training, then you don't have to worry about selection criteria. Also, for this challenge prize, keeping it open, without selection criteria would perhaps allow us to look at data about who was interested in these programs, who start, finished, etc.? This information could further inform program revisions.

NickOttens

Thanks, @lancemcneill! I see your point that deciding according to which criteria - if any - to screen could spark an endless debate.

On the other hand, I think @feskafi makes a fair point here:

feskafi wrote: »

I believe a basic level of screening should be allowed. [...]

For example, if our curriculum is to train for healthcare equipment technicians, I believe it's valid to check for:
1. Does the trainee have basic knowledge in English as they need to be able to read manuals?
2. Can the trainee lift 50 lbs as that's a requirement for the job?

I definitely do believe that the current income level shouldn't be taken into account.

Also @feskafi makes another good point:

feskafi wrote: »

It would be a catastrophic failure if you waste the time of 1,000 trainees [...]

He was commenting on curriculum, but this is something we probably ought to keep in mind when thinking about screening as well.

Especially when the jobless situation in the United States is likely to get worse in the months to come.

We want these programs to be successful, even the ones that don't win the XPRIZE. Is some level of screening, for ability, not income, not inevitable?

@KarinLewis, @Ashleykae, @TiffanyEm, @Localizedworld, I'd like to ask your opinion on this as well.

lancemcneill

That would certainly make sense to have screening criteria for the training be the same as the common criteria that would be required to do the job. Good point with that example.
For broader job skills like learning Microsoft tools, computer skills, etc. perhaps it would make less sense to have screening criteria.