Future of the jobs or unemployment of the present?

Concerned about the work and jobs of the future, do we take into account the unemployment of the present?

In different and multiple professional forums, a central theme is evident: concern for the employment of the future. But without taking into account — perhaps — the unemployment of the present.

Could it be that from the field of resources and human capital, employability, and the management of organizations, the ball is kicked forward for not being able to find a solution for today’s problem?

In some cases, the answer is configured in positivist coaching mode: imagine what job you want, and you will get it. An appeal to voluntarism that collides with a reality that is often cruel, that condemns the unemployed person to a journey through the desert while repeating incessantly “because of me, because of me, because of my great fault” since it has been — seems — unable to desire strongly enough for the job or activity of your dreams.

On the other hand, youth unemployment is a subject that is used with some continuity in the analysis. Politically correct, although not so exact if we look at the total context.

The problem of youth employment or first job does not only involve the labor market. The lack of adequate training also plays a role, fueled by a social context that makes magical thinking the bread and butter of every day, which leaves aside merit and training, under the figure of easy success.

If we look in more detail, we should clearly differentiate the access to the first job and the young person who has already had a job continuously and does not have it today.
But the job market is not just a problem for millennials. Generation X and baby boomers are also victims of a system that measures talent and ability with an expiration tag: preferably, consume before the age of 45.

And this is a dramatic fact: most of these generations X and baby boomers have millennials in charge and responsibility for them, fueling a phenomenon known as “delay in leaving the nest” that today is commonplace — coincidentally? — in environments with employment crisis. And the income of these generations is generally enough — when they have a job — to support the family nucleus. Something that, on rare occasions, can be done with the remuneration of the “youth job”. We can then go further and measure more than the nominal volume of unemployed in both segments, to delve into the economic and social impact that both figures produce.

In this way, under 25 and +45 suffer from the same disease, but for different reasons. And for those in the middle (the “ideal” 25/40) the pressure from the extremes conditions their action, accepting what is coming and how it comes because “it is very cold outside”.

Finally: talking about human resources and the future of employment is important and necessary. But by itself it does not generate jobs or solutions in the present, and much less if those words are not accompanied by a “how” to solve the problem. Without magical thinking, with concrete proposals.

Although the important should not be conditioned by the urgent, in this case the urgent involves people who can no longer wait. And they need much more than words and formulas of life, they need to put their talent on the job market to achieve a specific goal: house, food, education, and health.

Of course, self-realization is a fundamental value for life. But to achieve it, it is a minimum condition to satisfy basic human rights. It is very difficult to think strategically about the future if you have an empty stomach and an eviction notice over your head.

Thus -perhaps- the time will come when we have a little less “you can” and more transforming action.