Deregulation in job hiring requirements could spark job growth?

I was just having a conversation with a friend and he was bringing up some pretty valid points.

With our unemployment rates we have 3-8 people competing for every job position with the higher educated 10 times out 10 ten getting the jobs over the lesser educated high school diploma holders.

Most jobs are keeping 1-4 jobs open just for higher educated people(from what we both came to a conclusion to. Which came to a middle ground on)

If this is the case, could the 1-4 job openings we concluded for most businesses. Should they be open for fair competing amongst all high school/GED and College Grads? Would the training that comes with lets just say half of these jobs be more beneficial to jobs in America right now than hiring college grads that you will more than likely have to train any way be a better way to spark job growth and job competing?

We were just discussing and was wondering what others thought about it

 

Just because you have a college degree does not mean you are harder worker IMO. Nor does it mean you have more common sense then most people around you.

Just to put that out there.

 

So you mean to tell me that if a college kid graduates he has proven himself to be qualified in union fields, hard labor. Not only that, he can out work any one in any field just because they hold a college degree?

I think that line of thinking is what is mainly hurting job positions for people qualified for the spot, but don't get it because someone with a degree or even some college got the benefit of the doubt.

 

I have no clue if it was or not. If it was then oops. But I know a ton of people that make that same exact argument. So it's hard to tell

 

What are the number of people of each group tho? that is where the real facts begin.

 

Also factor in the amount of higher educated people having to work in the in lower paying fields because of job cuts and the likes and this will be getting somewhere.

I am not good with graphs

 

And if you think about it. That goes against the way democrats see the economy and creating lower end jobs. We would need higher end growth in the economy to relieve pressure off the lower end jobs and get the economy back in balance.

Right? or am I totally off here?

 

But it does not prove heart or will power in the same instance either. Which is more valued right now in this point of American history? I understand professionalism is always a must, but lets face it. Most kids coming out of college aren't very well disciplined these days. Just from what I see.

 

With that said.

Is it more priority to create jobs to cater to college grads taking away jobs from people that are qualified for jobs in the lower paying fields?

Or do we generate the bottom base of the labor foundation with jobs that possibly will never be filled 100%?

And I'm not asking you specifically Thadeus. Asking any one in general.

 

Well, it was poorly worded, forgive me. Was meaning lowering the standard of job hiring requirements. In the case of important roles of infrastructure jobs,lawyers, doctors ect. ect. no you couldn't. Mainly focusing on middle ground labor that gets bumped out of the way due to higher end job cuts and the likes and employees taking jobs they aren't really qualified for but get jthe position because employers give them the benefit of the doubt due to higher education.

the current question I have is:

Should America prioritize the creation of job growth of higher end jobs that require the proper education to achieve a steady, reliable relief for the lower end labor that is suffering due to irregular hiring of people not normally qualified for the positions.

Or: Should America prioritize the base foundation of labor job growth at the lower end to help boost the economy? But at the same time risk the chance of not being able to fill up the jobs to 100% full time employment.

Which is more than likely the best course of action to take relief off the economy production stall?