Hell if congress and the senate thought it was SEXY then maybe it would be done already!
my 32 cents!

Twitter: @BenjaminMcCall
Website: http://ReThinkHR.org
& LinkedIn

Avi mentions the Catch-22 we all face. If we want to grow the economy, we need more jobs. If we want more jobs, then we need to grow the economy. Obviously, any job that gets created needs to be relevant or we run the risk of not achieving the goal of economic growth. Which drives our nation’s sustainability.

Mike’s point also is key. We don’t want to equate bureaucratic boondoggles with the work of our local workforce development board. It’s about community jobs – created via government funded programs. Big difference.

Hopefully our conversation about workforce development boards will encourage people to learn more because they do need our help. As I mentioned in the post, they’re saddled with bureaucracy and inadequate metrics. If we want to see real progress in job creation (and economic stabilization), then change needs to happen. And some of the best business people to help usher in that change are in HR. We understand process development, job design, and metrics dashboards…just to name a few.

I really hope this post will get HR pros more intrigued about the dynamics of workforce development. And, I’d really like to see job creation become a larger part of SHRM’s agenda. As Robert mentioned, it would be great to see the entrepreneurial endeavors necessary to producing economic value.

Good post, what about conflict of interest? Won’t HR creating jobs be considered HR looking to stay relevant? Job creation is based on need. It’s nice to try and hire people, but what if we don’t really need them? I think the bigger issue we have is that the reason unemployment is so high is because spending is down. We don’t need as many cars, houses etc. therefore we don’t need people to create them.

I kinda like being focused on performance and ensuring that we recruit, develop and retain top talent. Personally, if we get that right, we could probably do with a few less employees.

As much as I would like to create jobs, my responsibility is to maintain a sustainable business model (it’s how and why I have a seat at the exec table). I agree with Michael on this one. Most of the spending is short term and will not solve the long term issue.

The long term solution is to identify future needs and ensure that the those who are unemployed today are not unemployed because their skill set has become irrelevant. If your skills are up to speed you have a higher likelihood of employment. I see too many resumes where the skills listed are no longer current. As an HR professional I try to spend my time ensuring that my employees and others I know are constantly honing their skills and keeping up with business requirements. Hopefully, this is where the bulk of any “job creation” money will go.

I understand that investment in infrastructure is important, that secondary employment and investment will result around the project, and that there is a likely long-term positive impact to the state from this investment in many ways – but $1.3 billion for 600 permanent jobs? Wow…

I’m kind of overwhelmed in being able to adequately state what I am thinking – that the role of government is to provide infrastructure to sustain a viable private sector economy, and to promote policies and programs that will allow the business community to invest and thrive, and create jobs in the private sector.

My brain is sizzling…