Occupations that need to die

[yhelothar]

Pharmacists

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Doctors
Professors
Farm Laborers
Construction Workers
Computer Programers

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Doctors
Professors
Farm Laborers
Computer Programers

Don't forget construction workers.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Don't forget construction workers.

 

[Murloc]

Real estate agents
Travel agents
Sales associates in retail stores (i.e. salespeople at Best Buy, GAP, etc)
Any salesperson who sells products where they do not originally manufacture them

What do you think? These occupations are inefficient and a waste of money.

poor/average people who want to spare money don't need them.
But you're forgetting rich people who just don't want to deal with all this stuff because their time is worth more money than the time of the agent they're hiring, and don't mind spending money. These people will use real estate agents.
E.g. enterprises that build superluxury apartments in Switzerland and then want to sell them to russians. You gonna sell them on ebay? I don't think so.

Travel agents: the same, they're also necessary for trips to countries where you can't take a car and do your own thing without getting killed or being unable to find a hotel or assistance when needed. E.g. any place in subsaharan africa.

Sales people in clothing stores are necessary to go look for stuff with your size in the deposit, and there's just a few per shop anyway and handle other stuff too in the downtime such as putting stuff on the racks after people tried it or if it just came in.
Electronics sales people are useful for old people who don't even know what they're looking for.

Bank people work on backoffice stuff when the bank is closed (the hours a day a bank is open are quite restricted here) so they're not useless either.

 

[PenguinPower]

Curious how you arrived at that number.. because you're probably wrong.

But the value they add is more for the company than it is the candidate. Most candidates served by a headhunter could get a job themselves if they wanted to

He's not that far off. For direct placement, fees can range from 20-40% of first year total monetary compensation (including expected bonuses) depending on whether it's a contingency or retained search.

And, you're right, more often than not they are working for the company.

 

[Farang]

He's not that far off. For direct placement, fees can range from 20-40% of first year total monetary compensation (including expected bonuses) depending on whether it's a contingency or retained search.

And, you're right, more often than not they are working for the company.

That does not mean you would get 20%-40% more salary. In fact as my experience as a headhunter I usually got candidates more than they were asking for (because that was in my own best interest, and my clients, event if they didn't realize it).

Many companies use recruiters in place of hiring more HR staff of their own. That's where the 20%-40% fee comes from.

And don't get me started about people pitching about recruiters stealing a chunk of their hourly rate as consultants. If you are good enough as business development to find your own contracts, and insure yourself, nobody is stopping you.

 

[PenguinPower]

That does not mean you would get 20%-40% more salary. In fact as my experience as a headhunter I usually got candidates more than they were asking for (because that was in my own best interest, and my clients, event if they didn't realize it).

Many companies use recruiters in place of hiring more HR staff of their own. That's where the 20%-40% fee comes from.

And don't get me started about people pitching about recruiters stealing a chunk of their hourly rate as consultants. If you are good enough as business development to find your own contracts, and insure yourself, nobody is stopping you.

I never said they would get 20-40% more in compensation. Actually, I never said any of the above.

I'm also aware that the company picks up the tab...well aware. In my experience, headhunters are a waste of company resources when you aren't a small-medium size business.

I still remember utilizing RPO for a multitude of difficult to fill positions in a niche industry and it costing me around $1.5mil in total. Quality of hire and time to fill were horrible and definitely not worth the cost. Built up a staffing department for a 1/10 the cost on an annual basis and improved QOH and TTF by roughly double. With annualized turnover and our growth rate, I was able to justify that cost on an ongoing basis for three years. I left after that, but they are still running it in house.

 

[Wyndru]

That does not mean you would get 20%-40% more salary. In fact as my experience as a headhunter I usually got candidates more than they were asking for (because that was in my own best interest, and my clients, event if they didn't realize it).

Many companies use recruiters in place of hiring more HR staff of their own. That's where the 20%-40% fee comes from.

And don't get me started about people pitching about recruiters stealing a chunk of their hourly rate as consultants. If you are good enough as business development to find your own contracts, and insure yourself, nobody is stopping you.

When I worked for a recruiting agency, I started a job at $18 an hour under the agreement that it would be temp to hire if it worked out. When the company decided to hire me I was immediately increased to $20/hr. When I asked my boss about this, he said that the $20/ hr was the exact amount that the company was paying the agency for my employment, so when I was hired full time directly by the company, they passed that same salary on to me.

Unless my boss was mistaken, then the agency was making 10% of my salary while I was temping.

 

[Farang]

When I worked for a recruiting agency, I started a job at $18 an hour under the agreement that it would be temp to hire if it worked out. When the company decided to hire me I was immediately increased to $20/hr. When I asked my boss about this, he said that the $20/ hr was the exact amount that the company was paying the agency for my employment, so when I was hired full time directly by the company, they passed that same salary on to me.

Unless my boss was mistaken, then the agency was making 10% of my salary while I was temping.

Cool. Sounds like you actually got a great deal. Try calling 100 companies every day for a month to land yourself that contract. Oh, and be good at negotiating and know the current market rates, too, otherwise you'll probably end up billing yourself at $18/hr anyway.

A typical pay/bill rate where I worked was $50/$90. Yes it's fair. Factoring in burden (insurance/ health care) that's is about $25/profit per hour. Again if you want the $90 you're free to find it yourself, nobody forced you to use the agency. (hint: you will not get $90/hr on your own)

 

[Farang]

I never said they would get 20-40% more in compensation. Actually, I never said any of the above.

I'm also aware that the company picks up the tab...well aware. In my experience, headhunters are a waste of company resources when you aren't a small-medium size business.

I still remember utilizing RPO for a multitude of difficult to fill positions in a niche industry and it costing me around $1.5mil in total. Quality of hire and time to fill were horrible and definitely not worth the cost. Built up a staffing department for a 1/10 the cost on an annual basis and improved QOH and TTF by roughly double. With annualized turnover and our growth rate, I was able to justify that cost on an ongoing basis for three years. I left after that, but they are still running it in house.

You were responding to the topic of a recruiting company taking 20%-40% of pay, so it's implied.

Couldn't agree with you more.. as a recruiter I worked only with small-to-medium sized businesses. It's typically a waste of time on the recruiter's side as well to deal with larger companies because their processes get in the way of a quick hire.

 

[Wyndru]

Cool. Sounds like you actually got a great deal. Try calling 100 companies every day for a month to land yourself that contract. Oh, and be good at negotiating and know the current market rates, too, otherwise you'll probably end up billing yourself at $18/hr anyway.

A typical pay/bill rate where I worked was $50/$90. Yes it's fair. Factoring in burden (insurance/ health care) that's is about $25/profit per hour. Again if you want the $90 you're free to find it yourself, nobody forced you to use the agency. (hint: you will not get $90/hr on your own)

I'm not complaining, and if I ever get in a situation like that, I'll be returning to that agency. I was just surprised that it works like that, where they just take 10% off the top of your pay. I thought they got a 1 time payment for finding you the job or something similar, but they just keep collecting. I was employed as a temp for 1.5 years, so they received 10% of my pay for that entire time. They must make some serious money.

They didn't provide any benefits either, although they gave me an option to buy into health insurance, but it was crazy expensive (similar to Cobra's costs), so I don't think they were paying much into that.

 

[Farang]

I'm not complaining, and if I ever get in a situation like that, I'll be returning to that agency. I was just surprised that it works like that, where they just take 10% off the top of your pay. I thought they got a 1 time payment for finding you the job or something similar, but they just keep collecting. I was employed as a temp for 1.5 years, so they received 10% of my pay for that entire time. They must make some serious money.

They make obscene amounts of money. More than they deserve. But recruiting is such a shitty job with such high burnout the only way people will do it is for a lot of money.

Usually a contract is structured with a diminishing conversion rate (% of salary). For example 3 months on billing on contract = 10% of salary to convert the employee to full time. Usually at 6 months it is free.

And it isn't correct to say "off the top of your pay." The value in a bill rate far exceeds your value as an employee. It has to do with a lot of things, for example a company pays extra to the agency because they are reliable and can bring good people in fast. Again I'm surprised any agency billed you out at $20 while paying you $18, in fact I'd bet you have bad information.

 

[Engineer]

The entitlement is strong in you.

 

[OverVolt]

Pharmacists

Eh why?

 

[DanTMWTMP]

what's wrong with a travel agent?

if I wanted to put together a complex trip (eg: multiple foreign countries/cities) and didn't want to devote weeks of researching all the travel arrangements myself, why not consider hiring an expert?

They also have access to multiple databases that we don't have access to online; so you can get these really obscure cesna flights in the otherside of the globe. I travel a lot, and I can never match my travel agent in the deals he finds. He only charges $50 too, yet he saved me thousands for me already for the many times I've used his services. That, and he saved me a ton of time.

 

[nageov3t]

Eh why?

couldn't the job of a pharmacist really be done by a vending machine?

 

[OutHouse]

They are unneeded, pure and simple. Craigslist and other online classifieds can do the same job, oh, and without taking a cut.

I gladly pay a RE to do the listing and show the home, especially when the home is out of state.

 

[Vdubchaos]

I'm pretty sure that all of these "worthless Occupations" are simply a result of people's needs and what they are willing to pay.

:hmm:

 

[DanTMWTMP]

I gladly pay a RE to do the listing and show the home, especially when the home is out of state.

Agreed. There's a reason why it's a solid profession.

I don't know how I'd negotiate property searching/dealing/listing/showing w/o a RE (and yes, especially in other cities). Sure, you can do things by yourself, but to properly get things done the right way, and for property management, I'd rather have someone experienced to do it right for me the first time around.

It'd save me LOTS of time, and time investment for me, equals money.

 

[Eureka]

couldn't the job of a pharmacist really be done by a vending machine?

No not really. You're just thinking of dispensary pharmacies who fills prescriptions, but they're there to make sure that the patient is indeed getting the correct medications and is fully responsible in case of mishaps. They have to ensure that the drug is absolutely correct (wrong drugs can mean a dead patient), and in case of substitutions, that it is absolutely safe to do so.

You also have pharmacists who work in other settings, such as hospital pharmacists who actively participate in patient care.

And for the responsbility and knowledge required, the pay is rather middle-class (most pharms make around $100k/year). You couldn't even maintain a medical machine on that budget.

 

[slayernine]

Dentists, fuck those guys.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

How about the professionally unemployed?

Lifetime politicians - There should be hard and fast term limits for all elected positions. If you can't get something done in 10 years, get out of the way and let someone else try.

For those of you screaming lawyers, I'm betting you never had the need for one. If you had any understanding of what a lawyer does, you would not belittle them. And if you want to belittle someone for the excessive need for lawyers in this country, point a finger at your local politician(s).

And to those of you screaming copyright enforcers, I'm betting that you have never in your life created anything for profit.

 

[stormkroe]

I'll say funeral directors, but I'm not sure if I understand the question...

 

[Midwayman]

Real estate agents are one of the worst professions I think.
These days it seems most people do all their own research online. All they do is let people into the house and fill out a couple hours of paperwork. For that they expect tens of thousands of dollars? When the average person couldn't search the MLS it made sense as you'd need someone to place the ad and then someone to find the right house for the buyer. There is nothing an agent does these days that you could replace with a real estate lawyer for under a grand and paying someone $50 a showing to let them in. (They'd just need to have keys, no real estate knowledge.)

Travel agents are in the same boat on a much much smaller scale. The great majority of the time all they do is get in the way. At least their cut seems a more sane level.

Of course there are still some situations where these people are useful, but it seems the exception rather than the rule.