Its just the math, in the environment where little hiring is done, the fewer and fewer decisions that are made become ever more arbitrary, irregardless whether they are based on one system (there are several which could be chosen from) or another.
There are big changes being pushed hard all around the world and there has not been practically any honest discussion of them, probably because they know they will be unpopular with many people in developed countries, especially. But they are determined to go through with it. Basically its the extension of the global value chains concept made popular in manufacturing to services, which are as many as 80% of some economies. In the US, a good analogy would be - think NAFTA for the other 80% of all jobs. Office or desk jobs. Engineering is viewed as a fertile ground for these changes because of the high gradient in wages that despite 20 years of globalization, still exists between North and South. The push to harmonize is intended to lower opportunity costs and make it easier for businesses by making workers more competitive. (See World Competition Day, etc.)
Some of the most unfamiliar and potentially arbitrary new rules will only apply when the source of money to do some job (is in part public funds) Under FTAs, often that triggers requirements that a service RFP or similar be tendered internationally. Under some trade instruments (positive list, or bottom up) a list of whats included determines whether rules are applicable, in some other instruments, (top down, negative list or "US style") things have to be excluded, or they are included by default. Even services that have not been invented yet. This also keeps the changes out of the news media.
Anyway, apart from the "everything on by default" scenario, even in smaller regional preferential trade agreements, quite arbitrary "schedules" hashed out in back room negotiations (to see some go to
bilaterals.org and look under TISA, the bracketed texts are disputed, and you can see what countries proposed what) ) by and large determine whether international trade rules have potential to be important on a service sector by service sector basis- for services contracting or subcontracting contexts when borders are crossed in any of the
"four modes of supply". (Only one or two of them are what we usually think of when we think of international trade in services, so expect a shock from many people, as suddenly big chunks of their lives change.)
https://www.slideshare.net/GitanjaliMaria/four-modes-of-wtoThese new rules may often apply even when no international trade is contemplated in that particular case because government policy may effect the conditions of trade, such as market access or discriminatory practices.
Those are the rules that have the potential to create confusion and difficulty. Of course, to some countries, they are also the vessel for a great many peoples hopes, they are the long delayed pay-back for globalization.
Countries are hoping that they will win more than they lose and there are definitely winners and losers. Its hardto say what the impact of the very great many changes being made by these agreements, which inflexibly lock in forever and become incredibly costly to back out of, intentionally almost impossibly costly.
Thats why I personally think they are very ill advised to make so many huge changes at the same time without any safety net for the millions of people who will lose their jobs. (Probably much less so in engineering than in many other fields)
Quote from: raptor1956 on Today at 17:36:58One of the big problems in this day and age are that most of the hiring is first filtered through job boards or similar and they are just about 100% based on academic scores. Back in the day a hugely talented person that lacked the academic credentials could still have a chance if they do well on the interview, but now adays you don't get an interview unless the credentials are in order. So many talented people that used to have a chance no longer do given the system.
Brian