Specifically, there are no comparison data from a presumably earlier time when jobseekers expected higher salaries. Thus, we don’t know whether salary expectations are lower, higher, or the same as they were at some previous comparison point. The snapshop survey tells us nothing about a trend, since data that would show a trend are absent!

Neither does stringing together anecdotes of layoffs prove anything. Anecdotes of firms hiring could be strung together too. Have the underlying unemployment rate or other other relevant numerical indicators changed? The stories are silent on these.

Plus, what’s so unusual about 72% of those looking for a job being unemployed? People with jobs have to be at work. The more startling statistic would seem to be that 28% of those seeking jobs already have them. This suggests a lot of disgruntlement among the employed.

And what’s so unusual about 64% of job seekers expecting a salary of $800 a month or less (while 36% expect more)? The base salary in CR, the one fines are pinned to, is below $800 a month, and that salary is actually higher than the average salary in the country. For crying out loud, most people earn less than $800 a month, so why does it strike anyone as odd that job seekers (many of whom are young) don’t expect more?

Insofar as layoffs are a factor, the salient question is whether the nature of the jobs lost creates a pool of job seekers with average, above average, or below average earnings expectations. I can’t answer this question, since it seems to me that many of the layoffs were of English-speaking Ticos (who can usually command a higher salary) while some of them were of undershirt-sewers (who probably can’t command a high salary elsewhere).

In all, what we have is a marketing person’s subjective opinion reinforced by a survey of job seekers that doesn’t even substantiate her opinion, all presented as some dour trend. Baloney. This trend may or may not exist, but there is not a single fact presented to suggest that it does.