Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 491 posts

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#181

Post by toomuchtodo »

csense wrote: post #144
daenz wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no law stating that each generation of humans should have it easier and with more resources available to them. This is pie-in-the-sky thinking, but maybe there should be a law. Corporations have a legal duty to shareholders to make money. Why shouldn't our government have a legal duty to society to increase our resources and make things easier for each generation?

That kind of attitude invites a government to try communism (the government runs a bunch of businesses) or militarism (turn all the unemployed into soldiers; as for resources, use those soldiers to take them by force from your neighbors).

I'm perfectly fine with socialism, with the government owning robotic manufacturing and software providing basic/government services.

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#182

Post by ghaff »

cableshaft wrote: post #138
NotAPerson wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Job seekers are much better served spending an hour sending 10 focused applications than spending that same hour to send 100 sanitized applications. Let's assume that you have a 1 in 20 chance on the focused applications, and a 1 in 200 chance on the sanitized ones. Then the odds that you are offered at least one job, is 40.13% for the focused ones, and 39.42% for the sanitized ones. I'm not sure the emotional inve…

You're doing a cost-benefit analysis on a completely arbitrary guess and then using that as the basis for your conclusion? That doesn't work, sorry. For example, what if in actuality, all other things being equal, they had a 1 in 10 chance focused vs. 1 in 300 chance sanitized, then the results would be 100% chance for the focused versus 33% chance of a response with the sanitized ones. I just used the same thing you…

I think it really depends. I suspect that, for a lot of people, the best strategy is to focus time and energy on companies that they're particularly interested in, have some in with, have unusual qualifications that are a particularly good match for, etc. But, perhaps in parallel, cast a wider net with a more shotgun approach that doesn't devote a lot of time to any single company pre-interview.

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#183

Post by msandford »

caskance wrote: post #153
msandford wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but a real problem is that the HR "match the keywords" whack-a-mole filter is totally random! 10 years of experience for a framework that's only been around for 8 years means that only the liars qualify and the honest folks don't. You don't know how people are going to evaluate your resume but statistically a bunch of companies aren't going to grade people holistically. But since you can't know a priori which…

It's a positive feedback loop. If it were not for pressure on applicants to find a job, any job, would every employer get bombarded by so many poorly written resumes that they would feel the need to implement such filters?

Yeah I'm not suggesting that the candidates are entirely innocent. But I think the companies share a bigger portion of the blame. If they didn't want to get a million responses they could do things to limit their responses to people who actually want the job like say not allowing people to apply online, or making people apply in person, or requiring a cover letter of a certain length, or whatever.

But what has happened is that the companies set up these online systems to ostensibly make their own lives easier. Candidates have responded to the environment that they live in and started resume spamming. Companies respond by using overly-precise keyword matching to filter out candidates, despite the unsuitability.

It's not as though job seekers started printing resumes by the thousands and sticking them to the door of every business in their town and the companies had to adapt to this by making online systems to reduce the crushing influx of paper.

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#184

Post by mygodtou »

sjg007 wrote: post #169
roymurdock wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking for myself (as a 22 year-old recent graduate) - I was brought up to respect my elders and to consider society as a mostly-altruistic, benevolent mass of humanity with a conscience bent more towards justice and meritocracy than corruption and inequality. I believed that the older generation who shape and structure society through government, industry, and academia were doing their absolute best to set future…

This is why young people need to vote.

?

Voting for the corrupt does nothing but legitimizes the process. Only money matters.

Come up with a real solution because voting isn't it and I'm sick of hearing the same faulty advice.

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#185

Post by VLM »

cryoshon wrote: post #137
greengarstudios wrote: post #133

Start a startup and create your own job?

Okay, so how is this startup going to pay its founder before it is profitable? Where are the founders getting this money, if they're unemployed?

How are the customers going to pay revenue if they're unemployed...

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#187

Post by fecak »

Kalium wrote: post #58
fecak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recruiter and resume-writer-on-the-side here, and it's become so easy to apply for jobs that most people put zero effort into anything but pressing send and shotgunning a resume to hundreds of companies. If there was even a small cost (time or money) to applying, you can be sure that resumes and cover letters would be much more common and of higher quality. I'm not suggesting that we charge applicants, but years ago…

> Job seekers are much better served spending an hour sending 10 focused applications than spending that same hour to send 100 sanitized applications. This is the theory, yes. In practice, that 10x level of effort is not matched by a 10x increase in the number of interested responses or a 10x increase in response rate. Diminishing returns sets in quickly. You wind up with more interested responses by shutgunning your…

The good resume (and I read the comment re: "good resume = qualifications and not just a nice document") is where your argument falls a bit short. Make the recruiter/HR/hirer's job easy for them. Assume they are unintelligent, and don't give them an opportunity to misinterpret your background.

The resume is a single piece of the process. For me to open a resume, first I have to open an email. How long does it take to write a couple sentences to make me want to open your attachment/link?

Then on the resume itself: write a summary. Don't make a recruiter (who 6 months ago was a "struggling unemployed kid who took the first job offered") try to interpret that you are an experienced $LANGUAGE developer with n years of this and that. Come out and tell them exactly what they want/need to know in order to make the decision.

We generally have underqualified people reviewing resumes for companies (agency recruiters, HR, admins at startups). Don't give them an opportunity to mess up. The job says they want a "Python dev with >5 years and some experience with Django"? Tell them exactly that in a sentence in the email, and again as a summary statement on top of the resume.

This isn't 10x effort. It's minimal. It's the hiring company's fault whenever someone qualified doesn't make it into the interview. My philosophy to my resume clients is "don't let HR screw you over - hit them over the head with your qualifications and they can't say no".

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#188

Post by drabiega »

morgante wrote: post #84
lisper wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I can't think of a way that the bubble could actually pop. Or what it would look like if it did. It would look like a social movement. It would look like tens of millions of young people realizing that they have fallen under the yoke of life-long indentured servitude to the older generation, and either 1) getting organized enough to get the law changed or, 2) saying "fuck it, I've got nothing left to lose" and…

> It would look like tens of millions of young people realizing that they have fallen under the yoke of life-long indentured servitude to the older generation Nobody forced them to take out loans. There are lots of options which don't involve crushing debt.

Could you elaborate?

Re: The world needs at least 600M new jobs in the next decade for young people

#190

Post by fecak »

klipt wrote: post #88
fecak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recruiter and resume-writer-on-the-side here, and it's become so easy to apply for jobs that most people put zero effort into anything but pressing send and shotgunning a resume to hundreds of companies. If there was even a small cost (time or money) to applying, you can be sure that resumes and cover letters would be much more common and of higher quality. I'm not suggesting that we charge applicants, but years ago…

Sounds like job applicants have the same problem that men have in online dating - no feedback from 99% no matter how much effort you put in, so in the end spamming seems like the most effective strategy.

>Sounds like job applicants have the same problem that men have in online dating - no feedback from 99% no matter how much effort you put in, so in the end spamming seems like the most effective strategy.

And the same problem recruiters have when they don't get responses from potential candidates. If you wonder why you get 50 emails a week on LinkedIn, it's the same thing.

Post reply on HN