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

How we used to get jobs: A newspaper classifieds story

ironicsans.ghost.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: How we used to get jobs: A newspaper classifieds story

#101

Post by froindt »

bluedino wrote: post #22

You'd mail your resume in (it was a 'hack' back then to hand-deliver it), then get a call in a couple days or weeks. Then someone who was home during the day (if you already had a job) would answer the phone and take the message from the HR person (or they'd leave one on your answering machine), you'd then have an appointment to go in or return a call to set one up...

A friend is searching for a job right now and was surprised to encounter an online job posting requesting mailed in resumes.

Next we need a service that will tailor resumes to job descriptions using LLM's (already easily available) while also having an integrated "mail this resume" function.

First class postage on printer paper will be the default, but you can pay more for cardstock, pink paper, and a scent to give it a little something extra.

Re: How we used to get jobs: A newspaper classifieds story

#102

Post by SL61 »

warkdarrior wrote: post #64
beepbopboopp wrote: post #62

Unpopular take: This was significantly better for employers and employees. It worked as both an effort and presentation filter which both reduced the overload of candidates, allowing for more attention, higher variation of skills that didnt often show like traditional resume bonafides and mad companies more likely to invest more in employees as it was a pain to go do again. For employees it was great too. Much like t…

Second unpopular take: This was better for all involved, but it constrained the job market to geographical boundaries. People did not apply to jobs in other states/countries/continents because they did not see the job postings for other states/countries/continents.

Interestingly, and maybe surprisingly, moving long-distance is less common than it was in the past. The total number of movers has decreased [1] while the percentage of those moves that are inter-state has stayed constant [2]. Another analysis from 2018 [3] looked specifically at people who move for jobs and found a huge drop since the 1980s.

In the really old days you would move somewhere (often because you heard that some industry was booming there) and then look for work. Today you can't do that without a lot of savings.

[1] https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/d...

[2] https://www2.census.gov/library/visualizations/time-series/d...

[3] https://www.challengergray.com/blog/historical-analysis-fewe...

Re: How we used to get jobs: A newspaper classifieds story

#103

Post by BrenBarn »

warkdarrior wrote: post #64
beepbopboopp wrote: post #62

Unpopular take: This was significantly better for employers and employees. It worked as both an effort and presentation filter which both reduced the overload of candidates, allowing for more attention, higher variation of skills that didnt often show like traditional resume bonafides and mad companies more likely to invest more in employees as it was a pain to go do again. For employees it was great too. Much like t…

Second unpopular take: This was better for all involved, but it constrained the job market to geographical boundaries. People did not apply to jobs in other states/countries/continents because they did not see the job postings for other states/countries/continents.

I think that is one reason why it was better.

Re: How we used to get jobs: A newspaper classifieds story

#104

Post by thn-gap »

bigbuppo wrote: post #76
Aurornis wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Showing up egregiously overdressed for a tech interview was a rite of passage before jobs search advice was easy to find on the internet.

I showed up to a job interview wearing the exact same shirt and tie as the CEO who interviewed me. I got the job.

was this intentional somehow, or just coincidence?

Re: How we used to get jobs: A newspaper classifieds story

#105

Post by danillonunes »

froindt wrote: post #101
bluedino wrote: post #22

You'd mail your resume in (it was a 'hack' back then to hand-deliver it), then get a call in a couple days or weeks. Then someone who was home during the day (if you already had a job) would answer the phone and take the message from the HR person (or they'd leave one on your answering machine), you'd then have an appointment to go in or return a call to set one up...

A friend is searching for a job right now and was surprised to encounter an online job posting requesting mailed in resumes. Next we need a service that will tailor resumes to job descriptions using LLM's (already easily available) while also having an integrated "mail this resume" function. First class postage on printer paper will be the default, but you can pay more for cardstock, pink paper, and a scent to give i…

Of course, there will also be a service targeted for the companies that receives the mailed in resumes, scans and OCR them and maybe even send the results to an LLM to make further filters and classifications.

And here's the neat thing: If both services are provided by the same company, they can even save the costs of actually sending the physical paper to themselves!

Re: How we used to get jobs: A newspaper classifieds story

#106

Post by Telaneo »

Tangurena2 wrote: post #55
II2II wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encountered one corporation where you walked up to security, told them you were there to look for work, and they directed you to an office that contained posting of currently available positions. As far as I know, they didn't advertise job openings anywhere else. If you weren't willing to drop by their offices, they weren't interested in considering you. Of course, talking to anyone about a job within the building…

This is why your grandparents (or parents if you're a greybeard) still recommend going down to corporate offices and trying to hand your resume to a person/recruiter there. Nowadays it is all online resume screening. It is frustrating listening to people who haven't had to job-hunt for several decades.

I'm waiting for a TV show or Youtube series about people over 50 who go looking for jobs using only these kinds of methods.

I remember asking my grandmother what she thought a large number of applicants would be for a job. She said 10. The local grocery store gets 200+. I don't think there's a single vacancy out there which gets a single digit number of applicants any more (they might all be AI, which you can (hopefully) quickly rule out, but still).

Re: How we used to get jobs: A newspaper classifieds story

#107

Post by klntsky »

slopinthebag wrote: post #97
beepbopboopp wrote: post #62

Unpopular take: This was significantly better for employers and employees. It worked as both an effort and presentation filter which both reduced the overload of candidates, allowing for more attention, higher variation of skills that didnt often show like traditional resume bonafides and mad companies more likely to invest more in employees as it was a pain to go do again. For employees it was great too. Much like t…

The older I get the more I think the internet is a massive net negative due to effects like this. Another example is used car sales. Before the internet it was local and required work to find cars for sale. Now thanks to the internet we have "hustlers" who scour FB marketplace and craigslist and buy up all the deals to flip for profit.

Someone who flips cars serves the seller by closing the deal faster

Re: How we used to get jobs: A newspaper classifieds story

#108

Post by keybored »

tayo42 wrote: post #12

Idk if it's true but it seems like life was simpler before the Internet took off. Now that guy is probably competing with tons of people more talented willing to work for less

You know, I think I’ve had enough of “have taken up farming”/woodworking Silicon Valley nostalgics at this point (I’m talking about them/in general, not you).

Modern computing is toxic. The Internet is shit. And all because it was designed that way. Computing doesn’t have to be shit. I would know. Plenty of let’s say local computing solutions are just fine. They are so okay and fine that I hardly think about them. They just save me time and work.

Like the AI Cretins say, the cat’s out of the bag, time cannot be unwound. But computing is not fundamentally alienating, life-draining, or doomed to be infiltrated by spooks from the worst regime in the world. That’s just what SC programmers who are hobby woodworkers and use fliphones think.

Re: How we used to get jobs: A newspaper classifieds story

#109

Post by gorfian_robot »

freedomben wrote: post #41
loloquwowndueo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laser printers were expensive AF for poor guys just out of college looking for a job. My BJ200 ca. 1993 had awesome print quality, comparable to a Laserjet II, if you used slightly glossy paper (so the ink wouldn’t bleed) and you waited a bit for the ink to dry on each sheet.

Indeed, I remember being told to go to kinkos and have it printed there since I didn't have a laser printer

I miss 24hr kinkos
Post reply on HN