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

The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 349 posts

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#101

Post by icelancer »

macspoofing wrote: post #30
bryanlarsen wrote: post #12

I've been on both sides of this divide. I've interviewed people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months, and I've been without formal employment for longer than 6 months. If all you've done is watch TV and send out resumes, nobody's going to hire you. You have to be able to say that you've done something. The easy answer is to go back to school. That costs money -- hopefully there's a government program you c…

>If all you've done is watch TV and send out resumes, nobody's going to hire you. You have to be able to say that you've done something. WHY??!?!? Seriously, WHY?!?! So, I'm thinking that maybe there's some skew in these findings, and then you come in and say "Yea, I wouldn't hire you unless you show me you did more than just look for work". Looking for work is time consuming. Furthermore, as the spouse who's current…

The reality is that you are competing against people who have been increasing their skill at relevant tasks and you have not. It's no more complicated than that. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#102

Post by jiggy2011 »

zorpner wrote: post #91
jiggy2011 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably easier to justify a 6 month gap with "I decided to have a kid" than "I was unemployed because nobody wanted me".

Where on the resume would you recommend putting that information?

Just list it alongside other jobs. It probably helps to have a real company name with a website etc.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#103

Post by tptacek »

jarek wrote: post #90
tptacek wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an artfully written comment, the way it peppers paragraphs of opinion with factoids that make it look authoritative but don't in fact back any of the points up. "From 1945 to 2008..." perks up "people believed in corporations" groan . It's a hall of mirrors. You look closely and suddenly "the right wing" is "The Tea Party", and "The Tea Party" is "anti-corporate", or "In 1999, if you said the world was run by…

Ah yes, and here we have the "tptacek shitting on a comment using big words and smart-sounding phrases" comment. ;)

Which of the words I used were "big"?

You're right: I'm definitely pooping on the comment. Can't claim the high ground there at all.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#104

Post by spikels »

Then did extending unemployment insurance to 99 weeks actually screw the people it was intended to help?

I have not read the details of the original study but this article seems to indicate that a recently employed person in a different industry has an easier time getting a job than a long-term unemployed person with industry experience.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#105

Post by larrys »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #28

"It's time for the government to start hiring the long-term unemployed." What the fuck? If you measure something you do not like, the immediate response should not be to grab a hammer and try to kill it. It probably exists for a reason. Understand the reason. Then take action. It may be that there is nothing you can do -- directly. Only a small few percentage points of the problems in the world go away through direct…

"It probably exists for a reason. Understand the reason. Then take action."

Exactly. You can't defeat the "enemy" (for lack of a better way to put it) unless you understand what they are thinking, motives weaknesses etc.

More typical that people want to put no effort into research or understanding and just have something work out. Laziness.

The good news is that by putting in the effort you can easily take advantage of a typical shortcoming like this.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#106

Post by macspoofing »

icelancer wrote: post #101
macspoofing wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If all you've done is watch TV and send out resumes, nobody's going to hire you. You have to be able to say that you've done something. WHY??!?!? Seriously, WHY?!?! So, I'm thinking that maybe there's some skew in these findings, and then you come in and say "Yea, I wouldn't hire you unless you show me you did more than just look for work". Looking for work is time consuming. Furthermore, as the spouse who's current…

The reality is that you are competing against people who have been increasing their skill at relevant tasks and you have not. It's no more complicated than that. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

That makes no sense, for so many reasons. Here's one: 10 years of experience with a 6 month break is worse than 5 years of experience and a 2 month break? Here's another: skill increase is not linear. Here's another: People are different.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#107

Post by hosh »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #23
bryanlarsen wrote: post #12

I've been on both sides of this divide. I've interviewed people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months, and I've been without formal employment for longer than 6 months. If all you've done is watch TV and send out resumes, nobody's going to hire you. You have to be able to say that you've done something. The easy answer is to go back to school. That costs money -- hopefully there's a government program you c…

I can absolutely vouch for this. After a 6 month contract gig, the employer told me they were going to bring me on full-time. I stopped interviewing thinking I had a full-time spot. They told me two weeks before the end of the contract they didn't have anything else for me and I was cut at the beginning of January after our project ended. I did find a job with a small company, but after three days, realized they were…

You don't put "freelance" on your resume. Being "freelance" means you're operating your own company, with its own presence, branding, etc. The least you can do is to name your consulting company and declare yourself as the owner. Even with something as simple as Consulting. Because, at least according to the IRS, you are. Take advantage of it.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#108

Post by droithomme »

akincisor wrote: post #47
enraged_camel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The other good answer is "I worked on X", where X could have been pretty much anything: a failed business, an open source project, volunteer work, or just making stuff to sell on Etsy. I didn't even care if it was remotely related to the position. I just wanted to see some initiative and passion. There's nothing wrong with a forced sabbatical as long as you do something with it. Ideally, yes. In reality, it's easie…

If you've been looking for work full time for 6 months and not a single employer has wanted to hire you, being unemployed for 6 months is the least of your problems.

Absolutely correct. The proposed scenario suggesting that the long term unemployed consists of competent, skilled and psychologically capable people who have spent 8 hrs a day working hard preparing and customizing resumes and going on interviews, but have not had a single offer after more than six months of doing this on a daily basis is complete fiction. Perhaps there is a single person who falls into this category, a minute fraction of a single percent of the long term unemployed. Even that assumption that out there is one single competent person who did all this and had no offers is highly questionable. Portraying something that ranges from non-existent to exceptionally rare as the normal condition is just promoting nonsense. The reality is that the long term unemployed population is not comprised of competent and skilled people diligently working 8 hrs each day seriously seeking a job by contacting companies, sending out resumes, and going on interviews.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#109

Post by rprospero »

marknutter wrote: post #41
rayiner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, there is something to what he's saying. The idea that the labor market behaves rationally is a childish fantasy. Employers are not rational. They do all sorts of irrational things, and discriminating against the long-term unemployed (and also women returning to the work force from motherhood) is one of those irrational things. It's almost a dating mentality. They jump to the conclusion: "well if nobody else wants…

Well if they act irrationally they will be sufficiently punished by the market (no childish fantasy required). There aren't enough jobs? Then create more jobs. Starting a company, at my last check, is incredibly simple to do. Of course, turning a profit is hard, which is why people turn to the government to provide them with work rather than take the risk of starting a company. The government doesn't need to turn a p…

Companies will eventually be punished for acting irrationally, but, in the short term, they can be rewarded quite handsomely.

This reminds me of an old trick I've heard used on multiple occasions. We've all read the Hack News posts about how no amount of programming can compensate for a poor personality. Image that you're looking at an applicant and their former employer tells you:

"He was a good coder, but he had a serious anger management problem. You should do code reviews over the phone if you don't want books thrown at your head."

You're probably not going to hire this candidate.

Now, imagine that you're a manager who has a great, professional programmer who is leaving your organization. When other companies call for a reference, you could tell the truth, causing your competitors to hire her and their business to improve. On the other hand, you can make up a story about poor inter-personal skills and keep this talented worker out of the workforce. If you can't have her, no one can. On the reverse side, you give glowing recommendations to your worst coders so that their terrible practices fill your opponents sites with massive security holes and performance bottlenecks. As an added bonus, when your current employees figure out that they'll have a hard time finding a new job after working for you, you can keep their salaries below market rate.

Now, this won't work in the long term, since you'll eventually gain a reputation as a liar and your recommendations will be ignored. However, as long as you remain small, it will take you quite a long time to get this reputation. Is the CEO of FerriDyne systems honest or a liar? Meanwhile, you can keep a promising employee out of the job market for six months until they come crawling back for their old job at a fraction of their old pay.

This technique also makes recruiting difficult, since your employees won't recommend their competent friends for new positions. On the other hand, you can just get in the habit of hiring other people with large gaps in their record. If they're incompetent, then you let them go and recommend them to your competitors. If they're good, you hire them on at a discount since they haven't been able to find a job in six months.

Granted, I'd never do this and I'm sure you wouldn't either. It's underhanded and, ultimately, irrational. Lying leads to a breakdown of trust that weakens the whole financial system. However, if you're leading the charge towards that collapse, you can make a lot of money on the way.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#110

Post by macspoofing »

randomdata wrote: post #66
macspoofing wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If all you've done is watch TV and send out resumes, nobody's going to hire you. You have to be able to say that you've done something. WHY??!?!? Seriously, WHY?!?! So, I'm thinking that maybe there's some skew in these findings, and then you come in and say "Yea, I wouldn't hire you unless you show me you did more than just look for work". Looking for work is time consuming. Furthermore, as the spouse who's current…

Looking for work isn't an idle task, it is sales and marketing. If you do not record that fact for potential employers, questions are going to be raised. No money exchanging hands is not relevant, you were still working in a legitimate profession doing legitimate work. It is a job and should go on your resume. Likewise for home care, if that was your primary profession during that period of time.

>If you do not record that fact for potential employers, questions are going to be raised.

Clearly, CLEARLY, employers in the US are finicky and capricious, I'm not disputing that. The study in the article proves this. I'm arguing they are irrationally so. Let's take the worst case scenario. What's really wrong with me leaving work, living off my savings while watching TV, and then rejoining the workforce 7 months later? Obviously, if I do that with every job it raises (legitimate) questions, but what if I just did it once, and I had a good employment history prior. What possible reason is there to punish such a person? He took a few months off (on his dime) one time in his life and now he's unhirable?

The insanity comes in that this scenario is not what happens. Generally, people lose their jobs, and it takes awhile to find another, and apparently if you cross the magic threshold of six months, you're now a lazy slob.

Post reply on HN