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

111–120 of 349 posts

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#111

Post by jarek »

theorique wrote: post #8
jiggy2011 wrote: post #7

Why would you advertise the fact that you were unemployed for 6 months to a prospective employer? "Unemployed" suggests that you spent 6 months sitting in your pyjamas watching TV. Why not simply say you were freelancing, even if all you actually ended up doing was a few data entry tasks from mechanical turk.

Why would you advertise the fact that you were unemployed for 6 months to a prospective employer? This. No one is unemployed any more. They are just "freelancing" or "self-employed" or "working on personal projects". Anybody can make up (and preferably actually do) some resume items that makes your non-working time look incredibly productive.

And do you think the screeners won't start screening out "personal projects" if enough people start doing that? "Freelancing" for eight months after a career of working for other people, and suspiciously little to show for the freelancing... I wonder what that's about?

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#112

Post by bryanlarsen »

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…

I didn't do the resume filtering, I was doing interviewing. As I said, I didn't really mind what the answer was, just that you had an answer. I would have accepted looking after pre-school kids or major house renovations or working at McDonald's. Basically anything that shows you are the sort of person that makes lemon-aid when life gives you lemons.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#113

Post by mgkimsal »

VLM wrote: post #93
mgkimsal wrote: post #57

At some point the pendulum may swing the other way, and employers may not hire anyone who even has a current job, using "loyalty" as a filter. "If they're so bold as to take time off work to go interview here with me, why would I ever trust that they won't just lie for a day off and leave me high and dry in the future?" If we want to affect quick change for 'long term unemployed', start offering tax breaks to employe…

"why would I ever trust that they won't just lie for a day off" That's just bizarre. I've been around a couple decades and I've always taken a personal or vacation day for interviews. I guess there are people who call in sick although thats not my style. I've never even heard of an employer so controlling that they get to decide if my day off activities are "worthy enough". Salaried jobs I just took off for an odd lu…

People will rationalize anything. Who might have predicted years ago that we'd be in a position like this:

Employer: "I just can't find any qualified people to work! I'll have to import people from overseas who've never done this work before!"

Person: "But... there's load of people right in this city who have these skills who'd like to come work for you."

Employer: "WTF? They've not had a job in 9 months!"

Person: "That's because your competition closed down and you're one of the few places in town that needs their skills but you didn't want to hire them, even though you need workers to keep up with demand."

Employer: "BUT THEY HAVE NOT HAD A JOB IN 9 MONTHS! NEXT MONTH IT WILL BE 10 MONTHS!"

Yes, I understand that long-term unemployment can bring about changes in people wrt skills and perhaps socialization (keeping 'normal' hours, etc). That's not what's in play all the time. We had a HUGE increase in job seekers - employers had their pick of whoever they wanted for most positions, and some will continue to make the criteria harder to fill if it means they'll get something out of it (tax breaks for hiring long-term unemployed, relaxed immigration bills for cheaper foreign workers, ability to keep wages down in their region, etc).

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#114

Post by venomsnake »

Hire half unemployed to dig holes with a shovel all day, and the other half to fill them and pay them 30% below minimum wage. Or do something useful - there is always infrastructure in need of repairs. If won't cost much compared to wars and will do wonders for the self worth of the people.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#115

Post by rayiner »

jonathanwallace wrote: post #89
michaelochurch wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if they act irrationally they will be sufficiently punished by the market (no childish fantasy required). The market does punish shitty corporations, but it happens over years to decades, and most people can't wait that long. How much comfort is it to someone who's unemployed if Microsoft breaks off and falls into the ocean in 2025? These people want jobs now and, as far as I can tell, don't really care what the…

Sounds like there is a market opportunity for job coaches. Reasonable-reason-for-extended-absence-from-the-job-market as a service, anyone?

People, especially young recent graduates who make up a big part of the unemployed, really need job search and interview coaching. Their parents and schools have left them completely unprepared for that task.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#116

Post by t0mbstone »

Here's an idea. Think outside of the box: If being employed in the past six months is really such a big deal, just start your own LLC and do contracting work of some sort. Hey, look at that. Now your resume shows that you were employed during that period. Sure, you might not have made all that much money while you were employed at your own business, but at least you were employed.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#117

Post by macspoofing »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #112
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…

I didn't do the resume filtering, I was doing interviewing. As I said, I didn't really mind what the answer was, just that you had an answer. I would have accepted looking after pre-school kids or major house renovations or working at McDonald's. Basically anything that shows you are the sort of person that makes lemon-aid when life gives you lemons.

>As I said, I didn't really mind what the answer was, just that you had an answer.

Let's take that. A person with a good employment history, leaves (or loses) their job and takes a few months off to do nothing. What exactly makes them unhireable when they rejoin the workforce?

Furthermore, how do you know the person you're interviewing will tell you that they were looking after kids, or working at McDonald's. Maybe they don't consider it relevant work experience, or maybe they were embarrassed, or better yet maybe it was something personal that's none of your business (e.g. a health issue, a messy divorce etc.), whatever it is, they decide to not go into details. Why punish them?

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#118

Post by bryanlarsen »

macspoofing wrote: post #110
randomdata wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 la…

" What's really wrong with me leaving work, living off my savings while watching TV, and then rejoining the workforce 7 months later?"

Nothing. The big question is what you do in month 8 when you decide to re-enter the work force. You've made it harder to find a job, but if you had enough savings to voluntarily take 7 months off, then presumably you have sufficient savings to plug the hole.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#119

Post by mcherm »

michaelochurch wrote: post #92
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…

Here's a solution that doesn't require the government to hire long-term unemployed: lying on a resume or in an interview to conceal unemployment is now legal . (Well, technically, it was never illegal; just considered unethical.) You may: * Expand dates of any job by up to two months or 10% on each side, whichever is larger. * Bump an educational degree forward by up to 5 years if under 40, and 10 years if older. * M…

I think it sounds like a terrible idea. As an applicant, I would never take advantage of it. As an employer I would never WANT to hire anyone who took advantage of it. A side effect would be that I would begin to distrust resumes and would therefore hire more by word-of-mouth instead, which would reduce opportunities for minorities and those less well-connected.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#120

Post by randomdata »

macspoofing wrote: post #110
randomdata wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 la…

If you want to spend seven months watching TV, then document it. Explain your motivation, what you gained from the experience, etc. My earlier point was that the "we shall not speak of this time" gap in the resume is the problem, not that you were not making money during a period of time.

Everything in life is a job, including watching TV. You just need to account for that time if you want people to not think you are sketchy and trying to hide something. At least that is how I take the whole thing.

Post reply on HN