The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment • Hacker News Board

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#211

Post by walshemj » Mon, Apr 15, 2013, 9:21 PM UTC

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…

And in the UK you are expected to spend 30 hours a week looking for work in order to claim SS - They have a section of the uk.gov site just for that

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#212

Post by medinismo » Mon, Apr 15, 2013, 9:23 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #127

cletus wrote: post #84

This doesn't surprise me at all. One thing I've come to learn in life is the importance of social proof. Social proof takes many form. It's why MIT and Stanford CS grads have tech companies come to their campuses and throw money at them (these institutions don't have a monopoly on good engineers). It's why if you have Google/Facebook/Twitter on your CV you are pretty much guaranteed a job. It's why academic staff who…

>>There is another side of this that the article doesn't touch on: home ownership. Oh boy. There's so much I can say about this topic, and none of it is positive. Basically, the way our culture mindlessly promotes home ownership is insane. Absolutely insane! Every time I hear people complaining about "throwing away money" by renting, and how they would rather put that money into a house, I want to hold them by the sh…

I so agree with this argument that I think it should absolute, ie no provisos for "The only time a house makes sense is when raising kids." Long term, stable rental income is the dream of any landlord. Families provide that. So capitalism work just fine here too.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#213

Post by cmbaus » Mon, Apr 15, 2013, 9:28 PM UTC

nilkn wrote: post #195

mgkimsal wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"but lots of people I could double their earnings if they weren't locked down to one location." Likewise, many companies could have lower labor expenses if they'd embrace telecommuting and locate branches (or HQ) in lower cost of living areas.

Indeed, if I could find a very stable, long-term remote development job paying $80k-100k (which is quite a bit lower than the going rates in NYC and SV), I'd seriously consider moving to a small town and just buying a home for $100k. Pay it off completely in a few years and live a really, really comfortable life afterwards. I'm just starting my career, but one of my big goals is to achieve the above either through a…

We are hiring in Tahoe. Housing in nearby areas is far cheaper than the Bay Area. See my profile.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#214

Post by donaldc » Mon, Apr 15, 2013, 9:29 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #53

yasth wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is easy in the tech world (and HN is mostly tech) to confidently say 6 months is a long time for unemployment. At the moment, I'm fairly certain I could have interviews in a single digit number of hours, but that isn't true for people who have to compete for "general skills" jobs (i.e. those that require a resume, but no particular special skills, such as receptionists, admin and the like). Also there are a lot of…

If it's true that 6+ month resume gaps have a deleterious effect on job searches, my point would be that this observation is another arrow in the quiver of people (like myself) who believe that women face not just bias but also specific objective structural disadvantages in the workplace, beyond just the career development time they lose directly to child care.

Women who choose to have children, and anyone, male or female, who chooses to take more than six months off for just about any reason.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#215

Post by jonnathanson » Mon, Apr 15, 2013, 9:30 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #84

This doesn't surprise me at all. One thing I've come to learn in life is the importance of social proof. Social proof takes many form. It's why MIT and Stanford CS grads have tech companies come to their campuses and throw money at them (these institutions don't have a monopoly on good engineers). It's why if you have Google/Facebook/Twitter on your CV you are pretty much guaranteed a job. It's why academic staff who…

A friend of mine worked on a consulting project that tracked how hiring managers looked at resumes for high-volume positions (defined, at that time, as 100+ resumes per opening -- probably a very conservative figure today). In interviews, they claimed they looked at everything. In eye-tracking studies, they basically spent about 30 seconds per resume, and they looked at education, companies, job titles, and dates. Almost nothing else on the page mattered.

I'm almost positive you could have inserted complete gibberish into every other line of the accomplishments/bullet points, and still have passed muster if you'd had enough big names on the page.

Of course, that was 5-6 years ago. These days, we also have computer filters to deal with. To some extent, these filters can be "SEO'ed" with the right combination of keywords, and the right percentage of linguistic overlap between job listing and resume. But on the flip side, they're almost certain to be very harsh and uncaring to employment gaps, unknown companies or brand names, and non-standard job titles.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#216

Post by michaelochurch » Mon, Apr 15, 2013, 9:31 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #203

jonathanwallace wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Imperfectly or no, isn't this what recruiters do?

Recruiters work for the company, because that's who pays them, and because companies tend to be more selective but also more stable as clients (i.e. you'll lose a worker after 2 bad placements, but usually not a client).

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#217

Post by mgkimsal » Mon, Apr 15, 2013, 9:32 PM UTC

nilkn wrote: post #195

mgkimsal wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"but lots of people I could double their earnings if they weren't locked down to one location." Likewise, many companies could have lower labor expenses if they'd embrace telecommuting and locate branches (or HQ) in lower cost of living areas.

Indeed, if I could find a very stable, long-term remote development job paying $80k-100k (which is quite a bit lower than the going rates in NYC and SV), I'd seriously consider moving to a small town and just buying a home for $100k. Pay it off completely in a few years and live a really, really comfortable life afterwards. I'm just starting my career, but one of my big goals is to achieve the above either through a…

The going rates in NYC/SF also have going rates for living expenses. A single person might not mind having a small apartment or sharing with someone - people with families or other priorities can't live like that.

It doesn't have to be telecommute - mid-senior developers can get jobs making $70-$80k in many major areas around the US (Minneapolis, Raleigh, Atlanta, Nashville, are just some I know of off the top of my head). Junior devs with no experience would probably be hard pressed to start off much over $50-60k in those areas, although there may be exceptions.

Consulting may be 'unstable' in that you'll have periods where you're not billing - at first that'll be because you have nothing else lined up. Later, it'll be by choice - you'll scheduled out breaks between engagements, and have a bit of a life in between. And you'll have charged enough, and budgeted your earnings enough such that it won't matter to your day to day living.

I would suggest that if you do the consulting/contracting route, that you be willing to travel. I know people can't always sell a house and move, but most people can get a car or plane to visit clients on a regular basis - it helps a lot to solidify relationships. And I'm surprised at how many people who want to do independent consulting remotely focus way too much on the remote part and not enough on the independent and consulting parts, then wonder why they can't find clients.

Keep your eyes and ears open for opportunities - they sometimes come up in places you wouldn't expect (both geographic and industry).

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#218

Post by jonnathanson » Mon, Apr 15, 2013, 9:37 PM UTC

larrys wrote: post #135

cletus wrote: post #84

This doesn't surprise me at all. One thing I've come to learn in life is the importance of social proof. Social proof takes many form. It's why MIT and Stanford CS grads have tech companies come to their campuses and throw money at them (these institutions don't have a monopoly on good engineers). It's why if you have Google/Facebook/Twitter on your CV you are pretty much guaranteed a job. It's why academic staff who…

"I would absolutely without a second's doubt invent fictitious employment and get a friend to back up any reference check " I've also heard people who will simply pick a company that went out of business where references or verification aren't even possible.

This is a dangerous game. Some HR managers and hiring managers won't have the time or the know-how to fact check that sort of thing. Others will. The expected value of the dice roll isn't worth the risk.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#219

Post by kalid » Mon, Apr 15, 2013, 9:38 PM UTC

pchivers wrote: post #170

jdietrich wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very simple mathematical error - people compare the cost of a mortgage payment with the cost of a month's rent, failing to take into account that only a tiny fraction of the mortgage payment actually becomes equity. If they actually sit down and work it out, most people are astonished at how much flexibility they sacrifice for that small slice of equity.

>failing to take into account that only a tiny fraction of the mortgage payment actually becomes equity. What percentage of a mortgage payment actually gets converted into equity? (coming from a genuinely curious person who has never owned a house)

People often pay double the cost of the house, so on average (for the life of the loan), half of your mortgage payment is equity. In the beginning the vast majority (90%+) is interest.

Here's a calculator I whipped up: http://instacalc.com/1737 (adjust the numbers as you need; this is a side project of mine).

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#220

Post by sebastiano » Mon, Apr 15, 2013, 9:39 PM UTC

This article hits home for me. I graduated from a Top 20 university here in the UK in 2009 with a First Class in Computer Science. I have always been the type that never really knew what they wanted to do with their life and made the mistake of not forcing myself to pick a career path.

The first year after leaving uni I worked in a job unrelated to my degree. I left and decided to take the grad scheme slog that is so common. I applied to 10-15 big companies' grad schemes in their Tech departments (IBM, MS, investment banks etc) and reached at least the first in-person interview for around half of them. I had a few offers but turned them down since I realised I was not passionate about the role (big mistake).

Since then I have spent the following 18 months unemployed. I work voluntarily at my parents' business, again, in a field unrelated to my degree, while doing some freelancing and hacking on some personal projects.

I am scared to apply for programming jobs now because of the gaps in my employment and lack of 'formal' experience. I have a massive fear of the rejection, mixed with a good amount of Impostor Syndrome.

It's a vicious cycle. I am scared to apply and be rejected, which is in turn adding to my unemployed period and making the situation worse.

I have had some savings which meant I could survive unemployed comfortably (probably worked against me in hindsight), but it is quite a depressing realisation and I feel as though I have wasted my degree and am starting from scratch.