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

321–330 of 349 posts

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#321

Post by flyinRyan »

sib wrote: post #251
michaelochurch wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If a candidate would lie about those things, they'd lie about things at work too.

Better to be honest, noble and unemployed.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#322

Post by flyinRyan »

hosh wrote: post #188
UK-AL wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you will find is that a lot companies don't like hiring small business owners either. Even successful ones. Companies might expect them to be 'arrogant' or "want do things their own way".

Then perhaps that isn't the company you want to work for. Realistically, I have not met any hiring managers who had a problem with my consulting. I have not met any recruiters that had a problem with this. I focused on describing the project/product in all of employment history rather than who employed me, or what my job description. To be fair, software developers are generally in much greater demand. If you're a so…

>Then perhaps that isn't the company you want to work for.

If you've been out of work for six months you no longer get to choose which companies you want to work for.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#323

Post by rsheridan6 »

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'm in the process of buying a house. My monthly payment will be ~$300 less than what I'm paying for rent now for a similar house, and I could probably break even (taking into account maintenance) if I had to pay a property management company to rent it out in the even that I needed to move.

And in 10 years, who knows what rent will be? I know what my house payment will be, modulo possible changes in tax and insurance rates.

Not all markets are like that, but in some cases it does make sense to buy a house.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#324

Post by LanceH »

youngtaff wrote: post #317
yardie wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how does the US factor into this correlation with an even higher rate of home ownership and lower rate of unemployment? No, unemployment and home ownership may be tangentially linked but one does not relate directly to the other. This is how the unemployment rate matches up for both countries. https://www.google.fr/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&... Notice a difference? Spain, and a lot of European countr…

Why do you consider them "archaic debt laws" Someone takes on a debt using property as security, if they forfeit the security why should they be excused from the difference between the value of the security and the value of the debt?

The aren't excused from the value of the debt. They are returning the collateral, which closes out the debt.

The whole price of the loan (interest rate, points, etc...) was based upon the home being the only recoverable asset in the case of default.

This is why most loans with less than 20% equity have to pay primary mortgage insurance. If your house declines in value, you probably have an agreement that PMI kicks it. The lender being the beneficiary if the PMI has to pay off.

Theoretically this both protects the borrower from predatory practices and encourages the lender to make quality loans.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#325

Post by flyinRyan »

incision wrote: post #134

About 13 years ago, I was unemployed for about four months. I've had a few people positively grill me about that blank despite the length of time that has passed and evidence that I didn't spend the time idle (Obtained a certification, did freelance work and eventually pivoted my career). In each case, it was an older person who upon my asking explained that they saw any extended period of unemployment as blatant laz…

>upon my asking explained that they saw any extended period of unemployment as blatant laziness.

What judgmental fucking assholes. It's a shame such people are the ones doing the interviewing instead of the ones rotting in unemployment.

We only get to live one time, so if you see me taking off two months as "blatant laziness" then fuck you.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#326

Post by flyinRyan »

jarek wrote: post #111
theorique wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why would they? Do companies have some kind of feel for how many people are long-term unemployed and how many of those apply for jobs with their companies?

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#327

Post by flyinRyan »

pc86 wrote: post #123
jarek wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's already happening. Last time I applied for a job was after just shy of two years of contract work full-time. They asked for a portfolio which I sent over. I was confused when they asked for more as I had already picked my best work. After supplying some more samples I asked the hiring manager why they had requested more and was essentially told they were looking at not only quality, but also quantity. They wante…

Why are you so worried about what other people are doing? If John Q. has been unemployed for the last six months he deserves to starve because "SEO"ing his resume would make you upset? Get over yourself.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#328

Post by flyinRyan »

venomsnake wrote: post #114

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.

Better yet, fire everyone in the DMV and similar places and have those positions filled by unemployed people.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#329

Post by jonnathanson »

rosser wrote: post #252
jonnathanson wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dangerous how? The only down-side appears to be that you don't get that job. TFA is suggesting that with an employment gap instead of a fake job, you wouldn't have, anyway.

Dangerous because HR people and recruiters tend to switch companies and even industries constantly, and because any given company is obligated to keep your resume on file for a certain number of years -- inclusive of any remarks made by HR or the hiring manager about it. If you want to risk being essentially blacklisted for lying on your resume, I guess your risk tolerance is higher than mine.

I get the argument about the risk's being mitigated over time by the downside of being unemployed for 6+n months. Mathematically, sure, this starts making sense after awhile. But it seems much less risky just to invent (or hey, attempt to start) a fictitious company than to lie about having been employed by a real one, defunct or otherwise.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#330

Post by theorique »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #247
pc86 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already happening. Last time I applied for a job was after just shy of two years of contract work full-time. They asked for a portfolio which I sent over. I was confused when they asked for more as I had already picked my best work. After supplying some more samples I asked the hiring manager why they had requested more and was essentially told they were looking at not only quality, but also quantity. They wante…

To be clear, I'm not suggesting somebody flat out lies and claims they were consulting when they were really playing xbox. I'm suggesting making some actual effort, saying "part time freelancing whilst seeking other opportunities" sounds better than "collected unemployment"

Absolutely. I think padding a true blank spot is a problem.
Post reply on HN