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

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#331

Post by cgmorton » Tue, Apr 16, 2013, 3:35 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #9

Two things. First, I wouldn't want to naysay the idea that unemployment is a vicious cycle, because it intuitively is. But: this analysis is based on resume callbacks. Something that I think is as true as the "damaged goods" stigma is that most Americans do not know how to market themselves during job searches. If your only access to the job market is through a mechanism that is designed to extract basic facts from a…

> Second: Six months, you say? Can any of us think of a cohort of job seekers that routinely needs to contend with 6+ month employment gaps? I wonder, maybe, just maybe, do you think that has a powerful "objective" stigma attached to it disproportionately often might find it difficult to compete equitably in the job market? I wonder which 50% of the population I might ask to find out more about this.

Oh, wait, you mean women? For a most of that rant I thought you meant ex-convicts, because there is definitely an objective stigma against them (and they're certainly out of the job market). Now that I think about it, it's possible that the amount of ex-cons in the 6-month+ unemployment bracket, plus maybe ex-mental-institution or ex-rehab individuals, is significant enough to skew the results. The original paper doesn't address this, at least not that I can see.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#332

Post by hosh » Tue, Apr 16, 2013, 4:41 PM UTC

flyinRyan wrote: post #322

hosh wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've been out of work for more than six months and got back into the thick of things. I chose the area of specialization I got back into. I did it by focusing on the project, rather than the company. I think, your chances of employment is actually lower, if you do not focus your search. If you're going to make an effort to focus on your search, you might as well choose, not just simply sending things out and seeing what sticks on the wall.

That you have focus, a drive, a goal, all bleeds through your body language. People want to go where you're going. If you're lost and desperate, people avoid you; it's sad, but people in general avoid needy people like the plague. This "knowing where you are going" is what people are really looking for when they screen out someone who has been unemployed for six months.

I have a friend whose favorite mantra is, "adapt, improvise, overcome." Ok, so recruiters have software that screens out anyone who has been unemployed for more than six months. Adapt. Improvise. Overcome. Don't send out resumes to recruiters; go to where the employers are. Or better yet, stop looking for a "job" (and all the things that go with it, such as social status, peer acceptance, etc.) and look for a project.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#333

Post by eli_gottlieb » Tue, Apr 16, 2013, 4:55 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #161

kens wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that puzzles me is that rising house prices are treated as inherently good, and falling house prices are seen as inherently bad. But for most things, it's the exact opposite - rising prices are bad. Is this just because newspaper articles are biased towards the perspective of real estate agents and homeowners? Or are high house prices good because houses are investments? Would cheap 3-d printed houses (hypo…

It's because 2/3 of Americans are homeowners, so for a majority of Americans, falling house prices are bad. It's the same thing for most goods - the price mechanism is inherently value-neutral, and then whether it's better if prices go up or down depends upon how many people are potentially on each side of the transaction. Falling wages are seen as a bad thing, because most Americans identify with labor and not capit…

Excuse me, but I'm a twenty-something who pays Social Security and National Insurance taxes (separately, due to dual citizenship) because I actually want these programs to be there for me and my whole generation when I/we get old. You think a generation who graduated school into huge debts and busted wages are going to have fat 401k accounts to retire on?

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#334

Post by nostrademons » Tue, Apr 16, 2013, 5:50 PM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #333

nostrademons wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because 2/3 of Americans are homeowners, so for a majority of Americans, falling house prices are bad. It's the same thing for most goods - the price mechanism is inherently value-neutral, and then whether it's better if prices go up or down depends upon how many people are potentially on each side of the transaction. Falling wages are seen as a bad thing, because most Americans identify with labor and not capit…

Excuse me, but I'm a twenty-something who pays Social Security and National Insurance taxes (separately, due to dual citizenship) because I actually want these programs to be there for me and my whole generation when I/we get old. You think a generation who graduated school into huge debts and busted wages are going to have fat 401k accounts to retire on?

I think it's more likely than us having Social Security to retire on...

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#335

Post by jarek » Tue, Apr 16, 2013, 6:02 PM UTC

flyinRyan wrote: post #326

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?

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?

Leaving aside data like macroeconomic statistics which do indeed tell companies how many people are long-term unemployed, companies have a pretty good "feel" about people that send them resumes if they read any of them. If three months ago 10% of resumes you were getting indicated long-term unemployment, and next month 2% of received resumes indicate long-term unemployment and 8% list freelancing for the first time in their careers with little details provided and a sample of candidates are unable to provide details in an interview, do you suspect a sudden explosion of entrepreneurial spirit?

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#336

Post by jquery » Tue, Apr 16, 2013, 6:08 PM UTC

quesera wrote: post #282

jquery wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just bought a home and 40% of my payments are principal from day 1. That's at 3.5% interest. If you get a conventional loan instead of a jumbo, you can do even better than that. Mortgage interest deductions make the calculus even better. Plus tax-free capital gains. It was quite the slam-dunk easy decision to make where I live (San Francisco), considering how hot the rental market is. My house rents for $1k more th…

Interesting. If I understand the math correctly, that means that you have an effectively variable interest rate over the life of the loan (though presumably it will average out to the 3.5%). Is there a special name for that kind of loan? The reason mortgages front load the interest is not to victimize borrowers (that's just a pleasant side effect) but because in the early days of the loan, you are using more of the l…

It's not variable, it's fixed at 3.5% for 30 years. A "jumbo" loan has a higher interest rate than a conventional simply because of its high initial principal, making it a riskier proposition for the bank. What calculator are you using to calculate principal vs interest for a fixed rate loan? Remember, the lower the fixed interest rate, the higher % of principal you are paying at day 0.

The economics of buying vs renting has changed a great deal since I moved here. 5 years ago, buying was rather questionable. I took advantage of "cheap" rents to save up for buying a house when it finally became a buyer's market. Now rents have nearly doubled, but housing prices haven't gone up proportionately.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#337

Post by jarek » Tue, Apr 16, 2013, 6:13 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #115

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?

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.

Devil's advocate: or is it employers that need interview coaching? If a candidate otherwise suited for the job (with necessary training, skills, aptitude, etc) is rejected on the basis of an interview, I would suggest it's a problem with the interview.

Unless, of course, there aren't enough jobs for qualified candidates, which is a different problem altogether and interview-training some candidates will only result in an arms-escalation without any benefit on the macro scale.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#338

Post by jarek » Tue, Apr 16, 2013, 6:18 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #315

jarek wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"

Please go learn what this quote actually means (hint: it refers to speculation, not consumption).

I know what this quote refers to (and it's not particularly kind of you to suggest I don't, if I may say). I meant to point out that engaging in "rational" behaviour when it comes to hiring in a market you perceive as behaving irrationally is no guarantee of becoming rich any more than engaging in "rational" behaviour when it comes to speculation.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#339

Post by david_l » Tue, Apr 16, 2013, 6:24 PM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #87

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…

"While it has benefits for creating stable communities it also creates an inflexible labour market as people won't move to where the jobs are." Over the last few years it's more like they can't move to where the jobs are, at least not without taking a huge loss on a house or declaring bankruptcy. But yeah, you're right - we've got a rather immobile labor market, for a variety of reasons, and there don't seem to be an…

Also, could it be that salaries offered are not worth the risk as well?

For example, I've had recruiters contact me about the same/similar positions in the DC and NYC suburbs, where I'd only make $7k-10k (if I was lucky) more than my current position (in a middle market city). Why would my fiance (who would have to quit her job as well and find new work) and I leave for peanuts? I'd also lose any time base perks at my current employer as well.

If companies/recruiters are expecting people to move for "same job, same pay" then there's your reason for an immobile work force. Add to that what you mention - many would have to take a loss on their home when they wouldn't have too.

Re: The Terrifying Reality of Long-Term Unemployment

#340

Post by jarek » Tue, Apr 16, 2013, 6:29 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #276

jarek wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll respond as I myself hate when people leave me hanging after I respond to their snark... "factoid" (arguably used incorrectly), "authoritative", "verifiably false premise". It could be written more simply. You're not wrong, of course, but I've seen you take-down posts like that a couple of times now, so a comment seemed fair. (I realize it's not far off from how you normally write, but the effect is different in…

No, thank you. This is where I do all of my writing, and I appreciate the feedback. One of my coworkers once made a word cloud of all my HN comments, and it was embarrassing (a small galaxy of words relating to argumentativeness) and ever since, I've worried that my lazier writing is easy to spot for how puffy and prolix it is. Though, for what it's worth: I used "factoid" in the sense of "concept related as a fact t…

No problem. I'm sure I wouldn't be thrilled with my own HN comment word cloud...