Rand Ghayad did an academic study. He sent out 4800 fake resumes to employers for 600 jobs. Even though the resumes were basically identical the short-term unemployed got vastly higher responses from employers than the long-term unemployed.
So if you lose your job you need to really hustle to find another one as soon as possible–rather than drift along with the thought that you’ve got 6 months of unemployment insurance available.
I read this article not too long ago. It’s why I took a temp job after I got laid off. Everyone said I should ride out my unemployment compensation. I knew I already had a strike against me since I didn’t have a job prior to the job search (thank you again, former employer), and that it was only going to get much, much worse the longer I waited.
Already figured out I was doomed, I’ve applied for a lot more than 600 jobs. I didn’t know everyone else was doomed as well.
I feel like this has been pretty common knowledge for awhile. If you’re unemployed for a long time you get the “stink” on you and employers wonder why nobody else will hire you, and don’t want to be the suckers that do.
Thankfully, after 3 years of unemployment my husband was hired at a very nice small office. However, they noted that they did it because he had attempted to open his own online business in the meantime which proved to them that he had spirit.
So keep on trying!
When the wanted ads say “unemployed need not apply” you know it’s going to be rough though.
IIRC, other countries were having success with providing tax incentives for those who hire the long-term unemployed. This would never fly in the US, but it’s something to think about.
That’s actually not a bad idea,** Jesse P**. Sad that the immediate conclusion is that it “would never fly in the U.S.” but then again (WARNING: massive broad-brush ahead!) Republicans like to provide tax breaks to businesses and Democrats like to strengthen social safety nets, so it would be nice if the idea was floated around a bit more.
When I hire, I definitely prefer someone who has worked recently, in any job, over someone with similar (or even greater) qualifications than someone who hasn’t worked in 6 months or longer. One thing a resume doesn’t show well is someone’s drive and willingness to work hard. I think anyone would prefer someone who takes any job at all - McDonald’s, Wal Mart, or any retail or service industry position - over someone who sat at home milking their unemployment until it ran out.
From experience, those that are unwilling to take a job “beneath them” and remain unemployed until they find a job in their preferred field are nearly always worse hires than those that are willing to work any job as long as they get a paycheck. Those that hold out nearly always end up being lazier, less driven, and overall worse employees.
So it’s usually/always better to include short-term jobs on a resume?
Asking on behalf of my daughter, who in two years has had one eight-month job and one nine-day job since her long-term (eight years) job ended. She’s been thinking about leaving the nine-day job off her resume. (She couldn’t deal with killing baby chickens.)
She should definitely include the 8 month job, but leave off the 9 day one. An 8 month gap on a resume is a big red flag. The 9 day job on a resume would actually probably hurt her - explanations for leaving a position shouldn’t be on a resume for the most part - and no matter how valid the reason, someone reading the resume would most likely view that short of a tenure as a negative mark against her.
One of the reasons is if you take a lower wage job, your unemployment benefits reset to that lower wage.
Well, that’s great, but when Target, Walmart, and the rest of them look at your college-educated resume and say “Overqualified! Next please.” it becomes rather hard to take whatever job you can get. They always say that we’ll be bored, that we’ll be underpaid, and that we’ll move on to greener pastures as soon as we can because of this - well no shit, isn’t moving on what everyone aims to do with a retail job?! Turnover is the name of your game! Regardless, it’s difficult to convince them that we really don’t care how boring or awful it is, we need money.
As a couple of friends in this very position have said, “Why should I bust my ass at a minimum wage job, then?”
When I was between “real” jobs, I worked nights at Target doing stocking. I filled out an online application in-store, was interviewed and hired on the spot. No one questioned how long I’d stay - if I lasted my 3 months probationary period, they were pleased. The money wasn’t good - $8.50/hr 8 years ago, but that was $8.50/hr more than I made sitting on my butt (or at that time of night, sleeping in my bed) and I earned enough to pay my mortgage, if nothing else.
StG
The thread in the Pit got me wondering about when it makes sense for a person to continue having hope they’ll get a “real” job and when it makes sense for them to throw in the towel and start practicing folding t-shirts.
The six month mark seems to be that inflection point.
Any kind of full-time work is going to impede someone’s ability to job search. Especially in a typical minimum-wage position. So telling a person to take a job, any job, is not always good advice. I mean, it’s good advice if you were already making minimum wage or if you’re literally down to your last penny. But it’s stupid advice for someone who had a “good” job and could get another “good” job with just a few weeks of focused job searching.
If I were running things, I would allow people to take unemployment benefits for at least six months, whether they were working or not (as long as their income was significantly less than what they were making in their old job.) This would allow people to make some extra money without penalizing them for it AND it would also allow them to avoid the taint of long-term unemployment. An individual could take the night shift stocking shelves at Target and during the day send out resumes and go on interviews. He’d have six months to find a “real” job, with extensions built-in whenever the job market craps out to a certain point.
Of course, then people would then have to contend with the bias against job candidates who have “Ran the register at Taco Bell for four months” on their resumes. The same businesses that have a problem with the long-term unemployed will have a problem with “take a job, any job” candidates too.
There are a few options:
As far as taking any position available, employers do discriminate against low-wage workers. The common thought is, that if you are conditioned to working at McDonalds or similar, you likely have picked up bad habits that are fine for a lifetime of low-level service work but not compatible with working “real” job environments. Of course there are always exceptions and anecdotes saying the opposite.
Have you seen how many new businesses fail? Not only does it take resources that are probably not available/scarce but it destroys what little there was.
Relatively few have the skills, knowledge or “talent” to run a business.
Right, but I think “Starting a Business” is being mentioned only as a productive way to bridge “real” jobs. Cultivating your future failed business looks better than flipping burgers during your time unemployed. At least you showed initiative, and thus may shorten your stint out of work. I am not saying this is possible for everyone, especially with constrained resources - I know I would be challenged to do it, but I can see why this is being brought-up.
My mother ran into this. When her job folded after the oil spill in the Gulf, she applied and applied for jobs and found zilch. Her problem was that she’s old – 60 at the time – and she has a felony on her record. She had to lie and leave the felony off to even get call-backs, and then hope that no one ever checked into her past. She has a TON of experience in her field, but her age, felony, and eventually, the amount of time she spent on unemployment, worked against her. Finally she landed a job – not as good as she wanted, in a town in bumfuck nowhere – but a job, and in a couple months she’ll be able to retire, if she wants to.
I review resumes on occasion. I won’t consider hiring someone if it is evident they’ve been living on unemployment for more than three months.