Tag: unemployment

Job Search: Out of Work for a Long Time


The media, politicians and economists are trying to convince everyone that recession has ended many months ago.  Well, good for recession, but from what I observe, a lot of folks are out of work.  There have to be a reason why unemployment benefits are extended up to 72 weeks in most states. 

Let's face it, the "employment gaps" are far longer now than they have been in many years.  It is especially true for CFO's and Controllers whose small and mid-size employers went out of business or contracted to the level of not being able to afford senior management.  Even though I never believed the old recruitment fable that every $10K of your desired compensation translates into one month of job hunting, the basic rules of statistics prove that it takes longer to find a high level position simply because there are less of them.  Now the available openings are further reduced by the economic contraction.  There are government aid packages designed specifically to stimulate hiring by small businesses, but it will take long time before we will see significant impact.

Knowing all that, nevertheless, does not prevent recruiters and HR managers from asking you point blank, "Why you have been out of work for such a long time?"  They know why.  They ask because they want to see how you handle the question.  Your ability to present yourself in the best light during an interview and explain the employment gap on your resume in the most appealing way is a very sensitive issue.

That is why I highly recommend that everyone, even those who are not actively looking at the moment, read The Ladders' article Why Have You Been out of Work So Long?

I don't always agree with their material, but what I like about The Ladders' advice pieces is that they give us the point of view of the hiring professionals, the very people on the other side of the table.   Those on the job market need to cater to their expectations and their mind-set.  This particular article has the most straight-forward advice on the employment gap issue I have ever seen.

I have to say, however, that almost until the end they got me worried because it seemed that the article practically recommended to make up a story to fill the gap: say whatever,  except that you were just looking for a job.  Only in the last paragraph the actual activities are implied.

And I would like to elaborate on that.  Please, don't make up stories – you never know where that may lead you.  Nobody looks for a job for 12 hours every day.  So, use your spare time to occupy yourself with one of those recommended activities, and then you can tell people about them.  Even if you buy a SOX manual and study it on your own, you can say that you have significantly expanded your internal control compliance horizons.


              

Futurenomics of Higher Education


Item_3703People laugh at me when I talk about higher education in negative terms.  And I understand – it sounds hypocritical coming from someone with multiple academic degrees.  But times and environments change.  For my generation, higher education was far less expensive, more intellectually challenging and somewhat more rewarding than it is for young people today. 

Now colleges lower their educational values, so that the degrees seem more intellectually accessible.  The individual thinking is not cultivated anymore and slowly disappears together with independent studies.  It became all about mechanistic skills of test-taking instead of true intellectualism.   

Except for a few institutions still adhering to their academic values, most colleges' coursework does not require any reading beyond the textbooks.  This is how we end up with scores of degreed "professionals" who never read.  My famous pet peeve is having young subordinates with accounting degrees who don't understand the fundamental principles of double-entry bookkeeping. 

So, for $200,000 you get a low-grade minimal intellectual input and the promise of… What?  Nowadays, nothing.  Ok, so wealthy parents may be willing to pay this kind of money in order to delay their children's exposure to the doldrums of the adult life – as far as I am concerned, not a bad idea if you love your children and can afford to do so.  But other than that – it's really just nothing but a bad investment.  

Yet, more and more children continue entering colleges, ending up with unbearable debts.  Some are locked forever in terrible jobs, others are not capable of getting a job at all.   And people still insist that the degrees open some highly desirable doors?  Why is that? 

Because, of that stupid club mentality that pollutes every aspect of our lives.  Hiring managers and recruiters, themselves college graduates, will look down on those without the degrees, regardless of their abilities and knowledge.  This idiotic pattern has to change.  Not to boast or anything, but I always look for a spark of an intellect in a candidate's eyes before I look at the Education section on his resume.     

At the same time, we cannot deny the fact that having graduate and post-graduate degrees inhibits entrepreneurial potential of many bright and capable people.  I have been saying for years that the possibility of being paid good wages prevents people from entering the entrepreneurial route.  It's too scary to gamble on your business success if you have a steady job.   Thus, instead of building small and midsize businesses that could revive our economy, kids "all go to the university, and they all get put in boxes, little boxes, all the same." 

But this point becomes even less relevant now: those highly paid jobs opportunities will not be there in the near future.  Young people, please, you don't have to follow the rest of the sheep.  Think for yourself; let your creativity take you on the self-fulfilling journey.  And you don't have to strive to be rich and famous overnight either – not everyone is meant to be Gates or Zuckerman.  There is nothing wrong with building your own small business that will provide you with middle-class living, while creating jobs for other people on top of that. 

 

 

The New Economic Reality of Unemployment


Hiring Gap A couple of weeks ago New York Magazine used  The Hiring Gap chart (see picture) as their Intelligencer topic.  It compares domestic employment powers of ten "most valuable" ( in terms of their market capitalization) public companies in America in 1964 (converted into 2011 dollars) and now.  Even though the numbers on their own are very striking and Andre Tartar's few-lines of commentaries and footnotes cut right through the fact that 

"being a top American business no longer… means employing lots of American workers,"

the data left my calculating mind somewhat unsatisfied; it begged for further interpretation.

First of all,  it's the damned "market capitalization" crap, which nothing more than a perceived value of the company by investing public – the very same public that cannot evaluate companies on its own and follows the leads of their brokers, WSJ analysts, CNBC (especially if they are doled out by sexy Maria Bartiromo or engaging Jim "Mad Money" Cramer), etc.  Thankfully, there is an instrument we can employ to make these numbers somewhat more real – Price-Earnings Ratio:

  PE Ration Here is the new ranking of the 2011 listing, based on the companies' earnings.

  The Hiring Gap Only three giants retained their places in this modified view: Exxon, Berkshire and Google.  And, by my standards, those three are overpriced anyway: any stock with P/E ratio higher than 11 is overpriced.  Google with 20 – ridiculous.  Of course, it's not as bad as some other stocks, like Wynn Resorts, for a example, with a preposterous 60.  It always shocked me that people buy stocks like that and then act all surprised when their savings go, "Bye-bye." 

Another interesting angle of the chart is its reflection of the fundamental changes in industrial mix of Large-Cap companies, which speaks volumes about this country's economic and social environment.  The only two companies present on both lists are GE and IBM.  In 1964 we did not have any financial institutions big enough to claim not just one, but two spots in the top 10.  The three tangible goods manufacturers that drove the US to its economic dominance in the 60s are gone off the list – GM, Dupont and Kodak.  So, is the telecommunication super-power of the time – AT&T.  Now, we have Apple and Microsoft, dividing the world into two camps of PC vs. Mac users.  And isn't it comforting to know that as far as our OIL-dependence is concerned, we are still at the same point as we were nearly half a century ago?

Now, the focal point of the piece – the dwindling number of the jobs infused by these companies into American economy.  In accordance with proper statistical rules, let's explain away the two companies with the highest and the lowest number of workers.  Walmart employs 2.1 million of people, but it is irrelevant, and not because their average salary rate is one of the lowest in the country, but because their expansion put out of business smaller chains and thousands of independent retailers.  Google, on the other hand, generates the majority of its revenue without any human participation, so I am surprised even by the 24K number.

Look at our beacons of stability, though – GE's number practically did not change and IBM employs nearly three times more people now than they did 47 years ago.  Holla to that!  The rest of them… well, we all know the story – there are three reasons for jobs going away and never coming back:

  1. Technological advancements contributing into increased efficiency.
  2. Outsourcing = jobs going abroad.
  3. Globalization of manufacturing and support services = jobs going abroad.   

At the time this issue of New York Magazine came out, the unemployment rate was at 8.8%.   Now it's 9%, and I believe that unless something changes fundamentally in our economic structure, it is only going to get worse.  The new reality is that we cannot look at the giants whose operations financed through their publicly-traded stocks as the source of new jobs.  

As long as investors listen to analysts' opinions and follow the "trends," the large companies' executives will continue applying their hardest efforts to minimization of costs in order to preserve their multi-million compensation packages.  The workload will continue being exported abroad and jobs will disappear.

At this point, we can only rely on small and midsize American business for the influx of new jobs.  That's where the efforts must be concentrated: helping the existing smaller companies' survival and stimulating creation of new entrepreneurial businesses.

Those who read this blog consistently know that I am developing a product that will help small and midsize businesses in their daily struggle for success, assuming I manage to solicit sufficient venture capital.

Job Search: Lessons from AOL Resume Contest


Not that my stories are usually bright and sunny, but in this case I feel obligated to apologize in advance for the accentuated feeling of gloominess the visitors may experience reading this post.   This particular topic is depressing on three levels. 

First of all, it deals with the fact that there are millions of well-qualified people out there, who are classified as "long-term unemployed." 

Secondly, it highlights the problem of plunging work quality we can see everywhere.  I am not saying everyone, but it seems like the majority of people  just don't want to try hard anymore.  

Thirdly, it disparages our illusions about the impact of "internet exposure."  Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) and web-powered Social Networking are even more popular mantras nowadays, than Dashboards.  Everybody and their mothers are writing about it.  People believe that if they get their name on a high-traffic site, they are going to be noticed.  The reality is that unless you write about sex, celebrities or electronic chachkis, nobody will care.  And before you bring up Huffington Post, let me tell you – Arianna Huffington was a political powerhouse and a decent memoirist way before she went on the net. 

So, here is the story.  In January AOL Jobs announced a Resume Contest and offered job seekers to submit their CVs and photos.  The winners were "to be selected by AOL Jobs career experts."  The incentive to participate was boldly formulated:

"Each winner will have their resume featured on AOL.com for millions of prospective employers to see..."  

AOL Jobs never revealed their traffic information to support this claim of tremendous exposure.  But of course, people are desperately unemployed and ready to grasp at straws; plus, the internet exposure illusion…  Resumes were entered into the contest.

Here comes the funny part.  Afterwards, the organizers did not even bother to announce how many resumes were submitted.  Like, it did not even matter.  However, in addition to the original 12 winners,  AOL Jobs announced 24 runner-ups, claiming that "there were so many amazing… entrants" (no actual numbers).

I happened to know personally one of these runner-ups.  Guess when these poor saps were featured on AOL Jobs…  The first group on Saturday, January 29th, at 7:57 AM, and the second group on Sunday, January 30th, at 4:42 PM.  Who was looking?  Recruiters?  Employers?  None of these 36 winners got any job offers through this "wonderful" campaign.

The personally -known-to-me winner did not receive a single phone call or an email.  Well, that did not really surprise me.  What shocked me was that nobody from AOL cared to follow up with her.  There were no emails asking if she got any leads, nothing…  Weren't organizers interested at all in the results?  As I say – low quality of work everywhere.   

So, I have a constructive suggestion, which at the very least will have a quality-improving effect.   How about, AOL Job's management actually pursues their "Employing America" mission and replaces the incapable staff, who developed this failed contest, with some excellent winners of the Resume Contest?