Welfare King, here. I don't use food stamps, but I collect a decent unemployment payout and my Obamacare is free since I have such an astounding amount of student debt (from my master's degree). After moving to a large metropolitan area, I put out over two-hundred resumes and only got two interviews in my first 12 months of looking. One of the interviews was because I boldly crashed a research presentation that I wasn't invited to. Nothing panned out so I ultimately wound up working in service-sector jobs, moving boxes at FedEx and selling antennas at Radioshack.

After a couple of years of that I got an entry-level job in a lab, transferring urine samples from cups into test tubes, for eight hours a day, but I only got that job because I knew an employee who was friends with the manager. It didn't matter, to hundreds of employers that I contacted, that I mastered in medical research, dual-majored and dual-minored in my undergrad, and have been president or vice-president of several clubs. It also didn't matter that - to be honest - I'm smarter, more assertive, funnier, and more humble than most of my competition. Eventually, our national research funding ran out (while we continue to subsidize places like Burger King) so I was out of the job, again.

But neither these wealthy business owners nor this hyper-inefficient and anti-humanitarian system that is modern capitalism deserve the best part of my life. They don't deserve all of the gifts that I have and would like to give back to my community: so I've quit looking for work in my field, quit trying to come up with crafty ways to distance myself from the competition, and - more happily than I can possibly relay - have quit bleeding out the best hours of my day into the depressing black-hole that is our joyless, career-less, service-sector-likely job-seeking future.

You should quit, too. I'm calling my new strategy "Lolly-Jobbing". I work for a while in a low-level service job (because earning $7.50/hr, 20-30 hours a week, feels a lot better than six to twelve months of perpetually-ineffectual job-searching) and then, when my brain can't take the monotony of the work any longer, I give the manager a reason to let me go. Talking to fellow employees about unionizing is usually a good way to go.

Then I sign up for unemployment, flash a knowing smile at the vacant chair and workspace that I WON'T be wasting hundreds of job-searching hours at, and get back to the things in life that matter most: reading books, writing articles, learning piano, and spending time with family and friends. Want to know how it's working out, for me? I read "Ask the Headhunter" out of curiosity, nowadays - not out of desperation.

As Nick says, America's talent shortage is phony. We've got plenty of talent; we just don't have employers who want to pay us reasonable wages, treat us with civility, or who - frankly - are any good at doing their own jobs: finding talent, employing talent, and making our economy tick. Employers don’t act like countrymen, or even decent human beings, anymore; they’re just machines that aim to exploit workers for as good a bargain as possible (and if that bargain happens to be overseas, it's just the magical wonder of the beautiful free market!). Never mind the fact that we could put ALL unemployed people in the U.S. back to work at $10/hr by taxing the top %1 of earners a mere 10% of their yearly-income and 1% of their yearly-wealth. Go ahead and do the math; see for yourself how backwards our system is, at present.

So until enough people are sufficiently hungry and behind on their bills to the point of eviction - until people are finally ready to get collectively angry about the idiocy of our engineered-for-the-wealthy economic system - I'm just going spend six months working and six months enjoying life. A lifetime of lolly-jobbing. Until y'all are ready to join me in the streets, overthrow this corrupt-a$$ government, and force the employers to actually employ, again. But if lolly-jobbing and economic revolution aren't your kind of thing, then I hope you have a better experience reading next week's Ask the Headhunter, because you'll be reading it for a long, long time to come.

So, the solution to finding a good job is to be a serially bad employee? And the problem is capitalism, you say?

Actually (and I'm being serious), you may have an angle here: start writing articles and doing lectures on Lolly Jobbing (you should trademark that if you haven't, and if no one else has). I'm sure there's a niche there. Merchandise. Speaking engagements. Book deals. If you succeed, you could very easily make 6 figures and maybe much more doing nothing else but providing self-help on how to be a slacker and dole-sponge.

THAT is the wonder of capitalism--that you could join the 1% doing nothing other than whining about the 1% to other whiners.

You're missing the point, Andy: most of us can't find a "good job" in *spite* of having the requisite skills and pouring thousands of hours into the effort. I'm not going to waste the most fruitful part of my life looking for a solution to a problem that won't be solved in the next 10-20 years, at best.

And, yes, that's because today's capitalism is, in the long run, a hyper-inefficient wealth-concentrating system. Research, education, manufacturing - these and many more industries have been systematically gutted of funds, while neither the government, nor the banks that the government bailed out, nor the wealthy crony capitalists (whose money was built on gov't subsidization, rigged contract bids, and legislative loopholes) are going to reinvest enough money to stimulate the private sector in a way that will significantly increase my chances of finding a good job. Our government works for a socioeconomic class of people that are in the process of ditching this entire nation - with all of the wealth that they've extorted from it - for better living and investment opportunities, in places like Dubai.

But I want to point out a couple of alarming assumptions that you've made.

First, it is sadly mistaken of you to assume that my willingness to cease working when I desire means that I am a serially bad employee. I am an excellent employee - almost always one of the most cherished members on my team, until the day that I start talking about unionizing (which is the day that I have decided to quit). You assume that I'm a bad employee because I'm bucking this nonsense dogma that the American worker is supposed to put his/her company before all else, in life. Well that's flat wrong. The American worker (a human being, by the way) is supposed to put the welfare and happiness of his/her family, fellow human beings, and self, above all else; I don't owe my blood, sweat, tears, and soul to any corporate empire, ever. It's a sad life that revolves around generating maximal profit for shareholders who would spit on you in the street, if they could get away with it.

Second, your proposed strategy bears that famous American trademark, "If you succeed", the lie that broke your generation's collective resolve. Somewhere along the way, popular media and the promise of the strike-it-rich American dream convinced a majority of Americans that we were better off with an economic system that allows a few, ridiculously-lucky people to make hugely unnecessary amounts of money, while everyone else competes for the scraps. The top 1% of earners in the U.S. now have 40% of all of our wealth. Sorry to break it to you, but that 1% of people DID NOT build (and certainly does jack sh*t to maintain) 40% of this nation's economy. The great, decades-long experiment of capitalism has proved to be a trickle-up, wealth-preserving economic system, not a system that rewards most people who work hard.

I'm not going to chase the sleezy lifestyle you're selling. This generation has had enough of the hyper-competitive and wildly-unequal job market that's been allowed to fester as long as it has. What sad state of affairs are we living in, when the best way that I can use my talents would be to pander a bunch of go-nowhere self-help books to struggling and suffering people, just so that I can make a few dimes (or a few hundred thousand) off of their pain and desperation?

If a 400 pound gorilla pounced on a man standing next to you, started beating the life out of him, and he yelled for help to the people around him, I bet (hope) you wouldn't just tell him to "quit whining". Working people are confronting economic forces that are FAR beyond their individual control - that are also the fault of the 1% & gov't, to boot - and you want to act like they just need an attitude readjustment.

What did you think of the founding fathers of America, when, suffering under the economic exploitation of the king, they sent out that Declaration of Independence whine-fest? A bunch of slackers and dole-sponges, eh?

^I like what this guy said. I do not believe that any of the counter rebuttals made any good or effective points against this man or woman.

Though it is important to be hardworking, self made, and driven to succeed, it is as equally important to maintain a just and balanced system. A Cinderella story of success or a slim tolerance for slackers, does not change numbers and facts you will find while analyzing our nations economy.

Life isn't fair. You chose a noble path, research. And whether it is the specific area of research or it due to your own attributes, or restrictions you have placed on your search, you cannot find employment. The system is really pretty simple and easy to navigate, especially for people who have the ability to learn. Find a skill that is in demand. Learn it. Market it. Refine it. Learning does not have to mean college. There are many high paying skills that do not require a formal education.

No 400 lb gorilla has pounced on you. The rich are not oppressing you. You are in your own prison. It is easier to point your finger everywhere but where it needs to be. I am in the top 5% of income not because I was lucky. I got here because I looked for waves and rode them. I worked hard to both become valuable and also to find a career where I help others. I lived in a trailer park for my first 5 years as an adult. I made a decision to leave and do and be more. You have chosen to benefit from the hard work of others. Maybe you are happy, but it is a pitiful state to most.

“The system is really pretty simple and easy to navigate...Find a skill that is in demand. Learn it. Market it. Refine it.”

Good Lord, I am dumbstruck by the stupidity and cluelessness of this comment.

Let me tell you something, Mr. 5%, I’m about to head to China because I’ve dropped out of these employment “hunger games.” I searched for work for three years, but at the age of 47 I have accepted the FACT that I have no future in this country. I tried everything to regain my place in the middle class but it ain’t gonna happen, so I’m doing the *only* thing left to stay afloat financially in this world (and hopefully regain my self-respect and confidence in the process). I salute the “lolly jobber” who was able to find a way to stay in this country.

“No 400 lb gorilla has pounced on you. The rich are not oppressing you. You are in your own prison. It is easier to point your finger everywhere but where it needs to be. I am in the top 5% of income not because I was lucky. I got here because I looked for waves and rode them. I worked hard to both become valuable and also to find a career where I help others.”

Typical rich guy attitude, nobody works hard but him! How dare you insinuate that any of us "unemployables" never worked hard! How dare us not have the luck you did -- and, yes, it is mostly luck, everyone knows this, except for those who comment from their McMansion and sneer at us “po’ peasants” with their “let them eat cake” observations.

I'm going to write about my experiences in China and I hope every "unemployable" American is inspired to pack their bags and abandon this place, leaving it to the rich and morally decrepit crowd.

“Maybe you are happy, but it is a pitiful state to most.” Pitiful is what one might call a member of the 5% trolling a forum meant for the unemployed. Maybe your life isn’t as great as you proclaim. Just remember, in the end your 5% status ain’t gonna help you where you’re going, buddy.

Your willingness and complacency to become a "lolly-jobber" probably has shown through to any potential employers. My son just graduated from college. He couldn't find work so after a few weeks he started cleaning carpets. He makes $55K a year. He knows it is temporary, but he works hard. He networks with everybody. He is willing to move anywhere to find the right position. He will be successful because he has drive and ambition which you clearly lack. Get off of your lazy lolly-jobbing butt and clean carpets, dig ditches, wash dishes, etc. Stop getting fired on purpose and living off of the rest of us. Stop blaming the rich because they are more successful than you. You are the only one responsible for your current situation.

Working at Radioshack, I earned $10k over ~6 months, while making the company $300k, in profits. Potential employers love a 30:1 return on their investments in employees. But, you know what? I'm too hard a worker - and too darn good at my jobs - to be exploited at a rate of 30:1 for the rest of my life (or any appreciable amount of time, really). Thinking that this kind of exploitation is okay - and then calling anyone "lazy" who dares to point out that this empire wears no clothes - is the great psychological sickness of our times.

Our Declaration of Independence states, "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed". Well, I would prefer to follow in the courageous footsteps of our founders, by challenging and dismantling a clearly unjust system, than watch the injustice grow - 22% of all American children in poverty, 2/3's of all PhDs on food stamps, 40% of all American wealth in the hands of 1% of its citizens, Princeton University redefining America from a Constitutional Republic to an OLIGARCHY - while sitting back, like yourself, and calling anyone who would speak out against this insane level of inequality 'lazy' and 'jealous'. I think it'd be more accurate to call *your* position ignorant, unconcerned, and dangerous to the rest of us.

Yes, Radio Shack that ruthless archetype of excessive corporate profit, averaging -3.24% (the negative sign means a loss, in case you were wondering) over the past five years. In other words, Radio Shack is losing money (http://ycharts.com/companie..., and has begun investigating chapter 11.

So while RSH may have made a 30:1 or even greater _gross income_ from your labor, that's irrelevant. Gross income doesn't matter when more money goes out than comes in. Given their profitability, Radio Shack needs to make _more_ off its labor than it's making now. And all the enforced "fairness" in the world isn't going to do anything but drive RSH into chapter 11, or worst of all for everyone, chapter 7.

I suspect that the 27-28,000 employees of RSH would prefer to keep their jobs, as opposed to any more of your "fairness."

But, and I hope you read this far, there may be some common ground between us: the problem with the US is not market capitalism in general, but the promotion of corporatism. In the late 19th century, Theodore Roosevelt began the process of trust-busting. Those laws remain on the books, but our politicians have lost the will to enforce them. The federal government has a limited role in the economy, but it _does_ have a role--and that is to counter undue concentrations of power in the private sector (hence the ICC in the constitution). To that end, anti-trust laws need to be strengthened and vigorously applied. The end of total economic growth does _not_ justify the means of oligopoly, which is in essence what we have in many industries in the US.

Beyond that, the MBA mentality and other "scientific" theories of business, which value short-term gains and turning a blind eye to non-monetized social and environmental costs, is a positive cancer across our entire economic system. It is the MBA mentality that has spawned HRM--the treatment of humans as fungible "resources" requiring no investment or loyalty, which is one basis of this article. It is the MBA mentality that rewards a CEO with a giant bonus for putting the company in chapter 11 (and thus resurrecting a sagging stock price).

The Marine Corps says "officers eat last," but our corporate officers eat first and most while they ask their employees to make concessions. This is lack of leadership. Either lack of leadership in business or lack of leadership in government can be borne, but lack of both is disastrous. Unfortunately, the solution is not the type of "fairness" for which you advocate, but a return to fundamental business and governing leadership principles that we have recently (in the past 40-50 years) forgotten.

HR has gone from a function that supported employees and tamed the complexities of employee benefits, to a bloated tick on the neck of American business. If that seems extreme, consider the following examples, which are by no means isolated:

One, a hiring manager _invited_ a candidate to apply for a position as the manager's choice. The candidate was rejected by an HR department veto: the candidate "has been self-employed for over 20 years" and "may not be suitable for [our] corporate environment."

Two, the HR department countermanded the termination by the CTO (co-founder of this large technology company!) of an employee with cause, because HR (not corporate counsel!) considered the risk of an EEO lawsuit greater than the risk of an employee drawing a six-figure salary who had explicitly refused to do the work for which he was hired.

HR should have no voice in hiring decisions, outside of uncovering evidence of criminal or other undisclosed malfeasance during background checks; And while HR _should_ have a voice in termination decisions, it should not be able to countermand any action of an officer of a corporation.

I agree. HR is useless in most situations and they don't help employees much either. Just create more bloated bureaucracies.

You mean HR is a staff job??

I mean HRM has gone from being an ancillary function to maximize workforce productivity to an overarching one that sucks the productivity from larger organizations by insinuating itself where it has no business (hence the tick metaphor).

The interference of HR departments in talent acquisition is only one example of this.

Agree.

HR argues that the C-suite doesn't give HR the resources it needs to do its job. Thus the mess. "We're doing the best we can."

So did HR commandeer talent acquisition, or did someone dump it on HR? Does it matter?

Is it really a binary choice?

No, it's a slippery slope...

That's too profound for me. What is a slippery slope, exactly?

[Edit: I know what the slippery slope fallacy is; I want to know how it applies here]

Maybe a weak joke. I think assigning recruiting and hiring to HR put companies on a slippery downward slope long ago, and that's why we're seeing the employment problems we've got today.

Good joke, weak sense of humor (on my part)

My partner describes the current state of job-seeking like this: We're in a “career caste system”: told to go sort ourselves into personal
lives that revolve almost exclusively around our desired line of work:
attending conferences in our spare time, hanging out at nearby bars after
those conferences to meet like-minded industry folks, regularly blogging about our
field, making as many LinkedIn and Facebook friends as possible in our field – essentially making your whole life revolve around job-traction, your other life-interests
be dam-ned.

That was very good.

It cannot be as bad in the US as it is here in Australia. I have two master's degrees, one in public administration and one in law. A mature applicant, I was culled at the very start for the entry level program run by the Victorian government's (outsourced) recruiter because I talked about my ability to work abroad in a foreign language as evidence of my adaptability. I was nixed immediately because the software would not recognise the word 'bilingual'. I was up against people with NO work experience, with one degree, who had never worked or lived outside their own suburb, and this was my downfall. If it weren't as stupid as it is cruel, it would be hilarious.

The hiring process in an organization is very cultural, and each has a different set of "rules." There is no one size fits all approach. You have to know about the organization you are applying to work with. As an HR professional for several years, I would advise that "who you know" is very important, and that networking will definitely up your chances of getting an interview. However, walking into an employment office is not the way to begin the networking process. Make contacts with people in your desired field (volunteer, take coursework, join groups, take a paid detail in the field of your choice, if that opportunity is there), and pass your resume to the people you meet along the way (hopefully some hiring managers, or those who can put in a good word for you!). The HR staff will vet your application for minimum qualifications, but your rapport with the hiring manager and/or friends of the hiring manager is what will land you the interview.
Bottom line: before you go charging into an office to talk about your skills and qualifications, do outside networking. Most HR offices will be turned off by applicants who do not follow protocol. Get to know hiring managers and give them your resume directly, and also apply through the formal process. That is a win-win solution.

Good advice about getting in the door through personal contacts, but in my experience a hiring manager in a good company will trigger an interview invitation without HR looking at a thing. This is where odds come into play to the job seeker's benefit: HR sorts tons of resumes. A hiring manager will encounter only a handful of job seekers through personal channels. We all know whose odds of a job are higher. That's my point. It's great to hear from someone in HR who emphasizes that "networking will definitely up your chances of getting an interview."

But I'm not sure where in my column I suggested that anyone should "walk into an employment office." That's the last thing I'd suggest!

It sounds like the boss or management is out of the equation nowadays. HR is the key.
The more people learn about going through "the gatekeeper" combined with the more desperate job hunting gets - the less having actual experience will matter. Craftier people will research whatever it takes to impress that HR person to get hired.

I don't trust crafty people. I want to work around good people I can trust.

It's not true that HR is the key. HR just behaves like it's the key, and sadly, job seekers have started to believe it. This is akin to a boy going to a girl's house to ask her out, and letting the gardener shoo him away. Ask yourself, when a company want to hire out-of-the-box thinkers, smart people, assertive people -- does it want to hire the boy who sulks off because the gardener barked at him?

I hear a lot of people praise out-of-the-box thinkers, but I don't think most managers are honestly comfortable with them. Unless a person being hired is going to sit in a room being brilliant by themselves, there's still a point to understanding organizational structure. At IU when I had questions about statistical analysis software, I called the Stat/Math office, not the network operations center.

It may be justified to criticize HR as being out of its depth in evaluating technical applicants, but when I was doing computer support I didn't want to have to deal with walk-in job seekers either. The assertive boy serenading a girl underneath her balcony might be a nice kid, but if it's my house and my gardener, my druthers would still be to tell the kid to leave before I call the cops.

I completely agree with your first point, Nathan. I am a very resourceful problem-solver, always eager to come up with (and usually successful at getting) a creative solution to a new problem. That's why I fell in love with research, when I landed here.

I can confirm that, in my experience, it's about 2/5 bosses that are comfortable with and interested in assertive, outside-the-box problem-solvers, and about 3/5 bosses that are quite threatened by this kind of DIY, novel independence. Apparently bosses want more 'critical thinkers', nowadays, but I would put that skill at #1 on the list of personal qualities that have most-obviously threatened management, at least in my past (and I'm a super-friendly person).

To expand on the analogy, say the boy brings flowers. It's unfair to bring something that would only appease to the interests of the gardener, when he could bring much more to the girl and immediate family if he has real assets like experience and education. The gardener just sees something to put in his garden.
A pretty resume on eggshell paper with no typos has nothing to do with maintenance, production control or management. Unless the job is forwarding books, a fancy resume is just a formality for lazy HR people and an avenue for someone potentially with no experience but know where a stationary store is.

I'm not sure it's a great idea to say that people who have defended the standard practices of traditional HR departments are "cowering behind the rules". Even granting that it's probably true that an applicant is more likely to get noticed when they jump the turnstyle, "cowering" is pejorative. I don't expect that from PBS.

That wasn't PBS. That was me. And I do think people who are job hunting cower, too much. They let themselves be intimidated by HR practices that they'd never accept in other areas of their lives -- because they fear those who seem to control the jobs. If you read what people are saying about how they are treated by HR in general, it's clear there's a power struggle going on in America's employment system.

I'd like to ask our readers: When you read comments like those from the HR person in this week's column (above), do you see power and threats like I do?

A former manager is the one who told me years ago, "Human Resources is seldom human or resourceful." It took me years to see how he was right.

Yes, I see power and threats in the HR person's comments. Of course, I've also witnessed power and threats in actual HR personnel. They enjoy their power, and their threats can be subtle and unspoken as well.

It's a mistake to believe HR has power only over resume submission, for that power continues after you're hired. It's granted from above, and it can be abusive. More often than not--at least in my 30 years experience--an HR manager is heady with it.

Has anyone noticed that HR managers are not the employees working on the "teams" they say are so important, and that they know nothing about participating on or managing said teams?

Make no mistake: HR does exactly what their manager(s) commands them to do. If they're tossing aside resumes, they're following instructions. If management sanctions an abusive, subtly insulting or blatantly arrogant HR department, in my experience it's because management itself is abusive, subtly (or openly) insulting, and blatantly arrogant. In other words, HR mirrors management.

I also notice a certain irony in Erin Beth's comments as contained in your article. She writes, "Let your...skill at presenting yourself in writing show..." And yet...and yet she shows her lack of skill in writing "hard-worker" rather than "hard worker", and "worth while" rather than "worthwhile". In addition, an ending ellipses contains four periods, not three. Given the inclusion of these grammatical errors, I wonder if Erin Beth would throw aside a cover letter containing same, or if she is blind to such errors? She is, after all, an HR manager, not an editor.

HR managers are just as imperfect as the rest of us, but they often lack humility. At the same time, many employ a tone that seems meant to humiliate, if not threaten. As I've encountered this across multiple corporations, I have often wondered if it's something taught in HR school, but have come to suspect it's a behavior learned from managers who enjoy their power and their ability to threaten, and employed by HR managers who revel in knowing they're untouchable.

I do see an implied power relationship, but I'm not sure I'd call it a threat. Especially in technical recruiting it's rare for a resume screener (or headhunter for that matter) to have the expertise to evaluate whether an applicant can perform a particular task, and as a consequence HR screeners typically find themselves falling back on buzzwords and traits that might make a candidate a good match. It isn't so much a matter of them being bureaucratic bullies as just HR departments trying to do the best they can in the absence of an objective grasp of the job requirements. It's like facing off with a mountain lion - despite the presence of fangs, the HR guy is actually just as afraid as you are.

Maybe I was lucky when I hired in with Indiana University that buzzwords worked in my favor; experience with ethernet and Netware, a published article, and an obscure patent. I must have seemed like a good match for academic computer support. But the fact of the matter is that none of those things were as important as the ability to relate with people.

A lot of people find computers intimidating, in much the same way that people find job hunting intimidating. In some cases it might be productive to tell them they're cowering, but I just don't think I've ever seen a case when I thought it was the most constructive way forward.

"Especially in technical recruiting it's rare for a resume screener (or
headhunter for that matter) to have the expertise to evaluate whether an
applicant can perform a particular task, and as a consequence HR
screeners typically find themselves falling back on buzzwords and traits
that might make a candidate a good match."

That's really the crux of this problem. If the first line of screening lacks expertise, then the rest of the process is by definition corrupted. In engineering, we know that if the source signal is mangled in the first black box, the signal coming out of the black box is ruined. It's why when, in the old days, we copied vinyl to cassette, we used the best turntable and amp to produce the source signal. So, why don't we use the best filter to review incoming applicants? That is, the hiring manager? (If the answer is, the manager is too busy for this lowly task, then our management philosophy really sucks and we've got bigger problems than we admit.)

Nick, I think you nailed it there. Hiring managers depend on HR to filter through the hundreds of resumes. It is pathologically insane to hand off the most important job of identifying candidates to people who have no clue about the right attributes needed for the position.

Most HR departments are notoriously poor at recognizing the traits needed to build a team. A good hiring manager will insert themselves into that stream to build an effective team.

"It is pathologically insane to hand off the most important job of
identifying candidates to people who have no clue about the right
attributes needed for the position."

I just wanted that to appear here twice.

Yes, U.S. corporate management philosophy sucks. It's not the only game in town--there are smaller companies out there that value their workers and whose management is not dysfunctional--but you have to network *sincerely* on a community level to find the owners and develop a relationship outside of the office to prove yourself. Buzz words don't work in this situation. "You helped me and I know I can trust you, so come join the team" works. This concept seems alien to corporate management. Perhaps because "a relationship" is the last thing any corporate manager wants with an employee.

network *sincerely*

I'd agree that there will be better matches if the manager supervising the open position gets directly involved, but the crux of the problem as I see it is just plain arithmetic; too many applicants competing for too few jobs.

That is because too many jobs have been moved offshore!

Nathan: This is a loaded question, but it's crucial to understanding what's going in on the employment system. Why do you think there are too many applicants competing for too few jobs?

Unemployment and underemployment. There have been times in this nation when there was a job for everyone who wanted to work, but that isn't what we have today. The severity may be gradually lessening, but we've still got musical chairs with too many kids and too few chairs.

I think the reason HR is having such a difficult time hiring is HR itself. And the reason there are far too many applicants is because HR now relies almost exclusively on "recruiting" tools that solicit far more applicants than HR wants or needs -- mostly the wrong applicants. Meanwhile, HR threatens any applicant who attempts to apply intelligently.

HR has created the "flood" of superfluous applicants -- and now it needs to pump all those superfluous applicants back out of HR. Having resorted to silly automated recruiting that has generated immense noise in the system, HR has now turned to yet more automation -- so-called Applicant Tracking Systems and algorithms -- to deal with the onslaught.

The net result is that HR is no longer recruiting or hiring. HR is buried in useless data that it wastes enormous $$ and resources on. Ironically, it outright rejects anyone who dares go around this insane system. There is no "Human" left in HR. And that's why I've resorted to pejoratives. I disapprove of the mess the HR profession has created, and I have mostly contempt for the excuses we hear from HR.

Does it make more sense? HR has become one big cover-up for the failure to recruit and hire effectively.

It took me quite a while to digest this. It's been 25 years since the last time I went through the HR wringer, and your experience with it is clearly a lot more recent and comprehensive than I ever had. And bad as it was back when I went through it, it sounds like it's a lot worse now, so I want to thank you for your efforts to confront it perhaps most especially because I know I wouldn't have the stomach to stick with it.

I'm a not-very-observant practicing Taoist, and as such I know I'm impatient enough with contemptible bureaucracy (which is how I'd characterize the HR mess that you're describing) that it wouldn't take me very long to come to the conclusion that life is just too short to hang around in that culture. I'm glad you're willing because it does deserve to be opposed.

Nowadays it seems the workmarket is better than ever before in some ways and yet blocked and mocked by the ones in the postition of decision maybe for some reasons. The amount of applications makes them feel employees are just a commodity or maybe it is just in the nature of the employer-employee dynamic. There seems to be a core element of the problematic about competency. Like this guy who has master's degree and can't land an interview and there are lots of similar exemples, just ridiculous.
So maybe the competency is not (anymore?) what it's all about, but rather about how you make others believe you know what it's all really about.... : S Lol. Follow the trends of massive personnification or be discarted ?...
Just be sure, son't take any chances: Make a lot of contacts, smile, apply online, attend events, buy drinks or lunches, be competent, anything else.
In any case, I think there is always a job somewhere in the field you are in but it may be abroad.

Nick. You've applied for the position. Do you suggest reaching out the hiring manager via email? Linkedin? Another source? Wait for them to contact you? Thanks...

Please think about this. Unless you've talked to the manager, you haven't really applied. All you've done is dumped yourself into the HR database. The manager doesn't know you're in there, and the manager will not decide whether you remain on the applicant list. HR will. So reaching out to the manager at this point accomplishes nothing if you're following up on your "filing."

On the other hand, if you contact the hiring manager as a totally alternative approach, my guess is you'll find the manager knows nothing about you, has never seen your application. So be subversive: Start a whole new conversation with the manager. Introduce yourself without a resume. Talk shop - about his business. Offer ways you can help.

On the next opportunity, call the manager without submitting an application. CALL, don't write. Stand out. Your competition is not calling because they have nothing to say. Have something useful to say. (Not, "I want a job!")

You have yet to prove a generalizeable causation or correlation between "Experiment X" and "Hired."

Everyone that has the responsibility of reviewing resumes and interviewing potential employees have their pet peeves. I had three rules that discarded resumes immediately: too many spelling and grammatical errors, resumes that appeared to have been done by a service, and cover letters that do not show accomplishments. A person that has to read hundreds of resumes does not want to have to figure out what someone is saying because of poor spelling and grammar. My personal thinking is that if a person really wants a position, then they would take the time to ensure that it was grammatically correct. Professional services resumes lack individual attention and are like general legal documents you can find at office supply stores.. They cannot show the details in experience that someone has acquired, or the lessons learned in their field of study. And finally, when it comes to the speed at which they can learn...show it. Take the time and write down the stats of your previous job before you had started, and what they are like now. For example: In 1996, when I took over the sales manager position, the company was netting $210 million per year. After taking over the position, I changed the incentives system and introduced an adjustable work schedule program that aided in improving company sales by 13% per year. The company is now netting over $340 million a year and still growing.

Another pet peeve of mine, that I had failed to mention earlier, is the use of the word "I". If someone was talking about themselves too much, and ignored the aspect of team effort, then the resume was filed in the circular filing cabinet.