Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, I am not trying to say anything negative about the Northeast. There are significant problems with the hiring policies throughout the nation, with different Pros and Cons everywhere. I am just wondering if anyone has noticed this particular problem in the northeast, or if it is just pure coincidence. I have been an unemployed college graduate for a while and have been searching for entry-level jobs all over the nation. In addition to directly applying to companies, I regularly update my resumes on all the top job seeking sites. Besides the nearest large metro, and depending on the limits of how many cities you can select, I often put Chicago, New York City, Boston, and Philadelphia as my preferences in addition to nationwide. I currently live about equally far from any of them. I do not live significantly closer to the Midwest than I do the Northeast, nor vice versa.
However, I have never ONCE received an e-mail or phone call from any of those northeastern cities (nor their suburbs or surrounding commuter cities) expressing interest in my resume. However, I repeatedly receive expressions of interest from various different recruiters in the Chicagoland area, including downtown Chicago itself once in a while. Unfortunately, still not THAT often, and when I do, they always require at least one or more qualifications that I do not have. However, I still find it strange that of all those metropolitan areas, the Chicago metro has the highest "official" unemployment rate, yet it is the one that I receive calls/emails from, and none at all from the others.
I will be moving soon (yes, I have figured out a way for me to do it without putting me in a tougher spot than I already am), either to Chicago or Philadelphia. Both have Pros and Cons, but one of the Pros I was considering for Philadelphia was its proximity to New York City. I was hoping that might be close enough to to get attention from hiring managers there in addition to hiring managers in Philadelphia (or would this still not be close enough and/or unlikely at entry-level?). However, it worries me that I have never received any interest from the Northeast, and I wonder if it is something more than the problems of being entry-level and non-local, since those same problems apply to Chicago, and I receive at least some interest from there.
I'm not sure, but I can submit my individual case study (originally from Michigan). About 4 years ago, I was hired in a matter of hours when I applied at a Chicago suburb based company. A week later, another company that I applied to also wanted to hire me, but I already accepted the previous offer. Even more surprising was that these were manufacturing companies, and things weren't necessarily booming.
When it comes to the Chicagoland area, many of these companies are dealing with an exodus of skilled, talented and/or educated people. This state has one of the highest rates of people migrating out. After living here for 3 years, I can see why. The cost of living is high, and the jobs don't always pay enough to make up the difference these days. We all know, thanks to local govt incompetence, taxes are only going to go up. I'm looking at houses that cost around 130K, with yearly tax bills of 5K. You serious?
If your good at what you do, the businesses here will happily hire you, regardless of where you're from. I've met tons of people from Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, California, etc... They made it work here. You can to. Just be warned... Things are far from perfect. The tiny bit more that they typically offer most people doesn't go far. Hehe, for what it's worth... The original offer I was given when I first applied here was equal to what I was being paid in Michigan. I believe I actually laughed on the phone
Thanks for the reply. I checked the education levels of each metro and noticed that the Boston area is noticeably higher, so that could be a factor there. However, NYC was only slightly higher (and obviously also significantly higher in total businesses/jobs), and Philadelphia actually had slightly lower levels. Combined with varying degrees of lower "official" unemployment in all three of those metros, it is still a mystery to me. Maybe it is something not related to my initial worry, I just find it really strange that the difference is night and day. If I had gotten at least a few emails/calls from the northeast, I would figure it was just a coincidence. But none at all up there and several over several months from Chicagoland? Strange.
Last edited by TheQuestioner; 02-20-2014 at 07:46 PM..
From personal experience I would say no, but it's all relative.
One Chicago company asked me to interview with only three days' notice and I had my Michigan residence on my resume. During the interview I mentioned that I was in a different time zone and the interviewer was surprised and said "Where do you live?" He didn't even realize that I wasn't local when he emailed me for an interview.
I say it's relative because various owners will feel differently about hiring transplants. There isn't one general opinion.
Thanks for the reply. I checked the education levels of each metro and noticed that the Boston area is noticeably higher, so that could be a factor there. However, NYC was only slightly higher (and obviously also significantly higher in total businesses/jobs), and Philadelphia actually had slightly lower levels. Combined with varying degrees of lower "official" unemployment in all three of those metros, it is still a mystery to me. Maybe it is something not related to my initial worry, I just find it really strange that the difference is night and day. If I had gotten at least a few emails/calls from the northeast, I would figure it was just a coincidence. But none at all up there and several over several months from Chicagoland? Strange.
It generally pays to look at the numbers. Have you considered how many recent grads there are around Boston, just graduated from their local schools? It's got to be one of the towns with the highest over-representation of recent college grads the country. They are saturated with people in your shoes who already live there. Respectfully, why would they look anywhere but around the corner?
As Andy stated, not so in Chicago. Go with the flow. You need work experience, you can't afford to be fussy about the geographical area as long as it promises to be good work experience.
The other advantage of Chicago: you lose your first job (do your best to impress and overachieve!), all you need to do is to walk across the street (figuratively) to find another. That's the advantage of big towns with declining populations who still have large company HQs. People uproot a lot easier, individually, than corporate headquarters do.
The other advantage of Chicago: you lose your first job (do your best to impress and overachieve!), all you need to do is to walk across the street (figuratively) to find another. That's the advantage of big towns with declining populations who still have large company HQs. People uproot a lot easier, individually, than corporate headquarters do.
Well, I don't know if it's quite that easy... Unemployment is 8.6%. People have very good reasons for leaving this state. It's hard to really say for sure who is leaving this area and why. I have my guesses, but at the end of the day, that's all it is... A guess. Judging by the massive budget shortfalls, vacant housing, drop in RE price with very little increase even now... I'd say these were formally productive, educated, formerly middle class income earning individuals or families.
Yes, companies do need folks with something to offer, but it's hard to say how many folks are still here that can already satisfy that local demand. Businesses are also under enormous stress. They may be very reluctant to hire folks with the intention to train. Beyond that, it stands to reason that they would be very selective in who they choose. Out of towners are more likely to pack up and leave, nullifying the benefit of any training provided. Companies may be more likely to hire someone local, who is more conditioned to the stress and BS of living in this highly corrupt city.
Jane: That is exactly what I am trying to determine, which location would give me the most/best job opportunities as soon as possible. Boston and NYC are too expensive to move to without having a job waiting for me at one of those. Philadelphia and Chicago have similar (and significantly less than the other two) cost of living from what I can tell. The higher "official" unemployment and lack of proximity to other potential job markets in Chicago worries me. But in Philadelphia, I still might be too far from NYC for HR to consider me for those jobs, due to being an entry-level candidate, which would negate that potential advantage of two job markets. And the fact that I have never received any expression of interest from the northeast makes it further worrisome.
I would choose either one in a heartbeat if I knew there was a definite overall job opportunity advantage for me in one over the other.
Last edited by TheQuestioner; 02-21-2014 at 11:48 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
