Here I am, on the job boards again. Here I am, refresh the page. (employed, job interview)

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

Likewise, those who say "networking is how you get the job" also aren't being entirely truthful. Sure, it can certainly help one land a job, but it still won't get you the job if someone doesn't consider you a good fit for the position.

They're being truthful. It doesn't guarantee you the job, no one said that, but without the networking the chances are you'll never hear about the opportunity, never mind be actually considered for it. If you don't know there is an opportunity, you'll be sure not to get the job.

[MPowering1]

Originally Posted by timberline742

They're being truthful. It doesn't guarantee you the job, no one said that, but without the networking the chances are you'll never hear about the opportunity, never mind be actually considered for it. If you don't know there is an opportunity, you'll be sure not to get the job.

Studies indicate networking is the best way to get a job, so I agree that what people are saying is truthful.

[prosopis]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Well this is networking to me.

What do you call talking to your friends?

Perhaps the OP and I have a non-standard view of what everyone means when they say "networking".

Originally Posted by timberline742

That's not book cooking and it has always been the case that if you cease looking for employment that you are no longer part of the workforce so you're not counted. Nor should you be. Very very few people find work without looking for it.

Context is everything. When used as evidence of an economy just humming along nicely or improving, it is a very misleading figure. What do you suppose those people not looking for work do for money?

If you want to gauge the health of the economy, you simply have to include those persons who would work if they could get hired in the "workforce". Otherwise you come up with an inaccurate picture of reality - which is exactly what the OP is remarking upon.

Incidentally, I did not mean to imply that it had not always been done this way - what has changed is the degree to which people who would be working cannot work because there is no work for them. In my lifetime, that segment has usually been quite small so not including them in the unemployment figures was not such a big deal. It seems to be different now - those who have given up and those who are underemployed now are reported to outnumber those who are simply unemployed and looking for work.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by prosopis

What do you call talking to your friends?

Perhaps the OP and I have a non-standard view of what everyone means when they say "networking".

That's hanging with my social network. Much of my professional and social network intermingle and overlap.

Originally Posted by prosopis

Context is everything. When used as evidence of an economy just humming along nicely or improving, it is a very misleading figure. What do you suppose those people not looking for work do for money?

It isn't misleading because the information has been compiled in the same way for decades and it is a relative indicator. It wasn't intended as anything more.

I don't know what they do for money, but if you're not in the workforce you're not counted. Nor should you be since you quit the workforce.

Originally Posted by prosopis

If you want to gauge the health of the economy, you simply have to include those persons who would work if they could get hired in the "workforce". Otherwise you come up with an inaccurate picture of reality - which is exactly what the OP is remarking upon.

Its an indicator, not a gospel. It was never meant or intended as a single go to number for the health of the economy, just as the stock market isn't a single go to number indicating health of the economy just because some nimrods in the media use it as such.

And how would they know if they could or would work, if they don't look? You can't win or potentially win if you don't play the game. You can't work or potentially work if you don't look for work.

[prosopis]

Originally Posted by DavidRudisha

2-3 months until the end of my contract. I need to start blasting out applications. I thought that, given all I've heard about "The unemployment rate just dipped to its lowest in 10 years!", there would be some noticeable improvement in the quality/quantity/availability of jobs being posted on Indeed, LinkedIn, etc.

Nothing has changed, as far as I can tell.

• Majority of jobs are temporary contracts offered through staffing agencies
• Hard to find anything that doesn't require a number of years of prior professional experience
• Still have to use time-consuming, crappy application platforms such as Taleo.
• Large companies that are laying off employees still post hundreds of jobs everyday (It's obviously an automated system that isn't necessarily posting jobs that are available)

Granted: I'm looking at technology jobs. Maybe the job situation is improving in the service sector and fast food sector (as if that's something to rejoice about).

Originally Posted by timberline742

It isn't misleading because the information has been compiled in the same way for decades and it is a relative indicator. It wasn't intended as anything more.

I don't know what they do for money, but if you're not in the workforce you're not counted. Nor should you be since you quit the workforce.


Its an indicator, not a gospel. It was never meant or intended as a single go to number for the health of the economy, just as the stock market isn't a single go to number indicating health of the economy just because some nimrods in the media use it as such.

And how would they know if they could or would work, if they don't look? You can't win or potentially win if you don't play the game. You can't work or potentially work if you don't look for work.

I've re-quoted the OP to highlight why it is misleading. Politicos like to treat that single, most used, unemployment figure as a gospel rather than an indicator of the state of the economy. As I said, having to take what you hear about the latest unemployment figure with such a huge grain of salt is new in my experience. Before 2008, this never would have even come up in conversation.

So yes, from the point of view of "how many other people are competing with me in this job market" those who've quit looking are irrelevant. From the point of view of "how eager will an employer be to find me" it is certainly relevant. Millions of job seekers simply giving up is a very good indication that few employers will be overly excited about your application and you may have a long, tough slog ahead to find a position. That is why I say the much higher number is important in this context.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by timberline742

They're being truthful. It doesn't guarantee you the job, no one said that, but without the networking the chances are you'll never hear about the opportunity, never mind be actually considered for it. If you don't know there is an opportunity, you'll be sure not to get the job.

But instead, what was said by a couple folks in this thread is "networking is how you get the job," which again isn't entirely true.

There's a combination of factors that can get you the job, although networking can be a big factor.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

But instead, what was said by a couple folks in this thread is "networking is how you get the job," which again isn't entirely true.

There's a combination of factors that can get you the job, although networking can be a big factor.

Well of course you still have to interview well, but you need the networking to get the job. It is what gets you the job, in reality. Saying "oh, but you need to be qualified" is nitpicking.

Originally Posted by prosopis

I've re-quoted the OP to highlight why it is misleading. Politicos like to treat that single, most used, unemployment figure as a gospel rather than an indicator of the state of the economy. As I said, having to take what you hear about the latest unemployment figure with such a huge grain of salt is new in my experience. Before 2008, this never would have even come up in conversation.

So yes, from the point of view of "how many other people are competing with me in this job market" those who've quit looking are irrelevant. From the point of view of "how eager will an employer be to find me" it is certainly relevant. Millions of job seekers simply giving up is a very good indication that few employers will be overly excited about your application and you may have a long, tough slog ahead to find a position. That is why I say the much higher number is important in this context.

Well who the heck listens to politicians? Seriously? If you want info on the economy, listen to economists.

And I don't know anyone out there, employed or otherwise that don't think the economy is in much better condition then a few years ago. Hiring is strong. Expansion is going on. It is pretty solid at high levels, mid levels and entry levels and most places in between (help wanted signs are everywhere and have been for quite some time).

And sorry, I don't know what you mean by "how eager will an employer be to find me" or them being "excited" about my application. Excited???!! An employer has never, ever been eager to "find me". I'm eager to find them and sell myself. If people have a sense of privilege about them and consider themselves a prize so they quit because they're not having their egos stroked (if I'm reading you right) then good riddance. You quit the workforce, you're irrelevant at this point economically.

[like-2-hike]

Not sure how the jobs thing is going for potential employees, but I can say as an employer, it can be just as frustrating...

The last two jobs my department has listed have had few applicants (3 for one, about 20 for another), fewer qualified applicants, and many people who applied put little effort into their applications (e.g. cover letter or resume written in a text editor with little or no formatting, resume hand-written with pen and highlighter and digitized via cell phone camera, etc.).

Every time I read about or hear people complain about how hard it is to find a job, I think back to these recent experiences and wonder where the disconnect is... (not saying the OP is doing anything wrong)

[BirdieBelle]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

...it still won't get you the job if someone doesn't consider you a good fit for the position.

This is a given. Why apply if you are not a good fit?

Besides, you can be the most qualified person on earth, but if you don't engage anyone personally and sit at home clicking around job boards all day, your chances of getting hired plummet.

[Lafleur]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

There should a middle ground here between "network is how you get the job" and "networking is overrated."

Obviously it will never hurt someone to have connections for a job opportunity. Everything else being equal, people are more likely to work with known quantities/qualities than those which are unknown. So to say "networking is overrated" is very shortsighted.

Likewise, those who say "networking is how you get the job" also aren't being entirely truthful. Sure, it can certainly help one land a job, but it still won't get you the job if someone doesn't consider you a good fit for the position.

This is very accurate. I've gotten jobs through both channels: networking and job boards. One or the other is not the only surefire method. I've only had a few professional jobs since college, so my network is not that vast to begin with. I would have to rely on both for my next job.