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.
I also have been plagued with the inability to find employment in the area. Lots of opportunities for jobs that pay a good wage. Just seem to be looked over for those jobs. I have changed my resume and focused my cover letters toward the position. Still nothing is happening. On my visits to the area many of the companies state that they only take resumes online. I read somewhere that nearly 80% of companies choose to do this. What happens is that resumes and cover letters are scanned from a data base and those that meet the requirements are forwarded to an HR rep that will then choose which ones they will send to the department that is looking for an aplicant. You could be the right choice for the job, but if you don't get through that system they will never see or hear from you.
Frankie my man...I know you like researching and digging up stuff but statistics is just that, statistics my frrrrriend....it does not have a pulse, does not always tell the truth and can be fudged and nudged in many ways to reflect what the person is trying to accomplish. Ask any actuary or statician. While I appreciate and read all your comments and researches, I think you might be a bit too much of a statistical kinda guy. I'm not sayin, but I am just sayin....toot a loot!
Actually, these statistics are from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bereau of Labor Statistics and they reflect the most accurate numbers available for a city. What are you suggesting, do you have a more accurate count of the unemployment rate? And what would the U.S. Department of Labor gain from what you suggest: "not always tell the truth and can be fudged and nudged in many ways to reflect what the person is trying to accomplish." So the U.S. Department of Labor is in cahoots with the City of Phoenix and the entire metropalitan area to???...yeah thats a week argument buddy. Trying to debunk numbers from the most accurate source is unreasonable. And I can garauntee you that if these numbers were the opposite and Phoenix actually did have a high unemployment rate, then you and others would be posting how bad the situation in Phoenix really is...however, since the fact is that unemployment here is extremely low, the only way to justify making the city look bad is to say that the facts are wrong or that the facts don't matter. This isn't an opinion or "fudged" numbers.
Actually, these statistics are from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bereau of Labor Statistics and they reflect the most accurate numbers available for a city. What are you suggesting, do you have a more accurate count of the unemployment rate? And what would the U.S. Department of Labor gain from what you suggest: "not always tell the truth and can be fudged and nudged in many ways to reflect what the person is trying to accomplish." So the U.S. Department of Labor is in cahoots with the City of Phoenix and the entire metropalitan area to???...yeah thats a week argument buddy. Trying to debunk numbers from the most accurate source is unreasonable. And I can garauntee you that if these numbers were the opposite and Phoenix actually did have a high unemployment rate, then you and others would be posting how bad the situation in Phoenix really is...however, since the fact is that unemployment here is extremely low, the only way to justify making the city look bad is to say that the facts are wrong or that the facts don't matter. This isn't an opinion or "fudged" numbers.
you said it buddy, cuz the gov. is always right, right?
you said it buddy, cuz the gov. is always right, right?
More so than you, have you produced anything to say other wise besides smart***** comments? No, so provides some evidence for your claim and not just opinion, that's the way the real world works.
Although it is true the information from statistics can be skewed what else do we have to figure these kinds of things out? What other tool would be prefered? I guess it all depends upon the source and how they determined the information. Was there a sample of the population? How large was the sample size? So many things to figure out to determine if the information is reliable. For example I have read that some of the communities in the Phoenix area were determining the population of there city by using the housing start volume within the city. For example if you build a home chances are 2 adults and 2.5 kids will live in the home. But what happens when investors are buying the homes and families aren't living in them or even renting them? Would that change the numbers some? The City of Surprise for example claimed to have over 100,000 people living in the city. Now they are re thinking those numbers and may only have 40,000 people in the city. For me I am not sure how all that works, but they may have to look back on if the area is as safe as they say. If you are counting 100,000 residents and your real numbers are 40,000 and then you state that the city only had 100 crimes per 100,000 people last year then maybe you are really having 250 crimes per 100,000 people. Since no one can pin point how many people live in Surprise, please don't go by my numbers. Does give you something to think about anyway.
HUH??? come again? Most of my jobs that I have found are from either monster.com or careerbuilder.com. How do you hear about your job opening? smoke signals?
Nope. Relationships. This world really is much about "who you know" and that doesn't mean you have to marry the founder's daughter (though it helps in some places). It simply means being a known entity, outside your company. Ever get a gig from someone who told you about a job not yet advertised? Those make up about 70% of new jobs.
And that doesn't mean you have to be chummy with the person hiring. I used to be a department manager at a couple of big businesses and often hired people who came to me via employees. If someone who was a solid worker told me they knew someone of the same character, it was a recommendation I could trust more than a mystery applicant.
On the flip side, resumes are a total crap shoot. For $50 I can make you seem like Winston Churchill on paper. Meanwhile a lot of kick butt folks have bad self-marketing skills.
It's like dating. Someone sending out generic resumes to every employer is like the person sending generic emails to every profile on a dating site. With enough volume, it can work. But really, the person being courted (and the employer) would prefer someone who really took some time to get to know them. Who has a genuine interest.
That's why in dating, you get a better foot in the door if you meet through mutual friends, etc. It's like pre-screening. Hiring from resumes and want ads is pretty much blind dating. It's much more advantageous if you're somewhat known. Similarly, the person hiring has some skin in the game. If they pick someone with a good cover letter and who kills in the interviews, then turns out to be a dud – then they look bad. So they are hungry for the slightest advantage, and that comes through relationships.
And it’s really less complicated than dating. Just be familiar. Every career field has local and national associations of some sort. Plus there are chambers of commerce and other general business groups in every city. It’s very easy to get involved and better known within a career circle if one makes a bit of effort. In fact, it’s often absurdly easy to seem like a genius if you can really help out that organization, since most are run by volunteers.
The job sites are fine. All I’m saying is that they only represent a fraction of positions out there and most are likely to go to people they know somehow. In fact most companies would prefer to fill the job before ever posting it on a public site. That’s when you get 500 resumes and everyone looks the same.
Although it is true the information from statistics can be skewed what else do we have to figure these kinds of things out? What other tool would be prefered? I guess it all depends upon the source and how they determined the information. Was there a sample of the population? How large was the sample size? So many things to figure out to determine if the information is reliable. For example I have read that some of the communities in the Phoenix area were determining the population of there city by using the housing start volume within the city. For example if you build a home chances are 2 adults and 2.5 kids will live in the home. But what happens when investors are buying the homes and families aren't living in them or even renting them? Would that change the numbers some? The City of Surprise for example claimed to have over 100,000 people living in the city. Now they are re thinking those numbers and may only have 40,000 people in the city. For me I am not sure how all that works, but they may have to look back on if the area is as safe as they say. If you are counting 100,000 residents and your real numbers are 40,000 and then you state that the city only had 100 crimes per 100,000 people last year then maybe you are really having 250 crimes per 100,000 people. Since no one can pin point how many people live in Surprise, please don't go by my numbers. Does give you something to think about anyway.
What in the world are you talking about? The only numbers they are rethinking is roughly 80,000 from the entire state. That is a high estimate of the number of second homes, investor homes, empty rentals, and the like. I believe they wre talking about a less than 1% discrepancy, not a 60% or even 10% discrepancy.
Nope. Relationships. This world really is much about "who you know" and that doesn't mean you have to marry the founder's daughter (though it helps in some places). It simply means being a known entity, outside your company. Ever get a gig from someone who told you about a job not yet advertised? Those make up about 70% of new jobs.
And that doesn't mean you have to be chummy with the person hiring. I used to be a department manager at a couple of big businesses and often hired people who came to me via employees. If someone who was a solid worker told me they knew someone of the same character, it was a recommendation I could trust more than a mystery applicant.
On the flip side, resumes are a total crap shoot. For $50 I can make you seem like Winston Churchill on paper. Meanwhile a lot of kick butt folks have bad self-marketing skills.
It's like dating. Someone sending out generic resumes to every employer is like the person sending generic emails to every profile on a dating site. With enough volume, it can work. But really, the person being courted (and the employer) would prefer someone who really took some time to get to know them. Who has a genuine interest.
That's why in dating, you get a better foot in the door if you meet through mutual friends, etc. It's like pre-screening. Hiring from resumes and want ads is pretty much blind dating. It's much more advantageous if you're somewhat known. Similarly, the person hiring has some skin in the game. If they pick someone with a good cover letter and who kills in the interviews, then turns out to be a dud – then they look bad. So they are hungry for the slightest advantage, and that comes through relationships.
And it’s really less complicated than dating. Just be familiar. Every career field has local and national associations of some sort. Plus there are chambers of commerce and other general business groups in every city. It’s very easy to get involved and better known within a career circle if one makes a bit of effort. In fact, it’s often absurdly easy to seem like a genius if you can really help out that organization, since most are run by volunteers.
The job sites are fine. All I’m saying is that they only represent a fraction of positions out there and most are likely to go to people they know somehow. In fact most companies would prefer to fill the job before ever posting it on a public site. That’s when you get 500 resumes and everyone looks the same.
I agree w/ ya...it is all about who you know but unless you are in the know, you don't know, know what i mean?
Nope. Relationships. This world really is much about "who you know" and that doesn't mean you have to marry the founder's daughter (though it helps in some places). It simply means being a known entity, outside your company. Ever get a gig from someone who told you about a job not yet advertised? Those make up about 70% of new jobs.
Yes and no. Developing work relationships through networking certainly helps ... but that's not the answer to everything. A few years ago at my company, I was assigned the duty of screening potential new hires. I found that those who knew the higher ups within the company were often unskilled in the job they applied for, and were basically bozos with little more than a public high school education (which doesn't say much). Needless to say, they weren't hired.
Who you know doesn't get you in the door if you lack the skills, the knowledge, the drive, or the education to perform on the job. If you do happen to get hired or promoted based solely on your relationships with higher management, that can potentially lead to legal action taken by others who applied for the same position, but were passed over, even though they were more qualified. It's a risky game ... and I would be much more willing to hire or promote somebody who can do the job right the first time over someone who is a good brown noser.
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.
