RE: Vox Article Takes an Unflinching Look at the Job Openings to Applicants Ratio
09-22-2021, 03:46 AM
09-22-2021, 03:46 AM
As always, the three best ways to get a job are: network, network, and network. Nothing about the current market changes that. It's just harder to network now. But you still need to know people to get into new places. I'm interviewing in the morning for a company that does ERP, and I decided to look that up today because I couldn't figure out how you make money off erotic role-playing. But how did I get in the door? I had a friend recommend me to another friend who works at the company.
Definitely, one of the problems is that decadent Americans don't want to work in the same conditions as Chinese laborers. I mean, come on, who needs a union when they already have suicide nets! And yet, we have to compete in the global marketplace.
Maybe a part of this is like they say in the article, companies have these websites that make them think they can get the perfect hire. But the perfect hire doesn't exist, no matter how many search terms you filter on. Having worked in HR tech, I've become more convinced that all of this technology we've developed to measure people doesn't replace good management. Employees are people, not data, no matter how hard you try. I quit my last job pretty soon after I heard the CEO -- who's a relatively good guy, really -- use the line that our company existed to make the best use of our clients' "human capital". Capital comes from Latin caput, as in "head of cattle" or as in "chattel". If my job there was becoming a program to assess humans by their monetary value, it was seriously time to GTFO.
I definitely see the other side -- every hire is a risk. And the more complex the job, the higher the risk. It took my father about two days to figure out if a new guy would be a good deliveryman, but it took me three months to decide if a new programmer would be effective. It's easy to determine that someone can write a program, but hard to know if they can understand the complexities of your particular software system, and it takes lots of expensive time to know for sure.
Definitely, one of the problems is that decadent Americans don't want to work in the same conditions as Chinese laborers. I mean, come on, who needs a union when they already have suicide nets! And yet, we have to compete in the global marketplace.
Maybe a part of this is like they say in the article, companies have these websites that make them think they can get the perfect hire. But the perfect hire doesn't exist, no matter how many search terms you filter on. Having worked in HR tech, I've become more convinced that all of this technology we've developed to measure people doesn't replace good management. Employees are people, not data, no matter how hard you try. I quit my last job pretty soon after I heard the CEO -- who's a relatively good guy, really -- use the line that our company existed to make the best use of our clients' "human capital". Capital comes from Latin caput, as in "head of cattle" or as in "chattel". If my job there was becoming a program to assess humans by their monetary value, it was seriously time to GTFO.
I definitely see the other side -- every hire is a risk. And the more complex the job, the higher the risk. It took my father about two days to figure out if a new guy would be a good deliveryman, but it took me three months to decide if a new programmer would be effective. It's easy to determine that someone can write a program, but hard to know if they can understand the complexities of your particular software system, and it takes lots of expensive time to know for sure.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto