I think the reality is that having an employment gap probably does have some effect, but your post blows it way out of proportion.
Some people who have an employment gap find it impossible to get employment no matter what they do
And some people without an employment gap also find it impossible to get employment no matter what they do.
and employers are not going to take “I was trying out being a traveler” as a good reason for a gap
Should read “some employers”. And some will take it as a good reason for a gap.
Also, I’m not sure what kind of job you might end up with if you haven’t got an address. There are sweatshops right here in the USA, believe it or not.
Do you know how easy it is to get an address? Have you ever known or heard of anyone with a college education & fluent in English working in a sweatshop?
I think the reality is that having an employment gap probably does have some effect, but your post blows it way out of proportion.
Blows it way out of proportion according to whom? Have you ever talked with recruiters or known someone with an employment gap? I have BOTH types of experience. I am talking from experience here. I made the mistake of not mentioning that in the comment, figuring that what I had to say would seem like common sense, but I mentioned it when questioned in a different comment (and just updated the original). Have you got something to base your “blowing this out of proportion” claim on?
And some people without an employment gap also find it impossible to get employment no matter what they do.
Red herring. If you had phrased it as “How are you sure it was an employment gap rather than some other problem?” that would have been a great challenge. Since it was so close to the wording that would have been a really good challenge, I decided to answer the challenge anyway, and I updated my original comment to add a couple paragraphs under “Why I think this”
Should read “some employers”. And some will take it as a good reason for a gap.
I didn’t say “all employers”, so “some employers” should already be assumed. I shouldn’t have to put “some” just to prevent people from making a hasty generalization out of it.
Do you know how easy it is to get an address?
Regardless of how easy or hard it is to get an address, if you don’t consider whether they might discriminate against you due to things like not providing an address or trying to use a P.O. box on your resume (unsure if they discriminate for that, but I would not be surprised), you may end up discriminated against without knowing why. This point was not intended as “If you’re homeless there’s no way to make yourself look like you have a home.” it was intended as a “Here’s a potential problem you might not have thought of.” and it’s appropriate in the context of my point which is “Consider this very carefully.”
Have you ever known or heard of anyone with a college education & fluent in English working in a sweatshop?
You seem to be arguing against the straw man “You will end up in a sweatshop.” but I said “I’m not sure what kind of job you might end up with.” It’s meant to get them thinking about the risks, not convince them that they’ll end up in a sweatshop. In the event that I were to follow through with a vagabond dream, I would want to know all the awful things that could happen to me first so that I could be prepared for all of them. If ending up in a sweatshop is a possibility, I would definitely want to consider that. I’m not going to create a plan or find out all the reasons they might or might not end up in a sweatshop. They should calculate the risk of that on their own. It should be pretty obvious from my “I don’t know” statement that I am only introducing that possible risk so they can determine how big it is and what they should do with it.
Do you agree that this person aught to be careful? If so, it might be a better idea not to try and discredit these points with red herrings and straw men. If you have not already familiarized yourself with logical fallacies, that’s tremendously useful in disagreements.
Blows it way out of proportion according to whom? Have you ever talked with recruiters or known someone with an employment gap? [...] Have you got something to base your “blowing this out of proportion” claim on?
It seems blown out of proportion based on the way you phrased your original comment. Your comment implied to me that having any gap in your employment history for any reason will lead to insurmountable difficulties, potentially ending you up in a sweatshop.
I had an employment gap personally & had absolutely no difficulty finding a job.
Your comments seem to be based on 1 case of someone having problems (availability bias?) & a sample of recruiters who told you that their clients don’t want people with “significant” employment gaps. What qualifies as a “significant” gap? Might one client’s “significant” be another client’s “insignificant”?
I also think you have a problem understanding language.
Does the statement
“Cats are mammals.”
imply that SOME cats are mammals or ALL cats are mammals?
Your comment implied to me that having any gap in your employment history for any reason will lead to insurmountable difficulties, potentially ending you up in a sweatshop.
That’s interesting because I am in the habit of intentionally using phrasings that show my uncertainty, and that post includes phrasings like “probably”, “some people”, “you might” and “I don’t know” for a reason. So, the question is why did you ignore those words?
I had an employment gap personally & had absolutely no difficulty finding a job.
Okay. Since it would be foolish of them to make a hasty generalization and assume they won’t have a problem based on you not having a problem, especially after I explained about the problems I have seen, I say this does nothing to counter my point which was “Consider this very carefully.” If you were arguing with somebody who had said “No matter what you do if there’s an employment gap you won’t be hired.” then your statement would be a counterargument. It appears that you’re arguing with a strawman.
What qualifies as a “significant” gap? Might one client’s “significant” be another client’s “insignificant”?
Of course. If I remember right, some begin discriminating at the one month point.
I also think you have a problem understanding language.
Does the statement:
“Coconut milk is delicious.” imply that it never goes rotten? Does “Cars are a means of transportation.” include cars in junkyards that are beyond repair?
People frequently say statements like these because it would be time consuming and awkward to phrase everything the way you suggest. Also, if anybody ever phrases things without the word “all”, while not intending a hasty generalization (probably just about everyone) it’s probably better not to expect what they’re saying to be “all”. This isn’t a problem with understanding language, I’m simply not assuming something that wasn’t specified and don’t expect others to, either.
I think you’re having an emotional reaction to my posts. This is understandable, but I think it might be influencing the way you interpreted me.
I’m not really interested in arguing any further. My point was that your comment seemed overblown to me. You’re not going to argue me out of my feeling & you can’t exactly prove it wrong either. I agree that the OP should consider the risks, so on that important point we agree. Maybe our communication styles are just so different that it is tough to grok one another in a satisfying way.
Looking over your original comment, I do see that you used those words. Although “probably” is less uncertain than “certainly”, it seems to me that neither of us is really qualified to, based on our anecdotal evidence, produce a true estimate of the likelihood of the OP having a problem finding employment due to a gap in his employment history. To me, “probably” implies that something is, “more likely than not”—I try to use “possibly” instead if I’m not sure because it implies that it could really go either way.
I don’t feel very emotional about this discussion, but I also feel a bit like just disengaging. I said I’m not interested in arguing anymore, but I’m still going on, so who knows. How are you feeling?
You’re not going to argue me out of my feeling & you can’t exactly prove it wrong either. … I agree that the OP should consider the risks, so on that important point we agree.
Thank you for realizing this.
Maybe our communication styles are just so different that it is tough to grok one another in a satisfying way.
I think the problem might just be that I think it’s likely the OP will be discriminated against with an employment gap and you don’t, or that IMO the consequences are more likely to be severe (being jobless for a long time or ending up in some horrible workplace).
neither of us is really qualified to, based on our anecdotal evidence, produce a true estimate of the likelihood of the OP having a problem finding employment due to a gap in his employment history
I agree with this and I think I see where you’re coming from—you just don’t feel that these problems are as likely as I think they are. Maybe all your experiences support it. That’s understandable. It can be hard to determine the exact probability of things. I didn’t see any research on this, so unless there is some that I failed to locate, there’s not a good way for either of us to support our side.
I said I’m not interested in arguing anymore, but I’m still going on, so who knows. How are you feeling?
It seems like you want a conclusion and perhaps to end on a friendly note rather than an argumentative one. I also feel like not arguing further, and I’d prefer to end friendly than unfriendly. My reasoning for not wanting to argue is that you don’t seem to be very familiar with logical fallacies. It always takes a lot more energy for me to disagree with a person if they’re not. Often, I won’t bother to argue at all after I see enough logical fallacies. I made an exception this time because not defending my point might have meant that someone was influenced to do something risky without really considering the risk.
I feel pretty satisfied that I have supported my “be careful” point adequately, so I am content to stop arguing.
I am familiar with logical fallacies & I feel a little bit insulted by the fact that you think I’m not, but I can live with it.
I think you might be right about my motivation (wanting closure & to be on friendly terms). You seem to have a good sense about people. I feel better now, because I feel more understood.
My main motivation for responding to your comment was to expose the OP to a bit of discussion coming from both sides (well actually, I think we are both really near the middle—one side would be, “no matter what, an employment gap will always cause insurmountable difficulties” & the other would be “an employment gap never causes any kind of problems whatsoever”, but those are ridiculous positions anyway).
I think the reality is that having an employment gap probably does have some effect, but your post blows it way out of proportion.
And some people without an employment gap also find it impossible to get employment no matter what they do.
Should read “some employers”. And some will take it as a good reason for a gap.
Do you know how easy it is to get an address? Have you ever known or heard of anyone with a college education & fluent in English working in a sweatshop?
Blows it way out of proportion according to whom? Have you ever talked with recruiters or known someone with an employment gap? I have BOTH types of experience. I am talking from experience here. I made the mistake of not mentioning that in the comment, figuring that what I had to say would seem like common sense, but I mentioned it when questioned in a different comment (and just updated the original). Have you got something to base your “blowing this out of proportion” claim on?
Red herring. If you had phrased it as “How are you sure it was an employment gap rather than some other problem?” that would have been a great challenge. Since it was so close to the wording that would have been a really good challenge, I decided to answer the challenge anyway, and I updated my original comment to add a couple paragraphs under “Why I think this”
I didn’t say “all employers”, so “some employers” should already be assumed. I shouldn’t have to put “some” just to prevent people from making a hasty generalization out of it.
Regardless of how easy or hard it is to get an address, if you don’t consider whether they might discriminate against you due to things like not providing an address or trying to use a P.O. box on your resume (unsure if they discriminate for that, but I would not be surprised), you may end up discriminated against without knowing why. This point was not intended as “If you’re homeless there’s no way to make yourself look like you have a home.” it was intended as a “Here’s a potential problem you might not have thought of.” and it’s appropriate in the context of my point which is “Consider this very carefully.”
You seem to be arguing against the straw man “You will end up in a sweatshop.” but I said “I’m not sure what kind of job you might end up with.” It’s meant to get them thinking about the risks, not convince them that they’ll end up in a sweatshop. In the event that I were to follow through with a vagabond dream, I would want to know all the awful things that could happen to me first so that I could be prepared for all of them. If ending up in a sweatshop is a possibility, I would definitely want to consider that. I’m not going to create a plan or find out all the reasons they might or might not end up in a sweatshop. They should calculate the risk of that on their own. It should be pretty obvious from my “I don’t know” statement that I am only introducing that possible risk so they can determine how big it is and what they should do with it.
Do you agree that this person aught to be careful? If so, it might be a better idea not to try and discredit these points with red herrings and straw men. If you have not already familiarized yourself with logical fallacies, that’s tremendously useful in disagreements.
It seems blown out of proportion based on the way you phrased your original comment. Your comment implied to me that having any gap in your employment history for any reason will lead to insurmountable difficulties, potentially ending you up in a sweatshop.
I had an employment gap personally & had absolutely no difficulty finding a job.
Your comments seem to be based on 1 case of someone having problems (availability bias?) & a sample of recruiters who told you that their clients don’t want people with “significant” employment gaps. What qualifies as a “significant” gap? Might one client’s “significant” be another client’s “insignificant”?
I also think you have a problem understanding language.
Does the statement
“Cats are mammals.”
imply that SOME cats are mammals or ALL cats are mammals?
That’s interesting because I am in the habit of intentionally using phrasings that show my uncertainty, and that post includes phrasings like “probably”, “some people”, “you might” and “I don’t know” for a reason. So, the question is why did you ignore those words?
Okay. Since it would be foolish of them to make a hasty generalization and assume they won’t have a problem based on you not having a problem, especially after I explained about the problems I have seen, I say this does nothing to counter my point which was “Consider this very carefully.” If you were arguing with somebody who had said “No matter what you do if there’s an employment gap you won’t be hired.” then your statement would be a counterargument. It appears that you’re arguing with a strawman.
Of course. If I remember right, some begin discriminating at the one month point.
Does the statement:
“Coconut milk is delicious.” imply that it never goes rotten? Does “Cars are a means of transportation.” include cars in junkyards that are beyond repair?
People frequently say statements like these because it would be time consuming and awkward to phrase everything the way you suggest. Also, if anybody ever phrases things without the word “all”, while not intending a hasty generalization (probably just about everyone) it’s probably better not to expect what they’re saying to be “all”. This isn’t a problem with understanding language, I’m simply not assuming something that wasn’t specified and don’t expect others to, either.
I think you’re having an emotional reaction to my posts. This is understandable, but I think it might be influencing the way you interpreted me.
I’m not really interested in arguing any further. My point was that your comment seemed overblown to me. You’re not going to argue me out of my feeling & you can’t exactly prove it wrong either. I agree that the OP should consider the risks, so on that important point we agree. Maybe our communication styles are just so different that it is tough to grok one another in a satisfying way.
Looking over your original comment, I do see that you used those words. Although “probably” is less uncertain than “certainly”, it seems to me that neither of us is really qualified to, based on our anecdotal evidence, produce a true estimate of the likelihood of the OP having a problem finding employment due to a gap in his employment history. To me, “probably” implies that something is, “more likely than not”—I try to use “possibly” instead if I’m not sure because it implies that it could really go either way.
I don’t feel very emotional about this discussion, but I also feel a bit like just disengaging. I said I’m not interested in arguing anymore, but I’m still going on, so who knows. How are you feeling?
Thank you for realizing this.
I think the problem might just be that I think it’s likely the OP will be discriminated against with an employment gap and you don’t, or that IMO the consequences are more likely to be severe (being jobless for a long time or ending up in some horrible workplace).
I agree with this and I think I see where you’re coming from—you just don’t feel that these problems are as likely as I think they are. Maybe all your experiences support it. That’s understandable. It can be hard to determine the exact probability of things. I didn’t see any research on this, so unless there is some that I failed to locate, there’s not a good way for either of us to support our side.
It seems like you want a conclusion and perhaps to end on a friendly note rather than an argumentative one. I also feel like not arguing further, and I’d prefer to end friendly than unfriendly. My reasoning for not wanting to argue is that you don’t seem to be very familiar with logical fallacies. It always takes a lot more energy for me to disagree with a person if they’re not. Often, I won’t bother to argue at all after I see enough logical fallacies. I made an exception this time because not defending my point might have meant that someone was influenced to do something risky without really considering the risk.
I feel pretty satisfied that I have supported my “be careful” point adequately, so I am content to stop arguing.
I am familiar with logical fallacies & I feel a little bit insulted by the fact that you think I’m not, but I can live with it.
I think you might be right about my motivation (wanting closure & to be on friendly terms). You seem to have a good sense about people. I feel better now, because I feel more understood.
My main motivation for responding to your comment was to expose the OP to a bit of discussion coming from both sides (well actually, I think we are both really near the middle—one side would be, “no matter what, an employment gap will always cause insurmountable difficulties” & the other would be “an employment gap never causes any kind of problems whatsoever”, but those are ridiculous positions anyway).
Anyhoo, thanks for your insight & patience.
Cheers!