Warning about the vagabond idea: If you quit your job and stay jobless for more than, say, a month, you will probably be discriminated against when you go looking for a job in the future.
Why I think this
I know a person who was having difficulty getting employed and did everything they could to get a job. Nothing worked. Then, they tried re-explaining an employment gap and they were employed quickly. The person speaks English and has a degree. This person had the type of skills that are useful in various industries and had applied in a wide variety of industries. It wasn’t during a time of economic trouble. Discrimination against people with an employment gap appears to me to be a widespread response among many employers and something that can happen even if the economy is fine and one has marketable skills.
Something that confirms this for me is that I have spoken with recruiters. The recruiters say that their clients request people with no significant gap in work history. They explained that they can’t get those candidates hired because the clients don’t want them and they have to make clients happy. I’ve seen job ads that specifically say you have to be currently employed in order to apply. It’s no secret that employers consciously choose to discriminate based on an employment gap.
(The “Why I think this” section was added after the comment was down voted and people didn’t seem to believe it. For me, this seems like common sense, so I didn’t expect to have to explain.)
Some people who have an employment gap 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. I’m not saying a month is safe, either. It’s really not. It can take a month or three to find a new job anyway (depending on the amount of demand there is for what you do of course, so it could be longer...) and if you add additional time onto that because you’re trying out being a vagabond, you might easily surpass the window of time where employers will consider you due to a gap in your employment history.
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. Some people end up there because they don’t know English. Might you end up in some kind of horrible employment situation due to looking for a job with no address?
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).
You make a good point, but it can be tempered very slightly by noting that having a later job of sufficient quality will whitewash the issue. In other words, if one takes a long break, then gets a decent job but wants a better one, one’s current job of sufficient tenure (probably greater than 18 mth) should prevent too much questioning about the break—assuming that the current job is sufficient professional (i.e. engineer or paralegal OK, barista at Starbucks NO).
But as you say, getting the first job of sufficient quality will be a giant headache.
In what state of the economy or in what industry is the effect of a gap in employment history either strictly neutral or an outright positive?
(As opposed to a negative factor which one hopes will be small enough that it is outweighed by high demand for one’s particular skill set and will not affect one’s job offers or compensation at the margin?)
I agree that a gap is (almost) always a negative. I was merely saying that depending on demand the effect isn’t necessarily strong enough to keep you from getting a job.
The example I had in mind was silicon valley at the height of the tech boom.
Considering that you view your “it depends” statement as being valid only during rare events which do not necessarily affect every industry, do you really think it’s appropriate to soften reality with “it depends”?
“Warning: If you quit your job and stay jobless for more than, say, a month, you will probably be discriminated against when you go looking for a job in the future. Some people who have an employment gap find it impossible to get employed 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.” I would hate to live in a world in which this was true. If this in your opinion is true about our world, consider it an www.nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf information hazard.
Thank goodness it isn’t true. Also, if it is true where you live, run, run fast, run far.
I can stand a world without a god, and with the kludgy, tinkered weird ways of blind evolution.
I cannot stand the world described above.
It’s definitely true. I don’t know where you live, but I definitely wouldn’t try taking time off from work in the USA without some plans for how you’re going to get back into the job market.
If you are an altruist, and it sounds like you might be, you’re going to have to do a lot of work to understand greedy people in order to navigate this world. It’s very hard to predict what they’re thinking when you don’t think like they do. For instance: they think there’s something dreadfully wrong with you if you’re not greedy, they can’t understand taking time off from work. If you aren’t able to understand them, do everything you can to get inside their heads.
I’ve felt exactly the same way, that I couldn’t stand the greed in the world. Surround yourself with people who care and want to make a difference. I need it, you probably do, too.
Edit: The word capitalist was replaced because it had been juxtaposed with altruist in a way that makes it look like I think they’re opposites. I chose the word “greedy” because it was more accurate to my meaning.
I’m sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. I’m not asking if it is true. I’m telling you it isn’t.
This is an Affective Death Spiral. Back away while you can!
Also, if capitalistic minds are the awful thing you described (I don’t think they are, but assuming) then the last thing you want to do is get inside their heads!
I mean it. Run, run fast, run far..…
You can live on $10.000 dollars for a year in asia, or central and south america, and a bit more money than that in Europe. Start by couchsurfing.org . We’ll talk when you are back, and we’ll take it from there! Warm regards, and please, please, run! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlT6owR5Ytg&feature=related
I’m not asking if it is true. I’m telling you it isn’t. This is an Affective Death Spiral. Back away while you can!
What? I have seen this first hand. I’ve talked with people who recruit. They do it, they know other people consider it discrimination, and they do it anyway. Consider this: You JUST said you would hate to live in a world in which this is true. Might denial be affecting you? Might you be suffering from selection bias in the methods you use to tell yourself it isn’t true? If you haven’t looked for evidence supporting my conclusion, as well as evidence against, you haven’t really objectively looked at this.
I can’t say whether you’d have problems with an employment gap in any country but this one. But I can tell you most certainly do not try having an employment gap in the USA without some sort of really good plan.
if capitalistic minds are the awful thing you described … the last thing you want to do is get inside their heads!
Wrong. These guys run everything. If you don’t understand the people in power, you don’t understand your own situation.
please, please, run!
I’m here to be rational. I won’t run from information. Neither should you.
Maybe having months or even years gaps in your CV can make it harder for you to have a perfect career path. But in Brazil, it doesn’t count as something so serious. If you are graduated or if you speak English, you WILL get a job with 99% certainty -I’m not saying it will be a job you like—no matter what. If you have both, then turning your CV public will make you receive 1 to 2 job proposals a day, for 3 to 4 weeks, no matter how many gaps you have.
Jealous? Maybe diegocaleiro have a empty bedroom for rent.… Although it’s hard to believe the situation in US is that different.
It really is that different. I elaborated a bit about why I think this is true in the USA.
I’m lucky enough to have skills that are in demand, so I am not particularly jealous. My reaction is more like … I have a hard time believing that business people anywhere don’t discriminate against candidates with an employment gap. Maybe the culture is so different in other places that they really don’t. I don’t know. That’s interesting though.
Sorry for the harsh tone up there. But it just seems unbelievable that there may be a place on earth were smart educated multilingual, lesswrong-level people can’t find a job. Even if they are paraplegic, old, and didn’t work for 10 years in a row to pursue meditation in tibet.
The shock caused me to think “well, this person’s life could be immensely improved if living elsewhere, somewhere where those rules don’t apply, and people are free to come and go.”
Try to keep in mind that such places exist. Also, teaching english is somenthing most anglophones can do, anywhere in the world were it is not a first language.
That’s alright. You remind me of myself when I was younger and didn’t know these things. Your reaction was more or less how I would have reacted to the same thing.
But it just seems unbelievable that there may be a place on earth were smart educated multilingual, lesswrong-level people can’t find a job.
If they have bad social skills, a noticeable mental disorder, don’t know how to dress for an interview, forget to check the spelling in their resume, or do any number of minor things wrong when it comes to “playing the game” they may have trouble. Nothing is a silver bullet in life, not even a good mind.
The shock caused me to think “well, this person’s life could be immensely improved if living elsewhere, somewhere where those rules don’t apply, and people are free to come and go.”
Yeah, maybe. I haven’t really thought about the effects of working constantly, but I bet it would be better if I could take three month vacations. I heard Europeans take very long vacations like that and that their children don’t attend school for a full 8 hours a day. What is it like in your country?
I have thought about living somewhere other than the US, for numerous reasons, but I’m not convinced that humans are any less of a mess elsewhere.
And remember—the greedy people and their perspectives are likely to be over-represented in your perceptions.
This is because they stand out more. Who makes the commercials? The people with millions of dollars, or the poor school teachers who just want kids to learn?
Let’s say a rich person does something heinous today. A good person does something wonderful. Which are you more likely to hear about on the news? They tend to hook with morbid fascination, so the heinous act is more likely to get attention. :/
And it’s not popular to talk about altruistic things one has done. It SHOULD be (Overcoming Bias just put out an article on that, which is worth reading) but there’s a taboo against it. At least in America. (Christian people think that if you talk about good deeds that you “got your reward on earth” and won’t receive a reward in heaven—so that may be why.)
Warning about the vagabond idea: If you quit your job and stay jobless for more than, say, a month, you will probably be discriminated against when you go looking for a job in the future.
Why I think this
I know a person who was having difficulty getting employed and did everything they could to get a job. Nothing worked. Then, they tried re-explaining an employment gap and they were employed quickly. The person speaks English and has a degree. This person had the type of skills that are useful in various industries and had applied in a wide variety of industries. It wasn’t during a time of economic trouble. Discrimination against people with an employment gap appears to me to be a widespread response among many employers and something that can happen even if the economy is fine and one has marketable skills.
Something that confirms this for me is that I have spoken with recruiters. The recruiters say that their clients request people with no significant gap in work history. They explained that they can’t get those candidates hired because the clients don’t want them and they have to make clients happy. I’ve seen job ads that specifically say you have to be currently employed in order to apply. It’s no secret that employers consciously choose to discriminate based on an employment gap.
(The “Why I think this” section was added after the comment was down voted and people didn’t seem to believe it. For me, this seems like common sense, so I didn’t expect to have to explain.)
Some people who have an employment gap 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. I’m not saying a month is safe, either. It’s really not. It can take a month or three to find a new job anyway (depending on the amount of demand there is for what you do of course, so it could be longer...) and if you add additional time onto that because you’re trying out being a vagabond, you might easily surpass the window of time where employers will consider you due to a gap in your employment history.
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. Some people end up there because they don’t know English. Might you end up in some kind of horrible employment situation due to looking for a job with no address?
Consider this very carefully.
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!
You make a good point, but it can be tempered very slightly by noting that having a later job of sufficient quality will whitewash the issue. In other words, if one takes a long break, then gets a decent job but wants a better one, one’s current job of sufficient tenure (probably greater than 18 mth) should prevent too much questioning about the break—assuming that the current job is sufficient professional (i.e. engineer or paralegal OK, barista at Starbucks NO).
But as you say, getting the first job of sufficient quality will be a giant headache.
That depends on the state of the economy, the industry and your skills.
In what state of the economy or in what industry is the effect of a gap in employment history either strictly neutral or an outright positive?
(As opposed to a negative factor which one hopes will be small enough that it is outweighed by high demand for one’s particular skill set and will not affect one’s job offers or compensation at the margin?)
I agree that a gap is (almost) always a negative. I was merely saying that depending on demand the effect isn’t necessarily strong enough to keep you from getting a job.
The example I had in mind was silicon valley at the height of the tech boom.
Considering that you view your “it depends” statement as being valid only during rare events which do not necessarily affect every industry, do you really think it’s appropriate to soften reality with “it depends”?
“Warning: If you quit your job and stay jobless for more than, say, a month, you will probably be discriminated against when you go looking for a job in the future. Some people who have an employment gap find it impossible to get employed 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.” I would hate to live in a world in which this was true. If this in your opinion is true about our world, consider it an www.nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf information hazard.
Thank goodness it isn’t true. Also, if it is true where you live, run, run fast, run far.
I can stand a world without a god, and with the kludgy, tinkered weird ways of blind evolution. I cannot stand the world described above.
It’s definitely true. I don’t know where you live, but I definitely wouldn’t try taking time off from work in the USA without some plans for how you’re going to get back into the job market.
If you are an altruist, and it sounds like you might be, you’re going to have to do a lot of work to understand greedy people in order to navigate this world. It’s very hard to predict what they’re thinking when you don’t think like they do. For instance: they think there’s something dreadfully wrong with you if you’re not greedy, they can’t understand taking time off from work. If you aren’t able to understand them, do everything you can to get inside their heads.
I’ve felt exactly the same way, that I couldn’t stand the greed in the world. Surround yourself with people who care and want to make a difference. I need it, you probably do, too.
Edit: The word capitalist was replaced because it had been juxtaposed with altruist in a way that makes it look like I think they’re opposites. I chose the word “greedy” because it was more accurate to my meaning.
I’m sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. I’m not asking if it is true. I’m telling you it isn’t. This is an Affective Death Spiral. Back away while you can!
Also, if capitalistic minds are the awful thing you described (I don’t think they are, but assuming) then the last thing you want to do is get inside their heads! I mean it. Run, run fast, run far..…
You can live on $10.000 dollars for a year in asia, or central and south america, and a bit more money than that in Europe. Start by couchsurfing.org .
We’ll talk when you are back, and we’ll take it from there! Warm regards, and please, please, run! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlT6owR5Ytg&feature=related
What? I have seen this first hand. I’ve talked with people who recruit. They do it, they know other people consider it discrimination, and they do it anyway. Consider this: You JUST said you would hate to live in a world in which this is true. Might denial be affecting you? Might you be suffering from selection bias in the methods you use to tell yourself it isn’t true? If you haven’t looked for evidence supporting my conclusion, as well as evidence against, you haven’t really objectively looked at this.
I can’t say whether you’d have problems with an employment gap in any country but this one. But I can tell you most certainly do not try having an employment gap in the USA without some sort of really good plan.
Wrong. These guys run everything. If you don’t understand the people in power, you don’t understand your own situation.
I’m here to be rational. I won’t run from information. Neither should you.
Maybe having months or even years gaps in your CV can make it harder for you to have a perfect career path. But in Brazil, it doesn’t count as something so serious. If you are graduated or if you speak English, you WILL get a job with 99% certainty -I’m not saying it will be a job you like—no matter what. If you have both, then turning your CV public will make you receive 1 to 2 job proposals a day, for 3 to 4 weeks, no matter how many gaps you have. Jealous? Maybe diegocaleiro have a empty bedroom for rent.… Although it’s hard to believe the situation in US is that different.
It really is that different. I elaborated a bit about why I think this is true in the USA.
I’m lucky enough to have skills that are in demand, so I am not particularly jealous. My reaction is more like … I have a hard time believing that business people anywhere don’t discriminate against candidates with an employment gap. Maybe the culture is so different in other places that they really don’t. I don’t know. That’s interesting though.
Sorry for the harsh tone up there. But it just seems unbelievable that there may be a place on earth were smart educated multilingual, lesswrong-level people can’t find a job. Even if they are paraplegic, old, and didn’t work for 10 years in a row to pursue meditation in tibet.
The shock caused me to think “well, this person’s life could be immensely improved if living elsewhere, somewhere where those rules don’t apply, and people are free to come and go.”
Try to keep in mind that such places exist. Also, teaching english is somenthing most anglophones can do, anywhere in the world were it is not a first language.
That’s alright. You remind me of myself when I was younger and didn’t know these things. Your reaction was more or less how I would have reacted to the same thing.
If they have bad social skills, a noticeable mental disorder, don’t know how to dress for an interview, forget to check the spelling in their resume, or do any number of minor things wrong when it comes to “playing the game” they may have trouble. Nothing is a silver bullet in life, not even a good mind.
Yeah, maybe. I haven’t really thought about the effects of working constantly, but I bet it would be better if I could take three month vacations. I heard Europeans take very long vacations like that and that their children don’t attend school for a full 8 hours a day. What is it like in your country?
I have thought about living somewhere other than the US, for numerous reasons, but I’m not convinced that humans are any less of a mess elsewhere.
I interpret joaolkf as saying that being able to speak English is sufficiently demand (relative to supply) in Brazil.
And remember—the greedy people and their perspectives are likely to be over-represented in your perceptions.
This is because they stand out more. Who makes the commercials? The people with millions of dollars, or the poor school teachers who just want kids to learn?
Let’s say a rich person does something heinous today. A good person does something wonderful. Which are you more likely to hear about on the news? They tend to hook with morbid fascination, so the heinous act is more likely to get attention. :/
And it’s not popular to talk about altruistic things one has done. It SHOULD be (Overcoming Bias just put out an article on that, which is worth reading) but there’s a taboo against it. At least in America. (Christian people think that if you talk about good deeds that you “got your reward on earth” and won’t receive a reward in heaven—so that may be why.)
A lot of what is good is hidden.