Online job postings ruin the market

[Riddil]

I just saw Scopulus Argentarius' post, and off of some of the advice in the thread it really got me thinking (b/c I've been considering hopping careers as well)...

Online job sites are actually the worst thing you could do for the industry.

First, think about the way that job-searching worked in the past... you either checked the want-ads, or you walked into a business and asked if they had any openings. For any single position you'd be up against maybe 10-20 people at best. All you have to do is be one of the top 2-4 applicants, and you'll get a shot at the job.

But now since everyone has a clear view of every job posting, you're no longer competing against 10-20 other people. You're competing against 1000 other applicants.

Now that's *great* for the business. They'll be able to search through 1000 resume's and pick out the top 5-10 for follow-up interviews. In the "good old days" you only had to worry about being in the 'top-of-the-class' out of a few people. Given enough time searching the market you would be guaranteed to land a position at some point just b/c eventually you're bound to fall in the top of the applicant class.

But with 1000 people applying... even if you're in the top 10%... you're still only #100 out of 1000. The chances of being the top of your applicant class is much, much smaller.

And besides, the true top resume's are likely going to be from the people are over-qualified for the position, but they're applying for it simply b/c they've reached a point where they need a job, any job, even if they're over-qualified.

So now you're not just going up against your peers... but against people much more qualified than you. So after a few weeks/months of fruitless searching, what do you do? You start to search jobs that you are over-qualified for, and now you're just keeping the cycle alive by sniping jobs out from under other people, even though it's not a fitting job for you.

The end result? You spend weeks or months of frustration finding to try a job that actually fits you, but end up accepting a job that is far beneath your abilities.

Yeah. Great system.

(Of course, the system does work for highly specialized job postings where they are looking for an extreme niche... they may only receive 2-5 resume's from the whole nation, in which case the system works as it should)

Anyhow, the whole thing really pisses me off. It's not progress. We're actually going backwards.

[Kitsune]

I only know of one -- count it one -- single person who has found a job through online means. I still think the best way to find a job is through personal networking and word of mouth.

Besides, a very large percentage of the jobs posted online are filled before they are even approved to appear on the website. Many positions have already had someone picked out for weeks, but the company has to post the job and make it publically available for X number of days for legal reasons because the person they've selected is already with the company, is on a contract basis, etc. In truth, I think many job postings online serve that specific purpose and you don't even have a chance of getting them.

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by Kitsune
I still think the best way to find a job is through personal networking and word of mouth.

I agree.

However, Riddil, though I don't deny your point, having been on the receiving end of those thousand resumes, at least my employer has not had fabulous success. The resumes you get include an incredible amount of crap. Between the people who are just flat out incompetent (no, sorry, being a bilingual lifeguard doesn't qualify to work at the help desk, or at least at my help desk), and the people who took some computer courses and have no relevant job experience, and people who are applying for a job outside their geographical area while indicating that they're not interested in relocating, we're lucky if we have a dozen or so resumes that are worth reading And sometimes it's not that much--out of three of our most recent hires, only one came to us through the Internet advertising. The other two were from newspapers. In fact, we still advertise in the newspapers by default and only hit the Internet-only sites if we don't like the candidates, because it's so much of a hassle to dig through all the chaff.

[russotto]

I got a job online once -- back when Usenet was king and the web was young. I posted on misc.jobs.resumes. That's how I ended up in the Philadelphia area, in fact.

The web job sites suck rocks. 99% of the "jobs" seem to be from recruiters just trolling for resumes without any actual jobs. The rest of the jobs are usually no good. As with the paper want ads, only the lousy jobs end up being advertised.

BTW, contrary to popular belief (and as SteveDallas points out), companies HATE it when they get 1000s of resumes for each position. Remember, they've got to wade through them all. Much better to get just a few good applicants than thousands.

I'm not worried about the top 10% thing. In any job I'm interested in, I'm #1 of all the applicants of course

[Kitsune]

Originally posted by russotto
BTW, contrary to popular belief (and as SteveDallas points out), companies HATE it when they get 1000s of resumes for each position. Remember, they've got to wade through them all. Much better to get just a few good applicants than thousands.

Yeah, now companies just ship all of the resumes off to one of those third party companies that sorts through them with magical software and returns a handful of the "best" that contain the keywords "diploma", "software", and "Jesus". Those lucky few get to battle it out over who speaks the most fluent English while all the rejects get nice postcards in the mail.

[daniwong]

I completely agree. Case in point - my BF who is in the computer field and in our area there is NOTHING. He's been out of work for 9 months and is fighting people with masters degrees. It really really sucks.

[Kitsune]

Originally posted by daniwong
He's been out of work for 9 months and is fighting people with masters degrees. It really really sucks.

I'm really sorry to hear that and know that it has been the same all around, although things are beginning to get better.

I was kind of surprised, though, how often a masters hurt people. While working for a company in Atlanta, I witnessed two people turned away specifically because they had a masters in the field. Why? Not only did the company not want to pay them what a person with a masters often demands (in one gentleman's case, it didn't matter that he was requesting a reasonable pay), but the hiring manager noted that he didn't want to chance bringing in someone who would obviously quickly rise through the ranks to a higher position.

[Beestie]

Originally posted by Riddil:

Online job sites are actually the worst thing you could do for the industry.

I respectfully disagree.

You indicate that the odds are unfavorable in the online world because anyone can submit for anything so every good job has 1,000 applicants and the odds of being a top 5 applicant are 200 to 1 as opposed to the implied "good ole' days" where the odds were 20 to 1.

The problem with the good ole days is that there were only 12 jobs. With online boards there are 1 million jobs.

What you are essentially argueing is that the job market improves when the universe of available jobs and available applicants shrinks.

Let's take that point to an extreme until there is only one job and one applicant. Odds are they don't match (the candidate is unwilling to accept the job or the employer is unwilling to accept the applicant). So, unemployment is at 100%. Now, add one more applicant and one more job. While candidate A is qualified for both jobs, he/she can only accept one leaving a job slot for candidate B. Even if job B and candidate B don't match, unemployment is now at 50%.

Continue adding jobs and applicants until every applicant can apply for every job. It is not a stretch to see that when this happens, the odds of all employers and employees matching up are maximized when everyone applies for everything.

[Riddil]

Ah Beestie, I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree.

See, in every job that you apply for you will never always be the #1 cantidate. There's a certain percent chance that there will be someone there with more experience. Or maybe they've worked directly with the product. Or they have a reference with someone in the company. Or maybe they went to the same college as the recruiter. Or maybe in the personal interview they just get along better with the interviewer.

So there's a randomization to every application. Which means that a person who is, for example, in the top 25% of their field will actually have some fluxuation to their "rated valuation" by the company. They may be valued at around 15%... or maybe even as low as 35%. But in the 1:20 situation, after enough attempted applications they will eventually be one of the top applicants, and they will land a job in their field that they are qualified for, and will enjoy working in.

Now, someone who applies and is in the bottom 85% of the field... say a bilingual life guard who wants to work in support... even in 1:20 they'll never rise to the top, and they'll never get the job. Which means that at some point he'll have to change his focus to a job he *is* qualified for.

Back to the fellow who's in the top 25%... after enough hunting he'll eventually land the position. But online he'll never even have a chance at it, since he's competing against so many other people the granularity is so fine that he'll never be in the "top of the class".

With the idea of fluxation in valuation it explains why someone in the top 10% of their field could lose out to someone in the top 25%... but all they have to do is continue the hunt, and eventually it will balance out, and they'll land a comprable job.

So what you had in the past was that everyone would spend a few weeks applying around to find the right situation and they'd rise to the top of their 1:20 class. But with the massive job postings what happens is that it's become totally front loaded. Someone in the top 1% of thier field only spends 1-5 days looking for a job before the offers come flooding in, and he takes the job... but someone in the top 20% will spend the next 8 months searching for a job... and before it ever gets to the point where they may land the position, they'll start seeking a lower qualified job. Which means they may be in the top 10% in that field... and given enough time they'll back down their standards again, and when they finally land in that magical 1%, they land a position they're over-qualified for, won't enjoy, and won't learn any new skills in.

The system is good for business in that they can always land the TOP TOP qualified people in a position.

But it's very bad when you consider that if everyone is "settling" on their job, then all of your workers will have lower job satisfaction, lower moral, and more people fighting to get promotions and stay in their current job for shorter times. Also, a new job used to be part of the learning process! Sure a worker may only be in the top 25% of their field.. but only because someone else already has real-work experience. Given only a few months in a position, that 25% player may rise to be in the top 5-10%. It's how skilled workers improve their skills... taking positions that they grow into.

With the online market the hunt is for someone who fits as close to 100% as possible... when you were looking at the 1:20 field you took the best you could get, and the company would help bring that individual up to 100%, and the worker learns and grows with the company. But with the flood of applications online the company can hire someone who's already at 98%... they don't learn anything, they don't mature in the field.

Anyhow... I hope all that made sense...

[Scopulus Argentarius]

I've not done any job hunting recently, although I will regrettably put myself on the market (even if it only serve's my purpose of having a backup plan when I start pushing things at my current job.)

Here is my experience with job hunting...

Back in the usenet days, I also tried a couple of ads and got offers. I eventually turned them down as they were not targeted to 'me'

I use want-ads, connections, and my college career placement center (use to that is) for leads. and I weed them out, figure out what they're really looking for and craft my correspondence to mirror their stated needs. I only go after leads that I am well qualified for and I sculpt my language in terms of business solutions (clarified with some technical terms as needed). I prefer mail over fax over email. My resume and cover and subtley designed to stand out in stack of other candidates' correspondance. I also purposely send my stuff a week or three late so that I can be assured of standing out in the crowd. The stuff employers get pelted with en masse during the early days of employee hunting is usually approached from a candidate weeding perpective, rather than a qualification perpective. If I can, I route my initial correspondance down the ladder; this usally gets better attention. Usually, the last person to interview gets the offer. If I can help it, I never interview on a Monday or Friday. And I go into an interview knowing a good bit about what the company offers and its social landscape.

And I'm not afraid to be a little bold.

The first engineering job I got after college was the result of a rejection letter. Essentially, I sent the company a 'rejection' of their rejection; I told them I was interested in visiting their operation (despite knowing they were'nt hiring) and that I'd be in their area the end of the month... That visit got me an offer; a second one got me a decent salary.

[Pie]

Originally posted by Riddil

So now you're not just going up against your peers... but against people much more qualified than you. So after a few weeks/months of fruitless searching, what do you do? You start to search jobs that you are over-qualified for, and now you're just keeping the cycle alive by sniping jobs out from under other people, even though it's not a fitting job for you.

This only true in a down job market. When there are more jobs available then there are people who want jobs (remember 1998?) then this scenario will be reversed. I was in that position when I finished grad school; I had my pick of the (very good!) market. When I lost my job last September (2002) however, it was completely different. Too few jobs, too many applicants.

Economists will tell you that any market functions better in the presence of "perfect" information. While online jobs sites have removed some information barriers that were previously hindering businesses, one can also say that the applicant will see far more companies and far more jobs that he would by picking up the local paper. You can also essentially apply for jobs for free -- click on "Submit Resume". No typewriter, coverletters, stamps, stationary, und so weiter.

(Online, schmonline, the best way to get a job is still nepotism!)

- Pie (now working at the same company as Badger)


PS: Hey Dubya -- where the hell are all those high-paying jobs you promised us? Too busy dicking around with your Daddy's war to take care of your own people?

[april]

I've never worked but I've been looking for one. I don't go on the internet to do that. I figure everything else on here is a lie so maybe the job or pay would be to ya know.

I prefere doing it the old fashion way looking through the classifieds or just going to a store and applying in person.

[vsp]

Originally posted by april
I've never worked but I've been looking for one. I don't go on the internet to do that. I figure everything else on here is a lie so maybe the job or pay would be to ya know.

Now THAT's a .sig quote if I've ever read one.