= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Abandoning Cached Selves to Re-Write My Source Code Partially, I've Become Unstable - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (101)
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.
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"?