Unemployed Need Not Apply

There is a disturbing trend, gentle readers. One that quite upsets your MatchGirl. There is a trend that employers, people who are hiring, are saying that the long-term unemployed, those who need the jobs the most, need not apply.

Your MatchGirl, who, herself, was among the long-term unemployed, before landing her current spot, has some thoughts on this. Bear with me.

The employers want people who still are up-to-date and current on all that applies to their posted position. They want people who have been in the working world and have networks and contacts to rely on. They want people they won't have to spend money to train - ones that can slip easily into the position.

The long-term unemployed are eager, no desperate, to work. They are at the end of their financial rope. They will take jobs they are over-qualified for. Once 9 to 5 office workers will happily sweep floors. Scientists will become cheesemongers. These people have no income to speak of and they need this job. The economy needs for them to have it.

Your MatchGirl, gentle readers, see the problem as this: The employers are not educated about the state of the unemployed person today. The average unemployed, much as I did when I was unemployed, is putting themselves out there as much as possible. They are educating themselves, in classes or online or through friends, on anything they think will be able to help them get a job. They want to get hired and they want to be ready when that finally happens.

And, the biggest misconception, of course, is that unemployed people are lazy. Gentle readers, we know this is simply untrue. But perhaps the onus is on us to educate these employers...

Make sure to add anything you have been doing to your resume. Volunteered two days a week at a shelter? Add it! Take classes at a community college? Add it! Babysit on a regular/semi-regular basis? You're a nanny. Add it! Prove to the employers that unemployeds are not lazy. And that they deserve, at least, a chance a that posted job.

If you have a moment, listen to this interview on WNYC's Brian Lehrer show:

What's Grown Up?

There were two school of thought, when your MatchGirl was young, gentle readers, on growing up.

The first: How freakin' amazing will it be when we're grown-ups? When no one can tell us what to do? When there are no rules?  Ooh. Or, better yet, when we make all the rules?

The second, immortalized by Peter Pan:

I won't grow up,

I don't want to wear a tie.
And a serious expression
In the middle of July.
And if it means I must prepare
To shoulder burdens with a worried air,
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me

There has been loads and loads of chatter lately about how twenty-somethings are not growing up.  Your MatchGirl has written about it herself.  And I'm going to write about it again.

I read recently, over on PSFK, an article entitled "The Slow Path To Adulthood" - it cites, among other things, the high unemployment rate and the recession as reasons that adulthood is being delayed in the US right now.  The path our parents took - high school, moving out of their folks' house, (maybe) college, getting a job, getting married, having kids, retiring around 65 and watching the kids and grand kids do the same - just isn't the same path a lot of us are on.

I heard the authors of the book on the Leonard Lopate show that same day and, interestingly enough, they don't see this as a bad thing.  They see the longer, slower journey as something that's useful in the long run.  Healthy, even.

I don't disagree.  I would much rather have taken my time in finding Mr Right than be a 35 year old divorcee.  And, looking back at my past serious relationships, that could have happened.  I would rather have tried my hand at a few jobs, a few careers, in order to find the one that is the right fit, instead of getting into something at 20 and looking back with sadness on what might have been.  There are enough regrets in life without your job or your partner being among them.

I'm 35 years old.
When I was 25, I thought that I would be married by now.
I thought that I would have at least one kid by now.
I thought that my money worries would be less.
I thought that I would be living this very magical, very adult life.

Reality check, gentle readers.  While I am 35, and I am an adult, I am most certainly not living the life I had imagined.
I'm not married - though I am dating a really great man.
I don't have any kids - though I hope they're still in my future.
I still worry about money - though not in the paycheck to paycheck way I did at 25.
And, though my life is not the type of adult life I thought I would have - I think it's still pretty magical.

Malemployed

malemployed:
When what you do for a living makes you want to kill yourself.
I re-edit text that has already been edited in India; I am so malemployed.
-Urban Dictionary

I heard this word the other day, listening to The Takeaway on WNYC, while getting ready for work.  This, gentle readers, was not a word that your MatchGirl had heard before.  Apparently, according to reporter Beth Kobliner, it's a word coined in the 1970s, during that decade's high unemployment levels.  And with unemployment rates, on record, at nearly 10% country-wide - and actual unemployment teetering at closer to 20% - because the record does not take into account those people whose unemployment insurance has run out and those people who are no longer actively searching for jobs - what is there, realistically, out there, besides malemployment?

While I may have never heard the term before, being malemployed is something with which your MatchGirl is very very familiar.  And, while I studied art and that is the kind of things that educated artists often are - waiting tables, working retail, pouring coffee - all while having fancy degrees, it is not something that most people should be.  It is not something that most people expect to be.

The word malemployed is interesting to me, though, in its difference to underemployed.  I've been using them interchangeably for months upon months.  But they are two distinct things.  Underemployment -a term that I, and many like me, have been using to define both those people who are working jobs that are "below" (for lack of a better word) them and those people who are working, but not enough - refers simply to the fact that the person does not have enough work.  It doesn't matter what that work is.  Malemployment, on the other hand, defines those people who are working, but are working at jobs well under their eduction or career level.

When I was unemployed, most of what I thought about was getting a job and, at the beginning, dear ones, getting a job that was better and more interesting than the one from which I was laid off.  Towards the end of my unemployment, dear readers, is when your MatchGirl started giving serious thought to giving in to malemployment - to taking a job that would be well below her education and her work experience, simply to sustain - barely at that - some semblance of life.  Because at that point a job - ANY JOB - would have done.  I'm glad that things did not come to that, but I am also very aware that they could have very easily gone down that path.

For those of you unlucky enough to be among the malemployed, some links you might find interesting:

Our soul-crushingly indistinguishable jobs are the Darwinistic extension of Henry Ford’s assembly line.  Our jobs are interchangeable parts designed to be quick, cheap and easy to replace even by an HR person.  All to keep labor costs down and drive profits ever higher to satisfy investors and Jim Cramer’s Mad Money crew.  And we know why we stay – we need the money and there is nothing else out there.

Please Fire Me

Malemployment represents the inability of a college graduate to find a job that effectively uses the knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in college and relegates them to employment in low-skill and generally low-wage occupations that don’t utilize college-level proficiencies. Since the skills of the malemployed remain largely unused by employers, they experience considerable wage losses.
The New England Board of Higher Education

Recent college grads are facing underemployment  or “malemployment,” meaning that they are working at jobs that do not require a college degree.  Professor of Economics at Northeastern University Andrew Sum estimates that during the first half of 2010, more than 50 percent of young B.A.-holders were employed at jobs not requiring a college degree.
Edu In Review

What do you think, gentle ones, are the jobs you are finding - whether ones you've take on or ones your applying to in dire hopes they'll call you back -do these job represent the crisis of malemployment in the country today?  Do you think there is anything that any of us can do about it?

Benefits Getting The Boot?

Listening to On the Point last night on NPR, gentle ones, your MatchGirl was stunned that so many still think that those collecting unemployment benefits are lazy.  Happy just sitting on their asses while "collecting free money" and making fools of those who are working, paying for their cushy, unemployed lifestyle.

As someone who was unemployed for a year and a half, who worked my ass off looking for jobs, working on my resume and trying to find new and different things to do and new directions for myself, I am offended by people who say these things.  While there are lazy people amongst the unemployed, they are, in my experience, not the norm.  Just like any government program, there is always the assumption that the majority of the people benefiting from it are taking advantage - milking the system - and not those actually in need.

And, this, dear readers, is bullshit.

Below is a an overview of On The Point and links to some of the guests.  No surprise that the most offensive of them is Stephen Moore, of the Wall Street Journal.

Give it a listen and see if you agree...

Census Bureau Says One in Seven Americans Lives in Poverty 

The National Bureau of Economic Research said today the Great Recession that started in December 2007 officially ended in June of last year.  But don't tell that to the 43.6 million people who are trying to live below the poverty line.  That's 14.3% overall, or one in seven Americans and includes 20% of all children, 25% of blacks and Hispanics.  It's the highest poverty rate since 1994, and the Census Bureau says it would have been worse except for government safety nets. Food banks, shelters and job-opportunity centers around the country tell us they're serving a new and different class of people, the recently unemployed. What's the reaction in Washington, six weeks before the November election? Will the private sector start hiring or should government create new jobs?

Guests:

• Deborah Weinstein: Executive Director, Coalition on Human Needs
• Jason Perkins-Cohen: Executive Director, Job Opportunities Task Force
• Frank Spencer: Executive Director, Stewpot Community Services
• Beverly Damore: Chief Communications Officer, St. Mary’s Food Bank Alliance
• Stephen Moore: Member of the Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
• Heidi Shierholz: Labor Market Economist, Economic Policy Institute

Links:

• Census Bureau on poverty in the US

• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Emergency Fund

You Talk Too Much

Ah, gentle readers, your MatchGirl is not known for keeping her tongue.

In fact, some may say she talks too much.

And, it's true.
Guilty as charged.

I talk too much.

On dates.
When I meet new people.
When I am at a party.

It's not that I don't want to listen.  I do.  I want to know what you have to say.  In fact, unless you are a total bore, I really want to know your thoughts on things.  I want to debate.  I want to get to know you better (again, unless you are a total bore).  I might not ask the right questions, but I mean to.

I have a lot to say, too, however, and, spending so much of my day alone on a regular basis ...  I can't seem to help but run at the mouth when I am in an environment with actual people to talk to.

It's something I'm working on.  I promise.
And a skill that will come in handy should I ever get a job interview.

Last week on Brian Lehrer on WNYC, a gentleman named Scott Peek, who volunteers at a Dallas career networking organization about the two minute interview.

This is smart.

Because, if I remember correctly, when you sit down across from the interviewer, they will say "Tell me about yourself" and then ...  nothing.  You need to know ow to answer that question, in a way that will keep their attention, show your interest in the company and how much you'd like to have that job.  and you have to do it in two minutes.

Here are some tips from Scott, as posted on the Brian Lehrer Help Wanted Facebook Page (and, yes, everyone is suddenly getting unemployment Facebook pages, feel free to fan mine):

Remember this is a well prepared response to the first interview question that you will always get that states... "Tell me about yourself..." or "I've haven't read though your resume... can you summarize it for me?"

The future employer is trying to translate the potential value you might bring to their organization, rather than hearing all about your past experience...

Here are the four steps (and it has to be brief - within 2 minutes)
1. (15 sec) Restate your name (if needed), and ensure you describe your role (or desired role) for which you are seeking.
2. (45 sec) Highlight your work experience and be specific about the accomplishments (business results) you have been a part of.
3. (45 sec) "Talking about the future" Project how you'll take your past and translate it into terms of that person's company, the role you'll play at that company and/or the potential results you see yourself creating for that person as you get hired.
4. (15 sec) Ask an opened ended question of the interviewer that relates to their business. This step starts to turn the interview into a conversation.

A few guidelines:
- You have to comfortably be able to describe what your next career will be.
- Spend a lot of time researching the company. You want to learn as much as you can about: Companies Goals, Challenges, mission statement, vision, culture, product portfolio, client base, how the clients might view that company, what their org chart might look like, who are the key players in the company/department, etc.
- Most of your research can be found within their website, on Linkedin pages, talking to others in the industry.
- Bottom line is you have to see yourself in the position talking their language as you enter the interview.
- The worst thing is to not know who you are talking to, what the company does, how long they have been in business, and who some of the main competitors are.

I remember from my days of being the interviewer (as opposed to the interviewed) that it's hard to keep all those resumes straight. Of course the person interviewing you will go over it before you walk in the door, but remember that they have received hundreds of resumes and it's just difficult to engage with the person you're interviewing and look at the paper in front of you. Instead of being perturbed that they don't know who you are, use those first two minutes to shine.



Also, in the comments section on the Brian Lehrer page, someone wrote that they felt that a handwritten "Thank You" note seemed desperate. Pshaw. Gentle readers, your MatchGirl (and Miss Manners) would disagree. A handwritten "Thank You" note is simply good manners.

The Facts of Life: Rejection

Rejection. It's a fact of life. It happens to all of us, from time to time. It's one of those lines that runs through so many aspects of our lives - from your job hunt to dating ...

I stumbled upon this op-ed on the NPR website the other day - a parent writing about how her son had applied for a summer job, how he had gotten so into it - even corresponding several times with the person taking the applications - and how he never heard a word. Not even a form letter saying that the position had been filled. Now, I know in this day and age, and in this shitty economy, every job listed gets hundred of applicants. I know that in my job search, I have heard back from people ... not at all. Even for jobs that were my exact job description. People just don't have the same courtesy that they used to - appreciation for the time (or feelings) of others. And it stinks.

I've written here before, gentle readers, about the men I have dated and their strange and often not-nice behavior. Here's the thing - telling someone you don't want to see them any more stinks. It's hard. You'll probably hurt their feelings. But not telling them anything, just leaving them hanging, is a dick move. It's something that guys - the world over - do. They just drop off the face of the earth. Because they're cowards.

Maybe the people in HR are cowards, too. Maybe they've all been left hanging by some guy one too many times. Maybe they've just all forgotten how terrible it feels to be left hanging, sitting by the phone, waiting for that call that never comes ...

9 to 5

Gentle readers, you may have realized by now that your MatchGirl is a big fan of NPR and, living in Brooklyn, spends loads of time listening to WNYC on her lonely days off (which, being unemployed, is pretty much every day).

At the moment, I am catching the end of today's Leonard Lopate show - a fascinating conversation about women in the workplace, as depicted in film from Baby Face from 1933, to Woman of The Year (Katharine Hepburn is always one of my favorites, especially when matching wits with Spencer Tracey) from 1942, to 9 to 5 from 1980. In between there are bits of conversations between Leonard, Molly Haskell and Barbara Ehrenreich about the leading women in more current (timely?) movies such as Knocked Up and The Devil Wears Prada, always realizing that their man, no matter how wimpy or dorky or doofus-y, is worth more than the career they have been striving for their whole lives.

Now, my dear ones, please do not misunderstand. I am a single girl, but I am definitely looking to meet Mister Right - I just think (raised by the strong, yet very happily married, mother that I have) that any guy who asks you to give up something, without compromise, that is so very important to you - that you have worked so hard to achieve - cannot be Mister Right, can he?

Brian Lehrer And The Question Of Unemployment

This is a shout out to Brian Lehrer on WNYC. On yesterday's show he had a call-in for people who were recently unemployed and also asked people to comment on the show's page on the WNYC website - especially if they were part of the new 9 1/2% unemployment rate announced for June.

When I was laid off, in November (way before the biggest wave of layoffs, and before the handful of friends I have who are also unemployed), I had more time to listen to NPR and even then, when the rates were lower, I realized that Brian Lehrer was spending a lot of time on his show reaching out to the unemployed in his audience. From "UnCommon Economic Indicators", a series that he asks people to call or write in with things that are signs of the failing economy that are perhaps missed by mainstream media, to the fact that he regularly speaks to the unemployed in NYC, it's nice to know that someone is paying attention. And reaching out to all sorts of laid off people, despite ethnicity or industry.

I've gotten some really nice comments on this blog from a lot of other unemployed people here in Brooklyn. And I thank you so much for them. Because as nice as it is to know that there are other people out there in my situation (or close enough), it's really nice to know that what I put out into the world about my situation might give someone else a boost.

So, I thank Brian Lehrer for keeping it on the tips of our tongues and at the front of our minds. Even though one may spend most of their unemployed days alone, it's really good to hear that you are not entirely alone.

Robert Reich on The Economy

Very interesting interview with Robert Reich on the state of the American economy on today's Leonard Lopate show on WNYC.

Not necessarily uplifting for the unemployed amongst us, but very interesting, nonetheless.