Out of Work Over 9 Months? Good Luck Finding a Job (WSJ)

Out of Work Over 9 Months? Good Luck Finding a Job http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/08/07/out-of-work-over-9-months-good-luck-finding-a-jobBy Ben Casselman, August 7, 2013, 10:45 AM

Do the long-term unemployed face a stigma that keeps them from finding jobs? A new experiment suggests the answer is “yes” — at least for low-skilled workers.

The scourge of long-term unemployment has been one of the defining characteristics of the recession and slow recovery. More than three million Americans have been out of work for more than a year, a figure that leaves out millions of others who have given up looking for work because they can’t find jobs. Economists worry many of them will never work again.

Particularly troubling are suggestions that the long-term jobless bear a stigma that leads companies to reject otherwise qualified candidates. The National Employment Law Project has highlighted job postings that explicitly require applicants to be currently employed; many job-seekers have stories of interviews that ended shortly after the, “So, where are you working now?” questions.

Beyond such anecdotal evidence, however, economists have struggled to determine how big an issue the so-called scarring effect really is. There’s no question that workers who have been unemployed longer have a much tougher time finding work. But stigma is only one possible explanation for that pattern. Job seekers might lose hope over time stop searching as hard for work. Perhaps their networks break down over time, meaning they miss out on job opportunities because they hear about them late, or not at all. Or perhaps the best candidates get hired first, so the ones left in long-term unemployment are less attractive to employers for reasons unrelated to their joblessness. Economists have tried to isolate the various factors, with limited success.

Swedish economists Stefan Eriksson and Dan-Olof Rooth decided to test the theory head-on with a straightforward experiment. They applied for more than 3,500 jobs using nearly 8,500 fictitious resumes. Some of the made-up applicants had steady employment histories, some were currently employed but had been jobless at an earlier stage in their careers, and some were unemployed for various lengths of time. Then they waited to see who got called in for an interview. (The researchers quickly declined all interviews.)

In a forthcoming paper in the American Economic Review , the researchers find that short-term spells of unemployment (those of six months or less) had no effect on job-seekers’ prospects. In fact, for low-skilled jobs, being short-term unemployed may have even been a slight advantage, perhaps because the workers could start right away.

But for the long-term unemployed, it was a different story: “The callback rate decreases dramatically at nine months of unemployment,” the researchers write. For those applying for medium or low-skill jobs (those not requiring a college degree), being long-term unemployed reduced interview requests by 20%, the equivalent of shaving four years of work experience off their resumes.

Interestingly, the pattern didn’t hold for those applying for jobs requiring a college degree. The researchers speculate companies may have more rigorous hiring processes for higher-skill jobs, and therefore are less influenced by the contents of resumes themselves. (Of course, there’s no way of knowing how the fictitious candidates would have fared if they’d gone through the interview process.)

The good news for the long-term unemployed: If they can find work, the stigma of their joblessness should wash away fairly quickly. Resumes that revealed a year-long unemployment spell in the past got the same response as those with a consistent work history. “One year of work experience is enough to reverse the negative signal of one year of past unemployment,” the researchers conclude.

Messrs. Eriksson and Rooth conducted their experiment in Sweden, but they argue their results likely apply to the U.S. as well, which has a relatively similar job market in many respects. But there’s some evidence their conclusions may be optimistic. Northeastern University graduate student Rand Ghayad conducted a similar experiment in the U.S. last year. His research, which hasn’t yet been published, found that employers showed “a strong distaste for applicants with long spells of non-employment” — even when they had better experience than applicants who had been unemployed for less time.

I read this also today.

I also read that you have a higher probability of getting a job having a ‘criminal record’ versus 'long term unemployment (6+months)

that’s messed up.

Often times, homeless people will commit crimes to get shelter - maybe the long term unemployed should commit crimes to get a job?

I think an employment gap of up to nine months can be explained, but anything beyond that is excessive. At that point, it may not even be so much of a statement about a person’s skill but rather their resourcefulness and hustle.

You have a source on that? Sounds very interesting.

Damn. That sucks, but glad they found that once you work a year it washes away the stigma.

Might be based on the same paper as the OP, but I couldn’t tell for sure…

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-terrifying-reality-of-long-term-unemployment/274957/

Yeah, the whole experience is terrifying, and beyond daunting. I read dozens upon dozens of similar articles and they all point to basically the same thing.

When I was employed, I tried to help a long term unemployed friend of mine get a position in compliance (he is an attorney, and also did compliance at the CME). Really looked like he was a good fit, but they passed him over for someone with almost no industry experience and fewer years under his belt but was currently working. Didn’t even give him an interview.

Ugh, beating a dead horse here. In a few more months, if things don’t change, I may be dipping into my 401k, then my IRA…

This is what keeps me up at night.

lockheed10023, I really think you must be barking up a wrong tree somewhere. I hate to speculate but you could be putting your eggs in the wrong basket and not being resourceful enough.

What I’m also saying is that you seem like a sensible individual with a decent skill set, so not sure what is really happening here.

It’s possible that Lockheed doesnt have the same network as Numi. That could be a stumbling block.

Well I appreciate that, but also might be given too much credit. My whole point is that I think lockheed is a promising guy and seems quite likeable, which makes it harder to understand what’s going on. I would be happy to meet with him for coffee someday if he wants to chat, and I could probably learn a thing or two from him myself.

But anyway, your point about networks is well taken. They matter, and they matter a lot. But still, there are still way too many feet on the Street and I’ve found that the way people distinguish themselves are really hustling hard and coming in with something of value to offer. One example might be if you’re going to meet with a company, try to do as much research ahead of time and bring stuff like actionable investment ideas and things like that. And there are ways to get in touch with people outside of your own network, i.e. via LinkedIn other through friends of friends (or their friends).

Allso, I have noticed (more recently than ever, surprisingly) that oftentimes people show up at interviews/coffee chats thinking that just because they have some degree from X school and worked at Y firm means they can get a job. Even with “networks” you have to come prepared. Without networks, one has to be extremely prepared. It’s not like I can just hire every single alum that graduated from my school. I’d rather hire the kid with hustle from some state school I’ve never heard of but with three or four actionable ideas that we could conceivably put in our portfolio. It’s almost more offensive when some analyst that has years of experience and a great college degree shows up for a coffee chat not having researched the details of my background before our meeting and without an actionable stock idea. How can I hire this guy? It’s great that he did some nice things in college and at his previous firm, but what is he going to do for me going forward? What are these people thinking when they don’t come prepared? I just don’t know.

There are many times when I have to drag the question of who is goin to be interviewing me out of the organizers in order to research them, and oftentimes it comes only at the very last minute, so I wouldn’t get too testy if someone hasn’t decided to come in with your life history memorized. Often times even the interviewers are chosen at the last minute (“hey, you’re in the office now, can you talk to X” - I’ve been on both sides of that).

It is true that actionable investment ideas are alway welcome, at least for roles that invoke invesent research. Not all (possibly even not most) roles are like that. Lockheed strikes me as more of a trader than an investor, which may be part of the challenge. Trading is increasingly automated.

Good points on trading vs. investing. And yes, it’s difficult to prepare if you don’t know who you’re interviewing with. In this case, the person I met with came by way of a personal introduction, so no excuse not to be more prepared especially given any sensitivity towards the fact that I was carving out time right in the middle of earnings season.

edit

realized that reading these articles and writing about it is a vicious cycle. I gotta stop.

You, and a million other people as well

I was unemployed for more than a year after graduating college. Found work by calling up firms and offering to work for free and started off with a temp role that grew to full time. It’s incredibly depressing, humiliating and insulting to be be unemployed while other guys who are no better than you or even worse are working and enjoying their life. It’s a stench that still hangs over me today.

It took me 8 months after graduating to find a job. I had tried landing full time gigs, but then just went into a temping agency. It didn’t take that long for them to place me. I turned down an accounting job at a small company to work in a marketing type of role at a large one. I got full time and a year later I left to go temp somewhere better. I’m full time there now. I don’t feel any stench on me.

If you have confidence in your work, a good personality and can ask some questions before hand to gauge if the position will be closed after a specific project is finished it can be great opportunitiy. I think it’s silly to feel bad that you were unemployed for a long time or worked as a temp. I remember some of my friends who are idiots thinking I was being stubborn/not trying/lazy/etc, but I’m at a better position now in my career by a good amount.