correct me if i’m wrong


Re-Evaluating the Job Search

Last week, Charlie Hoehn released a free e-book entitled, Recession-Proof Graduate: Charlie Hoehn’s Guide To Getting Any Job Within A Year Of Finishing College. The premise is that today’s generation of college graduates are entering a job market that functions unlike that of any previous generation. By defying conventional wisdom and taking risks, Charlie has established himself as an Internet marketer and film editor that worked with a Who’s Who of popular Internet personalities, including Seth Godin, Tucker Max, Ramit Sethi, and Tim Ferriss.

I loved this book.

Charlies provides a voice of reason in to a generation that is inundated with more knowledge on a daily basis than previous generations thought imaginable. Discerning that knowledge — especially when it comes to career decisions — is hard. The themes are those I’ve encountered myself, struggled with, and written about: knowing when NOT to take advice, leveraging the Internet for networking, and increasing your productivity and comfort levels to remain competitive.

The motivation for this book is largely based on observing peers that are frustrated with the conventional job search. The points that really resonated with me are:

1. “Shotgun blasting  your resume.” The importance of your network is greater than ever before.  Social networking on the Internet allows us to connect to the smallest niches in the world. The people that comprise these niches are the ones you want to work with. We are no longer constrained to geographic boundaries. Not only can we connect to groups of people with which we are more strongly aligned, we can do so with less work. Better and cheaper. Win-win.

2. The misconception of “no good jobs in a recession.” The opposite of this is true. Recessions eliminate bad jobs. Recessions are simply correcting mechanisms for the market. They inevitably bounce back, and the nation grows stronger as a result (proven by United States GDP data from the last 200+ years). We are continually pushed toward greater automation, and there’s no automating challenging, creative jobs. The clearest contemporary example of this is the dearth of the Big Three U.S. automakers. They were ousted by car companies that not only paid their employees less, but had greater automation and hence could increase profit margins. I feel this example is rudimentary enough name not to cite data, so if you want to challenge it, feel free.

In short, my greatest sympathies go out to those that are affected by the recession, but these people are forced to attain higher skill levels to remain competitive in the job market. I think most people would agree with this; whether our nation will foster personal growth and education for these individuals is another issue.

3. “Grad school is stupid in 95% of all situations. The pursuit of a graduate degree should take place if and only if it’s 1. intrinsically-motivated or 2. absolutely necessary in your industry. Aside from that, the pursuit is illogical, economically-speaking (the only exception I might grant is an MBA from Harvard or Stanford or Wharton, simply because brands of elite schools have such a strong reputation).

This book’s weakness is that Charlie doesn’t address his audience directly. His advice reads as though it is universally applicable to all college grads, although it’s primarily suited for the business school crowd.  Doctors, lawyers, and most engineers are still part of an old-school world.  I would say those in the liberal and (non-mass-media) fine arts are in-between; they can be smart and leverage the niceties of the modern world, but can’t completely rely on it. Those in software engineering, marketing, advertising and mass media can anticipate careers in a world that’s completely been re-invented in the last 15 years.

Additionally, the latter half of the book pertains even more narrowly to Charlie’s discipline, marketing.  As a freelancing software engineer, I suspect my approach would be somewhat different, although I don’t have enough experience to determine what that difference would be.

To be fair, this book is merely a precursor to a longer, more thorough study of gen-Yers. Find out more information at Hoehn’s Musings.

Published by adambossy, on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 pm. Filed under: Career, Education, Generation Y

2 Responses to “Re-Evaluating the Job Search”

  1. The last two recessions have especially seen a loss of jobs to automation. Your Big Three example is indeed accurate, but there is a simple set of data that you can site: the last recession ended with a “jobless recovery,” and this one is predicted to be the same. (i.e, GDP bounced back, but lost jobs remained lost). Clearly for the recovery to happen, the lost jobs are being performed once again, but it’s not by humans.

    There is another beautiful set of data from the current recession that supports this. (Well, beautiful statistics, but bad for the people involved, you know what I mean.) Men lost almost twice as many jobs as women. This is because men are disproportionately represented in easily automated jobs such as construction and auto-manufacturing.

    http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/07/its_not_just_a_recession_its_a_mancession.php (male unemployment went from 5% to 10.5%, female unemployment went from 5% to 8%.)

    Not only is the set of jobs that machines can perform increasing, the rate at which humans lose jobs to machines is also increasing. The current strategy of spending stimulus money to “create jobs” will soon become impossible — it will be cheaper to pay people to do nothing than to give them a job that a machine can accomplish, and to pay even more people to supervise them, etc.

    Obama is reportedly spending some stimulus money on community colleges. In the future, this will become much more important and the “job creation” rhetoric will inevitably (hopefully) die down. When a recession hits, society will pay people to go to a vocational training school and acquire some skills so that they can find a job that a machine cannot yet perform.

    As for #3, I definitely agree that grad school does not result in a net economic benefit, but think the percentage of people for whom it is intrinsically motivated is well over 5% :-) It is true that the majority of grad students are either confused, or unable to handle the responsibilities of a real job, or mistakenly think they are improving their long term earning potential — but the fraction who know what they’re doing is definitely more than 5%.

    Comment by randomwalker on July 24, 2009 at 3:33 am



  2. err, site -> cite.

    Comment by randomwalker on July 24, 2009 at 3:36 am



Leave a Reply