[sidlls]

Seek jobs for which a PhD is a minimum requirement, or else leave the fact that you have a PhD out of your application materials if you're dead set on jobs without that requirement (and it's possible to do). I've seen some success in both cases. Also consider that you may have some confidence/arrogance issues of your own. Not to be accusatory, and certainly I'm projecting a bit here, but having left my academic life behind some years ago, when I look back on it I see a certain arrogance in the pride of having a PhD that I'm embarrassed by now.

If you're running into these problems for jobs that do list PhD as the minimum requirement, you should consider it a strong signal that avoiding working there is a net positive for you.

And if you think you have it rough, try getting jobs after having dropped out of a PhD program a few years into it. For some reason, at least in the sphere of my friends and associates, this signals "quitter" and "not as smart as a PhD person". I've interviewed such candidates and I'd say it's a mixed bag with respect to whether I've preferred them over PhD candidates I've interviewed for jobs, but almost uniformly I've had one or more colleagues raise the question of said candidates' ability and determination.

People (employers and PhD holders alike, really) need to understand that having a PhD is a strong signal for exactly three things, in this order: a person's willingness and ability to tolerate a certain kind of experience in the very narrow context of academia, some minimum level of expertise in the field above the typical undergraduate degree holder, and some further expertise in a very narrow slice of the field above a typical Master's degree holder.

[kd0amg]

leave the fact that you have a PhD out of your application materials

How would you explain the several year gap in history without mentioning the PhD program?