[allochthon]

HR looks for reasons to reject people. They have to, because they get so many junk resumes.

I'm a good developer at a good job and not that old. A few years ago I was in transition between a several-year volunteering engagement and work in the private sector, and the job search took a while. I got very few interviews at the time. I would have been an asset to any decent employer that hired me. I do not think the resumes I submitted were junk.

There appear to be structural changes underway that are making the job market volatile for a range of people, especially the long-term unemployed. I am not sure where it is all heading.

[michaelochurch]

I do not think the resumes I submitted were junk.

Not all rejected resumes are junk, but there's a flood of resumes from unqualified people who send out 100 per day.

It's like dating. The more damaged people engage in more activity, so you encounter a biased sample. If the good people send out 5 resumes per job search, targeted toward specific employers fitting their skills, while the unqualified send out 200 (in the hope of getting lucky) then you'll have a 40:1 overrepresentation of the bad.

You were probably a victim of the junk, because when there are so many junk resumes flying around, good people get lost in the shuffle.

There appear to be structural changes underway that are making the job market volatile for a range of people, especially the long-term unemployed. I am not sure where it is all heading.

Yes, that is very true. I don't know, either. In the next 30 years, society will need to establish a basic income just to be marginally stable, because there's no other way to pay for the periodic retraining people need as one job ends and another begins.

[drcube]

>because there's no other way to pay for the periodic retraining people need as one job ends and another begins.

Companies used to train people. I'm actually a basic income proponent for similar reasons, among others. But when you put it like that, why should the taxpayers foot that bill and not the companies that reap the value?

[michaelochurch]

But when you put it like that, why should the taxpayers foot that bill and not the companies that reap the value?

The companies won't foot the bill. They'll just hire very young people with the relevant training or send the work overseas.

Technology is more about job replacement than destruction. The problem is that few companies are willing to train people up. The world is unfortunately too big for there to ever be a real labor shortage (at least, in the next 30 years).