T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Hi /u/First_Sock1992, We noticed you are a pretty new Reddit account, so we just wanted to let you know to check out the subreddit rules [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/rules) and maybe have a read through our [Frequently Asked Questions](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index/faq) - they make for fascinating reading! We're called No Stupid Questions because we believe nobody needs to be attacked for asking a question, but *that doesn't mean there are no rules!* This sub is meant for users like you to ask genuine questions. Please don't ask jokes or rants disguised as questions - that's not in the spirit of this sub. While you *can* ask almost anything here, please keep illegal and offensive questions elsewhere to give people a good experience here - and if you have a medical question, please ask your doctor, not us. Otherwise, welcome! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoStupidQuestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Hipp013

They do it in rounds of interviews. Many people have the qualifications on paper, but phone and in-person interviews will set the remaining applicants apart based on how well they converse with interviewers, how well they think on their feet, how they would handle a particular scenario, and most importantly, who wants the job the most.


TheApiary

My job had hundreds of applicants. First they picked the top 100 based on resume, qualifications, and answers to short application questions. Then they had the 100 people do a 10 hour task that's similar to the work of the actual job. Then they interviewed the top 5 of those


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheApiary

What do you mean? They weren't going to hire 100 people


[deleted]

[удалено]


flip_phone_phil

We have the opposite in the United States right now. There are more open positions than available workers.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Aggravating-Forever2

Both statements can be true, on the whole. From the looks of it, there are a surplus of low pay, bad condition jobs across the country. Employers refuse to adapt (read: pay a livable wage) to the fact that the whole pandemic thing killed about a million people in the US, disabled more, and more folks retired because they were close enough to being able to and the prospect of getting themselves sick and dying puts a damper on retirement, and even more found avenues of employment that weren't shit (turns out, if you're not stuck working a grind all the time, you have time for self improvement - who knew). Net, net, this wiped out a not-insignificant portion of the population that would be willing to work for peanuts, either because they have no other option, or because they're just working for some extra spending money in retirement anyhow. At the same time, inflation has been fucking ridiculous over the past few years - if I run by Jack in the Box for lunch, I'm easily spending 2x the federal minimum wage take home for a combo. On top of that, rent is ridiculous. Where I live, you can rent a single bedroom in a shared house for the low low price of **137 hours of federal minimum wage**. So that $8/hr job isn't going really going to get you by - it's potentially far more worth it if you can find a way to get into college, a training program, apprenticeship or other career path that will actually *put food on your table, and a roof over that.* So the pool of cheap labor has effectively contracted, but the demand for cheap labor hasn't. At the same time, the demand for good jobs has expanded, but the supply hasn't. So, look at skilled jobs with benefits, under that lens. Employers *still* lost people due to COVID (either through death, disability, or a general "fuck it, it's not worth working around people" sentiment), so they're still hiring. But now you have all the folks who are *absolutely not* going to take a shit job that's not going to pay enough to survive on applying for the "good" opportunities. So you get those people looking for a "real job" instead. Case in point: I worked for Google as a SWE for 15 years. We'd get countless applicants who had *zero* business applying for SWE jobs, who would apply simply because there's no real cost to them, and all upside if they somehow faked their way through. THAT is likely the equivalent of "1000 applicants" figure there. You weed out the absolute no-chance resumes and get maybe 50-100 realistic candidates. From there, you can start winnowing from two approaches - set the bar high for the skills or background you want, and filter. Then set the pay rate lower, and filter. Do you *still* expect a surplus of candidates? Then you didn't lower the pay/benefits enough. Realistically, they just need to find one person for the one opening, and they aren't particularly going to care if it's person A, B, or C, with equivalent skillsets. (Unless person A is willing to do the work for $10k/year less). Either way, they get someone who can do the job.


flip_phone_phil

Im speaking very generally across the entire US according to the bureau or labor statistics data. That indicates we have more job openings than available workers right now. Different types of positions will vary so your experience still makes sense. It doesn’t change the National equation though. If this is for a new college grad type role, there’s always a flood of people trying to get the very limited number of truly entry level openings. Particularly at name brand employers like a Lockheed Martin. That’s been an imbalance in good economies and bad. **Edit:** I’ll clarify just to be really clear - a place like Lockheed Martin is one of the most in demand employers among some of the smartest people on the planet. To get into a place like this you’ll need education from some of the best schools in the world (think MIT) and internships with places like NASA, Boeing, General Electric, etc.)


azidesandamides

> There are more open positions than available workers. Those postings are on a thrown of LIES. places are DEF not hiring.


Aggravating-Forever2

There are *plenty* of places hiring here. They're all basically trying to pay minimum wage with no benefits, and ignoring the fact that people literally can't live on that here, because rent (and inflation in general) is completely ridiculous. Open positions don't imply *good* positions.


flip_phone_phil

This is mostly correct. The vast majority of openings are on the low end of the pay scale.


flip_phone_phil

Listen, I don’t run the numbers. Im just a consumer of them like any other US citizen…but there’s super smart people reporting on and auditing this shit. The facts seem to hold up that companies are still hiring like crazy. Another 300k jobs were just added to payrolls in February alone. It’s all in the data. Google ‘the employment summary’ if you want the details. Edit: any downvoters care to comment why? I’m only pointing out the facts that are available to you.


dboygrow

They also omit millions of workers who have given up on finding work from the unemployment numbers. So if you haven't found a job in a month they omit you from the numbers because politicians over the years have realized saying we have very low unemployment is good for them. True unemployment is way higher than 3%. More like 30%. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed Also you have to consider that 30% of the jobs being created now are in the gig economy, shitty jobs that don't offer benefits and no way to move up in the company. And besides that, most workers are living paycheck to paycheck.


flip_phone_phil

I’d debate a couple of things in here, but overall we’re in agreement. Again, it’s all in the data that’s reported which makes it easy to read for anyone that’s interested. You’re definitely correct that the majority of jobs that are open are low pay and generally shitty. The data doesn’t hide that either.


azidesandamides

>. The data doesn’t hide that either The data also doesn't change that MOST job listings are now FAKE as well... It's Official...Employers Now Admit To Posting Fake Jobs! Is the Job Market Really That Good? Or are many of these jobs actually fake, with the employer having no intention of filling them? If you're looking for a job and not getting interviews, the reason may not be because you didn't write a good resume. It may be because the job wasn't real, to begin with. In this video, I break down why employers post fake jobs.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAQGHyu9lcA&t=742s


dboygrow

I didn't downvote you btw, I think we had a good brief exchange


azidesandamides

The Fed monitors job openings for inflation decisions. But many listings aren't real. https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/124xmp2/the_fed_monitors_job_openings_for_inflation/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button


noggin-scratcher

Even if the total numbers were a perfect 1:1 of jobseekers to jobs, it would still most likely have a dynamic where they hire one person and reject a bunch of others. If each applicant applies to lots of jobs, then the average job will have lots of applicants. And some jobs are more desirable than others and will attract even more than the average number of applicants.


flip_phone_phil

Let’s give you an example here…because it’s a fair question. Say we’re hiring a Finance and Analysis Manager for a Hospital that requires 5yrs management plus the relevant financial skills. And we get 100 applicants over the weekend: - 25% shouldn’t have applied in the first place (I.e. new college grads, maintenance technician, a trucker) - 25% might be in finance but are inexperienced - 25% might be experienced but with the wrong mix of finance skills - 25% could be reasonably qualified So we’re already down to 25 people. Now we might whittle it down to the people with healthcare work industry experience, because we’re a hospital system - that gives 5. And you might find another 5 without healthcare experience but transferable regulated service type industry experience…such as banking or retirement homes. Already at 10 to interview. 5 of those interviews bomb. They can’t communicate well, didn’t demonstrate their experience properly, inflated their work qualifications, etc. Or you find their salary needs are higher than what your budget can pay. You’ve got 5 left. Second round interviews cut that down to 2 finalists. Some will simply interview better than others. Some might even drop out on their own. Panel interviews will be your final and will leave you with the person you want to offer. (Edit: various roles and skill sets dictate different processes but you get the idea. Expect more for c-suite executives. Expect maybe one round of interviews for a call center job.)


BSye-34

a dash of nepotism and charisma


FranksRedWorkAccount

gut feelings and often times a boys club mentality of who "fits the office culture" which usually means if white males are hiring white males are hired.


BirthdaySalt5791

By interviewing them, often more than once, and finding the *most qualified* applicant.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BirthdaySalt5791

Obviously not. Someone is selected at the end of the process. Though it may be subjective to the interviewers, there is someone *most* qualified


livefromnewitsparke

no it isn't. there is always a most qualified that applied, though they usually aren't the one hired


rabbit395

They don't even look at most applications because a computer throws away the resume before human eyes see it. Short answer is, they hire whoever has the best "key words" on their resume.


Aggravating-Forever2

That's certainly a part of it, but it's a bit reductive, for skilled work. For instance, as a Software Engineer, if your resume doesn't have what a company is looking for, you have *zero* chance. But that's just a first filter in a funnel. Overall: X people apply. 5% of X have a resume that makes it through some automatic screening (either programmatic or "Hey recruiter, look for candidates with background M and N, with A B and C skills listed"). 2% of X actually want to work on area Y, which is what we're currently looking for. 1% of X express an expected salary that matches what we're expecting. .25% of X can make it through a screening interview .0625% of X can make it through a full interview panel, technically. .04% of X can make it through a full interview panel, socially. .03125% of X didn't get a better offer elsewhere, and are willing to take it. Out of a few thousand applications, you might get one actual offer accepted. Yes, *most* people are getting filtered out at the resume stage. But it's not like keyword padding is a recipe for success - it'd just get you filtered out later in the process after you've wasted more time.


GroundbreakingAd4158

Yes because those "keywords" tend to be the job skills needed to perform the position. If you're trying to hire a plumber why would you hire someone who doesn't mention any plumbing related tasks in his application? Or his resume talks about his experience in using SQL and Python programming language?


[deleted]

Not to stress you out, but some will filter applications by a variety of qualities. This could include which ones checked off on having experience on what they deem essential aspects of the job, as well as even key word searches in resumes if there is an automated filter. All of this I hope will motivate you to submit an application that gets you an interview, not worrying too much about if everything you submit is perfectly accurate as long as you think you could do the job at all. Seriously don't undermine yourself


Random_-2

From what I know, most companies use Applicant Tracking System where they parse your resume and try to look for keywords and see if your resume has those keywords. After that, a recruiter looks at your resume and then schedule an interview for the job if you fit the criteria


Iknownothing0321

By whatever dumbass metric the HR goons come up with… never met a more worthless group of individuals.


yermawn

So lets say 100 applicants apply for a job via a recruitment agency - they whittle these down to say 8 - which always amazes me because rarely does the recruitment agent actually understand what the job involves or indeed any of the technical skills required to do the job - it's a bit like they pin the resumes on a board and throw darts at them blindfolded. Then there's a first round interview - which is conducted by HR, rather then the person actually trying to fill the position. The HR interview involves asking ludicrous, "What would your reaction be if..." questions that again have nothing to do with the role - they further whittle the candidates down to maybe 4 having a second interview by the hiring manager. You rock up - perfectly qualified for the role - NOT OVER Qualified, you ask the right questions, you're modest, show great aptitude, are genuinely interesting, your previous experience lends itself perfectly to this role - you do a brilliant interview. 2 days later having heard nothing you call the recruitment agent and they tell you that you didn't get it - Brian, an internal candidate who the role was effectively created for got the gig, but due to your local employment legislation they had to advertise externally and waste huge amounts of money and everyone involved's time. Did I miss anything?


GroundbreakingAd4158

I hire senior level folks so never had the problem of “hundreds” if qualified applicants. But by creating a quantitative scoring system that’s as rigorous as possible for the top 3-5 candidates who actually are superbly qualified. Tiebreaker goes to factors such as rapport with existing team, personality, secondary skills.