Quote:
Originally Posted by T4R2014
Hopefully you didn't perceive my previous post as an attack aimed at you. It was more general. I've come across plenty of boomer age grandparents wondering why their unemployed grandkids can't just "get a job" because they think it's the 1961 post WW2 economy and all you have to do is march into the office of the manager, slam your fist on his desk and say "I'm your man!". Yes it's exaggerated but a lot of these people haven't dealt with online job application asshattery and 100 phone calls per day from useless recruiters asking for you SSN.
|
Nah all good. Different times. Hiring online and dating online both lead to a lot more shots fired, and more shot down. If it's as easy as siting on the couch and clicking "send" repeatedly to get a resume to an employer someone is barely qualified for, it'll happen a lot more often, and the hiring manager sorting through all these has a tons of options and only a few openings so most will be shot down at the slightest feeling.
If one recruiter send 100 messages and another sends 5, the spam recruiter will outcompete the lower sender who will have to retool to compete. If a guy swipes right on Tinder 5% of the time and spends an hour writing each rare match a love sonnet, he'll usually be outcompeted by the spam swipers and will have to adapt to succeed.
Multi-polar traps, in that if everyone agreed to save themselves effort and emotional angst by taking more time to craft an application after sifting through for a job they're suited for, like the good ol' days, the hiring managers wouldn't have a flood to sift through so they'd think more before rejecting a candidate. But if everyone else did that except one spam applier/recruiter/swiper the odds are slightly in the spammers favor, so strategies shift and we wind up here. Pareto principle is also a factor in perceived rejection rate and would apply regardless but not quite so turbocharged.