<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is, unemployment looks worse than a short term job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The advice I’ve gotten from my dad (who is someone I trust on these matters) was basically the opposite. We’re in a Capitalist society, there is no such thing as loyalty. Look out for yourself and your family before anyone else.</p>
<p>I think we risk falling into the same trap as the college discussions: assuming there is some one formula. Some kids want to wait for an appropriate opportunity, they work hard to find that. Some will just plunge in to the first offer. Mileage will vary. As with college apps, it all needs to, somehow, make sense. The problem is when the kid doesn’t seem to be activated, in some way. That’s about personal attributes. </p>
<p>V, we may be Capitalist, but we also run on cooperation. Slash and burn only works in farming. OK, and war. The latter won’t get as far in the long run. I’d guess you know that.</p>
<p>@Vladenschlutte the issue, as addressed by other posters, is the small nature of some fields.</p>
<p>For example: in Student Affairs and ESPECIALLY in Housing, everyone always jokes that there are no more than 2 degrees of separation between you and the next person, simply because there is so much constant turnover, rotation, etc. And it’s usually true.</p>
<p>So I can’t afford to work for a school for 6 months-1 year, while still looking for the “dream” job. If I leave after that short of a time period, people will talk; people will wonder why. And when I show up for an interview with X school on a resume, people will say “Oh, I know so-and-so at X!” And call them. And talk to them about me. And find out that I was dishonest.</p>
<p>Do you think, after that, they’ll want me safeguarding 400+ students? Probably not.</p>
<p>Aside from that, it is expensive to recruit, hire, and train someone. If you work for someone for 6 months-a year they’re getting basically zero return on their investment, and they’ll remember that; especially if it gets out that you never intended to stay beyond that time period (and these things have a way of coming out. Employers aren’t stupid. They know it takes time and effort to find another job. At the very least have an open, honest conversation with them about what you’re unhappy with, the fact that you’re searching, and keep them updated on your status.)</p>
<p>It comes down to your personal ethics. If you’re okay with the “look out for me so I can get mine” mentality, that’s fine. And depending on your field, it may work. But don’t be surprised if it comes back to bite you later. You never know where people will end up and/or who will remember what.</p>
<p>
It’s hard for me to imagine what field is going to be very tolerant of unreliable employees, who take jobs they don’t intend to keep. </p>
<p>What seems to be missing from this discussion is the angle from the entity doing the hiring. I represent one of those, and I can tell you there seems to be few misconceptions about jobs right out of college or grad school:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I know of no entry-level jobs, even $150K analyst jobs, where the employer does not think you are not already looking for a better job. That is why the jobs are entry-level. No need to tell the employer you are looking. We assume a 15% or higher annual turnover rate, and the job is pay-scaled to account for that, even if it requires training. (This applies to a good bit of mid-level jobs, as well)</p></li>
<li><p>Unless the job contract has a determined minimum period you agreed to stay, then assume the employer thinks you are going to leave for a better job the first chance you get. And that may be sooner, rather than later.</p></li>
<li><p>There is nothing dishonest about searching for a job when you have a job, without telling your employer. We expect any employee worth his salt is looking for ways to improve himself, either skill-wise or salary-wise or both. And, dependent on the company, those two options may not exist at your current job in the manner you would like. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Some may say that you should not take a job where you cannot move up, but moving up assumes someone moves out of somewhere else first or the company grows when you are there. Timing may not work out for you, so planning to move up with a company is fine, but like a dream college acceptance, may not ever happen. Plus, companies sell divisions all the time, so the division you are planning on moving to may not even exist in 2 years. </p>
<ol>
<li>As for this concept that looking out for oneself is somehow selfish and dog-eat-dog or something like that is confusing the difference between selfish and self-interest. Adam Smith addressed this in-depth in “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776, and Milton Friedman expanded on it in the 1960s and 70s. </li>
</ol>
<p>Adam Smith put it this way:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These food producers are not doing their jobs out of kindness, in the least, so we could eat; they are doing it, so they could eat. We just happen to benefit from the way they choose that they get to eat. </p>
<ol>
<li>There is another aspect to this selfish vs. self-interest approach. The fact is an employee who is not looking at better job prospects in his self-interest is actually being selfish to the overall economy by withholding his skills from improving the overall economy by getting a better job. </li>
</ol>
<p>It is worse for the economy for an employee to remain in a job for which he is no longer optimally qualified (over-qualified is a mismatch) for it robs the production engine of the economy of his superior skills elsewhere, reducing overall growth and production. </p>
<p>But, it is even deeper because every static employee reduces the number of jobs by one to which a lower-skilled person could move up to improve himself. </p>
<ol>
<li>I know it is nice for employees to think that a company is looking out for them. Philosophically, yes it is; but legally, it is not and cannot. Legally, the obligation of a company is to the bank, bond-holders, accounts payables and share-holders. Sorry, employees are not on the list - simply because employees do not bankroll the company. American Airline pilots and lots of other employees learned that the hard way, and they got hit twice, as both employees and last in line share-holders.</li>
</ol>
<p>As employers, we know this, and this is why we understand and accept #3 above.</p>
<p>OK, you say that you have seen companies do things that benefit the employees at a loss to the company. On the surface, sure looks that way, but rest assured the accountant met with the bank, bond holders, accountants payables, insurance company and shareholders and they signed off first on the deal, and it actually works in the company’s favor. Fundamentally, it has to benefit the company or else the company would be out-of-business.</p>
<ol>
<li>Bottom line is just out of college or grad school I would not worry about changing jobs a few times for the first 5 - 7 years, as long as the resume shows definite skills progression; it is expected. If one does not move expeditiously out of entry-level jobs, I know people who will wonder if the person is lazy, has little ambition, or was never offered a better position because they are slow learners. So, sticking around too long can easily hurt you more than changing. </li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>And how is the resume going to to show “skills progression” if the person simply grabs the first job they are offered… even if it the position is unrelated to or below the skill level of the employment they are seeking? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lots of jobs are contract, temporary, seasonal, etc… So including those jobs in one’s job search may allow for taking a short term job to avoid the stigma of unemployment, earn some money, and not leave after “too short” a time at an intended longer term job (if the “small world” problem is a concern) while searching for a better job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the first job is below the skill level being sought, and the second job is at the skill level being sought, that does imply an “upgrade” going from the first job to the second job, right?</p>
<p>Is it really a bad idea to get a job as a waiter, or a job washing cars while you pursue a position you want? </p>
<p>Of course not. Working is never a bad idea and employers understand that if you are job hunting you are looking for a better job. There’s nothing disloyal about job hunting and many people who have jobs manage to find time to job hunt. Not working because you are waiting for the “dream job” is silly, imho.</p>
<p>I discouraged D2 from taking a sales job she was offered, since everything about her says she’ll thrive and contribute in her own field. That particular sales job on her resume would likely preclude her from the environment she would like to work in. It would show a different direction, use all her weekday time and then some, and it would have been intense, on quota. In contrast, some low level work in her own field could be relevant. Right now, she’s temping, on a long-ish term assignment (and has some good responsibilities that can transfer to her resume.) This also offers her the flexibility to interview. And she’s (mostly) managing her own expenses.</p>
<p>With rare exceptions, I don’t think there is ANY common “assumption” among business employers that you hire someone and he keeps looking- they hired you to do a job, fill a need, keep their business going. That’s their need. Of course, some jobs have their own employee churn, some are so low level that this is routine. You leave and ten others are in line. What’s distracting this discussion is we’re talking job hopping without describing the sorts of positions/decisions, what they invest in you, etc. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not know one employer who does not account for an employee turnover rate simply because of the assumption that: 1) for some employees better jobs just pop-up, via a referral, 2) some employees are actively looking, and 3) headhunters take the rest. There is no way to control the timing of any of this because no one has control when another, better job becomes available. </p>
<p>Any employer who does not look at things that way is not planning far enough in advance. In short, there needs to be the assumption that X% of your employees are always targets and looking for a better job (no matter when you hired them), even if the employee, himself, is not the one actively searching. </p>
<p>I lose more employees to headhunters than anything else. If the employee was not looking himself, does not matter. What matters is the employee is AMENABLE to taking a better job, as he should be; therefore, the default is many employees are looking whether they say so or not. </p>
<p>If one does not want an employee looking, then have a nice signing bonus linked to term of stay that must be returned if employee leaves prior to a certain amount of time. Another thing is if the job included moving expenses etc., then those too need to be returned if employee leaves before a certain amount of time. Anything else by the employer is just wishful thinking.</p>
<p>We were talking about new hires. Young people just starting, whose resumes are short. Most businesses can’t sustain constant turnover of new employees after a few months. Everyone will have his or her own opinion. If my D was hired to answer phones in her field- and if there was growth opportunity- maybe she’d take it. And, of course, after she started to build a worthy resume, I’d encourage her to interview. But we’ve already had the talk that, after a few jumps, a person starts to look like trouble. Awc, would you hire someone who had several jobs of less than a year, none of which were intentionally short (consulting, special project, etc?) Can your company thrive with a revolving door? Or would you prefer folks who stay one-two years, at least, have the training, gain the perspective and contribute?</p>
<p>But this started with whether a kid should be picky. I don’t know. Depends on so many factors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The answer is yes if the resume shows that the person IMPROVED their job position every time and explained well exactly why he moved. Now, if the moves were simply lateral and showed no progression in skills, that is a problem. </p>
<p>There is a difference between job-hopping and moving up. Moving up quickly is more than OK, even if it means switching companies to do it.</p>
<p>And if one is concerned about a person sticking around, just hold him to a contract. It is IMPLICIT that if an employer does not hold you to a minimum time contract, then he assumes you are going to leave when a better job comes your way, whenever that is. And he knows it could be tomorrow, even though he hired you only two months ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are many people who do not need one or two years to learn everything they need to know about a job. No sense for them staying there longer than necessary. Who is to say the person did not contribute all he could in 3 or 6 months? And, as long as the person can explain why he left and that he is looking to improve his lot, then that is fine. The key is to IMPROVE the job each time.</p>
<p>Guess this thread has run its course. </p>
<p>To change direction a bit -</p>
<p>One reason to be picky is that getting fired from a job that is a poor fit can look really, really bad on a resume, especially for a young person just out of school. Many HR departments do in fact ask on applications if you have ever been fired from a job, and it is better to be able to answer “no”, especially for someone without niche skills or at least some track record. Some of our kids who could be very competent in fields that require a college education would be truly awful at many so-called low skill jobs, even if they could get hired.</p>
<p>Even walking away from employment can raise suspicions. </p>
<p>My D just graduated and has had a couple of job offers that she turned down. One meant living in NYC at a salary that would have been decent anywhere else, but would have required that we subsidize her so that she could live in a safe area and eat healthy food 
The company sounded like a place that churns through young grads - 60+ hour work week and most get out after a year or so. The work sounded boring and employees are treated rather poorly. D didn’t want to participate in what some feel is a rite of passage, but what takes advantage and enriches the owners. Other job meant relocating to an area of the country that she does not like for corps position. </p>
<p>I support her as long as she actively and aggressively pursues a position that can offer something back in exchange for her time and talent. My view is that I’ve invested considerable in her…not only raising her, but spending significant dollars on her elite education. It makes no sense for her to settle for a relatively dead end place holder type job. I’d rather she make less and get something out of a first job - we’ve advised her to keep looking and hold out for a good opportunity.</p>
<p>I feel optimistic that this will work out…</p>
<p>Well, thanks to posters like @awcntdb I now have a better understanding as to why the personnel at so many businesses are incompetent and rude. I suppose if an employer doesn’t expect the employee to stick around there’s no point in investing a lot of time on training – and if the employee doesn’t plan to stick around, then there’s no reason for that employee to spend too much time and effort learning the nuances of the business,or worrying about doing quality work to further the mission and reputation of the business, and certainly they are not going to worry about the long term needs of the customer or client of the business – after all, the employee will be long gone by the time the customer comes back to complain. </p>
<p>@usbalumnus – it is a lot easier to move from a position of lower to higher responsibility, and improve skills, while on the job than by hopping from one employer to another, especially with only short term employment. An employer isn’t going to hire someone who has had 3 different short-term, entry level positions at different employers to fill a supervisory or management role-- rather, the employer will either promote one of his own employees (and hire the job-hopper to fill the lower-level position that has just opened up) – or they are going to look to hire someone who has a demonstrated record of experience for the position that is being filled. So I might be happy to hire my competitor’s manager away from them, but I’m not going to use their low-level employees as fodder for my own management.</p>
<p>I suppose you might be able to find some examples of a “step up” with cross hiring, but it’s hard for me to think of situations where that will occur. Much more likely that there will be a lateral hire that is a step up in terms of salary and benefits - but again, I think the employer wants to see a demonstrated skill level.</p>
<p>I really don’t think a person gets to the point of being experienced enough to fully understand what they are doing and be really competent at their job until they have been there for about 2 years – that’s based on my own personal experience, on working with many others over the years, and observing the growth and development of my own kids. Sometimes if the job doesn’t offer room for growth and advancement, that 2 year mark is the time to leave – that’s what my d. did after job #1. (But with the full understanding and support of her employers, who were also quite understanding when she needed to take time off from work for job interviews, including a pointlessly long set of interviews over a series of several months with a certain well-known tech company.) </p>
<p>I’m not talking about part-time work to pay the bills – my kids have been doing that since they were teenagers and most of that stuff doesn’t even show up on resumes. They’ve done food service, retail, bartending, babysitting, tutoring, etc.— but it would pretty much violate the 1-page rule for them to try to list that on a resume. I’d assume that any adult who was looking for work would also be earning money to pay the bills along the way – but there is a big difference between a temporary or part-time job and a permanent or career position. A college grad ideally should have a career goal in mind, and if they aren’t actively working on something that furthers that goal, then they aren’t going to be getting personal benefit from a job, though they might be getting a decent paycheck. </p>
<p>The absolute same advice as you. As long as you get to “dress up” and look nice, work office hours and act professional, it’s all EX-PER-I-ENCE", baby. Go for it and do it. Does he have any idea how lucky he is???</p>