Welcome jobseekers to the age of arrogance

Don’t let the #PINO[1] bamboozle you. If by chance you ascribe to the axiom that presidents should lead by example, you won’t find stellar attributes in PINO. He has none. I have racked my brain to recall one innate or admirable quality PINO might possess in leading the nation and found not one.
PINO’s list of interpersonal defects is expansive. We might ask ourselves, How could anyone with plethora flaws and serious mental defects ascend to the Presidency? In large measure, the broadcast media failed to perform its due diligence.
The broadcast media is largely entertainment based. That mindset reflects its professionalism—or lack thereof. Talk to media bobbleheads, and you won’t find much intellect concealed behind those empty smiles and happy chatter. (There are a few exceptions, but they are clearly in the minority.)
When one of their own, media-savvy, publicity-stunt entertainers entered the political arena, the broadcast industry coalesced to bestow PINO a free pass: They stuck their heads up their butts, concerning his pint-size qualifications, absence of knowledge and overbearing arrogance. They found in PINO someone they could relate to and treasured him for shear viewer-entertainment value.  
Throughout the campaign, the broadcast media bombarded PINO with softball questions and ignored substance. Rarely were his false assertions challenged nor was he pressed for details. He routinely changed the subject when asked probing questions and they avoided confronting him on key issues that would have revealed his persona.
Suddenly, some of the nation has awoken to the reality of running our government as if it were a reality TV show or a kleptocracy[2] with a dystopian flair. Political opportunists, sycophants, and toadies alike seized the moment. They saw a flawed, albeit wealthy candidate desperately in need of help and they eagerly placated him with whatever he wanted to hear. PINO didn’t select them—they selected him!
PINO is like the ill-suited job candidate who applied for a position for which he is unqualified. PINO’s IQ (based on his demonstrated speaking and writing skills) might not break 100. That would place him among the least intelligent individuals ever to hold the highest office. His Emotional-Intelligence Quotient (EQ) appears lower yet. The only intangible asset he possesses in abundance extraordinaire is arrogance.
In all likelihood, PINO never graduated from college. We’ll never know because just like his tax returns, he is ashamed to release certified copies of his college transcripts. Again, no one in broadcast media has pressed for answers. That too amounts to a sourer anecdote and abdication of responsible journalism.
A word of caution to potential jobseekers: Unless you have the financial resources to do so, mimicking PINO’s arrogant behaviors won’t place you in polite company by default when interviewing for employment. Best advice is to take the high road.
Copyrighted © 2017 by Robert James.



[1]  President in name only (PINO).
[2]  A kleptocracy is a form of government in which corrupt rulers use their power to exploit the masses and the nation’s natural resources. (Hmm? In the days to come, that’s going to sound more familiar?)

Reinventing yourself for what lies ahead

A popular notion promoted by some headhunters and job counselors is that many jobseekers need to reinvent themselves if they plan to participate in the brave new order. For the most part, this well-intended advice amounts to shades of alchemy. While reinventing oneself falls into the realm of possibility, it also falls outside the realm of probability
This may come across as a nattering nabob of negativism, but switching one disguise to put on another amounts to ambitious woolgathering. From observation, few reentering the job market or switching careers are able to magically transform themselves into something they are not—high aspirations and good intentions notwithstanding.
Humans accumulate habits and routines like rodents hoard things for winter. True, some habits qualify as good, but more often than not, the spirit aspires while the flesh poops out. Over time, ingrained behaviors become as encased as cement. Good luck transforming encrusted cement into something it is not.
If called upon to cite one element that could drastically transform one’s ability to reinvent oneself, it would be changing crappy eating habits. Any gastro-endocrinologist will tell you that good health starts with a healthy gut. But who the hell listens to them? Certainly not the 60-plus percent of our obese population.
How does one reinvent oneself if you’re physically out of shape, mentally out of sorts and regularly run out of gusto? According to the pharmaceutical industry, you take one of their magic pills, and it miraculously allows you to press a reset button. –Pure hogwash. When bad eating habits go unaddressed, you’re merely going through the motions of masking the symptoms with synthetics.
The not-so-secret, secret amounts to eliminating adulterated food from one’s eating habits. Replace chemicals and additives with unrefined real food that has not been overly processed and contaminated with pesticides. Then, add a modicum of exercise, and excess pounds melt away, mental alertness sharpens and one’s energy level skyrockets. Now that qualifies as reinventing oneself.
I work out at a local facility. I get there at 5 a.m. along with 18 regulars. An additional 30 arrive well before I depart. Within this homogeneous population, there are half-dozen newbies sporting bloated bellies and toting excessive blubber. Throughout the year, they sign up and leave like ships sailing with the tide. Rarely do newbies last a full-moon cycle before they quietly disappear before the sun raises, only to be replaced by new arrivals harboring similar aspirations and overnight results.
What am I observing? Is this some unique anomaly? I don’t think so. I’m observing the human condition in its rawest form. (And no, there is no raw locker room talk as Donald Trump suggests.) At those hours—all the regular suspects are serious. The newbies are usually there due to their gorging eating habits: Their doctors order them to lose weight in lieu of updating their wills. The regulars are there for selfish interests.
None of the regulars qualify as obese. Those projecting a wholesome image are pure-food enthusiasts. Their skin is blemish and wrinkle free, and they exude an abundance of energy. What are the odds for these individuals reinventing themselves? In a manner of speaking, they already have. Most are well up in years, yet take no meds. A mere coincidence? It’s a possibility, but I don’t think so.
There is no difficulty spotting those surviving on cheeseburgers and mounds of fries, chased down by a sugary beverage. Whatever they’re eating in private they’re certainly wearing in the locker room as they shuffle their way toward the showers. Harsh? Yes, but then so is checking out early, ten toes up!
The accumulation of chemical dyes, lard, sodium, artificial additives, chemical preservatives, pesticides and poisonous sugars have a deleterious, long-lasting effect on one’s body, nervous system and brain function. Over time, these nonfood items—especially sugar, become as addictive as cocaine. No thanks to the FDA. (Ever ask yourself why we no longer refer to the agency as the Pure Food and Drug Administration?)
Too often, we confuse possibility with probability. What may be possible isn’t always probable when it comes to reinventing oneself. Our aspirations rarely exceed our ingrained bad habits and routines. Taking decisive action over ambitious rhetoric produces far better results.  
Not that it is impossible for one to reinvent oneself, but don’t expect a quick-fix as some advice-givers suggest. A multifaceted effort requires self-discipline and self-enlightenment. That you have to accomplish on your own: There’s no happy pill or cherry-tasting elixir for that.

Your EQ plays a role in job hunting

Ever wondered how some individuals effortlessly glide through the job market and their careers, while others bang their heads hopelessly as they attempt to navigate the employment maze? It could have something to do with the individual’s EQ.
I initially encountered EQ (emotional quotient) while completing a Masters. At the time, I didn’t instantly connect the correlation between one’s EQ and the ability to navigate the job market.
Emotional intelligence amounts to one’s  ability to read and understand others and then react appropriately. Some experts claim one’s EQ is more important than IQ. (A strong case can be made for that as well.) Dr. Travis Bradberry, president of TalentSmart, wrote an article on the topic.
To offer a simplified interpretation, there are several subsets to one’s EQ (self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, empathy and social skills). These categories address one’s emotional competencies, such as the ability to recognize one’s sense of self-worth, control impulses, adapt to changing situations, strive for excellence, anticipate the needs of others, persuade others effectively and so on.
What characteristics do high EQ achievers emulate that others do not? Dr, Bradberry identifies 13 behavioral issues high EQ holders consciously avoid. I have borrowed 12 of them to illustrate how these behaviors manifest themselves as a job seeker enters the marketplace.
·        High EQs do not stay in their comfort zone.
As creatures of habit, the less successful job seekers strive hard to stay within their comfort zone. They resist pushing themselves or perfecting their self-awareness. In doing so, they inadvertently remain in a mental box, which in turn limits their potential to achieve greater things or accomplish higher career goals.
·        High EQs do not give in to fear.
I could write a doctoral thesis on this topic. Interview a few thousand job seekers and you’ll uncover volumes of irrational fears. Limited space does not permit covering them all, but from a job perspective, the top ones include fearing their shortcomings and lies will be exposed (probably shouldn’t have lied in the first place), and the fear of participating in live job interviews.
Irrational fear as an entity qualifies as a mental illness. But even in lesser forms, fear tends to be overpowering. The convoluted things people perform out of fear boggling rational minds. To illustrate, I’ve actually encountered job seekers who wanted to respond to blind ads while conducting their job searches en cognition—as in they didn’t want employers to know who they were or be able to find them. It’s hard to imagine getting more fearful than that.
·        High EQs do not stop believing in themselves. 
I’ve yet to encounter a single successful job seeker who stopped believing in himself or his abilities. That’s because they endeavor to persevere even in the face of poor odds and temporary setbacks. They use failures as learning opportunities.
The flip side presents a different scenario. For individuals with low EQs, even a small career setback constitutes grounds for giving up. They will often listen to like-minded naysayers who advise them to proceed cautiously or predict imaginary gloom and doom.
·        High EQs do not pander for attention.
Those who beg or pander for attention are usually in search of their self-identity and lack self-esteem. The high EQ individuals do not search for ego boosts.
·        High EQs do not act like jerks.
Jerks are insecure to a fault, and act out accordingly. High EQ people value their relationships and treat others fairly regardless of their mood.
·        High EQs do not hold grudges.
The higher one’s stress levels, the more inclined the individual will cling to a grudge. Stress—by itself—wreaks havoc with one’s immune system and is a known contributor to high blood pressure and heart disease. Holding onto grudges ensures continued elevated stress. The grudge turns into a psychological anchor: As such, the job seeker cannot move forward. Those with high EQs avoid this.
·        High EQs avoid associating with negative people.
Negative individuals wallow in their own misery and tenaciously share their misery with others. They focus solely on their problems but avoid solutions.
High EQ individuals avoid getting sucked into this negative emotional spiral by setting limits and distancing themselves from negative people.
·        High EQs do not feel sorry for themselves.
Probably the easiest thing to do is feel sorry for oneself. With only the slightest effort, it migrates into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once that becomes engrained into the psyche, the individual gets to declare himself a helpless victim. (We’re all supposed to feel sorry for helpless victims—right! I wonder if that includes self-inflicted injuries as well?)
·        High EQs do not feel entitled.
If you believe in meritocracy, you only deserve those things you’ve earned. Those with low EQs believe they are being cheated whenever they don’t receive their fair share even when they haven’t exerted the effort to earned it. True success is something one earns—it is not something one is entitle to by default.
·        High EQs do not close their minds.
Those who feel threatened often resort to closing their minds. New information, as well as the opinions of others, get blocked out or ignored. Maintaining a closed mind actually requires a concerted effort, which infers a lot of wasted time gets invested in preserving one’s ignorance. An individual with a low EQ is never wrong, or at the very least will never admit to it. When failure is never admitted, there’s nothing to change.
High EQ individuals are not threatened by progress, new ideas or information. They will admit to self-ignorance and when they’ve been wrong. They see themselves as work-in-progress and improve as they go.
·        High EQs are not consumed by jealousy and envy.
Jealousy and envy are two wasted emotions that are difficult to disguise. These emotions manifest themselves in many ways. Skilled job interviewers can easily penetrate a job seeker’s flimsy façade with a series of simple, “How do you feel about … (this or that)” probing questions.
Those with high EQs have no difficulty celebrating the success of others, and that’s the way it comes across during job interviews.
·        High EQs do not live in the past.
Having written résumés for thousands, I have encountered a fair share of those job seekers living in the past. No amount of sage advice or magic words will jolt them into today’s employment reality. Fearing failure—often the result of never taking risks—they mentally reside in the past as if it were a sacred duty or perhaps buried treasure.
The secret, of course, amounts to living in the present. Accept those things one cannot change. Change those things that will help you move forward. Naturally, it helps if you can figure out the difference.
Copyrighted © 2016 by Robert James

Job-seekers should manage time as if applying for the big leagues

Rarely will job seekers see time management as something that applies directly to themselves. Nonetheless, job seekers need to get things done in a timely fashion, lest those mismanaged chores and tasks accumulate like dirty laundry. Everyone is vulnerable to bouts of procrastination, but with big-league job hunting, poor time-management is a guaranteed opportunity killer.
The great equalizer everyone has in common is time. Everyone gets exactly 24 hours on the clock, and not so much as an extra few seconds. Time can also be compared to money: How we choose to invest it is up to the individuals. Whatever gets accomplished (or not), so be it.
The simplest method for accomplishing tasks involve making a list of those things that need to be performed. It is practically a guaranteed method because it works and lowers one’s stress. Not a bad payback when you consider the alternatives.
Most job seekers tell me they have excellent time-management skills—at least to the extent of their jobs and professions. I take them at their word. However, when it comes to performing tasks outside their daily routines, most convey the contrary. This becomes apparent when they start procrastinating habitually or coming up with endless excuses.
Allow me to draw an analogy. For this example, I’ll use big-league baseball, however, almost any sport would suffice. Before you (the player) get to participate on any major league team, you’ll be subjected to tryouts. Scouts (the MLB’s version of company recruiters) will be on the lookout for qualified applicants (potential players).
Show up for a tryout with an excuse or unresolved fatal flaw, and you’ll be instantly eliminated from consideration. (Same applies to seeking employment by the way.) To make the team, you’ll have to demonstrate you can handle the position. If you’re a pitcher, you better be able to throw the ball accurately; for the shortstop position, you damn well better be able to catch and throw accurately.
In short, each team position will have different criteria. In most cases, playing baseball is like running a successful business operation—it’s a well-orchestrated team effort. Rarely will an organization rely solely on one individual to make all the home runs. In any case, you best show up for a tryout well prepared.
Now let us return to everyday job hunting. For the better-paying positions, you should view interviewing as a big-league competitive sport. Clinging to any other notion places you in the out-of-your-league category. You’re like the one-legged hopeful base runner applying for the stealer's position on an MLB team, and expecting the scouts to turn a blind eye.
Today’s employers can be downright nitpicky. They can cite any reason, lame or otherwise to eliminate players. Poor interviewing ranks up there with those who are unqualified. Candidates who prepare well in advance for their tryouts have the best odds. That, however, requires time and effort to hone and perfect one’s interviewing aptitude.
Ironically, the majority of job seekers won’t invest time practicing for interviews. Only a third bother place it on their to-do checklist, leaving approximately one-in-five who will actually exert the effort. The balance prefers to play it by ear.
Playing job interviews by ear these days is a guaranteed strategy for failure. Casinos offer better odds shooting craps or playing roulette. The time invested in practicing for interviews is time well spent. Recruiters prefer those who can respond effectively to challenging inquiries. It makes eliminating those who show up unprepared much easier. It also saves a load of time and money.

 Copyrighted (c) 2016 by Robert James

Is Artificial Intelligence a curse or blessing?

More often than not, change is forced upon us whether embraced or not. Artificial Intelligence (AI) constitutes one form. Technological advancements come charging at us like hooligans swinging double-edged swords in the darkness.

    Some see AI as a curse, while others marvel at the possibilities. Much depends on how we perceive change.  Those being replaced by technology won’t view their reality the same as a company saving a load of dough.
If you owned a business that could operate the business 24/7 with fewer trucks, no drivers, automated warehouses and packaging, you would embrace new technology. Your cost savings and human errors would plummet while profit margins sore.
Relax a moment while I pick up my crystal ball. AI is a reality, as it already exists, and a lot more is headed our way. Some occupations will be left behind like discarded relics, while others will cope and adjust. Either way, we will be forced to go along for the journey.
Historians tell us that when the automobile first arrived, many protested, and a popular slogan from that era was, “Get a horse!” The day after farmer Jones bought the first tractor to plow his fields or trucked his produce to market, the popular catchphrase faded into folklore.
As more AI applications become a daily reality, the ancient methods of doing labor-intensive tasks will give way to innovative apps. What is currently in vogue will likewise fade into antiquity. How we socially, economically and politically adapt to that transition will determine or seal our collective fate.
If like Rip Van Winkle, you were to have fallen into a deep sleep for 50 years only to awaken in 2016, you would probably suffer a nervous meltdown (politics aside). Your entire world would be upended. You could no longer fix your own vehicle because you wouldn’t understand the electronics or physics involved. Operating a computer and cell phone would likewise represent a psychological challenge.
Those who have not kept pace with technology fall somewhat into that realm. I’ve encountered jobseekers who have adamantly resisted change, only to be jarred awake as they enter today’s job market reality. It’s as if they had been in a prolonged sleep. Their favorite slogan is, “I’m old school,” a popular cop out for I have no idea what the hell is going on.
School’s out, and it’s time to awaken to reality. If you haven’t acquired the necessary survival skills, you’re in for one hell of a buggy ride. Just keeping pace with changing technology is damn near a full-time endeavor.
The saving grace for those living in the past is our sacred political system, which is slow moving and long outdated. Except for a few branches of government (space and military), it pretty much functions and operates the way it did 50 years ago. True, the government has switched to computers and automated technology, but few jobs have been lost in the transition and promised tax-dollar savings have not materialized.
Maintaining bloated government is probably necessary for the immediate future unless we want to throw a few extra million souls on unemployment and welfare. Admittedly, there are those who are perfectly content doing nothing. However, for everyone else, we often define ourselves by our work. It provides the substance for whom we are and gives purpose to our raison d’être
Here’s another dose of reality: If we as a nation fail to modernize—as in damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead—we risk sinking into an economic quagmire of our own making. Other nations are willing to make the investment. Japan, China, and India understand this, as well as several European countries. (India’s problem is that it does not have sufficient institutions of higher learning to accommodate their needs and aspirations.)
Since 2010, our nation has been sitting in dry-dock for political gain. Congress has refused to acknowledge reality. In large measure, their refusal to do anything of substance appears to be rooted in mythology and racial prejudice. Congress needs to get over itself and rethink its priorities if the nation plans to globally compete.
The tipping point is approaching when we will have to decide whether to cut bait and sail with the tide, or risk slowly sinking while our ship of state continues to take on congressional bilge water. Politically, it’s a tough call. Those who will lose their employment to AI will scream bloody murder and vote according to selfish interests.
While AI will eliminate jobs, it simultaneously opens new paths to explore. Many millennials and progressive thinkers are receptive to AI challenges, but the vast majority mess in their draws and wet their beds hoping to stem the tide. If there is any hope in sailing toward calmer seas, we need to chart the new course today.
Copyrighted © 2016 by Robert James

Job interviewing for fun

Without question, job interviewing is stressful. It ranks second to a family death, divorce, relocating, major illness and losing employment. It qualifies as no laughing matter. When it comes to politics, however, the entire process can turn into a three-ring circus, replete with clowns riding jackasses and people running around scooping up elephant poop.
In the realm of serious interviewing and vetting, the process is no joke. Most screening interviewers take the task seriously, and many find the process as equally challenging, frustrating and stress producing as job candidates do.
Most of the major employers have ultra-strict interviewing procedures, while mid-size organizations tend to be somewhat less so. The smaller operations gravitate toward lousy-goosy—similar to what you see on the boob tube.
Different ground rules apply to distinctive positions and skill needs. Governmental entities usually have stricter guidelines than non-governmental organizations. Within the federal government, for example, at the upper levels, the hiring process takes into consideration the political factor.
The dichotomy that exists can best be illustrated by using the State Department. At the lowest rung—an entry-level clerical position–the application process can literally take your breath away.
Such a position requires tedious amounts of exhausting paperwork. If the job involves working in an overseas embassy, you may have an advanced degree, plus multiple language proficiencies under your belt. Naturally, you will have to undergo the full Monty treatment by both the FBI and NSA.
At the opposite end of that hiring spectrum, there is the Secretary of State position (currently held by John Kerry). For that, the qualifications are simple: You need to be a US citizen, be appointed by the President, and confirmed by the US Senate. The hard part is having the political connections. A certified elementary school teacher has to hold more credentials.
Even to hold the Presidency, the qualifications are minimal: You have to be 35 years of age, a US citizen and must have previously lived in the US for 14 years (though not necessarily consecutive). Oh, and you have to secure 270 Electoral College votes—that’s the heavy-lifting part. The scary part is that you could be dumb as dog droppings, and still meet the qualifications.
 We overly rely on the broadcast media to vet the candidates who haphazardly apply for the job. Ben Carson found that out when he informed Anderson Cooper he wasn’t applying for the job. Cooper reminded old Ben that he was indeed applying for a job. In a flash, Cooper’s quip torpedoed Ben’s lofty political aspirations.
We (the stakeholders in the upcoming election) should not rely on quick-witted show-host moderators to perform our due diligence for us. We bear some of that responsibility. I have a short list of questions that will never be asked. But just for fun, I’ll share a few.
For Trump: You have repeatedly used the phrase, “if they show me proper respect and are fair.” You’ve used the phrase countless times during your campaign. Why do you deserve respect and fairness when you show none toward others?
For Clinton: Has your husband shared with you why he signed the NAFTaA legislation the Republicans wrote? If so, would you share his reasoning or rationale for doing so?
For Trump: I’m taking bets that you’ll never release your tax returns, so I won’t ask. But what about a sealed, certified transcript of your courses at Wharton? I am betting you won’t release those either. Tell me whether I’m right or wrong? And why?
For Clinton: You’ve admitted that using a private server for State Department communications was a mistake. What have you learned from that mistake?
For Trump: You have repeatedly told voters you are very smart and “have a very good mind.” You’ve campaigned on that numerous times. Would you mind if an independent examiner tested and evaluated your IQ?
For Clinton: Many people, mostly voters, and all NRA members, are interested in your position on the Second Amendment. Clarify for voters the type of proactive modifications you might push for Congress to enact? (The question implies Congress would act, but don’t worry, they won’t.)
For Trump: While you were at Wharton, you majored in Finance, correct? Would you mind if I asked you a couple of standard eighth-grade mental math questions?
For Clinton: Would you seriously consider appointing Mr. Barack Obama to the Supreme Court? Include in your response, why or why not.
For Trump: You have accused your opponent of having had extramarital affairs. You’ve openly boasted about your extramarital affairs, but what tangible proof do you possess that warrants making such a slanderous and penurious accusation of your opponent? Remember, I’m asking for tangible proof—not supposition.
For Clinton: What is your plan for fixing the educational system? And, how would you go about selling that plan to a do-nothing Congress?
For Trump: You’ve stated that you’ve created many, many jobs. You’ve also declared bankruptcy many times. In all those jobs you created, how many those workers got stiffed when you declared bankruptcy?
For Clinton: The Clinton Foundation has come under attack for accepting foreign donations. How have those foreign donations been spent?
For Trump: Have you ever heard of Seven Arrows Investment and Development Corp? (Yes) Have you ever contracted with Seven Arrows to do business in Cuba on behalf of Trump Casinos and Hotels under the guise of humanitarian purposes? (Yes) Are you aware that you were in violation of a US trade embargo for this clandestine activity?
For Trump: It has come to light that you’re heavily in debt to a Saudi prince and lenders from China. How much in debt are you to these foreign entities, and how might that influence our nation’s relationships with those two countries? Also, are you in debt to any other foreign entities, such as Russia or Ukraine?
For Both: A lot of retirees are annoyed about having their Social Security taxed. What would your administration’s plan be to keep Social Security solvent? 
For Both: What is your stand on raising the minimum wage across the board?
For Both: What is your substantive plan to fund the federal government without raising taxes on the ever-dwindling middle class?
For Both: Automated technology and artificial intelligence will continue to replace everyday jobs. Even the coal-mining industry could be totally automated. What long-range strategy to deal with that issue?
For Both: Congress has shown no interest in simplifying revising the US tax code, nor will Congress consider reform campaign funding laws. What would be your strategy to get Congress to do anything?
For Both: According to the US Health Department, the US population is seriously overweight. Michelle Obama made an attempt to raise the bar, but her role-model efforts encountered fierce resistances. What could you a President possibly do where others have failed?
For Both: As an entity, the healthcare industry is running amuck—mostly due to high administrative costs and overcharging Medicare and Medicaid. Would you consider nationalizing the healthcare industry? If not, how would you as President correct it, assuming Congress will do absolutely nothing to help you?
For Both: The North Pole is melting. Sea levels are rising. Weather is becoming larger and more violent. What are your views on global warming?
For Both: Should the NRA be reclassified as a Political Action Committee rather than a nonprofit organization?
All in fun, folks. Then again, perhaps not. Don’t fret: I can assure readers most of these questions will not be asked by bobble-headed, broadcast media moderators. Both major parties might cry foul. On the other hand, given the political bombast, chicanery, and arrogance, what do stakeholders have to lose? 


oCopyrighted © 2016 by Robert James

Post-scarcity economics may be headed our way

As a quasi-civilized society, we have the theoretical ability to produce goods and services in abundance. We can do so—thanks to artificial intelligence (AI) technology—with minimal human participation. This is not the Star Trek fantasy it once was, but rather a viable possibility.
The term 'post-scarcity economics' tends to be confusing. In a post-scarcity economy, there are no supply-side shortages for goods and services because they can be produced at minimal cost. The cost factor—be that making farm-tractors or hamburgers—comes down to the expense of labor, energy and cost of materials. Minimize these cost factors, and goods and services literally plummet.
To juxtapose economic theories, at opposite end of the spectrum would be Keynesian economics. Both theories seem to have originated during the 1930s when the world was spinning out of economic control. Every politician and economic theorist desperately searched for quick-fix employment solutions.
With Keynesian economics, the rich spend their accumulated wealth and money trickles down to sustain the employable masses. The fatal flaw with the theory is that it audaciously assumes lavish spending will occur. When the greedy hoard their wealth, the theory falls apart, and insufficient funds trickle down.
Post-scarcity economics tends to be more realistic. Nonetheless, it too has a fatal flaw. When goods and services can be produced dirt cheap, what is to become of those workers no longer needed? The political solution is ‘we retrain them.’ The reality is: To do what? Cut hair? Become chiropractors? Wardrobe consultants perhaps?
Seriously, while it is conceivable to think we can replicate the 1940s and 50s by marching backwards to achieve economic greatness, it also amounts to living in an altered state of consciousness. It would require dismantling automation and AI technology so that massive labor force would be needed to replace what automated technology can economically perform.
We could bring back steel manufacturing to places like Mahoning Valley and Pittsburgh, but today it would be automated. At best, highly automated production requires minimal labor. Same applies to strip-mining for coal in West Virginia, and massive ore docks in Cleveland and Duluth—all of which previously employed a massive workforce.
For the moment, let us put aside salvaging what is left of our environment: The lunacy of bring back coal-fired blast furnaces is about as practical as bring back switchboard jobs and elevator operators. In the not-too-distant future, tow-motor operators, taxi cab and truck drivers won’t be needed. Even sophisticated computer programmers have a limited life expectancy due to self-learning AI technology.
The dilemma facing today’s political demagoguery amounts to delivering some unexpected power or event (a deus ex machina) to salvage a hopeless dwindling employment situation. What can elected officials possibly do to reverse course? Outlaw automated technology perhaps? Round up all computers and shut down the Internet? Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to occur.
On the larger economic scale, how would any President or Congress coerce or badger rest of the world to go along with such idiocy? While we would be moving in one direction, everyone else would be headed in a more progressive direction.
At the current fast pace of AI technology expansion, over the next 20-to-30 years, post-scarcity economics could become a full-blown reality. If it were politically and socially embraced today, that time schedule could be cut in half. But that begs the question: What do we do with the hopeless masses yearning for steady employment that simply won’t exist?
The mantra promise of ‘more jobs’ or full employment amounts to unabashed carrot-on-a-stick lunacy. Okay, makeshift work-projects might provide a viable segue. However, such a political caveat would be transcendental at best, and ephemeral at worst. Furthermore, Congress would never approve such massive debt spending.
In the recent past, we have relied heavily on protracted wars to keep our economy fluid. Endless wars over an extended time tend to wear thin, and reek emotional havoc on civil-minded citizenry. While it constitutes an economic treasure trove for the industrial military complex, endless warring also return limited benefits: The cost of caring for wounded warriors is an embarrassingly nasty and pricy tradeoff.
Moreover, nothing short of a nuclear holocaust could push us back to agrarian living conditions. Those who survived would definitely find something to do with their idle time: Every adult would have to work just to stay alive. Okay, that’s over the top, but it illustrates a sure-bet method for drastic economic reform.
Our current economic course is somewhat up for grabs—a craps shoot if you will. Whether we muddle along at near zero inflation toward the inevitable with Hillary, or temporarily derail the economy for political gain will remain a media fixation. Sooner or later, economic reality will set in.
One post-scarcity reality is that in the near future, fewer people will be required to manufacture goods, and many labor-intensive services will dwindle or disappear. Right now, the technology exists to automate damn-near everything. Amazon has practically automated its entire warehousing operation, and they are actively exploring automating its entire distribution system. Amex uses AI to handle routine calls and inquiries. Uber is chaffing to introduce driverless cabs. Driverless farm tractors already exist. IBM’s Watson can diagnose any medical condition with 100% accuracy.
We can do a whole lot more with fewer folks. Thus, embrace the realities of innovative technology, renewable energy supplies and recycling everything, and life becomes more palatable and exciting. Resist change and your mind starts searching for magical solutions, and relying heavily on political hyperbole that more jobs await us come the next election. Those jobs simply are not there. Got doubts? –Just call and ask any human switchboard operator if you can find one.

Copyrighted © 2016 by Robert James

Not all jobseekers qualify as serious

Chances are you have never met a jobseeker who told you he wasn’t serious. No one thinks of himself as not being serious when it comes to serious job hunting. As a group, jobseekers do not identify them­selves as commodities, products or merchandise, but as unique individuals.
Randomly prepare 500 or more résumés and it is hard to resist the temptation not to categorize. By the time you work for 800 jobseekers, you have encountered everything from technically challenged luddites to overachievers. As new jobseekers enter the market, repetitive patterns emerge.
From an employer’s perspective, jobseekers tend to get classified quickly into distinct scenarios: There are those who tell employers what they want to hear. (These are often get classified as C-players.) There is nothing wrong with being a C-player, but do not be disappoint to learn you’ll have stiff competition.
Another group of jobseekers rely solely on what they know and precede accord­ingly. (These qualify as B-players.) In large measure, B-players tend to be highly skilled or technically oriented. The rely heavily on their knowledge base to carry the day.
In the smallest group are those who dynamically demonstrate their potential. (This group of jobseekers gets categorized as A-players.) Naturally, they have their act together, they interview exceedingly well, and they are much sought after. Oddly, these candidates face little or no competition in the job market.
For various reasons—and there are many—everyone else gets lumped into the non-serious category. This should not imply that those jobseekers themselves aren’t serious, it’s just that from the employer's perspective, they don’t get classified as such.
When dealing with volumes of jobseekers, behavioral patterns begin to jump out at you. Whatever might escape one’s attention on a small scale quickly emerges as the volume of candidates escalates. Thus, there exists an overwhelm desire to expeditiously rate and classify candidates.
The glaring difference between being interviewed by someone preparing your résumé and a hiring decision maker amounts to their mission. The résumé writer attempts to qualify the client jobseeker, while employers make an all-out effort to disqualifying candidates through elimination.
Most jobseekers – an estimated 60% -- make the elimination process horrendously easy. Such jobseekers will apply for positions for which they are clearly unqualified or unsuited. Others resort to copying résumé material from books and others. These individuals get quickly classified as non-serious jobseekers.
As I have often indicated, each résumé sends a message, whether intentional or other­wise. For example, a jobseeker who submits a lengthy résumé may be perceived as someone who is inconsiderate or perhaps full of himself. Those who submit hard-to-read material are often perceived as disconnected, lacking withitness or perhaps careless.
Certainly, those who fail to qualify due to lack of relevant experience, skillsets and/or education are viewed by employers as time-wasters. One of the surest ways to be eliminated is attempting to market out­dated experience. Those individuals get instantly classified as past-their-prime jobseekers.
Employers who receive a short stack of résumés—let’s say around 20—it’s like shuffling a deck of cards looking for face-cards and aces. The stack can be visually scanned to eliminate the low-value cards in a few minutes.
Obviously, when employers need to shuffle many decks of cards (résumés), then using a card shuffler makes sense. In this case, the card shuffler amounts to using an Applicant Tracking System (ATS), which can scan, sort and evaluate a pile of material in nanoseconds. Those attempting to outwit ATS apps will encounter an ever-dwindling audience. In short, the AI software is becoming highly sophisticated.
The ultimate question is: How does a job candidate avoid projecting the image of someone who is not serious? The quick response is to avoid the classic mistakes. That, however, amounts to avoiding an exhaustive list of not-so-subtle no-nos.

Should you find a résumé writer good at what he or she does, pay the freight. Nine out of ten times, the writer will save you from self-inflicted folly. At minimum, you will avoid coming across as a jobseeker who isn’t serious. 

Horseplay job hunting

Undoubtedly, you’ve heard the old wives’ tale about horses running for their stalls in times of crisis. Some veterinarians claim that getting them out of the burning barn, a horse will retreat to where it feels safest, regardless of the impending danger.
I’ll be the first to confess my ignorance about equestrian behaviors. My specialty is human behaviors—especially in times of emotional employment crisis. If there’s any similarity between horse and human behaviors, it’s that both often retreat to their comfort zones when confronting disaster.
Harold’s job hunting methods might serve as an example. I do not know Harold on a personal level, but through acquaintances. I’ve encountered him on occasion over the last 10 years. The little I know about him is that he’s highly opinionated, takes pride in knowing everything on every subject, and stubbornly manages to always have the last word. We maintain mutual degrees of separation.
Upon learning I was a résumé writer, Harold approached to offer his unsolicited opinion, “So you’re one of those do-gooders who goes around helping poor slobs and the lazy unemployed find work: How interesting.”
To correct his misperception, I informed him, “Ninety-five percent of my clientele are gainfully employed and probably not poor given my pricing schedule.”
True to his reputation, he squeezed in, “Anyone who wants to work can get a job on his own.” As he walked away, he added, “Only a horse’s ass would use such a worthless service.”
That day forward, the few happenstance encounters occurred in coffee shops. Harold found opportunities to voice his favorite mantra, “Only lazy asses can’t find work, so you should be terribly busy these days.”
Harold held simplistic views. Every problem had a quick-fix solution. From any distance, he could be overheard voicing an opinion on every topic. He maintained a strong belief that unemployment was due solely to laziness, poor work ethic or stupidity.
I wasn’t there when it happened, but through acquaintances, learned that tell-it-like-it-is Harold lost his job of 20-plus years. Apparently, it came without warning. Rumors circulated that it was the first time in anyone’s recent memory that Harold didn’t cough up a smart-ass remark. After his dismissal, some thought he was too flabbergasted to offer a sarcastic quip.
Not unlike a horse running back to his stall while the barn burns, Harold retreated to where he felt safe. He returned to what he had done 20 years younger, comforted by the notion that what had worked before the digital age would surly work again in today’s automated job market.
As an authentic do-it-yourselfer, Harold is not prone to soliciting advice on anything from anyone. Upon learning of his predicament, mutual acquaintances suggested he schedule an appointment.
Harold threw one of his renown diatribes. He rejected what he considered their worthless advice. He boasted he would have his next job inside a week or two, and well before his unneeded unemployment vouchers kicked in.
Oh how the self-righteous do fall. For several weeks, Harold managed to keep up a façade. He bragged about all the solid job leads he had responded to, but as time passed, those opportunities had slipped away. No one contacted him. He rationalized his circumstances by announcing that he was obviously too overqualified.
Now that he had identified what he believed to be the real problem, all he had to do was play down his expansive accomplishments. Once again, he had identified a quick-fix solution—albeit one he had yet to validate.
Those methods he had used in his youth simply had to be replicated. Another quick-fix solution. All he needed now was to generate a few decent interviews, which to his chagrin, had not materialized. The weeks crept into months, and his unemployment checks were scheduled to end.
Through friends, I was kept abreast of Harold’s progress, or lack thereof. They mentioned their growing concerns: He was isolating himself and showing signs of depression. One individual casually suggested I should offer him my services, and was taken aback when—not unlike disinterested employers—I expressed no interest.
I informed the individual that Harold was hopelessly struck in his past. The world of interactive résumés, network job hunting and dynamic interviewing have drastically changed, but Harold had not. Sure, any horse can lead to fresh water, but no one can make a stubborn horse drink it.

Copyrighted © 2016 by Robert James


Beware of generic résumés

Coinciding with yearly corporate budgets, a plethora of job postings get announced. Simultaneously, many jobseekers out of sync with this recurring phenomenon resort to compiling last minute, generic résumés.
Like junk mail, generic résumés arrive in mass quantities. The practice of applying for anything has become so pervasive, large employers use Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) software to flush them out. Everyone else uses the five-second, flash-scan method for weeding them out. Both options work.
Like junk mail, generic résumés are not difficult to spot. The classic symptoms include (a) lack of career focus, followed by (b) lack of employment relevancy and vagueness. Once spotted, it auto triggers the what-a-loser response.
Typically, the reviewer stops reading once he or she encounters a glaring deficiency. Barring hidden agendas, the visual scanning process usually includes:
(a) The type of position the individual is seeking,
(b) The last two or three positions for relevancy,
(c) The length of ‘relevant’ employment,
(d) The education and specific skillsets.
The more a reviewer performs this, the more proficient the screener becomes. (View this as one of those practice-makes-perfect chores.)
To add insult to inconvenience, and with damn little exception, the unfocused jobseeker feels a compelling urge to explain his ‘unique’ situation—as if employers haven’t heard them already. Some jobseekers resort to making their problems the interviewer’s problem.
Explanations and problem sharing—either appearing in covers or the résumé—get interpreted as loser or failure. Success, on the other hand, tends to speak for itself, and therefore, requires no explanation.
As harsh as this may be, it’s job-hunting reality. When viewing this on a massive scale it becomes obvious. Jobseekers who resort to explaining without identifying a specific opening, they might as well shout, “I’m open to whatever is available.”
From years of experience, I can attest that generic résumés only perform for those seeking the lowest levels of warm-body, high-turnover employment. Such jobseekers do not need a professional presentation, as anything will usually suffice.
Seriously, the more focused and concise the résumé, the more employers will take a second look. Once again, barring a hidden agenda, the well-focused résumé carries a five-fold advantage. In other words, the unfocused jobseekers have to work five-times harder just to stay in the game.
Jobseekers oblivious to this repetitive phenomenon need to reassess their career goals, tangible experience and intangible assets. The process can begin sampling by creating an itemized list. At the minimum, the jobseeker should be able to avoid using the dreaded generic résumé and the harsh consequences that follow.

Copyrighted © 2016 by Robert James