Wow.  I just took a trip down memory lane looking through my old resumes. I don't have the ones I wrote post-undergrad that got me my first library job, but looking back at my grad college resume/application and the ones that followed, it seems pretty pathetic to me now.  I had scholarships and grants, teaching assistant and research assistant experience, professional association membership & offices, and yet, now knowing what I see the state of the job market from the hiring side, I realize it's a miracle I got a job at all.

I know that my first full-time, permanent post-grad school position was possible because my first time library job out of undergrad had people who vouched for me or they wouldn't have hired me (someone I worked with let that slip by accident).  Then there were the months of hunting for a corporate library job, specifically in pharma, but I kept my options open. I think what finally dashed my hopes was an association meeting where I met someone who had applied for the same temp position I had; she had about 15 years experience in that specific area, I had none.

Finally I got lucky with an employer willing to take me on despite a long commute and limited experience, and after that I was twice as lucky to find a jump to LIB when the opportunity arose.  Still, it makes me wonder how many extremely talented, sharp as a tack grads being passed over when people who have 10-20 years experience in a particular field, but aren't necessarily the best, are the ones being hired.

Experience has its place, most definitely, when it comes to particular areas.  However, how often do employers look at the big picture of what happens if you train someone who is bright, capable, and flexible, in the skills that the experienced researcher has - and they turn out to be even better than the other candidate?  Is investing in training so frowned upon that it is the last resort? What is the answer to this?

Adding injury to insult are the layoffs of experienced professionals that have advanced skills but their departments were laid off, so they weren't given an option.  These are top-notch people who are being re-hired at entry level (and often temp positions) and who deserve so much more, especially after prior years as manager, mentor, and expert who are suddenly busted down to the equivalent rank of private because of the job market and outsourcing.  Maybe it's time for everyone to take a second look and evaluate a total candidate instead of just an automated HR run.  Perhaps pick a slightly larger list of resumes that pass the initial run including pros and newbies, interview them personally or even on the phone, and see how they present themselves.

Intelligent, well-spoken, capable, personable, questioning people will be the ones you want to keep in the end, regardless of prior experience or lack thereof, and will lead to a stronger department in the end.  Please, think long term, not short term, and remember to consider those with potential who are just starting out; they could turn out to be the best of all.

I've survived the summer and work is incredibly busy as per usual.  For the first time I'm starting to learn again instead of completing the rote work I've done for the past few years, although it's always tempting to stick with what you know.

What worries me most is the insanity going on in our government where a forced shutdown has already happened and yet Congress is threatening the debt limit.  Best case scenario would probably be for the Supreme Court to step in and disallow any further shenanigans, especially considering that basically they would be approving spending that has already happened, putting the US in pointless jeopardy time and again.

When did our system become so completely screwed up?  When did our idea of taking care of our citizens become so controversial?  How can something as logical as providing universal, basic healthcare be so protested?  There are so many disturbing aspects of what's occurring with our government and our populace that it is a constant worry that we may not make it out the other side without having to sacrifice things that should benefit the greatest percentage of our own citizens!

Occupy had some good ideas, but the trends that show no signs of slowing including wage stagnation, lobbying power out of control (and not checked by the Supreme Court, which is very disturbing from the Citizens United decision), corporate dominance, Tea Party extremism, and the insistence on crashing the US government and economy based on partisan, not logical decision-making is terrifying.  How has this gone on for 30 years unchecked and through multiple crises (1987 Black Friday, S&L scandal, Reagonomics, government shutdown of 1995, Long Term Capital Management collapse, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, housing bubble, Madoff, Great Recession, current inequality post-Recession, etc) is baffling on one level.  Why do we up with all of this with no or minimal consequences for those responsible?

All of this points to basically one thing; hang on for the ride of the next 5-10 years.  The times when those companies that could write off poor quarterly earnings because of the recession suddenly have no explanation for why the average person can no longer afford their prices + inflation without raises.  The times when Boomers start pulling from their 401ks and IRAs as they hit 59 and a half, regardless if they're working or not, leading to a rather large outflow from stocks (since many of them did not properly change their stock/bond mix as they aged).  The new graduates and workers 35 and under so burdened by student debt and poor wages they can't afford to replace the money the Boomers will remove.

Overall, I think it won't be an immediate disaster, but there are fundamental dysfunctions that need to be resolved, most logically by regulation and oversight, but is being fought tooth and nail regardless. For now, I work for who I do, knowing all of this, trying to ignore exactly how this may eventually affect my business and my job. No matter what happens, I can't say I was ignorant.