Low Barriers Are A Good Thing (opens in new tab)

Quote from the Economist story: "Moreover, despite enviably low unemployment and labour shortages in industries from construction to health care, the Danes are having difficulties nudging the long-term unemployed into work. The post office complains that it cannot recruit new postmen. Newspaper distributors have started importing delivery boys from Poland. One ferry operator's effort to recruit 365 new workers was stymied by an epidemic of seasickness among the unemployed who applied. Even in Denmark, it seems, would-be workers have their limitations."

When a recession happens, every company lays off people to keep profitability high, but the laid off people will stop spending, and then demand for goods and services will go down and then companies will lay off more people to match demand, but those people will stop spending too, so there will be a feedback cycle that will cause a world wide crash. And this is not just speculation, this is what actually happened in the 50 or so years before the new deal when you had continuous boom and bust cycles.

Again this does not happen in Denmark because of their generous government unemployment benefits, but if you do not have said benefits, it is asking for trouble.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_the_awesomest...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_tax_me_please...

What is your basis for believing that US companies cannot downsize as easily as Danish ones or that their costs in hiring and firing are higher? Were you an employee or hiring manager in both countries?

There's a lot of good reasons for people moving around, but I have to make absolutely certain that it's not a personality flaw that is in the candidate.

Note that if you've spent time as a contractor and have indicated that you're working on 12 - 24 month contracts, that's entirely different. Moving on wasn't completely your choice.

The reason they frequently leave earlier is that they are unable to learn, grow and apply themselves at their present place of work, being in a situation where if they were to stay longer they'd be progressively less useful to employers. The reason younger employees sometimes within a year when they're not adequately mentored and instead keep being used _only_ for maintenance work rather than actual development.

Ultimately each hop, each earlier-than-desired departure does give you a better idea of what to look for in your next position (to avoid more hops). It's true that short stays close some doors, but in serious technology companies, hiring decisions for engineers are made by engineers. The hiring manager or company HR may ask you for an explanation of why you've left last several places (and confirm it by checking your references), but it's foolish to pass on a strong developer who made some career mistakes in favour of a weak, but "reliable" candidate. Companies that do so aren't the ones where I'd like to work in the first place.

The more significant risk to leaving early isn't the messed up resume, it's becoming too anxious and jaded, systematically leaving before being able to apply yourself (e.g., during the training process or when working on a starter project), unable to take advantage of mentoring available. Leaving a company with a steep learning curve within six months is foolish, but sticking around for another year when you haven't learned anything in the two years isn't wise either.