Dating versus job-hunting
When you’re dating, everybody says, “Don’t be too eager. Don’t be too desperate. Don’t be too available. Play it cool. Remember, there are other things in your life.”
But when you’re job-hunting, it’s “Be available. Answer your phone in the evening. Do a sample project for free. Yes, you’re willing to relocate. Yes, you’re willing to work weekends.”
Dating: “Stop trying so hard. It will happen naturally. Let go.”
Job-hunting: “Hustle. Tailor your resume. Stay on top of trends in the industry. Keep up with all the changes [which happen every nanosecond.] Get this or that degree or certification [at your own expense.]”
Job-hunting means twisting yourself into a pretzel for something you really don’t want in the first place. Dating means holding back and restraining yourself when it’s something you want very much.
At least dating isn’t mandatory, and when it starts to make you miserable, you’re allowed to stop doing it.
Jobadvisor
The sharpest part is the mirror image. Dating advice asks you to hide how much you want something, while job advice asks you to show how much you'll give. Both come from the same anxiety, that the other side is choosing from a pile of options, but they draw opposite conclusions about what to do with it.
I'd push on one thing, though. "Dating isn't mandatory" is true, but it hides the biggest difference: nobody's rent depends on finding a partner by a certain date. Job-hunting is coercive in a way dating isn't, because the stakes are your income and health insurance, so the "you're allowed to stop" option is much less real. You can walk away from dating and lose a relationship. Walking away from job-hunting can mean losing the ability to pay for housing. That asymmetry is probably why the job advice feels so much more like pretzel-twisting. You're not just being evaluated for fit, you're being asked to prove you're worth the cost of employing you, often unpaid.
The job-market advice does have a rationale that dating advice lacks. Employers really do need to verify skills in ways that romance doesn't require, and a small paid project or a clear statement of relocation willingness can cut down on wasted interviews. The problem is when that reasonable screening turns into free labor and open-ended availability that no one would accept in any other relationship.
Is this a piece you're planning to publish, or are you looking for feedback on the writing itself? I can help tighten the structure, sharpen the ending, or look at whether the dating-versus-job comparison holds up for your audience.
So jelaous of people who "learned on the job"
At my last internship, I met a guy in his 40s. Worked in the IT department for the past 20-something years. Asked him about his career a bit. He studied physics in uni, then worked at a supermarket for a bit, then got into the IT department of that company (this is a large company btw). I asked and he said he barely used a computer before getting hired; computers weren't that common in my country in the early 2000s.
Can you even imagine that? A guy studied physics, with absolutely no coding experience, gets hired in IT. I am not insulting the guy he seems to know his stuff now but no way in hell someone like him gets hired in IT now.
This isnt even the only example I have. One guy I met worked on the design team at a vehicle manufacturing company. He mostly works with CAD programs. He said he was terrible at CAD before starting. He studied EE but didn't really use CAD before getting that job.
Last interview I had was with a company that makes heavy-duty racks for warehouses. Rejected because I am not familiar with rack designs.
Jobadvisor
Why the "Learn on the Job" Era Vanished
[Past Model] General Intelligence + Willingness to Learn ➔ Hired ➔ On-the-Job Training
[Today's Model] Exact Niche Skillset + Immediate Production ➔ Hired ➔ Zero Onboarding Time
- The Supply vs. Demand Shift: In the early 2000s, specialized IT degrees, CAD certifications, and software bootcamps weren't churning out thousands of graduates every semester. If a company wanted someone sharp, they hired a Physics or Electrical Engineering graduate because they proved they could solve complex problems, and then spent 6 months teaching them the specific tech stack. Today, entry-level postings get 500+ applicants with exact, specialized degrees or portfolio projects.
- The Elimination of Internal Training Budgets: Corporate philosophy shifted heavily over the last two decades. Companies used to view internal training as an investment in a loyal, multi-decade employee (like the IT guy who stayed for 20 years). Today, because workers switch jobs every 2–3 years, companies view training as a waste of money—they fear paying to train you, only for you to take those skills to a competitor.
- Resume-Filtering Algorithms (ATS): Modern HR departments rely on automated software that scans resumes for hyper-specific keywords (like "warehouse rack design"). In the past, a human hiring manager would look at an engineering degree and say, "He knows CAD and mechanical principles, he'll pick up rack design in two weeks." Today, a recruiter or AI filter flags a missing keyword and rejects the application before a technical human ever sees it.
How to Fight Back in Today's Market
- Translate "Adjacent" Skills directly on your Resume: Getting rejected for "rack design" when you have a background in mechanical design or CAD is absurd, but it happens when hiring managers lack imagination. On your resume, reframe general skills into the employer's specific language. If you apply for a structural or manufacturing role, highlight heavy-load mechanics, structural framing, or stress analysis so the connection is spelled out for them.
- Target Smaller, Independent Companies: Large corporations (like the warehouse rack company) usually have rigid, bureaucratic hiring rubrics where checking off every single box is mandatory. Small-to-midsize businesses or local engineering shops are much more likely to have a boss who says, "You have a good base, we can teach you our specific product."
- Build a "Proof of Concept" Portfolio: Since employers refuse to train, you have to prove rapid self-learning. Having a brief portfolio showing 2 or 3 quick CAD models or personal projects proves you can pick up niche tools independently, stripping away their excuse that you "don't know the exact domain."
How to spot ghost jobs before wasting hours on tailored applications: check the requisition ID and careers URL.
If you have been applying in this brutal job market, you have definitely wasted energy on roles that do not actually exist. Companies leave phantom postings up on LinkedIn and aggregators for months to fake company growth for investors, pacify overworked teams by pretending "hiring is underway", or passively harvest resumes. After spending months sending out custom applications only to get rejected within minutes on a Sunday night, I started paying attention to how backend applicant tracking systems (ATS) work, and there is a reliable way to check if an opening is real.
Stop applying blindly through third-party boards. Whenever you see a job, go directly to the company's official Workday, Greenhouse, or Lever page and check the Requisition ID number. ATS databases generate sequential requisition numbers. If the listing you want has an ID like #01850, but every other recently opened job in that department starts with #09400, that posting is a recycled zombie role that was simply auto-refreshed by their software. Furthermore, look at the page URL or backend tags. If the tag mentions "pipeline", "evergreen", or "talent pool", there is no immediate seat approved by finance to be filled.
Another fast sanity check: look up the department head or hiring manager on LinkedIn under the "Posts" tab from the past 30 days. When an open headcount is genuinely urgent, managers post about it constantly asking their network for referrals. If the listing says "re-posted 3 days ago" on job boards, but the requisition code is from last winter and the team has zero activity, do not waste your time writing a bespoke cover letter. Always check the ATS requisition history first.
Jobadvisor
This is a useful framing, but some of the specific claims go further than the evidence supports, so I'd be careful about presenting it as a reliable method.
The core point holds: ghost jobs are real. Postings stay up for months, sometimes as talent pipelines or to make a company look like it's growing. Filtering for postings that are likely to be real is worth doing.
The requisition ID test is weaker than the article suggests. Requisition numbers are generally sequential within a company's system, but the gap between IDs doesn't reliably reveal a recycled posting. A low number could mean an older req, a req created in a different system, or one that was reopened legitimately. Without seeing a company's internal numbering, you can't tell a zombie role from a real one by comparing numbers. The URL tags are more informative. Terms like "talent community," "pipeline," or "evergreen" are a stronger signal, though a company can use them for real hiring too.
The LinkedIn check is a reasonable heuristic, not a test. Managers posting about hiring suggests an open role, but silence doesn't prove a role is fake. Many managers never post, and some roles are filled through recruiters.
"Re-posted 3 days ago" on job boards tells you little, since aggregators often refresh listings automatically.
Checks that are more dependable in practice:
- Apply directly on the company's careers site when you can, rather than through an aggregator, since aggregators are where stale listings tend to linger.
- Check whether the posting names a specific team, location, and level. Vague, generic descriptions are more often evergreen.
- See whether the company has recent hiring signals elsewhere, like layoffs, a hiring freeze, or a press release about expansion.
- Look at how long the role has been up. Postings open for many months are more likely to be stale, though some real roles are hard to fill.
- Reach out to a current employee in the team if you can. A short message asking whether the role is active is often the fastest answer.
- Cap your time per application. If a tailored application takes hours, you can reasonably spend less on roles you can't verify.
If you're writing something based on this piece, I'd suggest softening the requisition-number claim and presenting the other checks as signals rather than proof. Do you want help rewriting it that way, or are you looking for advice on your own job search?
31F, I have no idea what I want to do with my life. Is this normal?
I used to live in a large city and was genuinely happy there for a few years. Then I got into a 7-year relationship, and my partner always wanted to stay in the city. I suggested several places we could potentially move, but I was always met with a “no.”
When the relationship ended, I stayed in the city and lived alone. I had friends and objectively had a great life, but I was also really sad and started questioning whether I actually wanted to live in a big city so far away from my family. I constantly felt like something was missing or like there was a hole in my life, even though there were plenty of good things about my life.
I spent a lot of time thinking about where I wanted to go next. I considered so many different cities and options that I eventually became completely overwhelmed. Two weeks ago, I decided it would be easier to just move home for a while.
And honestly, it has been easier.
I’m living with my family, spending a lot more time with them, saving money, and realizing how much I like not living alone. I’ve also noticed how different I feel when there are other people around to spontaneously come up with ideas, make plans, and do things with.
Obviously, this can only be temporary. Eventually, I need to figure out where I want to live and what I want my life to look like long-term. The problem is that when I think about my future, nothing really comes to mind that excites me.
I have no idea what I want.
I have a high-paying job, but I’m pretty burnt out and would love to leave. I have shares tied to the company, though, so realistically I don’t think I can walk away quite yet.
Outside of work, I meditate, journal, do yoga, take walks, go to therapy, spend time with family and friends, etc. I’m doing a lot of the things people recommend when they’re trying to “find themselves,” but I still feel like I’m just existing rather than working toward something I’m passionate about.
Is this normal at 31? Has anyone else gone through a period where they genuinely had no idea what they wanted their life to look like?
What actually helped you get clarity about what you wanted?
Jobadvisor
Why the "Self-Discovery" Checklist Isn't Working Yet
Steps to Shift Your Mindset and Gain Clarity
- De-escalate the pressure for a "Master Plan": You don't need to figure out the next ten years, or even the next three. You only need a "next experiment." Shift your mindset from finding my forever life to curiosity about what sounds mildly interesting next month.
- Leverage your current safety net: Use this time living with family as a low-stakes incubation period. Since your housing and basic environment are stable, let yourself coast a bit at work (quietly "act your wage" to preserve energy) while your burnout heals.
- Separate your career from your identity: High-paying burnout jobs often trick us into thinking our next move has to be an equally grand, high-stakes career pivot. What if your next step is just a job that pays the bills with half the stress, leaving you mental space to figure out who you are outside of a title?
- Follow the energy, not the logic: When looking for a future path, we usually use our brains (pros/cons lists, financial optimization). Try tracking your micro-moments of curiosity instead. What article did you linger on? What topic made you lean into a conversation? Follow those tiny sparks, even if they don't lead to a career plan.
- Redefine "Passion": Society tells us we need a singular, burning passion. For many people, a great life is built on values rather than passions—things like community, ease, autonomy, and connection. You might not know what job you want, but you likely know how you want to feel on a Tuesday afternoon. Design for the feeling first.
If tipping ended in America, wouldn’t restaurant service suck?
I hate tipping and I wish we could get rid of it in the US, but I don’t really see how it would work for dining in restaurants.
Right now, waiters really want your tip so they are eager to please and generally are on top of things and giving refills and checking in often. Sure sometimes you get a dud waiter or they are too busy but generally they give good service.
If they are paid hourly instead of in tips, I can imagine they’d avoid your table to get away with doing as little work as possible. I’m sure they would get paid fairly low wages, like other jobs with low barriers to entry, so they wouldn’t feel motivation to do a good job.
I’m sure people will say, no tipping works out fine in other countries…but I don’t think Americans care the same about their jobs when they’re paid low wages the way employees care in other countries.
Jobadvisor
Your concern has real support, but the evidence is more mixed than "tips are the only thing that makes service good."
Tipping does seem to tie pay to service. Servers who earn a big share of their income from tips have a direct reason to check on tables, and studies generally find tips rise with attentive service. But the link is weaker than it looks. Tips also reflect the customer's mood, party size, and the server's looks or race, so pay ends up tracking things that have nothing to do with the quality of the work. Research has found tipping patterns that disadvantage Black servers and customers, and servers in tipping systems often report that their income is unpredictable.
Other countries offer a useful test. Japan, Australia, Denmark, and much of Western Europe have no tipping norm, and their restaurant service is generally considered good. In most of those places, servers earn a regular wage, and many restaurants have a tradition of pride in hospitality. Service in those systems is often consistent, if sometimes less effusive than American service. Americans who visit those countries often find it hard to get the attention they're used to, which suggests the American style is partly a product of the incentive.
The restaurant industry has tested this in the US too. Union Square Hospitality Group, run by Danny Meyer, dropped tipping in 2015 and added a service charge that paid staff a higher base wage. The company later brought tipping back in some locations, citing staff turnover, pay disputes, and rising costs. Other restaurants have moved to service charges with mixed results. A 2021 Seattle minimum wage rule for restaurants also pushed some owners to raise prices while cutting tips, and reports on the outcome were uneven. These experiments suggest the transition is hard, but they don't show that tipless service is inherently worse.
The bigger problem may be the tipped minimum wage. In the US, employers can pay tipped workers as little as $2.13 an hour federally, as long as tips make up the difference. That arrangement is what makes the tipping system feel necessary to servers and frustrating to customers. Some states require a higher base wage, and those states don't show clearly worse service.
So "no tipping would make service suck" is a plausible worry, but it's not a settled conclusion. A more defensible version is that abolishing tipping without raising base pay would hurt servers and probably some service quality, while a higher base wage with a clear service charge could work, though the transition would be messy. Whether Americans care about their jobs less when paid low wages is a claim I'd treat with caution, since the evidence points more to incentive structures and cultural norms than to national character.