The Sand - er, Salary Trap

Once upon a time, people gave a range of their salary expectations for the understandable reason of avoiding a specific number that would peg them as "too high" or "too low" on a company's planned pay scale.  Absent some behind-the-scenes intelligence that would give you a firm idea of what the firm was planning to pay for the position, you always wanted to err on the side of caution so as not to overplay your hand and be seen as too expensive OR inadvertently deny yourself a higher pay level to which you would otherwise be entitled.

What a difference a recession makes.

I cannot begin to count the number of contacts I've had lately who have been dumbing down their resumes in order to appear less qualified than they really are.  From salary expectations to professional qualifications, many job seekers have reached the point where they are so desperate for work that they're actually considering lower-level positions just so they can return to full-time employment. 

Here's the problem:  Companies don't want to hire people they see as over-qualified.  The reason?  Quite simple, really.  As soon as the economy picks up, the reasoning goes, those folks will jump ship and go elsewhere.  (Where exactly one goes when all other firms are thinking the same thing is a question still to be answered.)  Consequently, rather than a race to the top of the scale, many people seeking work - along with the companies they're targeting - seem to be in a race to the bottom to see what salaries can be offered that people will accept (on the company side) and what kinds of qualifications "best" meet those supposed needs (on the job seekers' side).

All of this doesn't really have much of a "funny side" to laugh about, but there is perhaps a bit of schadenfreude that comes with such circumstances.  The Wall Street Journal recently ran a letter to the editor from a college professor who had been teaching economic theory for more than two decades.  Full employment, she had always taught her students, would be reached once people who had been let go from one employer adjusted their salary demands to fit the paradigms of the new market reality.  In other words, so long as people kept looking for jobs that paid them what they were once paid before, they would be unemployed.  But once they lowered their salary expectations to reflect their current market value, they would find employment. 

The problem with this outlook is that what fits nicely in the halls of academia doesn't always work in the real world.  This same professor lamented the fact that she had been unable to lower her salary demands due to employers being reluctant to hire someone who had once been paid significantly more.  The reasoning?  You guessed it.  Once the market improved, employers argued, she'd be gone.  So now this professor - like the rest of us in the job search - basically found herself in the job market equivalent of the sand trap:  She couldn't ask for what she was making before, but she couldn't offer to accept something lower, either.  Much like the new job seeker looking to enter the job market but who can't until s/he gains some experience but who can't gain experience without first being hired, she now faced a perfect Catch-22. 

If companies want their employees to be honest, perhaps they could learn not to punish people for their past successes when they're looking for new work.  Who knows?  They might gain valuable employees with significant insight and experience without having to pay through the nose.

But only if they're willing to give people a chance...