Edit: this DOES raise an important question; will you jump ship for a better job when it comes along? This is rightly what employers would be scared of happening as employing someone is a big investment for them.

Um, why is it a big investment for them the replace an employee? We are talking about roles that doesn't require that high qualification (I'm assuming this, because if someone is significantly over-qualified for a job that requires a high qualified person, then getting a proper job for that over-qualified person or surviving for some months shouldn't be much of a problem anyway). The employer can find a new (low qualified) employee in a short time, and usually educations/courses that are part of the training is bound to a contract (at least in Hungary), so you have to stay for 2-3 years, or pay the price of the training if you are leaving.

According to my experience (with small companies and multinational companies), bigger companies don't care much about fluctuations, as most people in the company are replaceable. Though they might choose an over-qualified person for a low-quality role, because they know they will need a high-qualified person in the future, and they might want to elevate it from their employees instead of hiring stranger.

Um, why is it a big investment for them the replace an employee?

Because the interview, hiring and induction process has a cost involved in time and resources. The smaller the company the more likely it is for the hiring process to cost them more and a large amount of this cost is incurred even if they don't hire any candidates they interview. Smaller companies take more of a hit as they are less likely to have a dedicated HR department which means they have to take production staff away from their jobs to do interviews, read resumes etc. This is a time sink and where the expense is incurred.

For a company bigger than a certain size this isn't a problem as they have a department doing this constantly so the expense of running that department is a known constant.

Personally I am used to working in small to mid size businesses where the HR department consists of the directors and possibly the accountant...

They usually pay recruiters half your first year's salary.


As far as dumbing down goes, I doubt it will work. In a way, programming is programming but most employers don't realize this.


I try to keep my resume a bit laconic and 'dry' and bare and factual, not to dumb it down but because you never know where people looking at it are coming from. Maybe you will sound like knowitall, or like you are trying to hard, or even a liar. OTOH maybe they will think you are a dork who knows much less than them about some subject you mentioned, and just make yourself look dumb to them. And most people are not going to spend time or effort to figure out where YOU are coming from.


I just list out each job and the time I was there and the basic responsibilities and a list of technologies right there. At the top is education and some more general responsibilities, and even above that the 'mission statement' or whatever it's called, a sentence saying what kind of work I am looking for and what kind of coder I am.


Anyway, I would try to do consulting I guess. Either directly for clients or go work for deloit and tush, RHI, etc. They are constantly hiring people who they will then layoff. They don't expect (or give) any loyalty. You should have no trouble to work for them, but you will likely have to move.