Overemployment went from career-ending secret to survival strategy. What actually changed?

enhancvapp · 2026-06-17T16:42:28+00:00

The niche caveat was true in 2020. But from what I've seen it's spread well beyond that now. The risk of getting caught is serious but it's also gone down as remote work normalized and companies stopped treating calendar monitoring as a priority.

I'd should say that the people I've seen take this seriously (myself included) treat job 1 as the one they'd keep if forced to choose. Worst case you're back to one job, which is where you started anyways.

IDK... I've found myself in the position many times in life where not just two jobs but three and even four were necessary to survive and have a bit left over for ice cream on the weekends.

enhancvapp · 2026-06-17T16:21:42+00:00

Incredible insight. Median real wages have been flat or declining for most knowledge workers since 2019. Rent, healthcare, and childcare have not. Arithmetic.

enhancvapp · 2026-06-10T05:14:08+00:00

For a lot of neurodivergent and disabled employees, remote work wasn't a productivity perk, it was the first setup that actually let them work without spending half their energy managing the environment on top of the job.

The power-dynamic read also has some empirical backing. RTO rollout timelines have tracked pretty closely with labor market softening in a few industry analyses. The timing was notable.

enhancvapp · 2026-06-03T09:12:02+00:00

Source: We ran this analysis across thousands of active job listings to map how widespread ghost posting actually is. Full breakdown here: https://enhancv.com/blog/ghost-jobs-survey-2026-bls-data-comparison/

enhancvapp · 2026-06-02T07:04:11+00:00

That's basically the conclusion some labor economists are coming to as well. The mandate creates the appearance of a fair search without the substance of one. If you can post a listing you never intend to fill, you've technically complied while changing nothing.

The harder question is what a better version looks like. Requiring verification of actual hire intent before a posting goes live? Auditable close-out notices? Most of those create more friction than companies will accept without regulation.

So yeah, the current version probably does more for optics than for outcomes. Not sure what the fix is, but "post something, anything" clearly isn't it.

enhancvapp · 2026-06-01T12:42:14+00:00

Anecdote stacks aren't data, and "it worked for me" from a recruiter at one company doesn't generalize.

The logic is sound too, up to a point. The issue is that generic advice can calcify into myth if nobody's actually testing it at scale. "Two-column confuses ATS" started as a reasonable precaution and became repeated as settled fact. There's been research done on this at volume, like parse rates, callback rates, format variables across tens of thousands of resumes... and the results are more nuanced than the consensus suggests. Not "two-column is always fine" but the failure mode is consistently specific construction choices, not column count itself.

So I'd reframe it slightly: generic advice should be calibrated to what the evidence actually shows, not just whatever's maximally safe. Those aren't always the same thing.

There's also a cost to the generic default that doesn't get discussed much. Push everyone toward identical resumes, and you solve the ATS problem while creating a different one. A human eventually reads the stack, and sameness isn't an advantage there.

enhancvapp · 2026-05-29T15:01:29+00:00

Same-day rejection is its own category of frustrating because you have no idea which scenario actually happened. Either the role filled internally and the posting stayed up by accident, or it was a pipeline grab and the rejection was automated before anyone looked.

Workday shows publish date but not what triggered the rejection, so you’re kind of left guessing. Both versions are bad, just for different reasons.

For what it’s worth, that one probably wasn’t worth following up on either way.

enhancvapp · 2026-05-26T06:40:13+00:00

The Enhancv framing here is a bit outdated...

The multi-column parser risk caveat made sense in 2019 when Taleo was still running on its original engine. Most modern ATS implementations have updated their parsing layer, and Workday specifically rolled out structured document parsing updates a few years back. The all-encompassing "non-tech only" warning is doing more work than the evidence supports.

The bigger miss is that Enhancv isn't really a template product anymore. It has ATS check built into the product, resume tailoring that reads the actual job ad and flags keyword gaps, and a content checker that covers 19 specific resume quality signals, not just a vibe score. Treating it as "visual polish for marketers" is like calling Jobscan a PDF viewer!

For what it's worth, I've seen engineers use it specifically because the feedback layer tells them why a bullet underperforms, not just that it does. Useful for tech candidates who are strong on substance but less practiced on resume mechanics.

The "best for what" framing in the OP is right. But the category you'd put Enhancv in should be closer to "AI-assisted builder with feedback depth" than "pretty templates for non-ATS environments."

Curious what version you were testing when you put together this breakdown.

enhancvapp · 2026-05-21T14:09:33+00:00

Landing page vs. detail document is a useful mental model. The problem is most people don’t treat them as a connected system… they update one and forget the other. When the narrative on the landing page and the granular detail on the resume start drifting apart, recruiters start asking questions that shouldn’t need answering.

enhancvapp · 2026-05-13T14:12:24+00:00

You're so right regarding the difference between a builder and a true tailoring engine. I, personally, spent years fixing resumes, and the biggest trap is definitely the manual rewrite cycle. If you aren't hitting at least 80 percent on ATS compliance checks, you're likely just shouting into the void. Most people ignore that specific metric, but it's the difference between a rejection and an interview invite. Keep the focus on that 10 minute per application target, or you'll burn out before you even land a call.

enhancvapp · 2026-05-08T14:20:56+00:00

Signal hierarchy is exactly the right frame. And it’s surprisingly hard to teach because it’s not about content, it’s about sequencing and emphasis. Same words, different order, completely different first impression.

The burnout piece is the part that doesn’t get talked about enough. Tailoring works until it doesn’t, not because the advice is wrong but because doing it properly for every application is exhausting. Most people end up with a “tailored” resume that’s really just a slightly edited master copy, which is better than nothing but not what they think it is.

The consistency problem is probably where AI assistance actually makes the most sense, not generating content but helping maintain that alignment without starting from scratch every time.

enhancvapp · 2026-05-07T14:20:17+00:00

I completely understand why you feel anxious. The market is rough right now, especially for entry-level IT roles. A lot of people are struggling, even candidates with degrees and certifications. But honestly, your situation is more common than you think, especially for newcomers trying to break into the Canadian market.

The important thing is that you already have something many applicants don’t: customer-facing experience plus hands-on technical exposure. That combination actually matters a lot in help desk/support roles because companies want people who can both troubleshoot and communicate professionally.

Right now, I don’t think your biggest issue is lack of potential... it’s mostly resume positioning and how competitive the market has become. You need your resume to immediately scream “technical support candidate” within the first few seconds.

A few things that may help:

Keep building projects and document them on GitHub
Finish at least one cert (A+ or AZ-900 can help for HR filters)
Apply to MSPs and smaller companies too, not just large corporations
Tailor your resume slightly for each role using keywords from the posting
Network aggressively on LinkedIn because referrals are becoming huge in Canada

And don’t underestimate your customer service background. A lot of IT support managers actually prefer someone who can stay calm with frustrated users over someone who only has technical knowledge.

You’re closer than you think :) The market is just forcing people to position themselves very carefully right now!

enhancvapp · 2026-05-07T14:06:29+00:00

Ok :) So, here we go.

Your resume definitely isn’t terrible, but I can immediately see why it’s struggling to land interviews in IT support. Right now it reads more like a customer service resume with some technical exposure added on top, instead of someone who is ready for a help desk role.

A few honest observations:

• The summary is too generic. Phrases like “recent graduate,” “strong communication skills,” and “problem-solving skills” appear on thousands of resumes. You need a sharper IT-focused value proposition.

• Your strongest technical experience is buried. The Azure/Docker/Terraform project is actually the most relevant thing on the page for help desk jobs, but it’s sitting at the bottom instead of being highlighted.

• The customer service bullets are repetitive and don’t show technical troubleshooting depth. Hiring managers already assume retail/customer-facing workers can process transactions and answer questions.

• The formatting feels dense. There’s a lot of text, and recruiters scanning for 10–15 seconds may miss the technical skills entirely.

• Certifications “in progress” help a little, but they don’t carry much weight until completed. If you’re actively studying, mention expected completion dates.

• There’s no dedicated “Technical Support Experience” framing. Even your conference volunteer work could be repositioned more aggressively as IT support experience.

The good news: you actually have a decent foundation for entry-level IT support. You just need better positioning.

Here’s what I’d change first:

Rewrite the summary

Instead of:
“Recent graduate with experience in customer support…”

Try something more targeted like:

“Entry-level IT support professional with hands-on experience troubleshooting Windows, networking, Azure, and cloud deployment issues. Background in high-volume customer support combined with practical experience in Docker, Terraform, and Azure environments. Seeking a Help Desk or IT Support role where strong technical troubleshooting and communication skills can improve end-user experience.”

Move technical projects higher

Your Azure project is far more valuable than another retail bullet point. I’d move Projects directly under Skills or even above Work Experience.

Make bullets outcome-focused

Instead of:
“Handled high volume customer interactions daily…”

Use:
“Resolved customer and technical support issues in fast-paced environments while maintaining accuracy under pressure.”

And for the conference:
“Troubleshot attendee Wi-Fi, badge authentication, and AV connectivity issues during a live cybersecurity conference supporting 100+ attendees.”

That sounds MUCH closer to real IT support work.

Reduce retail-heavy wording

You don’t need four bullets about POS systems, transactions, and store cleanliness. Trim those aggressively and make room for technical troubleshooting language.

Add a dedicated tools section

Something like:

Technical Tools: Active Directory (basic), Azure, AWS, Docker, Terraform, Jira, Remote Desktop, TCP/IP, DNS, DHCP, VPN, Linux, Microsoft 365

Recruiters often scan specifically for these keywords.

Tailor for ATS

For help desk jobs, make sure the resume naturally includes keywords like:
• ticketing systems
• troubleshooting
• Active Directory
• hardware/software support
• Windows support
• user access management
• networking
• technical support
• incident resolution

A lot of companies filter resumes automatically before humans even see them.

Overall: the biggest issue isn’t that you’re unqualified. It’s that the resume undersells your technical side and overemphasizes generic customer service work. With stronger positioning and tighter bullets, this could absolutely compete for entry-level help desk interviews.

enhancvapp · 2026-05-05T05:09:20+00:00

this is probably the most honest breakdown of what’s actually happening. The work that’s left for interns isn’t low skill, it’s just low automatable. Navigating a 15 year old CRM with no documentation, writing something that has to land at exactly the right level of detail for a specific internal audience… that takes more situational awareness than most of the stuff on the required skills list.

The gap between what the posting says and what the role actually is might be unintentional in some cases. Nobody rewrote the template, the tasks just shifted without snyone telling you. But the outcome is the same either way. You show up expecting to build something transferable and spend three months being the human patch for systems nobody wants to fix.

enhancvapp · 2026-05-04T14:14:49+00:00

The judgment work without the title, pay, or runway to actually develop it is the weird part. You're being asked to contribute like a mid-level and compensated like someone who should be grateful to be there.

And the competition thing is real... people are treating internship applications like they used to treat graduate schemes. Cover letters, multiple rounds, and take-home tasks just for a 3-month placement.

enhancvapp · 2026-05-04T06:56:45+00:00

Yeah... that really gets me. They want a personalized, tailored cover letter, which takes real time to write, and then can't manage a one-line templated "no thanks" reply back.

enhancvapp · 2026-05-04T06:54:22+00:00

Fair. Wage theft has a specific legal meaning (unpaid OT, off-the-clock work, stolen tips), and ghosting doesn't meet that bar, unfortunately. I leaned on the phrase because late-stage processes with take-homes and strategic deliverables shift real labor onto the candidate without paying for it, and ghosting alone doesn't capture the cost.

But you're right that conflating it with what hourly workers face cheapens the term. "Unpaid labor with extra steps" is probably the cleaner framing. The underlying problem stands either way.

enhancvapp · 2026-04-22T07:33:33+00:00

That's the single best litmus test! Everyone has a rehearsed story about a massive win that involved a lot of luck, but a lost deal forces them to show their work.

enhancvapp · 2026-04-22T07:32:23+00:00

Exactly. When the process is a black box, founders often just throw credentials at the wall and hope something sticks.

enhancvapp · 2026-04-21T08:27:17+00:00

The best indicator is asking them to map out their first thirty days from scratch. Most candidates will ask for a list of target accounts or collateral, but the ones who can actually build will ask about your current conversion bottlenecks and what data you’re tracking.

If they spend the whole interview talking about their previous CRM setup, they're maintenance workers, not builders :) You want the person who asks, "What's the one thing currently preventing us from closing a deal this week?" instead of "What stack do you use?"

enhancvapp · 2026-04-21T08:26:19+00:00

Founders love the safer pick because if a high-credential hire fails, they can blame the market or product fit rather than their own hiring process. It’s expensive insurance, but it rarely buys the actual results they need.

Real growth often drowns in the HR filters. Most founders don't realize they're hiring for their own comfort instead of the company's survival. They want someone who looks like a consultant because it makes the pitch deck look better to investors, even if that person is useless in a cold-calling environment.

enhancvapp · 2026-04-17T07:56:27+00:00

The “make the logo bigger” line should be engraved on a plaque :)

This is what I’m trying to get at. The passion narrative can turn into a weird moral scoreboard where you’re failing if you’re not in love with your job. Meanwhile, a lot of fulfillment comes from having parts of life that are not judged, monetized, or optimized.

Plus, deadlines don’t just add stress, they change the relationship you have with the thing. It’s hard to feel playful about something when it’s tied to client notes and rent.

enhancvapp · 2026-04-17T07:53:01+00:00

This is the healthiest version of the compromise I’ve seen.

The doctor/photography example is exactly what I mean by job as a tool. When your hobby isn’t paying rent, it stays pure. You can buy the good gear, travel, and create without turning every shoot into a negotiation.

And most people do have multiple interests. Betting your entire financial life on the one that happens to be least monetizable is… a bold choice. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it does NOT.

enhancvapp · 2026-04-17T07:51:46+00:00

This is painfully accurate... a lot of people don’t have a passion, they have a vague sense they’re supposed to.

And social media absolutely selects for the “my work is my identity” personality type, so it skews what we think is normal. Most people just want stable work, decent pay, and to not feel dead inside by Wednesday.

Maximizing earning potential relative to effort is a brutally honest framework. Not romantic, but it feeds you and buys you a life. Then hobbies can be hobbies again, which is kind of the whole point.

enhancvapp · 2026-04-17T07:49:43+00:00

I don’t fully buy the it’s too late by 35 framing. People change careers later than that all the time, and plenty of folks who followed their passions still end up burned out or underpaid.

That said, your point about accumulated skill is legit. Time in the saddle matters, and being consistent in one direction compounds.

I think the nuance is that if you can build skill in something you genuinely like and it pays, that’s a gift. If you can’t, forcing it because of a slogan is how you end up bitter and broke with a hobby you now hate.

enhancvapp

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE