I wouldn't go as far as calling him names but I do agree with the sentiment. In the corporate world its weird if you leave more than one job in a row before the 18 month mark, managers will start asking if the person is worth training and investing in. With more well defined jobs the day you get hired your essentially a net loss to the company costing in benefits, training , the recruitment process, etc etc. You start chipping away at that and in the end you are usually a huge gain in favor of the company - if you leave early you mess with the break even point.
Yeah, I totally get where you're coming from. I'd say I'm young and figuring out what I want. After trying lots of things and learning tons, I've got a better idea of what I want. I'd like to believe that gives me advantage over other folks who took jobs as a matter of course. Mine is a choice, not a default.
that may be true but now you're acknowledging that you are likely a bad hire because you're still figuring out what you want to do and are therefore a high flight risk.
Figure out what you want to do on your own dime, prove it, and then you'll be marketable.
Additionally, he's going from a booming industry to a hand-to-mouth industry where the top producers at a firm are often making four figure salaries.
What's more, the design industry runs on freelancing. Consequently, direct-to-fulltime positions rarely open up for non-management positions, since most design firms have a cadre of long term contractors already waiting to make the jump. My wife was laid off from a design firm, and had 2 interviews in a year for full time positions. The rest of the time, she contracted. I had 3 interviews last week, and 2 this week and 3 more next week, with several companies in the wings.
At the same time, since it's a freelance industry, there are always people trying to farm out contract opportunities, which suggests that the author isn't interested in finding paying work, just in finding a paycheck.
Finally, even more than in software, you are your portfolio. It's really almost anyone cares about. If the author can't find >any< work, he should look there first.
Finally, I call bullshit on 'any good employee will leave'. It's a very design culture thing to think that professional relationships are inherently competitive rather than cooperative in nature.
Excellent analysis. I wouldn't have a problem finding freelance work, but as you noticed, that's not what I want. Naturally, I am freelancing to keep the lights on, but I've been down that road and it's tiresome.
The author of the book I quote is trying to elucidate the point that you should hire people who are better than you. Don't be afraid that they might leave. He drives that point home with the rule that anyone good will leave, so go ahead and hire 'em anyway.
That's the design industry - it has nothing to do with the fact that you were working at start ups before. A designer who was working at design firms would be in exactly your shoes.
This is something that I encounter frequently.
Friends from high school I have on Facebook who are still in college/grad school, don't work, but spend their vacations in exotic places doing scuba diving.
Or acquaintances who are working on their stealth mode startup and complain about how hard it is, but then go spend 1 week snowboarding in Tahoe because they feel like it.
How does that work? Do those people have giant savings accounts, and am I just dumb with my money? Or do they do freelance work on the side?
I have decent savings etc., but having followed the path of college -> grad school (where I worked as a research assistant) -> startup, I have never been to Asia/South America because I either have the time but not the money, or the money but not the time. My getaway has been driving to Santa Cruz for the Sunday once every few weeks.
I feel like I'm missing out on something here- and I'm not ashamed to say that I'm a bit jealous of those people and that I wish I could do the same. Coding on a Thailand beach between a scuba diving session and an afternoon of surfing sounds pretty nice.
Don't be jealous. Soon you will be 45 with no debt, able to retire but working because you enjoy it and able to do anything you want any time you want without any real worry. Many of those friends will be 45, in debt to their eyes, or bankrupted at least once, and talking about lucky you are to be able to just up and go on a 10 day fishing trip to Alaska simply because you wanted to.
They won't, however, understand that they could have had exactly the same life if they had chosen to delay the 'fun' just a few years. Guess how I know ;)
Statements like these are meant to justify inequalities. Keep hoping you will have a better life later while I will have a great life now and an even better life later.
On the other hand, soon you will be 45 with no debt, but not many interesting life experiences. You realized you spent all your time working and being a responsible drone, but then you look at your poor bankrupt friend who did so many cool things the last 20 years and feel like maybe your course wasn't the best course. Now you are getting old, have a family to worry about, and are not really able to do the back packer thing anymore.
Different strokes for different folks. Time is also a limited resource; be careful not to waste your youth on just work.
I cannot agree with you here. Although I do not claim to be smart now, I am definitely farther along than when I was younger. And I hope to be working only because I enjoy it in about 9 more years, happy to be also looking forward to quite a bit of travel, as well as on-going self learning I already do...
I worked hard for the first 20 years, now I work part time, and as I said already, I hope to have it be optional soon. I also feel far more appreciative of life in general now, whereas I took much for granted while younger. Hopefully, that will continue to increase...
But now having typed this, I realize that we are all different, and the path we took is the path we had to take to be who we are...
> But now having typed this, I realize that we are all different, and the path we took is the path we had to take to be who we are...
And that is the real wisdom that age provides :)
I could criticize the family guy for working hard, living in suburbia, and forgoing exciting travel/work opportunities to have a quite acceptable but normal life. But, hey, it works for him, and he has many things that I don't (and vice versa).
It's always been a matter of priorities. Travel has always been high on my list. A nice apartment, expensive things and a normal lifestyle have been at the bottom. Add freelance and startups into the mix and much of career life has looked like a travel album.
Travel is one of those things you can do for free if you really, really want to. Hitch hiking doesn't cost anything, so you can travel all over North and South America if you've got patience, thick skin and a willingness to take risks. I've a buddy of mine who did just that. Started in San Antonio and is now in Argentina, if I recall. He's not poor, so he could do things like hire a boat to get around the Darien Gap rather than stick around and try to work to get enough money for it.
But even if you're poor, you can always find ways to make just enough to scrape by. I met guys while I was traveling that didn't have a dime but yet still managed to get around and even have fun.
However, author's statement that they made a decision to spend their money travel, rather than housing and goods, doesn't suggest that that is what they are doing.
Poor is not being able to scrape up enough money for a plane ticket and hostel accomodations, not 'choosing to take a break from this pesky job search business'.
> Poor is not being able to scrape up enough money for a plane ticket and hostel accomodations
Why? Even a poor person in the US should be able to scrape up enough for at least that, if nothing more. I took a two month trip to Colombia on $15 a day, about $1500 after the plane ticket. One can easily save up that kind of money in two months with even a crappy job, if you're serious about it.
I don't think it's really possible to be "seriously" poor in the US. The amount of ambient wealth floating around here is tremendous compared to other countries. I'd much rather be destitute here than in, say, Rwanda.
You didn't read that article too closely, did you? A lot of the people living there prefer it to a more normal lifestyle. I've seen places in Colombia that were even worse than the Jungle. These people have trees and tents and building materials. If they want a roof, they can fashion one. The scarcity I've seen in Colombia, stuff other people would throw away here is hoarded and parceled out by hustling thugs.
I know exactly how awful things can be in the States. I've been all over and met all sorts. I'd take any lifestyle here over destitution anywhere else. Trust me, there are far worse places to be than the Jungle.
You'd be amazed how many people have trust funds or a rich uncle somewhere.
All it takes is for you not to buy this one car today at age 30 and the money will compound into a life of exotic beach vacations for all your grandchildren and beyond.
Edit: And for the people who don't have a trust fund, like me, you can always take a job with remote teams, which is what I just did.
I started out like you: college -> grad school, after I got my PhD I was already 30+ with no savings. Then I did a post doc in Switzerland...then I took a job in China. Now I've been to most of Europe and much of Asia (not S. America though, too far). Now travelling doesn't bring me much excitement, but I do enjoy a nice luxury bungalow treatment every once in a while.
I've even met some of the guys coding on beaches in Thailand or Bali, they are quite laid back and zen. I'm not sure I could do it though, I'm still very much an American (meaning, puritan/work ethic roots), and would feel uncomfortable being out of the office for too long.
The trick with SEA is that if you stay long enough, the cost of flying is amortized by the cost of living. That's how, as a student, I managed to spend two summers in Vietnam, coding remotely for a professor for 15$/h, 20h a week. It didn't cost me anything to go there for 4 months.
Also depending on when you fly, and with some little research, you can get fairly cheap tickets.
If you know you will be in a precarious or idle situation for X weeks, you can balance the cost of staying here (US/Canada) for those X weeks (food, accommodation and some activities) vs flying there and saving a ton on food/accommodation/activities.
It seems odd but it's completely true.
It also helps that I don't have a mortgage to pay.
Thailand is quite cheap actually. I holiday in Thailand to save money, not to spend it. This is quite true in Europe: half of Norway migrates to Thailand in the winter, its cheaper for them than staying in Norway! But also true for where I live in China. Just like Australians will holiday in Bali.
I've experienced this sort of thing first hand many years ago. After ten years running my own tech startup I decided to go get an engineering job and "depressurize". I could not land one. I did not understand what was going on until an HR person clued me in. The message was that with the Internet you can't escape your past. You can't dumb down a resume for the practical purpose of getting a job. If you've been an entrepreneur with any degree of success (or even failures) you are one search away from someone knowing as much about you as they care to.
You typically run into two scenarios. The first is a manager --your would-be boss-- who, upon seeing what you've done feels threatened. A CTO might not feel good about hiring an ex-CTO as a rank-and-file engineer. The second scenario is that of a business owner who, upon learning about your entrepreneurial experience is concerned about hiring someone who might come in, learn the business and potentially become a competitor.
Yes, there's also the concern about someone pulling anchor early to go off on their own in an unrelated direction. It costs a lot of money to bring someone onboard.
My conclusion at the time was that in this fashion entrepreneurship can be a curse. It can be nearly impossible to land a "regular" job because of it. In my case, after much frustration I decided that my only path was to run my own show again and off I went.
On the other hand, if all it takes for the employer to be threatened is hiring one bright driven individual, than you don't want to work for such a business anyway.
If you limit yourself to teams with a product that has "moat", your entrepreneurial streak won't threaten them. (Although the churn concern remains, so a lot of talk is needed to see how visions and plans for the future collide.)
You're a designer. Designers solve problems by trade. Find a problem to solve. Someone will hire you to solve it for them. If you're unable to deliver, they'll fire you, but that's another story . . .
Brooks, you sound like you were made for sales. Maybe try catering your resume towards those positions?
Anyway, I'm an unfulfilled critic, so I don't know if your reading this, but here are the things that made my head spin about your post.
1) You editorialize a third party synopsis of your life into a headline without any indication that you're making a parody or something. "One accidental entrepreneur is finding it hard to" (This reminds me of someone during a manic episode)
2) You build your story out of clichés, but they seem incompatible with each other. (described as both "accidental entrepreneur" and "serial entrepreneur")
3) Totally ignore all important or interesting details that might indicate something about you or what your experience is. (leaving company i started for all the 'normal' and uncomfortable reasons? What?)
4) Generally weird stuff. Give me a job? If you're an entrepreneur, you'd know you wouldn't hire anyone with that attitude! Jetsetting in poverty?
Anyway, best of luck. I'm sure you'll find somewhere you fit in. You sound like you're made out of enthusiasm, and that rocks. It'd be interesting to know more of the facts of your story- I think sometimes the more specific detail of a thing you can share, the more powerful it can be. (I bet one uncomfortable thing that happened to you would be cooler for me to read about than a two paragraph synopsis of the last few years of your life even!) Also I want to know how much money your parents give you =D
Not intended disrespectfully, but you're too hard on the guy.
I'd describe myself as an "accidental" and "serial" entrepreneur as well. The first bit means that you never expected to work for yourself. As for the "serial" part, if the companies you start aren't complete successes but aren't complete failures, it is easy to spend years trying to bootstrap multiple ideas. After you struggle along for several years regular employment starts looking pretty good (salary! vacation! benefits!), especially as you get older and want to start a family or buy a house or something.
As for the rest, I agree with the parent poster that it is harder to get an institutional job after years of self-employment. Part of the problem is that entrepreneurship is like a black pool -- what people see in it is mostly the reflection of their own prejudices. I suspect this is actually one of unstated reasons there is such an emphasis on getting funding, finding accelerators, etc. and why there is such aversion to the idea of bootstrapping. At the least, people who make their businesses as institutionally respectable as possible and collect salary from investors during the process are rarely berated for taking a vacation before starting a new job! :)
While there are certainly companies that will not give bonus points for having once pursued an entrepreneurial path, I don't think entrepreneurship in and of itself is generally as problematic as it's made out to be here.
Constructive criticism: I think the author's difficulties are probably more about his overall positioning than his history of entrepreneurial pursuits. For better or worse, positioning can mean the difference between getting lots of job offers and getting none.
The first thing I noticed in looking at the author's LinkedIn profile, which is the first result when you Google his name, is that it tells me more about what he's done than what he has actually accomplished. That's not helpful because prospective employers don't just want to know where you've worked, they want to know what you've achieved. If I were the author, I would rewrite my job descriptions to focus on the tangible benefits realized by my contributions. Right now, I can't figure out what value the author has created for his companies/clients/employers because it's simply not described.
Also, certain red flags simply aren't likely to be overlooked. Examples of these red flags include:
1. No full-time roles.
2. A history of job hopping (i.e. most/lots of stints under 18-24 months)
3. Jobs with overlapping dates.
4. Unexplained gaps in employment history.
5. No discernible career "path" (i.e. being all over the place in terms of what you've done).
6. Lots of moving around (geographically).
7. Bizarre job titles.
8. Job title progression that is inconsistent with a traditional development path (i.e. a jump from an entry-level job title to a senior-level job title in less than a year is likely going to be questioned).
9. Public musings in which you paint yourself as financially strained, burnt out, confused, etc.
Obviously, you can not and should not lie about your work history, so when these sorts of red flags exist, there might not be an easy way to deal with them. But I don't get the impression that the author has really looked at his CV and made an effort to argue compellingly that he brings a lot to the table. So blaming his entrepreneurial past for his failure to find a job is, in my opinion, misguided.
Finally, the author can't expect a good outcome if he's not where the jobs he's interested in are. If, say, I was interested in meeting the author for lunch next week to discuss a job opening, I would be unable to do so because he's in Thailand. And I, like most other employers, am not going to wait until "mid-September" for the privilege of interviewing him.
While general spirit of your reply (OP can present himself better) is helpful, I have to rant about the "red flags" you've mentioned. The criticism isn't aimed directly at you, but against recruiters who base their decisions on such factors. You see the red flags 2-8 are nothing more than just heuristics, mental shortcuts which have nothing (or very, very little) to do with competences (and that's what the recruiters should look for, right?).Actually from your list only the point no 9 could be considered as a red flag, in terms of a warning sign, not reason to filter the candidate out.
You're right to a certain theoretical extent. A candidate with a history of job hopping, unexplained gaps in employment history and bizarre job titles could be the most talented person in the world. But how is an employer supposed to know that if the candidate doesn't do a good job of presenting his capabilities and accomplishments?
Candidates have to be realistic: most employers can't thoroughly evaluate every candidate, so certain red flags are going to be used as filters. Have a bunch of red flags? For better or worse, a recruiter or prospective employer is going to assume that where there's smoke, there's fire, probably without even talking to you.
At the end of the day, if you're looking for a job, it's up to you to sell yourself effectively. Far too many people assume that because they're competent, their competence will be evident to others. But hiring managers or recruiters generally don't see more than what you put in front of them.
If you're not strategic about how you position yourself and/or you're too lazy to put together a convincing "pitch", prospective employers will have no way of seeing the real you. And even if the supply of obviously good technical candidates is often limited today, the risks of a bad hire are generally too high to warrant taking a chance on someone who was incapable of presenting a compelling CV or "story" in the first place.
You are absolutely right, in terms of describing the reality. In fact,I used to do exactly the same when I was a rookie recruiter (and there was plenty of candidates on the market btw). However when the job market changed I had to change my approach to hiring. And that's why I'm ranting about this topic. Becuase many recruiters make rookie mistakes and at the same time complain about lack of talent on the market.
Coming to work on time and staying with a company for at least 2 years is a competence in itself. Job hopping is absolutely justified for use as discriminatory criteria.
Yes many of us have had a 6mo to 1 year job. One such job on a resume won't kill it. Neither will 2. But if you have a 5-7 year work history of 1 year jobs, that's not so impressive.
51 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadFrom my count, he has had 3-4 jobs in 3 years. Why would you want to hire someone who can't even stick with his own company?
So, this isn't a parable to apply to entrepreneurs in general. It only applies to quitters.
Figure out what you want to do on your own dime, prove it, and then you'll be marketable.
What's more, the design industry runs on freelancing. Consequently, direct-to-fulltime positions rarely open up for non-management positions, since most design firms have a cadre of long term contractors already waiting to make the jump. My wife was laid off from a design firm, and had 2 interviews in a year for full time positions. The rest of the time, she contracted. I had 3 interviews last week, and 2 this week and 3 more next week, with several companies in the wings.
At the same time, since it's a freelance industry, there are always people trying to farm out contract opportunities, which suggests that the author isn't interested in finding paying work, just in finding a paycheck.
Finally, even more than in software, you are your portfolio. It's really almost anyone cares about. If the author can't find >any< work, he should look there first.
Finally, I call bullshit on 'any good employee will leave'. It's a very design culture thing to think that professional relationships are inherently competitive rather than cooperative in nature.
The author of the book I quote is trying to elucidate the point that you should hire people who are better than you. Don't be afraid that they might leave. He drives that point home with the rule that anyone good will leave, so go ahead and hire 'em anyway.
Not sure what type of poverty he's talking about, but I certainly cant afford to fly off to Thailand at the moment...
How does that work? Do those people have giant savings accounts, and am I just dumb with my money? Or do they do freelance work on the side?
I have decent savings etc., but having followed the path of college -> grad school (where I worked as a research assistant) -> startup, I have never been to Asia/South America because I either have the time but not the money, or the money but not the time. My getaway has been driving to Santa Cruz for the Sunday once every few weeks.
I feel like I'm missing out on something here- and I'm not ashamed to say that I'm a bit jealous of those people and that I wish I could do the same. Coding on a Thailand beach between a scuba diving session and an afternoon of surfing sounds pretty nice.
They won't, however, understand that they could have had exactly the same life if they had chosen to delay the 'fun' just a few years. Guess how I know ;)
Different strokes for different folks. Time is also a limited resource; be careful not to waste your youth on just work.
I worked hard for the first 20 years, now I work part time, and as I said already, I hope to have it be optional soon. I also feel far more appreciative of life in general now, whereas I took much for granted while younger. Hopefully, that will continue to increase...
But now having typed this, I realize that we are all different, and the path we took is the path we had to take to be who we are...
Hmmm... Never mind?
And that is the real wisdom that age provides :)
I could criticize the family guy for working hard, living in suburbia, and forgoing exciting travel/work opportunities to have a quite acceptable but normal life. But, hey, it works for him, and he has many things that I don't (and vice versa).
But even if you're poor, you can always find ways to make just enough to scrape by. I met guys while I was traveling that didn't have a dime but yet still managed to get around and even have fun.
However, author's statement that they made a decision to spend their money travel, rather than housing and goods, doesn't suggest that that is what they are doing.
Poor is not being able to scrape up enough money for a plane ticket and hostel accomodations, not 'choosing to take a break from this pesky job search business'.
Why? Even a poor person in the US should be able to scrape up enough for at least that, if nothing more. I took a two month trip to Colombia on $15 a day, about $1500 after the plane ticket. One can easily save up that kind of money in two months with even a crappy job, if you're serious about it.
I don't think it's really possible to be "seriously" poor in the US. The amount of ambient wealth floating around here is tremendous compared to other countries. I'd much rather be destitute here than in, say, Rwanda.
You have no idea the misery that surrounds you. Pray that you are never living paycheck to paycheck.
I know exactly how awful things can be in the States. I've been all over and met all sorts. I'd take any lifestyle here over destitution anywhere else. Trust me, there are far worse places to be than the Jungle.
All it takes is for you not to buy this one car today at age 30 and the money will compound into a life of exotic beach vacations for all your grandchildren and beyond.
Edit: And for the people who don't have a trust fund, like me, you can always take a job with remote teams, which is what I just did.
I've even met some of the guys coding on beaches in Thailand or Bali, they are quite laid back and zen. I'm not sure I could do it though, I'm still very much an American (meaning, puritan/work ethic roots), and would feel uncomfortable being out of the office for too long.
Also depending on when you fly, and with some little research, you can get fairly cheap tickets.
If you know you will be in a precarious or idle situation for X weeks, you can balance the cost of staying here (US/Canada) for those X weeks (food, accommodation and some activities) vs flying there and saving a ton on food/accommodation/activities.
It seems odd but it's completely true.
It also helps that I don't have a mortgage to pay.
You typically run into two scenarios. The first is a manager --your would-be boss-- who, upon seeing what you've done feels threatened. A CTO might not feel good about hiring an ex-CTO as a rank-and-file engineer. The second scenario is that of a business owner who, upon learning about your entrepreneurial experience is concerned about hiring someone who might come in, learn the business and potentially become a competitor.
Yes, there's also the concern about someone pulling anchor early to go off on their own in an unrelated direction. It costs a lot of money to bring someone onboard.
My conclusion at the time was that in this fashion entrepreneurship can be a curse. It can be nearly impossible to land a "regular" job because of it. In my case, after much frustration I decided that my only path was to run my own show again and off I went.
If you limit yourself to teams with a product that has "moat", your entrepreneurial streak won't threaten them. (Although the churn concern remains, so a lot of talk is needed to see how visions and plans for the future collide.)
Brooks, you sound like you were made for sales. Maybe try catering your resume towards those positions?
Anyway, I'm an unfulfilled critic, so I don't know if your reading this, but here are the things that made my head spin about your post.
1) You editorialize a third party synopsis of your life into a headline without any indication that you're making a parody or something. "One accidental entrepreneur is finding it hard to" (This reminds me of someone during a manic episode)
2) You build your story out of clichés, but they seem incompatible with each other. (described as both "accidental entrepreneur" and "serial entrepreneur")
3) Totally ignore all important or interesting details that might indicate something about you or what your experience is. (leaving company i started for all the 'normal' and uncomfortable reasons? What?)
4) Generally weird stuff. Give me a job? If you're an entrepreneur, you'd know you wouldn't hire anyone with that attitude! Jetsetting in poverty?
Anyway, best of luck. I'm sure you'll find somewhere you fit in. You sound like you're made out of enthusiasm, and that rocks. It'd be interesting to know more of the facts of your story- I think sometimes the more specific detail of a thing you can share, the more powerful it can be. (I bet one uncomfortable thing that happened to you would be cooler for me to read about than a two paragraph synopsis of the last few years of your life even!) Also I want to know how much money your parents give you =D
I'd describe myself as an "accidental" and "serial" entrepreneur as well. The first bit means that you never expected to work for yourself. As for the "serial" part, if the companies you start aren't complete successes but aren't complete failures, it is easy to spend years trying to bootstrap multiple ideas. After you struggle along for several years regular employment starts looking pretty good (salary! vacation! benefits!), especially as you get older and want to start a family or buy a house or something.
As for the rest, I agree with the parent poster that it is harder to get an institutional job after years of self-employment. Part of the problem is that entrepreneurship is like a black pool -- what people see in it is mostly the reflection of their own prejudices. I suspect this is actually one of unstated reasons there is such an emphasis on getting funding, finding accelerators, etc. and why there is such aversion to the idea of bootstrapping. At the least, people who make their businesses as institutionally respectable as possible and collect salary from investors during the process are rarely berated for taking a vacation before starting a new job! :)
Constructive criticism: I think the author's difficulties are probably more about his overall positioning than his history of entrepreneurial pursuits. For better or worse, positioning can mean the difference between getting lots of job offers and getting none.
The first thing I noticed in looking at the author's LinkedIn profile, which is the first result when you Google his name, is that it tells me more about what he's done than what he has actually accomplished. That's not helpful because prospective employers don't just want to know where you've worked, they want to know what you've achieved. If I were the author, I would rewrite my job descriptions to focus on the tangible benefits realized by my contributions. Right now, I can't figure out what value the author has created for his companies/clients/employers because it's simply not described.
Also, certain red flags simply aren't likely to be overlooked. Examples of these red flags include:
1. No full-time roles.
2. A history of job hopping (i.e. most/lots of stints under 18-24 months)
3. Jobs with overlapping dates.
4. Unexplained gaps in employment history.
5. No discernible career "path" (i.e. being all over the place in terms of what you've done).
6. Lots of moving around (geographically).
7. Bizarre job titles.
8. Job title progression that is inconsistent with a traditional development path (i.e. a jump from an entry-level job title to a senior-level job title in less than a year is likely going to be questioned).
9. Public musings in which you paint yourself as financially strained, burnt out, confused, etc.
Obviously, you can not and should not lie about your work history, so when these sorts of red flags exist, there might not be an easy way to deal with them. But I don't get the impression that the author has really looked at his CV and made an effort to argue compellingly that he brings a lot to the table. So blaming his entrepreneurial past for his failure to find a job is, in my opinion, misguided.
Finally, the author can't expect a good outcome if he's not where the jobs he's interested in are. If, say, I was interested in meeting the author for lunch next week to discuss a job opening, I would be unable to do so because he's in Thailand. And I, like most other employers, am not going to wait until "mid-September" for the privilege of interviewing him.
Candidates have to be realistic: most employers can't thoroughly evaluate every candidate, so certain red flags are going to be used as filters. Have a bunch of red flags? For better or worse, a recruiter or prospective employer is going to assume that where there's smoke, there's fire, probably without even talking to you.
At the end of the day, if you're looking for a job, it's up to you to sell yourself effectively. Far too many people assume that because they're competent, their competence will be evident to others. But hiring managers or recruiters generally don't see more than what you put in front of them.
If you're not strategic about how you position yourself and/or you're too lazy to put together a convincing "pitch", prospective employers will have no way of seeing the real you. And even if the supply of obviously good technical candidates is often limited today, the risks of a bad hire are generally too high to warrant taking a chance on someone who was incapable of presenting a compelling CV or "story" in the first place.
Coming to work on time and staying with a company for at least 2 years is a competence in itself. Job hopping is absolutely justified for use as discriminatory criteria.
Yes many of us have had a 6mo to 1 year job. One such job on a resume won't kill it. Neither will 2. But if you have a 5-7 year work history of 1 year jobs, that's not so impressive.