• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

What does a good job look like to you?

The bad news. I'm inclined to think that more often than not the term "overqualified" is often used as "a veil" to disguise real intent as to why a prospective employer doesn't want to hire someone.

It "disarms" an applicant in real time, complimenting them when the intent is anything but that. But then the good news is that you probably don't want to work for such an employer in the first place.

I've run into any number of insurance professionals who were told such a thing, where in most cases it simply signaled that the employer doesn't want to pay you what you're worth in the present market.
 
A good job, for me, could be many different things....there are a number of variables that combine in different ways.

A job I am actually good at, could be a good job.

A job that brings me satisfaction and/or that I enjoy doing, could be a good job.

A job where I work in an ideal sensory environment could be a good job.

A job that pays me enough to meet my needs with a little bit left over to save or buy things I want but don't need could be a good job.

A job where I get to move around a lot could be a good job.
 
Judge said:
The bad news. I'm inclined to think that more often than not the term "overqualified" is often used as "a veil" to disguise real intent as to why a prospective employer doesn't want to hire someone.

It "disarms" an applicant in real time, complimenting them when the intent is anything but that. But then the good news is that you probably don't want to work for such an employer in the first place.

I've run into any number of insurance professionals who were told such a thing, where in most cases it simply signaled that the employer doesn't want to pay you what you're worth in the present market.
Click to expand...

It was a minimum wage Shelf stacking job in a Supermarket, baring in mind it was 1998, the minimum wage came in about 5 years ago, over 10 years later, so the "pay" would probably have been about a fiver an hour if that.

So I probably didn't miss much.
 
Last edited:
Mr Allen said:
It was a minimum wage Shelf stacking job in a Supermarket, baring in mind it was 1998, the minimum wage came in about 5 years ago, over 20 years later, so the "pay" would probably have been about a fiver an hour if that.

So I probably didn't miss much.
Click to expand...

You missed my point. The reference about money was only pertinent to insurance.

In your case I doubt it had anything to do with money. They simply threw the term "overqualified" to make you go away with the least amount of resistance. You left confused and perplexed, as would most anyone in that situation.

But to the prospective employer, you left without any further inquiries. Simply throwing the term "overqualified" out there worked to their advantage. Just not yours. My point is that using such a term remains little more than a clever tactic to dismiss any serious consideration of a job applicant. As to why, that's anyone's guess.
 
Last edited:
In response to the OP: Autonomy, security, decent pay. Being self-employed and working in isolation is the ideal situation for me.
 
Judge said:
The bad news. I'm inclined to think that more often than not the term "overqualified" is often used as "a veil" to disguise real intent as to why a prospective employer doesn't want to hire someone.
Click to expand...

I have discovered this first-hand. Once, while placed in a temporary position that could have turned into a permanent one, I actually said: "This job is kinda boring." The guy at the temp agency told me the next day why I was let go: "They said you were overqualified."
 
To me, a good job is a job where I'm not being micromanaged or nit-picked. I don't mind constructive criticism, but nagging is where I draw the line. I enjoy having predictability and monotony balance with moments that require creative problem-solving.
 
A good job is something where it's stable for me, preferably with lots of flexibility and being able to work my own hours and/or remotely, and one where I can make a lot of money to satisfy various desires I have (maintaining where I live, essentials, having time And money for social events and traveling and such).
A good job for me leading me to a hot, stable, date, who appreciates me for me is also part of having a "good job", lol. ;)
 
A machine and myself working it. No phone calls. No dealing with people. Physical activity. Just myself and a machine manufacturing things.

Jobs like that are dying in my country, though.
 
I only have three requirements for a job. One I am able to get, able to perform, and ideally am not miserable doing. Unfortunately it’s near impossible to even find anything that meets those first two, for me. I haven’t even really thought about what kind of job I’d like to have in years because I learned pretty quickly that I don’t have the luxury of being at all choosy. Most jobs require more communication than I can reliably manage, and I really don’t have anything at all going for me in terms of actually getting hired, basically if there are more applicants than positions it’s all but guaranteed someone else will look more promising to the employer (as experience has shown quite well).
 
Andrew206 said:
In your opinion, what does a good job look like to you?
Click to expand...
Anything that I would do for free, if I didn't need the money.
  1. Programming jobs reminded me of "playing with Legos..."
  2. CAD was "fun," too.
  3. I also enjoyed discrete electronics to a lesser extent.
  4. Some light mechanics (usually electromechanics).
 
Last edited:
I'm retired now, for me it was be left alone to do my thing, could see things no one else could see ended up saving the company a lot of money or making more. Education was one way to do this example took chemical engineering in college, we had issues with colour moving on washing machines knew enough about fluid flow through pipes and Reynolds number to put a bit of a theory together to what was going on. Upgraded education with course on paint flow and dispersion. Next job used knowledge to put together full blown quality system built around what I had learned but applied in a way the chemists at the various paint companies would never have thought of. The engineers however different story. that's how you have to think we are not the same as NT's. Our brains are wired differently, use this as your edge. I treated changing companies like climbing a ladder.
 
Last edited:
A quieter environment that is centered around one of my interests and hobbies with a team of cooperative people that get along. I've always wanted to work in a record store but there is no good one's around here and the only that has a lot of stuff I'm really into is too far away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom