According to this article, the 10 words that ruin one's resume are:
-"References available by request" (Ok, this one I understand.)
-"Responsible for _"
-"Experience working in _"
-"Detail-orientated" (I'm torn between this one. It's pretty sterile without some context.)
Instead of salary negotiable, what would the employer want to applicant to write? "Will accept minimum wage?" The goddamn employer is offering the job, so it's him/her who's making the salary offer - and the applicant decides if he/she will take it or not.
Why is the term "responsible" so wrong, that it needs to be replaced with stronger verbs? Why do we need euphemistic semantics in order to impress somebody. And why the hell does the employer need that sort of language from the applicants - when in fact, the employer should discern between fact and flowered up descriptions?
The author claims that experience is something that happens to you, not something you achieve. Well, shit. A guy working for x number of years in z business doesn't acquire experience, that just simply happens. He's not actually getting up in the morning doing the work, that just happens to him. You are dead wrong, sir, dead wrong about this one.
Apparently, writing "hardworking", "team player," and "objective" is telling, not showing. Guess those lines about experience or lack of it, add nothing to the eyes of the employer. They should be replaced probably with words which have a more medieval feel to it. Like... "I'm a man of TOIL. I CONFORM to management. And I'm so detached from my personal life, that I'm like a ROBOT SERF in the field - I mean, office or at the work-bench."
According to the author of the article, monkeys and dogs possess "problem-solving skills" too. Alright, but many job descriptions use that expression. So why is it a no-no for the applicant to use it as well? That goes for the word "proactive". It's part of so many job descriptions. It's obvious hypocrisy.
Unemployment is not a natural phenomenon, it's a policy of the establishment. The corporate powers and their fellow puppets in government in charge of policy-making, don't want to have unemployment close to 0% - they don't want all those who are able and willing to work, working, because that makes wages go up. Because that means shrinking poverty and consolidating the middle class. That means more people have access to resources, education, and awareness. And they can't exert their arsenal of dividing society, in order to maintain their rule as it is - legal theft. If all people would have a decent living, you couldn't divide them with bullshit notions like: race, ethnicity, religion, social status, ideology etc.
The powers that be want unemployment to ALWAYS be a problem, because that ensures the existence of a destitute class, that puts downward pressure on wages, and the rich keep getting richer, while everyone gets a little bit poorer, if not a lot more (depending if your government near you is practicing austerity).
In my honest opinion, that article is pure bullshit, and as such, the person who wrote is full of crap. Because so long as there is free labor (unemployment) and unused resources, that means the government is either taxing too much or spending too little.