| ▲ | warkdarrior an hour ago | ||||||||||||||||
Second unpopular take: This was better for all involved, but it constrained the job market to geographical boundaries. People did not apply to jobs in other states/countries/continents because they did not see the job postings for other states/countries/continents. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | kurttheviking a few seconds ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
More so than now, but one could still find work elsewhere. At least in the US, you would visit a local library and read newspapers to see job listings in other cities. Or, you could rely on "headhunters" who would work to collect available candidates for many companies; they would advertise their services as regional or national agencies. The market looked different but for someone who wanted to find a job somewhere else, there were ways to do it. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Xirdus 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Third unpopular take: this geographical restriction was a good thing. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||