There is always a first time to get a paid job. There are first times for everything -- including the first breath we take after we are born. But getting a paid position is one of those types of firsts that are part of the ritual of becoming self-supporting.
There are two parts of this -- finding a no-experience-needed first-time position and succeeding in obtaining such.
For many companies, a degree (possibly Associate degree, more likely Bachelor's or above (or the non-USA equivalents)) is considered "paper experience". Some companies presently are starting to trade off paper experience with real-life experience. But real-life experience is rare to have that directly pertain to the skills/experience desired within a company if you are trying to find your first paid position. Sometimes, volunteer work is applicable.
There are places that are considered to be nests for starting paid work. How many people in high positions talk about their first jobs at McDonald's? Or as a bagger in a grocery store? Not many restaurants still wash dishes by hand -- but, once upon a dark moon, that used to be a good first time situation. My first paid position was as a neighborhood lawnmowing person (an early, very limited, entrepreneurship) followed by newspaper deliverer (on foot).
These jobs, associated with companies, have a couple of characteristics. First, there was a lot of turnover -- openings came up fairly frequently and if you could pass some basic requirements (cleanliness, polite demeanor, etc.) you could usually eventually get a job at one (perhaps not your first choice). Second, the pay was minimal -- in the past it was livable, in the present you had better still have other financial support.
But how about the positions that are considered long-term career potential? (This doesn't mean that you cannot have a long-term career at McDonald's.) First, those companies have to HAVE positions open for people with no experience. It might be in the "mailroom" (in electronic times, not as frequent) or janitorial areas -- but unless there is internal mobility that is not a good first step. But there may not be any non-experienced positions for the company. In that case, get your first experience at a different company where you can develop experiences that are relevant for the companies wherein you would prefer to work.
For the second part -- finding and succeeding in obtaining an entry-level position -- there are different gauntlets to be run depending on salary/career/social ranking. At the lowest rankings (I'm not going to list them because the titles/positions are subjective -- let's just define them as low money with low potential advancement), qualifying doesn't apply much but finding, and being allowed to apply, becomes a matter of networking and luck. In the past, it was a matter of walking to each opening that was published in the classified section of the newspaper. Now, it is primarily word-of-mouth and potentially via social job boards. But luck (which I defined, and explored, in a recent blog) plays a large role.
For a middle-rung position (living wage with some potential for advancement or mobility), old-style searches still used the classified section of newspapers but job bureaus (places where you sign up to have your resume available for distribution or job matching) were frequently used. Once again, classifieds rarely apply anymore and social networking has become a much more important areas of discovery. (Job bureaus are still used.)
On the high-rung side (moderately high initial salary with large potential in salary, position, and social ranking), there are still some entry-level positions. But, as I mentioned in a prior blog, there are many companies that try to demand experience for initial, first-position, jobs and many companies that require specific knowledge for these positions -- something that is truly unreasonable.
High-rung positions are found via direct networking or via a symbiosis of recruiters and social networking. A recruiter for such positions might receive, or need to examine, 500 potential resumes in a day. They cannot spend much more than a couple of hours looking at them as they have other duties they need to do each day. 500 resumes in 150 minutes means there is an average of 18 seconds to be spent, ON AVERAGE, per resume. I am a moderately fast reader (I can read faster but with less retention/comprehension) at about 45 words in 18 seconds. This means that, on average, the recruiter will read the first four sentences of your resume. IF something in those first four sentences (or 18 seconds of scattered keywords that catch their eye during scanning) attracts their attention then you may win more time for examination.
Eighteen seconds is not much time. The conclusion is to make those words count and focus on the beginning of the resume. So, if you don't have much/any experience to relate, how do you make those 45 words count in your favor? Job-relevant ACTION concluded with job-relevant RESULT. Or, job posting KEYWORD matched within relevant/reliable/consistent context.
Since you don't have (by definition within this blog) the specific experience that you hope to gain as you do the job, your action/results pairs will be associated with qualities that indicate you can succeed in gaining the knowledge needed to do the job well. Such might be aspects of focus, inventiveness, communication capabilities, organization, endurance, leadership, or other character-related aspect that can be applied to perform well in the position. They may also be associated with volunteer skill-related aspects such as pamphleting, programming, selling cookies at a table, or such.
A primary goal is to reduce, or eliminate, the factor of luck. This requires active networking and focus (both in application and tailoring per position). May the force be with you.
