Judging a book by its cover...

       I have applied for hundreds of positions in the past six months, occasionally to the same place multiple times.  I have learned which places I am going to be applying to online are going to be easy or hard to apply to based on their online job applications. My worst examples of trying of job application websites currently are Pet Co and Macys.
         Pet Co was simple enough in the beginning but when one had to enter one's location for past employment experience and for it would not search it for you no matter how many different terms you tried.  I had to look through thousands of locations just to find the state I live in, it was ridiculous.  I decided to forget and applied to their competitor PetsMart instead.
        My only issue with the Macy's online job application is that it has a tendency every time you to try to do that federal tax survey to say you have an error and to try again in thirty minutes. I have tried again when days have passed and still nothing has changed.  This just has me curious for companies if your planning to hire people through online applications shouldn't you make them accessible to the people who want to work there.
       I have had much better experiences at other companies such as Chipotle, McDonalds, and even the local and federal government websites. These websites at the very least are user friendly and one does not have to jump through more hoops just to apply for the position.  So, this has me wondering if any others have faced issues when trying to apply to places online?  Also, do you like me also tend to judge the company a little bit by how user friendly their job application website is?

Is it unemployment or leprosy...

    I have been pondering while if unemployment is the leprosy to those that are employed in the same way that single people were viewed in sex and the city (not to imply that single people are lepers I think all my single friends are awesome).  I am beginning to wondering if a lack of work is like a disease no one wants to catch. I say this because of the many articles I have read about those being unemployed for more than six months and not getting hired because they have not been working those past six months, even if they have been actively looking for work.
     This is a problem that is further impacted by companies looking for the elusive purple squirrel of a job candidate that may or may not exist. A search that could resist in many interviews and no actually behind hired for the position that is being sought since companies are too nervous in this company to given some people a try with the fear that it won't work out in the end.
       This all seems too much like a catch-22 to me, if you are unemployed you are not hire-able and after a certain point have the plague to some employers.  While, if you are an employer seeking workers their are some really high standards that might not even be met by the unicorn equivalent of job candidates.  This leaves people in a situation where a portion of society is looking for work, and another portion may or may not hire new workers.
    I think part of this puzzle could be solved if unemployed workers could be given a shot by some employers to become part of the workforce, so they did not feel like they were the carton of milk that was expired that no one wants to touch much less drink. I have heard some talk of programs where some companies would subsidize some of the wages for companies so that they could hire those who had been unemployed for a long period of time. I am not sure if this will ever happen or not, but its a good start, and gives confidence to those of us who feel like lepers compared to those who are gainfully employed.  So for those who are unemployed or not, what do you think about this employment conundrum that this country if facing?