Back in the "old" days (the 1980's and 1990's for you youngsters), the rule-of-thumb guide for how long it would take to find a job was "one month for every $10,000 in salary." In other words, if you made $40,000 a year, it should take you four months to find a job, if you made $100,000 a year, it should take you 10 months to find a job, and so on. I never tracked the stats to see if this was true or not, but I heard it quite often among managers/executives at my various companies.
Recently the Wall Street Journal discussed this issue and it appears my original job hunt rule was close in methodology but off quite a bit on the time frame. The details:
Outplacement consultants First Transitions Inc., in Chicago studied actual lengths of 434 men and women job hunters in 2005. The study showed that candidates spent about one month looking for every $20,000 they earned in annual salary in their former positions.
I've had it both ways. I've had job searches take two years and I've found a new gig almost overnight (but these two were because I wasn't looking to move -- they found me -- so I'm not sure they count.) I've seen the same with friends and co-workers. But when I think about it, the $20,000/one month rule seems a bit more like reality than the $10,000/one month rule.
What's your experience say? Is this a good rule-of-thumb?