Is HR Recruiting a good "retirement job"?

[Bearded Man]

I've been looking into this on and off for the past year. The pay is not great compared to IT dollars, but 60-75K a year or more in my area is the typical salary for a considerably easier job. I have a degree in business administration which seems to be the criteria for an entry level or mid level recruiter.

On top of that, as an IT supervisor, I have some experience writing job descriptions, recruiting, interviewing candidates, making offers, etc. It seems like I could easily transition to what I consider to be a job that's fairly stress free relative to six figure IT work but still pays well in my area.

-No after hours work.

-No need to keep up with many technologies, certs, etc.

-No stress of broken systems, upgrades, migrations, etc.


Seems like much of the job involves using MS Word, Outlook and a telephone. Little, if any after hours work. I'd prefer to be a corporate recruiter than an agency recruiter, much better job from recruiters I've talked to that made the transition.

Any recruiters on here that can shed some light on if my assessment is accurate?

[Vilgan]

If you can get a job as a "technical recruiter" that seems a lot more likely to match what you are talking about although I'm not sure I get the "little if any after hours work" comment. Recruiting has a ton of after hour work, age bias, cost center vs profit center disdain, and most people I know see recruiting as a gateway to something better.

[OldPro]

I'm missing the connection to 'retirement'.

If you do this after 'retirement' then you aren't retired, you're just an employee like any other.  If this is your idea of a job to change to enroute to retirement, OK, but obviously the drop in income is going to delay your FIRE date.  Maybe you could clarify what you mean by 'retirement job'.

Besides that, I think you may be underestimating the job or overestimating yourself.  I'm reminded of the story of two guys who met in a bar on some exotic island.

First guy X asks second guy Y what he does for a living.  Y answers that he is a writer.  X says, 'oh really, I've always thought I'd like to do some writing when I retire.'  Y asks X what X does for a living and X says he is a brain surgeon.  Y says, 'Oh really, I've always thought I'd like to try my hand at brain surgery when I retire.'

The point being of course that writing is no easier than brain surgery.  The issues involved are simply different.  I've met a lot of people who think their job field is unique in how stressful it is, how many hours they have to work, etc.  They're all wrong.  I'm sure you could find some HR recruiter who thinks an IT job would be easier.  After all, the IT dwarves just sing, 'IOIO it's off to work I go'.

[forummm]

OldPro is part of the IRP!

If that job sounds like delicious cake to you, then absolutely eat that big slice! Why not make the move now? Are you close enough that doing it for a year would get you there? If so, then give it a shot, and if you end up not liking it so much, you could just quit and do whatever.

[iamlindoro]

I'm missing the connection to 'retirement'.

If you do this after 'retirement' then you aren't retired, you're just an employee like any other.  If this is your idea of a job to change to enroute to retirement, OK, but obviously the drop in income is going to delay your FIRE date.  Maybe you could clarify what you mean by 'retirement job'.

[Bambam100]

As an HR professional, I can speak to this a bit.  It can be a really fun job, if you like sales, because the recruitment professional's job is to find the best candidate for the positions he or she is recruiting. It's a job that involves talking to people most of the day, asking questions and listening carefully to the answers. 

Some of the KPIs for this job are time to fill, cost per hire, and internal vs external hires.  Most companies also have a commitment to diversity so please know yourself. Additionally, there are administrative duties in this role that are (to me) tedious.

All that said, it can be fun, like I said, and you'll meet a lot of interesting people.

[OldPro]

Are you guys seriously trying to suggest that you can have a full time job and say you are 'retired' at the same time?

That isn't about retirement police, that's about common sense.  Arguing that someone with a part time job as a Walmart greeter was not retired would be an example of 'retirement police' thinking but a full time job is a whole other thing is it not?

Someone can be FI and CHOOSE to work full time if they wish.  That's up to them.  Once you've got your FY money you can do as you please including continuing to work full time.   But you can't at the same time say you are 'retired'.  That's ridiculous.

[forummm]

Retirement is a mindset. Once you don't need money, you can do what you want with your life. Which can be doing something that pays you. If you consider that more fun/enjoyable/entertaining/fulfilling than watching TV or writing a novel or whatever, then it's what you should do. When I'm retired I'll still mow the yard (someone's job), cook food (someone's job), take care of kids (someone's job), clean the house (someone's job), etc.

[iamlindoro]

That isn't about retirement police, that's about common sense.  Arguing that someone with a part time job as a Walmart greeter was not retired would be an example of 'retirement police' thinking but a full time job is a whole other thing is it not?

Someone can be FI and CHOOSE to work full time if they wish.  That's up to them.  Once you've got your FY money you can do as you please including continuing to work full time.   But you can't at the same time say you are 'retired'.  That's ridiculous.

IMO you're showing *exactly* the internet retirement police mindset-- that retirement has some sort of strict definition, set by either the individual or society at large, where if you are working beyond a set threshold, you are "not retired."  Retirement is the freedom to work or not work, from 0 hours to infinite hours, for no pay to infinite pay, so long as engaging in that work is entirely motivated by the desire of the retired to do it, but not out of financial need.  MMM likely packs his days with far more activity that would normally be compensated than I do, yet he is retired and I am not.

[Davids]

The word retirement can have different meanings to people. Let me ask this question, do you consider Mark Cuban "retired?" He does work hard but he does it because he wants to not because he has to. This is what drives him, sure he could just live out the rest of his life sitting at home watching Jerry Springer and The Price is Right everyday but he still works hard, I think the argument could be made he is "retired" as he is doing what he wants to, not what he has to.

[OldPro]

Well iamlindoro, I would say that what you describe is Financial Independence when you write, "Retirement is the freedom to work or not work, from 0 hours to infinite hours, for no pay to infinite pay, so long as engaging in that work is entirely motivated by the desire of the retired to do it, but not out of financial need."

As I've said, someone who is FI is indeed free to do whatever they want.  But if you are going to use that defintion for 'retirement' as well as FI then why bother using the term FIRE?  You only need the first half (FI) according to you, so what is the purpose of the second half RE?  Does it only mean you reached FI before age 65 or something?  I don't think so.

Davids, Mark Cuban is far from retired.  He works full time.  Yes he may not need to and yes he may want to.  Again, he may be FI but he isn't retired.

Forummm, again the same thing.  You are defining FI, not retirement when you write, " Retirement is a mindset. Once you don't need money, you can do what you want with your life. Which can be doing something that pays you."

I think you guys want to re-define a word that has been defined for a long, long time and is understood by everyone to mean, you no longer work full time.  You may think your re-definition is somehow superior to the old definition.  That's fine, you can think whatever you want.  But it doesn't make you right or your definition superior.  In fact, I'd just it's silly.

But if you want to call a guy who works a 40 hour week as an HR recruiter 'retired', go ahead.  I always enjoy a good chuckle.

[Cathy]

But if you are going to use that defintion for 'retirement' as well as FI then why bother using the term FIRE?

I don't use the term "FIRE". As far as I can tell, MMM has never used it either. I agree with you that use of the term "FIRE" fosters some retirement police arguments, which is part of why I don't use it.

[Sam E]

I'd say that for someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in a certain field for a "permanent" career choice, once that person gains financial independence and quits THAT job they're retired. They can pick up a job, full-time or part-time, and still be retired in my mind if they've picked the job based entirely on want rather than need.

I think it comes down to people defining themselves by their career choices, so once they've quit doing whatever has consumed their time and defined them for so long, it's natural to pick up a different defining title, and for most that is "retired."

Now, would a full-time 9-5 job be my personal path for an ENJOYABLE retirement? Probably not, because I dislike having my free time dictated to me or being beholden to an employer in that way. But who am I to say no one could enjoy that kind of retirement or find it rewarding? Maybe by comparison to their former responsibilities the new job is a relaxing, rewarding endeavor that lets them unwind. It's all very personal, I think.

[OldPro]

I'd say that for someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in a certain field for a "permanent" career choice, once that person gains financial independence and quits THAT job they're retired. They can pick up a job, full-time or part-time, and still be retired in my mind if they've picked the job based entirely on want rather than need.

Now that I would call a sensible argument Sam E.  Of course it assumes that what the person then does is somehow something they want to do.  I could for example see someone saying, 'well I work full time as a volunteer with an NGO, not out of necessity but because I want to.'  'I'm a retired surgeon but I volunteer full time with Doctors Without Borders.'  I'd buy that Sam E. 

But not an HR recruiter.  I can't see anyone doing that JUST because they 'want' to.  I'm pretty sure they OP isn't thinking of it as being about pleasure, interest, altruism, etc.  It's about earning money I'm sure.

[mozar]

Are you fairly outgoing? You have to suck up to your clients (the people who are hiring) a lot. They often have unrealistic expectations of who they can get. I did a month of recruiting and it wasn't easy. You have to keep up with some technology because you will be searching linked in and other websites for candidates. It will be easier than IT but if you enjoy being challenged this won't be it. There is a lot of over time because a lot of people can only talk after their work day ends. But I know a few post career professionals who have gotten into it. They seem to like it. They said it was actually pretty lucrative but it depends on what type of recruiting.

[Bearded Man]

I wouldn't do agency work, I thought I posted that in my OP but I guess not. Agency recruiting SUCKS due to the hours, and the sales type nature of it. CORPORATE recruiting is where it's at for me.

[Arktinkerer]

I'm missing the connection to 'retirement'.

If you do this after 'retirement' then you aren't retired, you're just an employee like any other.  If this is your idea of a job to change to enroute to retirement, OK, but obviously the drop in income is going to delay your FIRE date.  Maybe you could clarify what you mean by 'retirement job'.

Besides that, I think you may be underestimating the job or overestimating yourself.  I'm reminded of the story of two guys who met in a bar on some exotic island.

First guy X asks second guy Y what he does for a living.  Y answers that he is a writer.  X says, 'oh really, I've always thought I'd like to do some writing when I retire.'  Y asks X what X does for a living and X says he is a brain surgeon.  Y says, 'Oh really, I've always thought I'd like to try my hand at brain surgery when I retire.'

The point being of course that writing is no easier than brain surgery.  The issues involved are simply different.  I've met a lot of people who think their job field is unique in how stressful it is, how many hours they have to work, etc.  They're all wrong.  I'm sure you could find some HR recruiter who thinks an IT job would be easier.  After all, the IT dwarves just sing, 'IOIO it's off to work I go'.

No way!  Some jobs really are harder.  Make a mistake with your writing and the proofreader/editor will probably catch it.  If not, its just a slight irritation to the reader.  Make a mistake with a scalpel on someone's brain and I think the damage is rather more severe.  This may explain why there are no real requirements to be a writer.  You may not be successful but you aren't likely to hurt someone.  A brain surgeon has a lot of years before they handle the scalpel on a patient.

[asauer]

If you can get in with the right company, your assumptions about the work will be true.  I was in recruiting for several years and had to do significant "after hours" work.  Here's why:
1. You call candidates when they're home (after 5)
2. You call references when they're home (ditto)
3. You are expected to rep the organization at career fairs which often go after hours b/c that's when attendance spikes (again, b/c people are off work).  Many career fairs are outside the local area.
4.  Many times you're expected to go to colleges and speak to students...you guessed it...after 5 when classes are out.

Additionally- you'll need to look for an organization that doesn't have specific quotas and/or specific fill-time requirements.  3 of the 4 recruiting jobs I had had aggressive fill quotas (like 20 hires/month) and specific fill times (fill in less than 90 days or you're in trouble).  All of these were corporate recruiting, not agency recruiting.

So- it's fun, get to meet a lot of people and calling people to tell them they got the job is just about the best thing there is.  BUT get with the right company if you don't want to work a lot of OT or after hours.