Suggestions for what to write on Job application

If it is a department store like Wal-Mart where you do not know which section you are working in, or one like Kohl's where the merchandise is pretty much clothing and accessories or if it is Kohls' list any experience you have with clothing and accessories. Did you ever volunteer to model for someone or did you do clothing projects for 4-H.
If it is Wal-Mart, then you can list anything that would apply to any department. For instance, do you know anything about photography or computers?
You would list skills that would make you an asset to the company like good customer service skills, phone skills, any experience you have had handling money. (Even if it was volunteer work like running a snack shack for ball games at school).
Your people skills can be backed up by any experience you have working with people. For instance, were you ever a team manager or Boy Scout leader?
People do not believe that their volunteer skills can help them get a job, but when you are applying for that first job, the employer will only have those volunteer skills to go by.Don't say anything that is untrue. Being insincere will not get you the right job. 

If you are not a people person, talk about how industrious you are. Enthusiasm about doing everything you do is very important. I want to do the job right. 

Attention to detail is important.Filling out the application is a very important first step if it does not show your claims then you won't get the job.

In conclusion, take note of these three points:

1. What motivated you to apply for this job with this particular company? Do you like their store? Do you have friends who work there who love their employer? Are you interested in a long-term career in retail sales? What made you sit up and take notice of THIS particular job?

2. Given the position in question, what makes you think you would be good at the job?
If it is a stocking/inventory position, what qualifies you for the job? - Are you exceptionally strong? Do you take direction well and work well with others? Are you good at working independently without a supervisor looking over your shoulder? Are you available to work odd hours, if need be? 
If it is a sales position, what makes you qualified? Do you deal well with people? Do you have a friendly, outgoing personality that makes you a joy to work with? Do you thrive in a fast-paced, retail environment?

3. As for skills, hobbies and interests, what makes you so much fun to be around? Do you have any interests that apply to the position you are applying for? For example, are you in Future Business Leaders of America or on the Public Speaking team? Are you involved in sports - and therefore, enjoy working in a team environment?

Start Getting Paychecks For Easy Work That Fits Your Schedule, No Experience Required. Only Available In The United States.

Job and employment advice

If they give you an application form, write it out very neatly. If you're handing out a resume, do it with a cover letter explaining why you would be good at the job. Make yourself sound hardworking etc, so don't list your interests as "watching tv" or something, but don't lie, because they can tell, or might ask questions at interview that show you up as a liar.

I think the most important thing is to sound enthusiastic about the company you're applying for. Like if it's burger king, tell them that you love their food and you think it's a great place. One of my favourite lines is something like "I regularly shop/eat/etc at --------- and I really enjoy the atmosphere there, I would love the opportunity to join the team [they love teamwork at every job, make sure you mention it] and contribute towards it"

Is it possible for everyone to have a job and earn a decent living?

Under laissez-faire capitalism, no.

Classical economic theory indicates that, in a totally free market, everybody that wants to work will have a job. But that's only if people are willing to compete with each other, and accept whatever salary the market offers. And with international trade (of finished and semi-finished goods), you're competing with every other worker in the world (protected only by tariffs and transport costs). So wages drop to nearly nothing -- a capitalist's dream -- to the point that some workers must live in squalor, and most workers experience a yearly decline in living standard. (We recently started calling rich people "job creators," which is the exact opposite of what successful businesses do. If your business plan relies on hiring more Americans as your revenues increase, it's only a matter of time before a competitor figures out how to beat you with less people.)

For every American to have a job (ie., "full employment," or about 3-4% unemployment), the government must intervene, whether you like it or not.

To make the task a little harder, the government first creates stickiness in the workforce by enforcing "labor market fairness" rules, like laws against unfair dismissal, unsafe working conditions, and collusion between employers. These rules tend to increase labor costs (and drive the export of jobs). Minimum wage laws make it even worse, by making some people totally unemployable, and some jobs totally unfillable. Import tariffs work great; it's too bad we've been pushing a "free trade" agenda on the rest of the world, so this one is pretty much off the table.

To offset this, the government has to make Americans more employable, by funding a world-class (HA!) education system (which also makes people more content at lower salary rates), and providing good infrastructure and tax breaks to employers. The government also does their part by employing lots of people for services that you get, whether you want them or not -- like teachers, cops, bureaucrats, soldiers, judges, jailers, park rangers, hospital interns, and street cleaners. Unless you don't mind seeing beggars at every traffic light, and tent cities under every bridge, the government also needs to mop up the lower end of the population with welfare, social security, and make-work programs.

The math gets to be a problem, since the government has to spend so much to maintain a functional economy. That's the primary justification for a progressive tax structure, so that people with the ambition, smarts, and opportunity to succeed pay more in tax, to pay for the system that made their success possible. (The justification behind the Bush Tax Cuts was that, by lowering the tax burden, these ambitious, smart people will be even more incentivized to work harder and achieve more, so the total tax receipts will increase. It's total crap, of course, because we know that money is among the most inefficient motivators. As a rule, people will not work harder if they get a raise; every HR Director knows this. So all he achieved was to increase the deficit and make the nation very vulnerable to economic shocks, while increasing wealth inequality.)

Counter to the current dogma coming from the Republican party, a hands-off government is a recipe for economic failure for the masses, and massive success for industrialists and robber barons (like Romney and the Bushes). The Democrats don't necessarily have the right formula either, especially the current team; but the Republicans are pushing an economic model that is fundamentally flawed. It would be a huge step in the right direction if Congress could reach some sort of consensus on economic fundamentals, so the two sides can stop stonewalling each other.

Ultimate Guide To Job Interview Answers Click Here!