Let them find a way to survive or leave. And you’re looking for a Soylent Green reference, not Logan’s Run. America could establish a place where homeless could gather and find their own way to survive.
In any case, the world is moving on without those people. Their time has come and gone.
What if some of those people might be useful in a couple of months? Do they possess any inherent value based on their training and years of experience?
As a lot of those people will be getting jobs this year, I think you’ll find we need quite a lot of them.
Well then America can go visit the homeless camp zone and play American Idol. The last contestant standing gets the job.
However it is unlikely that they’ll be hired for much of anything - and also quite unwise. I for one would never hire someone who’s been unemployed for months on end. Their skills have deteriorated and the fact that they got laid off in the first place says they cannot adapt. Someone like that I’d just as soon replace with cheap legal immigrant labor or a machine if I can. Or work my existing staff harder to fill in the gap. If they balk at having more work to do then their alternative is unemployment. I think that if working my existing staff harder turns into a game of chicken then they’ll blink before I do.
Workers are replaceable. Now more than ever.
Define a lot.
America already has; they’re called big cities.
Be care what you wish for.
Utter bullshit. Even you cannot believe this to be true, which gives me a strong impetus to look on your overall posting behavior as trolling.
[ /Moderating ]
I’m not trolling. I am simply looking at the job market. Obviously if you got laid off you could not find a way to be useful to the company - unless the entire company is going flat out of business, in which case it’s probably a market shift thing, which means, again, you didn’t see it coming and didn’t adapt.
I grant you, it is remarkable that a man of your age has never been out of work a day in his adult life.
I was laid off when a department store closed when I was a teenager, does that count?
Oh and when I was selling investment / life insurance products (a far cry from Amway; although you guys probably don’t know the difference between life insurance and Herbalife…) I had lean months. You don’t get fired from Primerica, you just realize it’s not for you and drop out. What you have in that organization is times when you can’t sell anything and your underlings all drop out. At that time you’re not out of work but you sure as heck have a diminished cash flow.
I’ve had years of poor cash flow. But I also saved up for those rainy days and didn’t splurge and try to keep up with the Joneses. Part of what stung America in 2008 was that they simply did not save, they didn’t prepare. What is America’s savings rate now? 2%? 5%, tops? Compare that to Japan.
And you are still making unsupportable claims that are not consistent with honest discussion on this board.
I suppose rather than taking action against trolling, I can simply let your blatant nonsense render your posts obviously unworthy of response or further comment. I will consider that for a bit.
[ /Modding ]
Four percent economic growth, if it happens, would probably reduce the standing level of unemployment by several million.
Bear in mind that the “17 million unemployed” includes transient unemployed - the inevitable number of people who don’t have jobs right now, but are simply between job A and job B. There aren’t actually 17 million people unable to find work.
I thought it was common sense why people get laid off. I didn’t know I needed to go dig up documentation for that. You may not feel I’m not trying to engage in honest discussion, but in my opinion I am.
I just want to know why people insist upon waiting for the job market to change in their favor instead of taking action to improve their own lives when life throws them a curve.
For their sake I hope you’re right.
Still, though, the point stands… these people will go right back into unemployed as soon as the next downturn hits. It sucks to be a victim of such things but I guess that’s the best most people can do. I can only hope to lead a horse to water…
Those exact people?
You mentioned you wouldn’t hire someone that was laid off, but then you said you yourself had been laid off.
What if we compromised and didn’t slaughter people until the second time they got laid off? Is there any wiggle room?
Are you seriously not aware of the concept of transient unemployment?
Back in 2007 I was “laid off,” though actually I was pleased to be part of the layoff because I didn’t want to work there anymore and got a nice fat severance package. I interviewed for my next job immediately and got it. I didn’t start my next job for five weeks. So for five weeks I was, technically, unemployed, though in fact I had left my job on purpose, had another job lined up, and had more severance money than I would have earned in salary in those five weeks. I wasn’t unemployed for lacking “flexibility,” I was unemployed because I didn’t want to work at the previous company anymore.
Lots of people quit their jobs or move from job to job for whatever reason, but despite being laid off still have marketable skills. You were unaware of this?
Some, perhaps. But some will not. The economic conditions will be different and different people will be affected. And you know what else? Many of the people who start businesses will see their business fail, too. There’s no magic solution.
Security will be along shortly to escort you to the reprocessing center. A card will be sent to your wife.
Thinking without adequate knowledge gets a lot of people in trouble. There are plenty of good people that get laid off. Try working in IT for a few years and see if you don’t get laid off one or more times. That is just the way it works and you simply can’t expect to work at any one place more than 2 - 5 years at best. The technology moves too fast and the people that lay you off often have never met you or heard anything bad about you. Project X ends, they lay off most people associated with it and then start Project Y with a new crop of people. Your job is to get the equivalent of Project Y at a new company and the cycle continues. It often has nothing to do with individual performance. You are just a box in a chart and when your your box gets killed with the stroke of a pen, your job is gone.
Not all jobs are like sales or nursing where good performance can keep you in a job if you are a great performer and survive hits. Other fields are like construction or IT or energy which are project based and you have to go as the projects go.
You need to expand your knowledge of the circumstances surrounding several different types of fields before you start climbing on top of that molehill and making pronouncements about the way the whole job market works.
Who said anything about slaughter? I’m far from the only person who doesn’t like hiring the unemployed. Don’t you read the news? And of course if there are more jobs out there than applicants then you don’t really have much choice but to consider hiring someone who’s unemployed.
Also, what I said was " I for one would never hire someone who’s been unemployed for months on end." I have never been unemployed for months on end.
If I were working in one of those places where your max job stability was measured at 2-5 years, I would always have my resume polished and be networking for potential job leads.
Being unemployed for a week and (as I said) being unemployed for months on end are two different issues.