In other words, you wouldn’t hire anyone laid off in the last three years. Are you even aware that the average time between layoff and a new job right now is nine months? That’s fully qualified, professional-level candidates with spotless records.
Well, that’s what I’m saying. You think the economy should be geared around reducing unemployment, but that’s just not the case. Every company in America would fire half its staff if it thought it could make more money that way. And there’s nothing wrong with that–nothing needs to be done to “fix” it.
Are you even aware what the word “average” means?
I’ve never *not *had a job. But if I ever did get laid off, I would do anything – sweep floors, stock shelves, construction, concrete, etc. – than go on unemployment. And then I would look for a professional job while working my temporary job.
There are jobs out there. But most people on unemployment won’t take them because a) they pay less than unemployment, or b) they’re labor-intensive. Me, I don’t care. I will do *anything *than go on unemployment.
First question: why do you being on unemployment as shameful? I agree, it’s best to have a permanent job as quickly as possible, but you wouldn’t do it for two weeks or a month?
Second question: In many states one can have a low-paying job AND still collect unemployment if that lower-paying job’s wages is not as great as the amount one is entitled to on unemployment. So, for example, if your 40 hour a week minimum wage job pays you only $290 per week, but your unemployment benefit is $305 a week, many states would allow you to collect differential between the two, so you might get $290 from the job and $15 a week from unemployment. Would you still find that objectionable? If so, why?
Third point: while you or I might engage in manual labor as a necessity (and I do, I assure you) not everyone is physically capable of that. What are those people supposed to do?
Fourth point: I have learned from bitter experience that if I tell people I have been working in construction, or mowing lawns, or self-employed, and not only that but can PROVE that I have been actually earning money at that, a great number of companies do NOT consider that employment. They consider that being unemployed. I think this is, in part, from white collar people who’d rather die that admit to unemployment lying about being “contractors” or “self-employed” which only hurts those who do, indeed, try to piece something together while seeking more permanent situations.
For thirty years I, too, was never out of work. If I left one job I had another within a week, two at most. You’re a fool if you think it can’t happen to you.
I have been looking for a “professional” job for three years. Nada. Fact is, much of what I used to do has been either taken over by technology that didn’t exist a quarter century ago, or has been outsourced. My former profession is glutted with a tremendous oversupply of people. I realized this early and am now trying to reinvent myself. It is not easy.
**
So, fifth point:** do you view someone who has gone back to school for a new degree or training in a new field as “unemployed” or is being a student as good as being employed?
I wonder if this would need to be “fixed” if be found yourself unemployed in the near future? :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: yourself. I admit that my opinion could change based on my situation, but it wouldn’t make my opinion any less stupid than the OP’s.
How is his opinion stupid? :eek: Despite the genius you liken yourself to be, you seem to forget uneployment is a huge problem for many people. The OP isn’t being a crybaby. Yes, their situation sucks, but a lot of people are in their boat.
Yeah, you’re right. People not being able to get jobs to pay the bill is perfectly fine and acceptable. Is this a glimpse into Libertarian land? Damn, sign me up.
Nobody, let’s say you are buying apples. The store only has old bruised apples, and the store owner tells you that’s all he can get but please buy them anyeay because he really needs the money to pay a debt so he doesn’t lose his business. Do you buy the apples?
True, although I have no idea what this has to do with the job market. It’s not like unemployed workers are showing up to the interview demanding to be hired at twice the salary of the guys who still have jobs.
On the other hand, businesses should care about unemployment, since people need to have money in order to spend money on the shit you’re selling.
Or, you know, basic human decency, but why would anyone do that?
ETA: Bruised apples? So, basically, you’re just assuming people are unemployed because they are lazy, shitty workers, and not because, oh, there’s that 9% unemployment rate as pointed out in the OP. Hate to burst your bubble, but perfectly competent people get laid off in a down economy, too (as has already been pointed out by MANY people, so why do you choose to ignore that?).
I feel ya. During the big ice storm a couple weeks ago, a tree fell over and took out part of my backyard fence. I have property insurance and the premiums are all paid up, as required by my mortgage lender. But I didn’t even think about filing a claim. It would have been a moral failure. :rolleyes:
What a bizarre notion. We were expected to put in six twelve-hour days in lab each week in grad school, and it really wasn’t difficult. I was less stressed than I was in undergrad. Strangely enough we managed not to burn the place down. There were a few lazy fucks who only put in ~65 or so hours a week, and their productivity suffered noticeably.
It isn’t fine and acceptable. But it isn’t a businesses job to employ people. Its their job to make money. Some business owners take a very altruistic look at business and do their best to employ people at a livable wage. Personally, I go out of my way to patronize Costco over Sam’s Club as an example for that reason. There are businesses that specialize in giving a chance to those on assistance (Goodwill is an example of a business that runs that way). But a business has no obligation to provide jobs - other than to meet the needs of running its business. And the managers of that business are the ones that get to decide the criteria for hiring.
If you want a guaranteed job, you could look at…well, I think they still guarantee them in Cuba. They don’t in Russia anymore since the end of the Soviet Union, and they haven’t in China for some time either.
In your case you can do one of two things - you can whine about how unfair this is - and maybe it is, but the businesses that do this do have a logical reason for doing so, or you can accept it is what it is and figure out some way to make yourself more appealing. Since you aren’t working, how about volunteering? Read to school kids. Help the elderly write emails to the great grandkids. Fix computers at a non-profit. Work with a non-profit that takes “old corporate” equipment and refurbs it for low income use. Then, when someone asks you what your last job was - you put in your volunteer job. When they ask about it (they probably will) be honest and upfront, let them know it was volunteer. You’ll make yourself look ambitious and helpful to an employer. Your resume won’t get skipped over because you don’t have current employment. Or start your own computer repair business. Even if you do nothing but fix your friends’ virus problems at $20 a shot (or for beer and pizza), you still have something on your resume “Owner, Nobody’s PC Repair.”
Broomstick’s resume is, by the way, filled with “I’ve been working my ass off piecing together odd jobs where I can find them.” It hasn’t helped due to the miserable employment situation in her area, but its a hell of a lot better than a resume that seems to say “hey, you owe me a job cause I don’t have one.”
Also, you may have to move. Dallas is 15,000 people according to Wiki. Most were employed by the mill that shut down. Minnesota went through that with the Iron Range - 30 years later it still isn’t a pretty economic situation there - despite government intervention to try and bring jobs into the region. Portland/Beaverton where there are jobs, is an hour away. Get yourself a Portland address if you can. Your problem with Geek Squad probably isn’t the “on assistance” question - its probably the “I live in the boonies and therefore am not going to hold onto this job” problem.
No I’m not saying that at all. You simply don’t understand. My points only key off of the fact that employers apparenrtly find the unemployed less desirable–it doesn’t matter whether you agree with that assessment, my point still stands.
Look, substitute “crack addicts” for “the unemployed”–the OP is saying that employers should hire crack addicts because it would help the economy. That is ridiculous.
Even though it’s obviously unfair for unemployed and equally qualified people, I fail to see how it would have any consequence on the unemployment rate.
If a job is created, and every single employer only wants to hire already employed people, then we have a gigantic musical chair game, and at some point an employer (not necessarily the one who created the job) will end up lacking a worker and will have to reluctantly hire someone unemployed.
That’s nice and all, but what if working those jobs earns you less than unemployment – are you willing to lose your house despite working as many hours as you could at a shit job, just to prove a point?
Sure, I’d work shitty jobs to avoid going on food stamps, or whatever. But unemployment? Something you take temporarily when you’re out of work due to no fault of your own? That’s what it’s for.
Not to mention that a lot of companies will hold it against you if you’re working a crap job - I’ve seen that happen many times. Also, will your janitor job let you take off work at a moment’s notice to be available for interviews? Probably not. Would you be able to apply for as many jobs, and as competently, if you’re working two or three shit jobs at minimum wage in order to eat? Probably not. Does a company looking for a janitor want to hire someone who is going to leave at a drop of a hat when a professional job turns up? Absolutely not.
I don’t know about you, but there’s no way I could swing minimum wage, no matter how many hours I worked. Even with two, three jobs, it just wouldn’t work. Call me “lazy” if you want, but trying to call it a moral failing to use something you’ve paid for, in the manner which it’s intended, to help your own family in a time of need is pretty strange.
I work for the goverment. There has been a hiring freeze for 3 years. The only way to get around it is to have family members volunteer and then get hired as temps. Neoptism rules in my part of the world.
Crafter Man, unemployment is something that you’ve paid with each and every legal paycheck. Its there to help you pay the bills until you’ve found another job. Nobody gets rich on unemployment payments, but they might be able to pay their rent/mortgage.
Rand Rover you’re constantly missing my point. I am not saying businesses should hire people just because they’re unemployed. I’m saying that businesses should look at their education and job experience, just like they do for everybody else. A person who has been out of work for a year, let’s say, might still have more skills and knowledge than a currently employed person. So the business could be losing a chance to hire a superior employee because of their bias.
Dangerosa, for a lot of reasons moving is out of the question. As for freelance work, I might attempt it, but it’s going to be a little tricky for reasons I won’t get into.
And I am not whining about the situation. I see the high unemployment rate as a national problem. With fewer people employed less taxes are going to state and local governments. A lot of them are facing budget short falls in the millions. When people are are unemployed they have a hard time paying the bills. You can go on unemployment, but if you’re unemployed for 99 weeks or more…hope you have friends and family to support you. Although I’m sure some here would call that mooching probably. Also, with less people with jobs, spending goes down, so businesses take in less money. Thus, their profits are effected.
So, I see a problem with the high unemployment rate, but you and Rand Rover are perfectly OK with it. That’s fine, but don’t try to dismiss my posts by calling them whining. Thank you.
I don’t know that it’s safe to assume that **Rand Rover **and Dangerosa are *perfectly OK *with the unemployment rate, based on what they’ve written. I also don’t think it’s safe to assume that businesses are doing just fine in this crappy economy, based on hiring preferences.
People and businesses can have reasons for doing things without it automatically leading to the conclusion of “We’re feeling great about the economy and the unemployment rate.”