Catch 22 Much?

Don't know about you guys, but not interviewing/hiring unemployed applicants doesn't make much sense to me.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014248693_jobless17.html

Comments

  • stephen_hannibalstephen_hannibal Posts: 4,317
    Truth is companies have been doing that for years.
    A smart businessman would use the current market to find top talent, and then not pay him top talent pricing.

  • doromathdoromath Posts: 576
    stephen_hannibal:
    Truth is companies have been doing that for years.
    A smart businessman would use the current market to find top talent, and then not pay him top talent pricing.

    I think this gets at one of corporate America's main problems: lack of smart businessmen. Delivering maximum return to Wall Street at the cost of your people and your company's future is not smart, but the system rewards it just as much as it does someone who builds a company right: with the future in mind.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,771 ✭✭✭
    But doesnt ALL the wealth "trickle down", lol. Sad times.
  • The SniperThe Sniper Posts: 3,910
    Vulchor:
    But doesnt ALL the wealth "trickle down", lol. Sad times.
    Unfortunately,no - and this just contributes to the erosion of the middle class which has been going on for years... and will ultimately be the undoing of our great nation.

  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    double post... i HATE when i do that.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    not hiring someone only because they are not employed currently is dumb. as a manager i see tons of good workers come in that have no job that are hungry to do a good job. on more than one occasion we have hired someone that was unemployed previously and they ended up doing a better job than many of the people we already have that are comfortable in their jobs and therefor lazy.

    im not really sure what you mean by the snide comment of "doesnt ALL wealth "trickle down", lol"
    im not een sure how it relates to this article considering what the theory of trickle down economics is all about.
    and nobody, including Reagan Claimed that ALL wealth trickles down. "all" wealth cant trickle down. there would be no wealth to trickle down from then. the only way to have it "all" trickle down is to take by force and redistribute. thats communism, and we also know that brutal system does not work.

    what Reagan did claim was that people that have money tend to do something (anything) with it. either they spend it, put it in stocks, bonds, invest it in business, or even put it in the bank and let it accumulate interest. Very few wealthy people get money and pull it 100% out of the system. (this does not generate more wealth for them and in turn others.) they dont just put it under their mattress or hold on to the bills so they can fill their bath tub with Twenties and bathe in it. every one of those actions they do take listed above (even putting it in the bank and sitting on it) helps the economy in some way or another. rich people doing anything with their money helps the economy move. that may be a bit better explanation of trickle down economics.
    ... im not saying it works as well as Reagan seems to think it did. im just saying that it does help in some way.
    yes, the middle class is eroding, and yes the article points out a stupid practice, but i hardly think the concept of trickle down economics relates to this article in any way. this is more of a bad/stupid business practice.


    the ONLY reason why i wouldnt hire someone because they were unemployed is if they got fired because of some serious issue at their last job as in theft, violence, etc.
    if they are chronically unemployed because of that then i wouldnt hire them because of it.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    What does everyone see as the solution to this would be my question. I would think working and advancing in these companies, then working to change these practices would be the best way. Not only would you benefit from moving up the ladder, but the company would be stronger which provides you with more stability in you'd career. Anyone else have a solution?
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    PuroFreak:
    Anyone else have a solution?
    ... no
    its just fun to ***.

    the only solution i have is on the individual level. dont apply for a job at a place with this policy even if you have a job.
  • gmill880gmill880 Posts: 5,947
    kuzi16:
    not hiring someone only because they are not employed currently is dumb. as a manager i see tons of good workers come in that have no job that are hungry to do a good job. on more than one occasion we have hired someone that was unemployed previously and they ended up doing a better job than many of the people we already have that are comfortable in their jobs and therefor lazy.

    im not really sure what you mean by the snide comment of "doesnt ALL wealth "trickle down", lol"
    im not een sure how it relates to this article considering what the theory of trickle down economics is all about.
    and nobody, including Reagan Claimed that ALL wealth trickles down. "all" wealth cant trickle down. there would be no wealth to trickle down from then. the only way to have it "all" trickle down is to take by force and redistribute. thats communism, and we also know that brutal system does not work.

    what Reagan did claim was that people that have money tend to do something (anything) with it. either they spend it, put it in stocks, bonds, invest it in business, or even put it in the bank and let it accumulate interest. Very few wealthy people get money and pull it 100% out of the system. (this does not generate more wealth for them and in turn others.) they dont just put it under their mattress or hold on to the bills so they can fill their bath tub with Twenties and bathe in it. every one of those actions they do take listed above (even putting it in the bank and sitting on it) helps the economy in some way or another. rich people doing anything with their money helps the economy move. that may be a bit better explanation of trickle down economics.
    ... im not saying it works as well as Reagan seems to think it did. im just saying that it does help in some way.
    yes, the middle class is eroding, and yes the article points out a stupid practice, but i hardly think the concept of trickle down economics relates to this article in any way. this is more of a bad/stupid business practice.


    the ONLY reason why i wouldnt hire someone because they were unemployed is if they got fired because of some serious issue at their last job as in theft, violence, etc.
    if they are chronically unemployed because of that then i wouldnt hire them because of it.

    Couldn't have said it better myself .
Sign In or Register to comment.