Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've moved this up to #3 on the all-time list of BS theories on this forum, which is saying something.
Maybe you're right. But my idea of someone being "weeded out" is based upon them having negative traits you wouldn't want displayed at your business. The rest of the 190 of 200 applicants, in my humble opinion, are not "weeded out" simply because they were not considered due to volume of applicants.
If however, the OP was simply referring to 190 of 200 (quite often many more) applicants being discarded because they aren't in the top 10 applicants, then the OP is coming across as whining about it not being fair that the employer isn't hiring or at least interviewing all 200 applicants for the single job. If the OP expects all 200 to be hired for the one job, then this is the mentality we had under a Keynes influenced FDR, when it was suggested that ditches be dug, then filled back in just to employ people. Employment for the sake of employing people, rather than because it produces a much needed and marketable product or service is insanity and is unsustainable. Therefore I "assumed" the OP was smarter than expressing this concept as "...weeding people out." Furthermore, given your response to my comment, I'm beginning to question whether my assumption was made in error.
One day I may learn to stop giving people the benefit of doubt.
There are a few points the video-clip doesn't address:
1) Why employers often prefer hiring contractors over permanent jobs, like they they used to for millennia? (Sometimes they even pay more for the contract..).
2) A whole class of positions that used to pay $40-60K disappeared, to be replaced by per hour wages. That is the worst blow suffered by the middle class.
3) In spite of the recession, top executive pay remained untouched and even got higher. They are living on a different planet. Once, everyone went up and down (relatively) together.
4) In the past, companies hired new talent from school. They let them grow and thrive while learning. Nobody does that anymore. I find it the most upsetting trend society. Discouraging a whole generation of young people is bad. Very bad.
5) Speaking of age, people at a certain age are rejected. At 50 you are "old". But that's not so in every field. For example, a 90 year old senator is OK. Same with doctors, lawyers or businessmen. Did anybody tell Warren Buffett that at 83 he is too old to lead an empire?
From the above statement I interpret a whole bunch of, "It's not fair!" mentality. Start your own business and run it the way you want if you don't like it. Demanding that others run their businesses they way YOU think they should is... well it shows a desire to redistribute wealth based upon YOUR beliefs. Would you think that appropriate if you were the business owner, the person who risks everything if their business fails? Maybe you just think these policies should apply to corporations because after all, they are just evil money seekers, not individuals who take investment risk for the sake of investment income.
How about we let those who take the risk decide what is in their company's best interests.
Last edited by KS_Referee; 02-23-2013 at 06:28 PM..
This is nonsense. Hiring is tied to growth. An employer should be hiring at a time of growth. Similarly an employer needs to hire to grow. There is absolutely no benefit to anyone for an employer to hold onto unfilled jobs.
Not really. With the global economy companies can double their production overnight without adding a single job. Also sometimes, expectations from new employees are ridiculous. I once spoke with a headhunter who presented me a long laundry list of "must be". His client refused to compromise on any requirement. At the end I asked him: If indeed I had all these qualifications, why would I work for this company? I should be very busy, employed or working for myself, making tons of money. Why would I choose a low salary and relocate without paid relocation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"We have college grads that haven't been able to find work for years.'
That's a pretty broad statement.
Being you have access to so much info, how about telling us the breakdown of what degrees these poor souls have?
They probably are in areas like biology, liberal arts, history, special ed. They may also be in social work, psychology or chemistry. Like it always was. Now a question: why can't a history major work as a bank teller or at an insurance company?
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie
I blame the job seeker.... They pretend they want to work, but when hired, they don't want to work or worse, they are incompetent and create more work for you... Why would anyone hire people like that and there is so many of them...
Did it ever occur to you that employers are worse liars than employees? That you may start working and the actual job is very different then what was described at the interview? That when you actually begin, they expect you to perform for 2 more people they refuse to hire? Or that they omitted or downplayed some responsibilities? I saw it every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
People have higher expectations for life than their paychecks afford them.
So are employers. More so then employees. I know companies who keep a list of job openings for months or years.
From the above statement I interpret a whole bunch of, "It's not fair!" mentality. Start your own business and run it the way you want if you don't like it. Demanding that others run their businesses they way YOU think they should is... well it shows a desire to redistribute wealth based upon YOUR beliefs. Would you think that appropriate if you were the business owner, the person who risks everything if their business fails? Maybe you just think these policies should apply to corporations because after all, they are just evil money seekers, not individuals who take investment risk for the sake of investment income.
How about we let those who take the risk decide what is in their company's best interests.
Who are "they"? The investors, top executives, customers or perhaps the employees? Did you consider that I also happen to be a small investor in a few companies and its not in my best interest to pay $20M bonuses to anyone? And beyond your "suspicion" about my motivation, do you find anything I wrote incorrect or inaccurate?
According to supply-siders (i.e people who believe in economic voodooism), unemployment should be at all times low when corporate profits are at all times high.
Who are "they"? The investors, the top executives, the customers or perhaps the employees? Did you consider that I also happen to be a small investor in a few companies and its not in my best interest to pay $20M bonuses to anyone? And beyond your "suspicion" about my motivation, do you find anything I wrote incorrect or inaccurate?
Yes I find most of what your statements inaccurate. Example based on your above statement > As an investor you have a vote in the board of directors, the very same board that determines the contracts agreed to to top earners in the company or corporation. Don't whine when each year you ignore a company's financial and policy statements which include this information.
According to supply-siders (i.e people who believe in economic voodooism), unemployment should be at all times low when corporate profits are at all times high.
Maybe it's because of high unemployment you have high profit...
Kind of bull --- you don't hear of illegals complaining about not finding jobs. They can show up from 3000 miles away and have fine jobs -- so fine they can send $800 a month back to their own countries. Would Obama be planning a very massive amnesty if he thought Americans wanted jobs?
Because they are paid less than legal wages and they save their employers money and thus making higher profits and besides who are they going to complain to?
Maybe it's because of high unemployment you have high profit...
Now you have to take into account globalism. That high profit may not be coming from US sales.
How many US only companies have those same huge profits as the multi-nationals ?
Now you have to take into account globalism. That high profit may not be coming from US sales.
How many US only companies have those same huge profits as the multi-nationals ?
Not to mention the amount the rich are spending over seas....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
