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.
Yeah if you were forced to move back home you have to accept any job because there is no way you can live with your parents and not work
I was still being picky because I was still receiving in UC and wanted to choose the right job. But if I had to move back home I would have no longer had that option
I also volunteer from time to time, and I meet pretty able bodied older men and women who have been unemployed for many years. I have no idea what they do for $.
You just have to take what comes. If I'm ever in that situation where I'm out of work and UI has run out, I already have a number of jobs lined up that I'd apply for.
You are posing a different question than parried. Your concern is about employers asking for levels of experience higher than you deem necessary. Parried has his knickers in a twist about not receiving responses for all of his applications.
Your issue is that we have still not worked through our high nemployment levels and have too many well qualified unemployed workers. Yes, that is terrible for you, and you may hav to respond by increasing your credentials or reducing your expectations.
While high unemployment is a real problem, the blame, in my opinion, is a political thing having to do with unfettered bank deregulation, the bush tax cuts and a couple of unfounded wars. Your opinion on root causes may differ, but no matter who is right, the situation exists. Whether or not you get responses is completely irrelevant to all of this and simply indicates you need to do something a bit differently.
I also think that CEOs who were given huge packages worth possibly many millions of dollars (including bonuses and other perks) is a real problem. They were just allowed to run amok.
Even if they fail at their job.
They feel so entitled.
For instance, the last CEO of Washington Mutual got a package when the company failed of about $20 Million.
I also think that CEOs who were given huge packages worth possibly many millions of dollars (including bonuses and other perks) is a real problem. They were just allowed to run amok.
Even if they fail at their job.
They feel so entitled.
For instance, the last CEO of Washington Mutual got a package when the company failed of about $20 Million.
I also think that CEOs who were given huge packages worth possibly many millions of dollars (including bonuses and other perks) is a real problem. They were just allowed to run amok.
CEO pay does not make or break a company and did not cause the recession. While annoying, it generally does not cause many job losses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJbest
Well, that's what the investors agreed to. Sucks for them. Their loss.
No, not really. I own stock through mutual funds, as well as a few stocks directly. Nobody has asked me what I think of Jeff Bezos', Bill Gates', or Warren Buffett's compensation packages.
Executive compensation is largely a rubber stamp procedure approved by the board of directors, which is composed if other corporate CEOs. It functions as an oligarchy and investors have little impact on the numbers.
No, not really. I own stock through mutual funds, as well as a few stocks directly. Nobody has asked me what I think of Jeff Bezos', Bill Gates', or Warren Buffett's compensation packages.
Become a majority shareholder and change what you don't like. As a minority shareholder, you agree to what those in control do. I'm sure you're not complaining that those companies in which you referenced the CEOs of have made shareholders a great deal of wealth over the last 10-20 years.
There are many more applicants than there are jobs. Some employers respond only to those people they are interested in interviewing.
While this may be rude, it is not a structural problem in our employment system.
It is a problem when an UNO's pizzeria or Joe's Crab Shack keeps advertising on snagajob for dishwashers, I apply, and recieve no response or acknowledgement. Or worse, the next day I get an email saying I am not qualified....TO WASH dishes.
If a business decides not to sell a product that isn't profitable, are they perceived as "lazy?"
If a person cannot turn a reasonable profit from a job, it seems sensible to me to simply refuse to work.
If a business decides not to sell a product that isn't profitable, are they perceived as "lazy?"
If a person cannot turn a reasonable profit from a job, it seems sensible to me to simply refuse to work.
Double standards.
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.
