bs: The screen cap posting shows a salary range of $90K - $130K and mentions Sony Ericsson. These look to be at least moderate to highly skilled jobs where employment shouldn't be as large of an issue as with unskilled labor. In these instances, job gaps - yes, even in harsh economic times - are likely a fair indicator of ability.
Not if you're over a certain age.
bs: Why do you think they wouldn't find it beneficial to, say, hire someone at $75K instead of paying a different person $100K to bring them from another job? Could it possibly be that the return on investment is better?
That's not necessarily so if the person they hire from another job is younger than the person they pass over.
bs: People don't just engage in these manner arbitrarily (we hope),
snerk.
BS: and not cutting payroll when you have the chance is certainly something one has to explain to their boss.
Riiight. And piling more work on the employees who are left, who have to explain to irate consumers why service has suddenly gone in the can is NOT something one has to explain to the boss.
bs:: Secondly, what happens to that job that was previously filled but is now open? Perhaps it... creates another job?
Or perhaps it...goes overseas? Or perhaps it...no longer exists?
You do realize that the high unemployment rates are not an illusion, right?
bs: Besides, as someone else mentioned, there is definitely the potential to get better applicants. And I can guarantee you that there's scads of people who are unemployed and are sending their resume to everyone, even if they are vastly underqualified.
And there are scads of people who are very well qualified and still having a hard time finding a job.
Or is it your contention that, all of a sudden, massive numbers of American workers became incompetent and unqualified?
bs: Nor have you shown how this single data point is a trend, despite the highly investigative journalism of Click Orlando's Channel 6 News Team.
It's a trend first described by the Wall Street Journal last year:
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/10 04:23 (UTC)Not if you're over a certain age.
bs: Why do you think they wouldn't find it beneficial to, say, hire someone at $75K instead of paying a different person $100K to bring them from another job? Could it possibly be that the return on investment is better?
That's not necessarily so if the person they hire from another job is younger than the person they pass over.
bs: People don't just engage in these manner arbitrarily (we hope),
snerk.
BS: and not cutting payroll when you have the chance is certainly something one has to explain to their boss.
Riiight. And piling more work on the employees who are left, who have to explain to irate consumers why service has suddenly gone in the can is NOT something one has to explain to the boss.
bs:: Secondly, what happens to that job that was previously filled but is now open? Perhaps it... creates another job?
Or perhaps it...goes overseas? Or perhaps it...no longer exists?
You do realize that the high unemployment rates are not an illusion, right?
bs: Besides, as someone else mentioned, there is definitely the potential to get better applicants. And I can guarantee you that there's scads of people who are unemployed and are sending their resume to everyone, even if they are vastly underqualified.
And there are scads of people who are very well qualified and still having a hard time finding a job.
Or is it your contention that, all of a sudden, massive numbers of American workers became incompetent and unqualified?
bs: Nor have you shown how this single data point is a trend, despite the highly investigative journalism of Click Orlando's Channel 6 News Team.
It's a trend first described by the Wall Street Journal last year:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203872404574257983795638374.html#mod=loomia?loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r2:c0.0468835:b26142496
The WSJ article observes that "The bias extends from front-line workers to senior managers."