PFT: Or perhaps it...goes overseas? Or perhaps it...no longer exists? bs: Perhaps it's filled by a dancing monkey in a costume.
Really? You've heard of this?
That's odd. What I've been reading about and hearing in the media for the past couple decades was companies going overseas to take advantage of cheaper workers, or companies going kablooie because upper management screwed up.
Please point me to all those articles about dancing monkeys in costumes being responsible for job losses.
BS: If it no longer exists then it wasn't needed. Are you saying businesses should hire people simply so that jobs exist?
No. I'm saying that assuming someone is unemployed because they're less competent, less hardworking, and less trustworthy than people who are employed is a fallacy. The fact of being unemployed should not be seen as a bar sinister by potential employers.
bs: You do realize that continuous hiring from a static pool of individuals for a given number of jobs less than said number of individuals never results in all positions being filled, right? Or that, in fact, all things being equal, an equal number of unfilled positions will still exist at the end of the process, right?
And how long down the road is that "end of the process?"
bs: There are 5 jobs at 5 companies, three of which are filled by three individuals. Please tell me how those companies continuous hiring of those three individuals amongst themselves fills the equivalent of those 5 positions.
I'm sorry, but this example you're offering makes no sense to me. How does this justify the assumption that being unemployed is evidence of incompetence or untrustworthiness?
no subject
bs: Perhaps it's filled by a dancing monkey in a costume.
Really? You've heard of this?
That's odd. What I've been reading about and hearing in the media for the past couple decades was companies going overseas to take advantage of cheaper workers, or companies going kablooie because upper management screwed up.
Please point me to all those articles about dancing monkeys in costumes being responsible for job losses.
BS: If it no longer exists then it wasn't needed. Are you saying businesses should hire people simply so that jobs exist?
No. I'm saying that assuming someone is unemployed because they're less competent, less hardworking, and less trustworthy than people who are employed is a fallacy. The fact of being unemployed should not be seen as a bar sinister by potential employers.
bs: You do realize that continuous hiring from a static pool of individuals for a given number of jobs less than said number of individuals never results in all positions being filled, right? Or that, in fact, all things being equal, an equal number of unfilled positions will still exist at the end of the process, right?
And how long down the road is that "end of the process?"
bs: There are 5 jobs at 5 companies, three of which are filled by three individuals. Please tell me how those companies continuous hiring of those three individuals amongst themselves fills the equivalent of those 5 positions.
I'm sorry, but this example you're offering makes no sense to me. How does this justify the assumption that being unemployed is evidence of incompetence or untrustworthiness?