PFT: 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. bs: Most every person in charge of hiring will disagree with you. What do you think this means?
If true, it means that every person in charge of hiring is plainly oblivious to what things like catastrophic illness or severe recessions can do to someone's job situation. If true, it means the every person in charge of hiring is as incompetent as you seem to assume the unemployed are.
Of which there are a great many these days. Again, are you claiming that we've had a sudden epidemic of incompetence among American workers?
bs; You might also want to look up what the word "fallacy" means. It's not an error in logic to think that someone being unemployed is related to their employability.
It is a fallacy to simply assume that all the unemployed are unemployed because they are less competent than the employed. There are many reasons for being unemployed that have little to do with one's skill at one's job.
bs: You may disagree with the strength of the correlation, as you seem to, but by no means is it fallacious.
Sweeping generalities are generally fallacious.
PFT: And how long down the road is that "end of the process?" bs: Does it matter?
To someone struggling to pay their bills and keep their home, yes, it matters.
bs: If the process goes on indefinitely then what we've done is made a static number of individuals have a set of skills worth approximately infinity dollars. Not only will this basically mean an insta-hire for anyone willing to work for less than infinity dollars, it also means we've solved the problem of poverty. Emotional economics rules.
Could you try expressing yourself using less jargon? Your above paragraph is practically impenetrable. What do you mean "approximately infinity dollars?" And how does this solve the problem of poverty? And what is "emotional economics?"
bs: Do you similarly complain when someone hires a temp worker because their position needs to be filled immediately?
No. I do complain when companies rotate temps rather than fill the position, however.
bs: My god, how long can this process of temporary workers go on?!
In some cases, it goes on to the point where a company hires people as temps who end up working on what amounts to a permanent basis -- without the benefits and protections of permanent workers.
PFT: 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? bs: That's not what's being discussed,
Excuse me, but that's exactly what's being discussed.
bs I will take your non-objections to mean that you actually do realize that there is no net loss in jobs and thus your argument is invalid.
Tell it to the very large numbers of newly unemployed.
no subject
bs: Most every person in charge of hiring will disagree with you. What do you think this means?
If true, it means that every person in charge of hiring is plainly oblivious to what things like catastrophic illness or severe recessions can do to someone's job situation. If true, it means the every person in charge of hiring is as incompetent as you seem to assume the unemployed are.
Of which there are a great many these days. Again, are you claiming that we've had a sudden epidemic of incompetence among American workers?
bs; You might also want to look up what the word "fallacy" means. It's not an error in logic to think that someone being unemployed is related to their employability.
It is a fallacy to simply assume that all the unemployed are unemployed because they are less competent than the employed. There are many reasons for being unemployed that have little to do with one's skill at one's job.
bs: You may disagree with the strength of the correlation, as you seem to, but by no means is it fallacious.
Sweeping generalities are generally fallacious.
PFT: And how long down the road is that "end of the process?"
bs: Does it matter?
To someone struggling to pay their bills and keep their home, yes, it matters.
bs: If the process goes on indefinitely then what we've done is made a static number of individuals have a set of skills worth approximately infinity dollars. Not only will this basically mean an insta-hire for anyone willing to work for less than infinity dollars, it also means we've solved the problem of poverty. Emotional economics rules.
Could you try expressing yourself using less jargon? Your above paragraph is practically impenetrable. What do you mean "approximately infinity dollars?" And how does this solve the problem of poverty? And what is "emotional economics?"
bs: Do you similarly complain when someone hires a temp worker because their position needs to be filled immediately?
No. I do complain when companies rotate temps rather than fill the position, however.
bs: My god, how long can this process of temporary workers go on?!
In some cases, it goes on to the point where a company hires people as temps who end up working on what amounts to a permanent basis -- without the benefits and protections of permanent workers.
PFT: 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?
bs: That's not what's being discussed,
Excuse me, but that's exactly what's being discussed.
bs I will take your non-objections to mean that you actually do realize that there is no net loss in jobs and thus your argument is invalid.
Tell it to the very large numbers of newly unemployed.