ext_306469 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2010-06-01 12:59 pm
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2010-06-01 12:59 pm
Entry tags:
Disposable People: The Unemployed Need Not Apply
From Clickorlando.com 6/1/10:
Job hunters are facing a new hurdle: businesses asking recruitment companies to keep unemployed people out of their job pools.
Video here.
Yes, you read that right. Some businesses are now placing job ads that exclude all those icky unemployed people. A trend I first mentioned back in July of last year is continuing and, according to this story, growing.
So, many of the unemployed face, not only the cutting off of their unemployment benefits, not only potential employers holding bad credit ratings, (often a byproduct of not having a job) against them, they now are increasingly being barred by potential employers from applying for job openings -- because they are unemployed.
Apparently in today’s society, more and more, once you’re out, you’re out.
Think of the weapon this hands employers. The saying, so beloved of free market types, “If you don’t like the job, quit and find another one,” is becoming not just a platitude, but a mocking sneer. Quitting is no longer an option, being fired, or laid off, no longer a relatively minor blip in someone’s working life.
If this trend continues, unemployment itself could become a catastrophe that knocks someone permanently out of full time work.
no subject
==================
* that can include such things as bankruptcies, foreclosures, car repossessions including voluntary ones, and bounced checks.
no subject
no subject
I write all my resumes in stagecoach.
Re: I write all my resumes in stagecoach.
no subject
no subject
Because one is likely an indication of poor education and/or carelessness, the other likely an indication of how much money the applicant can afford to spend on expensive paper.
bs: They're bother oversights and errors, no?
No.
no subject
Why?
bs: In fact, if I were a betting man, I'd bet I can go back in your comments and show where you equate just that.
I'd be curious to see where you believe I've said that. Certainly I believe graduating from high school and college ups your chances of getting a good job, but I've known plenty of people with advanced degrees who live modestly, and plenty of people who stopped at getting a Bachelor's who pull in high incomes.
bs: Obviously, discriminating on someone misspelling a word is being classist!
Where have I said that?
bs: I guess paper is a "good" indication of income, but education isn't?
A high level of education is an indication that either your parents had money, or you at one time had enough to pay for that education. The quality of paper you use for a resume is more likely to indicate your present ability to pay for expensive paper.
Do you understand the difference?
JS: And I enjoy how you say poor education "or carelessness". Careful not to use too many synonyms of "oversight" or else you might contradict yourself. Ooops, too late. (see below)
Where do you imagine I'm contradicting myself?
BS: And how come choosing the wrong paper is a lack of income and not carelessness?
I'm sure it can be. It can also be an indication of someone not having a lot of money to spare. It's not an indication of carelessness or poor education akin to bad spelling.
Kind of like a poor credit rating can indicate either irresponsibility when it comes to money -- or bad luck, as in a serious illness or a layoff in hard economic times.
bs: They're bother oversights and errors, no?
p: No.
bs: Please read your first sentence in the response directly above this for massive LULz
Sorry, but I don't see the "LULz." As I said, I don't consider the use of inexpensive paper the equivalent of a poorly spelled resume.
no subject
Md: The mind... it is blown.
Is there something you find unclear about the following sentence?
"Certainly I believe graduating from high school and college ups your chances of getting a good job, but I've known plenty of people with advanced degrees who live modestly, and plenty of people who stopped at getting a Bachelor's who pull in high incomes."
It's called "nuance." Making this very simple and factual observation does not qualify as equating income with education.
bs: Let me just ask you outright: do you really think that the majority of people use thin paper because they lack $7, or do you think that the majority of people use cheap paper because they don't think the expensive stuff is worth it. Answer honestly now, I'll wait.
I have no idea. I'm sure there are a lot of reasons, good and bad. But I would not equate simply deciding to use cheaper paper on a resume with making spelling and grammatical errors on it.
bs: Oh, you asked me where you contradict yourself. Besides the above (which was almost a record)
You seem to regard nuance as "contradiction."
no subject
Example?
bs: I like how it's "question dodging" when it's something you disagree with, but it's "nuance" when you do it.
Example?
bs: So let me just ask the question: are a person's education level and income level generally related to each other so that those with greater levels of education tend to have greater levels of income: Y/N?
Yes in some fields, No in others. I know many writers, filmmakers, performers, teachers, artists, and activists who have advanced degrees, but lower incomes and more modest lifestyles with people who have undergraduate degrees. Hell, I have a masters -- but my MFA in writing does not put me on the same income level of an MBA, or even someone who has a bachelors in, say, computer science.
bs: Semantics ARE fun!
I don't consider language a word game.
bs: you say you do not equate education with income and then later state that good education requires income?
Well, acquiring a good education often requires money (or more often, parents with money.) But actually having an advanced degree does not guarantee an "advanced" income once you've graduated and hit the working world. The fact that someone twenty years ago acquired a PhD does not mean they are well off today, or pulling in a high salary.
bs: Should we maybe use the word "correlate" instead?
"Correlate" would certainly be a better word to use than "equate," but even then, it would depend on what kind of graduate degree a person had.
bs: Is it just that you were using such an extreme level of nuance that I couldn't understand it?
I think it more likely that you are feigning obtuseness in order to avoid conceding a point.
bs: Was it that you said two exactly opposite things
No.
bs: If you have "no idea" why people tend to use thin paper
I didn't say I had "no idea" why people tend to use thin paper. Your question was not "why do people use thin paper?" Your question was "do you really think that the majority of people use thin paper because they lack $7, or do you think that the majority of people use cheap paper because they don't think the expensive stuff is worth it."
My answer is, I have no idea whether the majority of people use thin paper because they lack $7, or whether the majority use cheap paper for some other reason. I have no idea how, statistically, that would break down.
bs: regardless of what you think, it's easily demonstrable that two things can both be classified as errors in judgment even though they're not the exact same kind of act.
Sure, they can both be errors in judgement. The question is whether they are comparable errors in judgement.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Most of the people I know who have had serious health problems are not real keen to share that fact with potential employers -- especially if they are cancer survivors.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject