[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
and no point in taking the job.
[/quote]
Except that, you would have made more money taking the job, and continuing to look, than not taking the job, all other factors aside. So the point would have been a better financial position.
As for disagreeing with his point, he gave you the opinion of someone involved in hiring decisions. I can vouch for the fact that he is far from the only one that feels that way. I deal with management on a regular basis.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
and no point in taking the job.
[/quote]
Except that, you would have made more money taking the job, and continuing to look, than not taking the job, all other factors aside. So the point would have been a better financial position.
As for disagreeing with his point, he gave you the opinion of someone involved in hiring decisions. I can vouch for the fact that he is far from the only one that feels that way. I deal with management on a regular basis.
[/quote]
Except that I made the right decision in not taking the job.
And I wasn’t disagreeing with his point about hiring people who are working rather than not. Infact in one of my earlier posts I believe I made the same point.
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Except that I made the right decision in not taking the job.
[/quote]
YOU may have…
Look, I may have come across a little harsh - bad habit of mine. If I offended you, I apologize. Being unemployed sucks and it’s an emotional time - been there, done that. But my point is that having a job is better than not having a job. Even if it’s a lower paying job not in your field.
I saw what you wrote about working all those hours and not having time to find a job as an excuse. Everyone has a choice to either hide behind excuses or take risks. In my life I’ve hidden behind TONS of excuses about various things and it’s held me back. That’s the place I was coming from. I don’t generally log on here just to shit on people, but to offer some tough luv when I think it might be needed.
I will reiterate my position that if I interviewed someone for an electrical position, but that person was cutting grass or driving a truck for $10/hr. while they were laid off, and the other candidate was just sitting on the bench collecting unemployment, I would hire the guy who had the stones to do what had to be done to feed his family EVERY TIME - even if the other guy had a “better” resume.
That’s the point I was trying to get across to you. Best of luck in your job search.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Look, I may have come across a little harsh - bad habit of mine. If I offended you, I apologize. Being unemployed sucks and it’s an emotional time - been there, done that. But my point is that having a job is better than not having a job. Even if it’s a lower paying job not in your field.
I saw what you wrote about working all those hours and not having time to find a job as an excuse. Everyone has a choice to either hide behind excuses or take risks. In my life I’ve hidden behind TONS of excuses about various things and it’s held me back. That’s the place I was coming from. I don’t generally log on here just to shit on people, but to offer some tough luv when I think it might be needed.
I will reiterate my position that if I interviewed someone for an electrical position, but that person was cutting grass or driving a truck for $10/hr. while they were laid off, and the other candidate was just sitting on the bench collecting unemployment, I would hire the guy who had the stones to do what had to be done to feed his family EVERY TIME - even if the other guy had a “better” resume.
That’s the point I was trying to get across to you. Best of luck in your job search.[/quote]
Lol, I didn’t think you were that harsh, and I didn’t take it as a personal attack. I to was light hartdly joking with the 1000 blowjobs comment. I get it, it’s hard with the internet.
At the time this was going on, I do not believe that I was hiding behind anything, I truely believe that I made the right decision…the best decision for me, my family, and my future.
I have no problem with, and have no desire to tell you how to hire people. But just remember, just because someone isn’t working doesn’t mean they are sitting on their ass eating ice cream.
Also, this stituation was 2 years ago, I’ve had 2 jobs since then. It was just an example I was using. And yes looking back I did make the right decision within that situation…my next decision was a mistake…but we all learn.
Sad to see such a high unemployment rate.
They claim it could be to the long term economic advantage to America to extend Unemployment
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They claim it could be to the long term economic advantage to America to extend Unemployment [/quote]
Maybe we should get rid of disability payments then we will get a real picture of what unemployment actually is.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They claim it could be to the long term economic advantage to America to extend Unemployment [/quote]
Maybe we should get rid of disability payments then we will get a real picture of what unemployment actually is.
[/quote]
The problem with you prospect is it is an impossibility , it will never happen . We need a realistic approach .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They claim it could be to the long term economic advantage to America to extend Unemployment [/quote]
Maybe we should get rid of disability payments then we will get a real picture of what unemployment actually is.
[/quote]
The problem with you prospect is it is an impossibility , it will never happen . We need a realistic approach .
[/quote]
So $15 an hour is it?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They claim it could be to the long term economic advantage to America to extend Unemployment [/quote]
Maybe we should get rid of disability payments then we will get a real picture of what unemployment actually is.
[/quote]
The problem with you prospect is it is an impossibility , it will never happen . We need a realistic approach .
[/quote]
So $15 an hour is it?
[/quote]
IMO it is a negotiation . DC goes to $11.50
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/17/usa-districtofcolumbia-wage-idUSL2N0JV1OY20131217
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They claim it could be to the long term economic advantage to America to extend Unemployment [/quote]
Maybe we should get rid of disability payments then we will get a real picture of what unemployment actually is.
[/quote]
The problem with you prospect is it is an impossibility , it will never happen . We need a realistic approach .
[/quote]
So $15 an hour is it?
[/quote]
IMO it is a negotiation . DC goes to $11.50
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/17/usa-districtofcolumbia-wage-idUSL2N0JV1OY20131217
[/quote]
With some the highest cost of living in the country, I have no problem with this.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They claim it could be to the long term economic advantage to America to extend Unemployment [/quote]
Maybe we should get rid of disability payments then we will get a real picture of what unemployment actually is.
[/quote]
The problem with you prospect is it is an impossibility , it will never happen . We need a realistic approach .
[/quote]
So $15 an hour is it?
[/quote]
IMO it is a negotiation . DC goes to $11.50
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/17/usa-districtofcolumbia-wage-idUSL2N0JV1OY20131217
[/quote]
With some the highest cost of living in the country, I have no problem with this.[/quote]
Neither do I , I do see it as a trend though and I do think there will be bastions of do called conservative hold outs that will insist tax payers subsidize minimum wage workers
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do see it as a trend though and I do think there will be bastions of do called conservative hold outs that will insist tax payers subsidize minimum wage workers
[/quote]
You know, because government mandated wages aren’t a subsidy or anything.
lmao
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do see it as a trend though and I do think there will be bastions of do called conservative hold outs that will insist tax payers subsidize minimum wage workers
[/quote]
You know, because government mandated wages aren’t a subsidy or anything.
lmao[/quote]
Yeah I think a lot of people on both sides don’t understand this concept.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do see it as a trend though and I do think there will be bastions of do called conservative hold outs that will insist tax payers subsidize minimum wage workers
[/quote]
You know, because government mandated wages aren’t a subsidy or anything.
lmao[/quote]
Yeah I think a lot of people on both sides don’t understand this concept.
[/quote]
Of course not. Because if they thought it out and actually understood what happens they wouldn’t have their fancy talking points to use in partisan bickering. So why would they take the time to think it through?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do see it as a trend though and I do think there will be bastions of do called conservative hold outs that will insist tax payers subsidize minimum wage workers
[/quote]
You know, because government mandated wages aren’t a subsidy or anything.
lmao[/quote]
America has to give SNAP benefits and Health care benefits to the working poor in America . We are subsidizing their employment program, oh dim one
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do see it as a trend though and I do think there will be bastions of do called conservative hold outs that will insist tax payers subsidize minimum wage workers
[/quote]
You know, because government mandated wages aren’t a subsidy or anything.
lmao[/quote]
America has to give SNAP benefits and Health care benefits to the working poor in America . We are subsidizing their employment program, oh dim one
[/quote]
Jesus H fucking Christ.
Government mandated wages are a subsidy, the only difference between mandated wages and direct government transfer of funds is who the signs the bottom of the check.
I always wondered what the H stood for beans.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I always wondered what the H stood for beans.[/quote]
Holy