Joe wrote: I'm going to take a moderate position here and agree that in many cases employers are being cheap a$$es and taking advantage. Over this past year I have told recruiters "no thanks" the wage offered is way too low, not interested. I have also seen ads for jobs listing extensive experience and skills reqd, and then say 3 years of experience and low salary. 3 years of experience and most people are still green IMO
Hopefully this will all adjust over time when the economy recovers.
+1. I heard some farmers whining about how they couldn't find workers but then they say their wages and they are very low for that tough work. Too many employers got used to abusing illegal immigrants and got used to bidding down wages for new hires.
Back on topic, I'm interpreting the article as saying entry level $10/hr jobs are available and hard to fill. Perhaps entry level employees would rather stay on unemployment and food stamps, and experienced people won't take these low paying jobs. So where are the mid level jobs?
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Not sure I buy it all- but if it's true it may be a good sign of an economy that has bottomed out. Employers will be forced to pay what it takes to attract good labor- not because the government says they have to - but because the market says they have to. Some of those employers simply can not raise wages- because their profit margin is too thin. They will be forced to raise prices- i.e. inflation.
And then there's the other possibility- that people have become lazy. People have settled into the welfare state all cozy like- and prefer the easy Obama bucks to actually working.
But many people add up their constantly renewed unemployment, food stamps and housing assistance and realize that they can make as much not working, as working..... We are creating a permanently dependent class of people in the country who won't ever want to work again. Harsh talk, but that's our experience.
There may be some truth to this- why work when the gobbermen will provide for free?
We hosted a job fair where we hired 40 people. Twenty-five showed up for training. Only two lasted more than a couple of weeks. People work for three months and get themselves fired so they can collect unemployment for another year.
We have learned to document everything we do with an employee. We've become sticklers for regulation. Finally, we hired an inside recruiter and created surveys designed to discover who is truly serious about working.
Teenage un-employment is at 25% or higher- they can't find jobs and the reasons are varied- maybe some jobs are taken by people like GOP Twin- but many others are occupied by illegal labor. Those Mc Dougles and Taco Bell jobs are a good example- 10 years ago those jobs were going to teenagers. I see this trend even here in Evergreen.
And how can we get the teenagers to want to work again after living in their mom's basements playing video games for 5 years now?
Yeah, that must be it... (Listening to too much Limbaugh again..) It must be that all those laid-off workers got "too lazy". Just the kind of bullsh*t generalization I would expect from the sociopaths.
LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, that must be it... (Listening to too much Limbaugh again..) It must be that all those laid-off workers got "too lazy". Just the kind of bullsh*t generalization I would expect from the sociopaths.
I've personally seen some of that. We don't have a lot of work, but have looked for employees to work 24-32 hrs per week, sometimes more, sometimes less. Some people applying have said it isn't worth coming in for only that many hours. Their unemployment pays for approx 16-20 hrs of work, so why work all those hours for only a few more $$.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Oh, well, if "you've personally seen some of that", then it must be universal... rofllol Since the meaning of the sentence I wrote referred to the stupid generalization that the workers got LAID-OFF because they were lazy, thanks for the irrelevant comment.
LadyJazzer wrote: Oh, well, if "you've personally seen some of that", then it must be universal... rofllol Since the meaning of the sentence I wrote referred to the stupid generalization that the workers got LAID-OFF because they were lazy, thanks for the irrelevant comment.
You can't make this garbage up...
Considering personal experience is much more viable than your ridiculous blanket statement....
I thought your comment was in regards to laid off people who didn't want to go back to work...that is what the article implied it appeared to me.
Of course, what was I thinking LJ. You don't care to hear anything that opposes your preconceived opinion, even if it is someone's ACTUAL vs your perceived reality.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Anecdotal evidence from one of the right-wing radicals on this forum to back up a sweeping generalization about all laid-off workers being "lazy" ranks right up there with animal feces.
jmc wrote: You crack me up! What a stereotype, every unemployed troll claims to be a "programmer" working from home.
You are a joke.
I'll tell you what jerk-wad (and you started this)... if I can prove to you that I am a programmer, working from home, making good money... you promise to put up a thread with the title "I apologize to The Liberals GOP Twin" and post an apology to me, with no snark, no "out," a plain and simple apology?
You are on, only 2 conditions.
1-you made more than 25k on your 1099 from "programming"
2 you had no gov disability checks.
lets go! phoney man.
Since the meaning of the sentence I wrote referred to the stupid generalization that the workers got LAID-OFF because they were lazy, thanks for the irrelevant comment.
