Instead of laying off people...

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: Toasthead
you are assuming that all unemployed people WANT TO work. You are also assuming that all unemployed people share the same skill set. There are LOTS of unemployed people who have little to no skills and would be unable to do a lot of jobs.

also employees cost companies a lot of money. Having 100 95% time workers would cost a company a lot more than having 95 100% workers.

The official 5% unemployment rate does not include people that don't want to work. They are considered out of the work force. The only people that are counted in offical government data are those people actively looking for a job, those that are sending out resumes, going to interviews, etc.

HAHAHAHA That is the funniest thing I have ever read

Glad to brighten your day, I guess. Now, care to tell everyone what's so funny, I want to know my great joke dammit.

I'm curious as to why that's funny too

 

[Moonbeam]

We'll need somebody that actually knows something here, but the reason I suspect it could be the funniest thing ever is that IIRC you are dropped from the rolls if you're benefits have run out too. You can still be looking for a job, be unemployed and not be technically counted. But like I say, somebody who knows for sure will have to step in. I don't have to worry, so I don't care to look it up.

 

[Zebo]

I've always looked at people with jobs as those from inferior blood lines who haven't got the cash to pass to their kids so they don't have to work.

 

[Moonbeam]

I've always looked at people with jobs as those from inferior blood lines who haven't got the cash to pass to their kids so they don't have to work.
------------------
Yep, and Mwilding thought his asshole and elbows self was hot. PFFFT. The guy's a minnow.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I agree, bad economic times are a great way to lay off the worthless scum. Anybody with a job knows that.

So, you're calling me worthless scum because the economy is weak and I'm unemployed? Yeah right!

... why don't employers reduce hours? Unemployment is 5%? I don't think anyone would mind working 5% less in exchange for full employment.

Actually, I have a better concept. Why don't we just pay CEOs a "normal" salary.

 

[SoylentGreen]

I think someone hijacks moonbeams account.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I've always looked at people with jobs as those from inferior blood lines who haven't got the cash to pass to their kids so they don't have to work.
------------------
Yep, and Mwilding thought his asshole and elbows self was hot. PFFFT. The guy's a minnow.

Which brings us back to the meaning of life which I think we are not rich because we have riches we have riches if we are rich.

 

[vladgur]

Originally posted by: Dudd
Wages are inflexible downwards. Take a look at unions. They fight if they don't get the wage increase they want, let alone a raise reduction. People simply don't want to accept a drop in their income. Also, as everyone else has stated, employees are more than simply a paycheck.

Unfortunately there are no unions in the computer industry and you DONT GET PAID OVERTIME. If I were getting paid for all the overtime I put in, my salary would double if not triple...

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Mwilding:

99.99999999999999% of the population could not care less what the unemployment rate is as long as they have a job.

And full employment is impossible. The world has a large supply of lazy people....
-------------------
Actually Mw, I've always looked at people with jobs as those from inferior blood lines who haven't got the cash to pass to their kids so they don't have to work.

Depends on the job. If I was a billionnaire and had the opportunity to be Jennifer Connoly's sex slave for $2/hour I'd work

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: Toasthead
you are assuming that all unemployed people WANT TO work. You are also assuming that all unemployed people share the same skill set. There are LOTS of unemployed people who have little to no skills and would be unable to do a lot of jobs.

also employees cost companies a lot of money. Having 100 95% time workers would cost a company a lot more than having 95 100% workers.

The official 5% unemployment rate does not include people that don't want to work. They are considered out of the work force. The only people that are counted in offical government data are those people actively looking for a job, those that are sending out resumes, going to interviews, etc.

HAHAHAHA That is the funniest thing I have ever read

You imply that all people who are drawing unemployment are activily seeking new employment when that simply is not the case. While many are some can drawemployment while employed:Q. My sister is drawing on CA unemployment while working part time and this is perfectly legal. She now lives in MN and works in a part time "temp" position. Many on unemployment "take a few weeks off" to get there things together and many look at it as a 6 month vaction. IN california you need to be "actively seeking employment" to draw your unemployment check, this requirement really only prevents you from going to school. The way they check if you are activily seeking employment is if you check the box that says "activily seeking" Occasionally they may ask where you submitted a resume or applied to however all you have to sayt is there were no job that met your qualifications in the Newspaper. You also have to say you were availible to work BUT again this is nothing they to to check on that. With the Feds extending Unemployment 13 weeks many people can remain out of work for quite a while and never apply anywhere.

I find the fact that you actually BELEIVE that EVERYONE who is drawing a check would take a lesser job just to be working. I was on unemployment for almost a month when I moved. I was laid off and moved to MN for another job. I called and explained that I was moving in a month and I had another job waiting for me. The guy asked me if there was any reason I could not work and I told him I did not have a car because the job I was let go from provided me with one. He told me that I could get it because I needed a job that provided me with a company vehicle, and unless I turned down a job that did that I would still qualify. I got almost a grad for doing nothing but making a phone call and I applied NO WHERE because I needed a job that was a only one month long and 2 provided me with a car. Of course those jobs donot exsist. They UI guy told me exactly what to do to get my benifit and even when i asked him doesn't this seem kinda wrong to you he said "no"

Saying that every person drawing unemployment would take the first job they could find is like saying that every person on welfare is just trying to better themselves and get off it.
Glad to brighten your day, I guess. Now, care to tell everyone what's so funny, I want to know my great joke dammit.

 

[Moonbeam]

Mwilding:

Depends on the job. If I was a billionnaire and had the opportunity to be Jennifer Connoly's sex slave for $2/hour I'd work
-------------

That's because you have a peon mentality. Had you the gift of superior genetics she'd be paying you.
--------------

wje, so you got no job, huh. "So, you're calling me worthless scum because the economy is weak and I'm unemployed? Yeah right!"

Dang, man, why direct your anger at me. I was only echoing the genius, rufruf44 and his comment, "Those layoff is also a mean for management to toss out the bad apples. Sometimes, it works wonder on efficiency." and others to follow. Shouldn't the guy who started it get the blame? You got to admit, not having a job is kind of suspicious, bad economy or no. Have you gone on welfare yet?

 

[CallTheFBI]

Instead of getting laid off why can't people just get laid? That sounds like a better economic decision to me.

 

[T2T III]

wje, so you got no job, huh. "So, you're calling me worthless scum because the economy is weak and I'm unemployed? Yeah right!"

Dang, man, why direct your anger at me. I was only echoing the genius, rufruf44 and his comment, "Those layoff is also a mean for management to toss out the bad apples. Sometimes, it works wonder on efficiency." and others to follow. Shouldn't the guy who started it get the blame? You got to admit, not having a job is kind of suspicious, bad economy or no. Have you gone on welfare yet?

No - I haven't applied for welfare, yet. I'm currently working with an out-placement agency and most positions are taking 3 months to land. Additionally, a few years back, there was a rule of thumb - 1 month of job searching for each $10,000 in salary. I'm not too sure how that applies during today's economy. Oh, I wasn't attacking you directly - I just replying to your comment because yours was the last one made - and you did indicate that people where were laid off were "worthless scum" - or, did I not understand you correctly?

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: CallTheFBI
Instead of getting laid off why can't people just get laid? That sounds like a better economic decision to me.

Well, if you're good enough at it, I guess you could make some money along the way.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: tm37<brYou imply that all people who are drawing unemployment are activily seeking new employment when that simply is not the case. While many are some can drawemployment while employed:Q. My sister is drawing on CA unemployment while working part time and this is perfectly legal. She now lives in MN and works in a part time "temp" position. Many on unemployment "take a few weeks off" to get there things together and many look at it as a 6 month vaction. IN california you need to be "actively seeking employment" to draw your unemployment check, this requirement really only prevents you from going to school. The way they check if you are activily seeking employment is if you check the box that says "activily seeking" Occasionally they may ask where you submitted a resume or applied to however all you have to sayt is there were no job that met your qualifications in the Newspaper. You also have to say you were availible to work BUT again this is nothing they to to check on that. With the Feds extending Unemployment 13 weeks many people can remain out of work for quite a while and never apply anywhere.

I find the fact that you actually BELEIVE that EVERYONE who is drawing a check would take a lesser job just to be working. I was on unemployment for almost a month when I moved. I was laid off and moved to MN for another job. I called and explained that I was moving in a month and I had another job waiting for me. The guy asked me if there was any reason I could not work and I told him I did not have a car because the job I was let go from provided me with one. He told me that I could get it because I needed a job that provided me with a company vehicle, and unless I turned down a job that did that I would still qualify. I got almost a grad for doing nothing but making a phone call and I applied NO WHERE because I needed a job that was a only one month long and 2 provided me with a car. Of course those jobs donot exsist. They UI guy told me exactly what to do to get my benifit and even when i asked him doesn't this seem kinda wrong to you he said "no"

Saying that every person drawing unemployment would take the first job they could find is like saying that every person on welfare is just trying to better themselves and get off it.
Glad to brighten your day, I guess. Now, care to tell everyone what's so funny, I want to know my great joke dammit.

I was talking about the unemployment rate, which if I remember correctly, is calculated by a statistical survey of several thousand people, then extrapolated for the entire population. Unemployment benefits != the unemployment rate. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[IGBT]

That would help...and mabe the serial protesters could demand the return of the manufacturing jobs. Wouldn't bother me to pay 5.00 more for a pair of shoes if I knew they were made in the US by American workers.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: Toasthead
you are assuming that all unemployed people WANT TO work. You are also assuming that all unemployed people share the same skill set. There are LOTS of unemployed people who have little to no skills and would be unable to do a lot of jobs.

also employees cost companies a lot of money. Having 100 95% time workers would cost a company a lot more than having 95 100% workers.

The official 5% unemployment rate does not include people that don't want to work. They are considered out of the work force. The only people that are counted in offical government data are those people actively looking for a job, those that are sending out resumes, going to interviews, etc.

OK, this started a bit of a flame but there is some inaccuracy to it. You often see inaccurate statements that the unemployment data doesn't include "discouraged workers" etc. The unemployment number is calculated by taking the official number of people on unemployment, and adding the results of surveys on the number of people "available for work". So it includes people drawing unemployment whether they want to work or not and also includes people who say they would take a job even if they are not sending out resumes etc.

Some companies do cut back on hours if they think the employees have valuable skills and business will return. However, one "rule" of business is that you can always be more efficient by laying off 5 to 10% of your least effective workers.

 

[T2T III]

However, one "rule" of business is that you can always be more efficient by laying off 5 to 10% of your least effective workers.

The only problem with that methodology is that you can cut the bottom 10%. However, your mid-level performers now sink to the bottom. Eventually, if you do enough cuts like this, your top-level performers will eventually work their way to the bottom of the stack - even though they worked as hard as always. Plus, there is no real "fair" way to determine the bottom 10%. More times than not, you will be represented in a corporate meeting by a manager that doesn't know you. You could be a very hard worker, but if your name hasn't stuck in the minds of those managers, you'll be the first one added to the cut list. I've seen this happen one too many times.

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Jelly, you mention a time when people cared in a time when you can clearly see they do not. Then you tell me that the politicians are uninterested too. Are you trying to make me mad or do you have another intention? I was merely trying to tell those who don't care because they have jobs that there are those of us out there who could care less if they become unimployed, because we got ours through superior genetics. People who work are inferior, not much better then their lazy kin. You see that don't you?

I'd never try to make you mad, MB. I would tell you charities once thrived when taxes were low. Nuclear families were the order of the day before Hollywood and the Boob Tube. People, I suspect, were closer together compared to today because they literally dependent on Uncle Charles, not Uncle Sam.

I hope you don't feel with the "right" people in government and with the government given enough authority, you can solve all social problems and create a utopia. I'm against that. To go that route means each of us must give up our power of choice to the State. The State always corrupts, considers you simply a statistic and exists solely to expand itself. Scares me and I don't scare easily.

Now I'm all for temporary aid...what those pesky conservatives call a "safety net" should you fall. I'm just against permanent cushions.

Oh and I believe the value of a person does not lie in how they are employeed or how much they make. So long as you go to sleep each night without dreading tomorrow you're "making it" in my book.

 

[Moonbeam]

Jelly, well sorry if I can't convince you of my superior genetics because I don't need to work. I hope you don't mind if I continue to laugh my ass off at those who have to work for a living who laugh and call those who've been laid off lazy. They are so proud of themselves slaving away and growing my pie. I only hope they get their turn. I do, however, differ with you on a lot of your points. You want a temporary cushion for a quadraplegic back from Nam? You don't trust government, people are a statistic.

We are the government and the government is us. We are either one big happy family, or our intidivual families are as disfunctional as the government. It took the government to break separation in the armed forces, to defeat segregtion, to provide universal education. If fools run the government we go down, if enlightenment consentrates ther we to up. We get what we deserve at home and nationally. The evil of government is a collective desplay of our own individual selfishness and lack of care. What we do wrong in this society is to honor moneymaking instead of social responsibility.

 

[JellyBaby]

I guess my genetics aren't good enough to understand yours. Oh well, life goes on. Some are lazy and won't work unless they're nudged. Others can't contemplate life outside the 9-5 grind. Can a government decide for them what is best?

I fancy the notion of self-government, of limited government. Just enough of it to keep things running smoothly, to protect us from harm and to allow us to go after that wonderous life/liberty/pursuit of happiness. I don't believe it should be used to solve all problems. It's a great feeling to solve a problem, to earn a reward even if the reward is only a feeling.

A toy given to a child is played with for a while then quickly forgotten. An allowance earned by a child, used to acquire something is more meaningful to the child. A dog that lies inactive chews on its own paw out of boredom. A dog that is taught to "play ball" wags it's tail and licks you. The dog is still a dog in either case, but most would like to see the dog run because the dog is having a blast.

What we do wrong in this society is to honor moneymaking instead of social responsibility.

I would say a greater wrong is a government that mandates society must promote X over Y.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Americans have created a dog eat dog world that's turned everybody into dogs. Dogs worry about their share, not the welfare of the next guy. Any softness could be fatal. Unemploynent can be ended overnight by executing people who aren't working.

Sorry Moonie, that's utter bullsh!t. Nature is dog eat dog, and we are but a product of nature.

Unless of you've changed your tune and suddely believe in God and the fact that we're more than advanced animals.

 

[ElFenix]

tm37, that might be how california does it but federal unemployment figures come from the current population survey, which is a phone survey conducted once a month. it asks if you have a job, if thats over a certain amount of hours you're employed (like 5 or something). if not, they ask if you've looked for work in the last x period, if so, you're unemployed, if not, then you're counted as not in the workforce.

 

[Moonbeam]

Jelly, how about when X is better than Y.

Bober, sorry man, but you don't understand evolution. The reason why we survived at all is because we are a group animal. So are ants. Ants and men are among the most successful animals on the planet. We succeed by cooperation. With the ants its chemically programmed. With us it's both instinctural and learned. Our huge brains are really predictors. We anticipate and on the way became empathetic. I know what you feel because I know what I feel when I radiate what you are. When we are hurt we care for each other. It's how we are. Competition has replaced cooperation becasue year by year, the hate and pain we accumulate in life is transferred to out children in the messages we give them about who they are. You are no good unless you win. Winner take all. Know anything about game theory. Is that the way to win?

edit Naturally I don't mean you don't know anything about evolution.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Americans have created a dog eat dog world that's turned everybody into dogs. Dogs worry about their share, not the welfare of the next guy. Any softness could be fatal. Unemploynent can be ended overnight by executing people who aren't working.

Sorry Moonie, that's utter bullsh!t. Nature is dog eat dog, and we are but a product of nature.

Unless of you've changed your tune and suddely believe in God and the fact that we're more than advanced animals.

I believe it has always been "dog eat dog." However, the pace of this behavior has certainly picked up its pace over the past few years - and people are not so discrete about it any more. Look at all of the highly-educated business executives who'll fiddle with the accounting numbers ... only to have it haunt them six months later.