Unemployed are going to stay that way

Some employers have said they're unwilling to hire unemployed workers because they believe that if a worker has once been let go, that's a sign that he or she is probably not a great hire. "People who are currently employed … are the kind of people you want as opposed to people who get cut,"[/quote]
I wouldn't have a problem with this logic if it wasn't for the fact that we've had the greatest recession since the great depression and to get out of it, you need to hire people!

So companies sitting on $3 trillion of reserves and being extremely picky with hires, still need tax breaks to encourage job growth? Huh?

Wow, which companies are sitting on $3 trillion in reserves? Whatever they're doing, they're doing it right, so I'd be inclined to let them keep doing it without bothering them.

Wow, which companies are sitting on $3 trillion in reserves? Whatever they're doing, they're doing it right, so I'd be inclined to let them keep doing it without bothering them.

$1 trillion. My bad.

Wow, which companies are sitting on $3 trillion in reserves? Whatever they're doing, they're doing it right, so I'd be inclined to let them keep doing it without bothering them.

They aren't doing it right, but we can't blame them either. Companies are watching out for themselves. They'd only hire people that they like. Qualifications is no longer applicable.

If the executives can make $20m from deals, why should they be worrying about hiring the rest of the country creating excess workforce in the company?

Warren Buffet could easily hire 1000 workers and pay them 50k each doing nothing but paint a picture of him, and raise the GDP. However, would that benefit his company in any way? No.

Nobody is playing the Schindler's role here.

Wow, which companies are sitting on $3 trillion in reserves? Whatever they're doing, they're doing it right, so I'd be inclined to let them keep doing it without bothering them.

I'm sure the private corporation known as the Federal Reserve is sitting on a lot more than $3 trillion.

I think it is overblown.
Private companies can hire whomever they want, with very few restrictions.

Gaps in a resume should be explainable. If the company says they don't like the explanation and it is enough to block from the job, that is certainly their choice.


The free market has a very simple way to compensate for this. Those who are poached from other companies require more money, those who are unemployed or underemployed will be willing to work for less, making them relatively more valuable. And in short order, those lower-paid people will be just as valuable as the previously employed, quickly balancing the ecosystem.

If the free market was doing this right now, I'd agree. But it seems that companies are going against the free market. And they are using "unemployment" as the scapegoat.

If the free market was doing this right now, I'd agree. But it seems that companies are going against the free market. And they are using "unemployment" as the scapegoat.

Well they are already doing what they are supposed to do -- running their businesses and recruit the people they want. Whether they are unemployed or employed, it really is their business who they want to recruit.

If they want to discriminate potential workers based on employment status, it is their loss if you think about it. These workers they think are 'undervalued' could've been a great asset if only they had hired them. Unfortunately, people love to think that they can understand people off a piece of paper and a few phone calls.

If the free market was doing this right now, I'd agree. But it seems that companies are going against the free market. And they are using "unemployment" as the scapegoat.

I can't make sense of this.
Isn't the point of a free market that there is nothing to go "against", except competitors? No matter which direction the market goes in, that's the direction of the "invisible hand" of freedom, right?

I wouldn't have a problem with this logic if it wasn't for the fact that we've had the greatest recession since the great depression and to get out of it, you need to hire people!

If hiring more people was the answer to business' problems, then why all the redundancies/unemployment? In order to survive the recession, businesses need to cut back on staff costs and be very selective about they people that they do hire...

Yeah, not sure what you want to happen here. Force all companies in the US to hire X number of new people? Companies aren't trying to be evil and stick it to all the poor honest folks without jobs; they're hiring who they want for the price they're willing to pay for their services because they think it will be most profitable to their business. If you hire someone who is already employed, then that other company is going to have to hire someone else to fill that position they just lost, yes?

I think you're complaining just for the sake of complaining, which is really lame.

Also,

I'm sure the private corporation known as the Federal Reserve is sitting on a lot more than $3 trillion.[/quote]

I'm trying to figure out if this is some sort of joke or sarcasm or what have you. Since when is the Federal Reserve a private corporation?