Can't obfuscate what you refuse to define.
LOL....
More obfuscation, I'm not surprised.
Just keep telling yourself whatever you need to to make yourself feel better, buddy.
LOL.
Pray tell, why would I need to feel better buddy?
Sure, most people live paycheck to paycheck, but "number one priority" doesn't magically equate to "full-time job". Seems you're trying to hedge your bets and backpedal a bit.
I guess it would make sense to you that a bum wouldn't draw unemployment benefits, huh? Just the kind of mental gymnastics you need so you can feel like your arguments actually work.
Hedge my bets, how so? What bets? What hedge? Yeah, most people don't have a lot of resources, and when they become unemployed, that introduces a lot of uncertainty into their lives whether you want to admit that or not. And the way to alleviate that uncertainty is to find another job. Most people would rather not be homeless. Most folks would like to have a place to live, and food in their bellies. And many people have families and children to support. So their number one priority would be to find another job and regain some sense of certainty in their lives and to be able to pay their bills. There's no mental gymnastics needed to understand this very basic issue.
What the hell dose a bum have to do with unemployment? It's that logic and common sense deficit which continues to vex you. If you are a bum, the odds are you haven't worked and therefore aren't qualified to receive unemployment insurance benefits. So what to bums have to do with unemployment? You are making shit up again buddy.
[sarcasm]Sure, buddy. I'm under a freeway during the winter, on my Alienware laptop with free wifi. [/sarcasm] Not sure where you'd get power, but you seem chock full of magical thinking.
I don't know where you are, and frankly, don't care to know where you are. You might be in Florida or Alaska. You might be in a library using a public computer. I have no idea. Once again for your edification: if you want to be a bum, that's your business. If you want to take off a year and be bum, that's your business, and it doesn't take a lot of money to be a bum. You might be living off of your family. I don't know and I don't care. I'm not sorry to tell you, it doesn't matter to me buddy.
Who said anything about "a period of unemployment"?!
Higher employee turnover just means there is a constant supply of job opening, hence easier job hunting. But just go right ahead and deny any data that doesn't fit your decades old experience.
I think you need to go back and reread my last post. Higher employee turnover doesn't mean more job opportunities nor does it mean easier job hunting. Most firms, and all good firms, don't like employee turnover, because it's expensive. That's why employers like to keep their employees whenever possible. Employers have to find, hire, and train new employees. That's a significant diversion of resources and expense.
High employee turnover doesn't turn one job into two or three jobs. It's still a single job. It doesn't change the fact that for every opportunity there are several candidates for that job. It's perplexing why you think there is something magical about employee turnover. Every time a job turns over, the employment process begins anew. It doesn't change the fact job applicants have to do all the things I have previously elucidated, e.g. create or update resumes, cover letters, search for jobs, prepare for interviews, attend for interviews. It doesn't change any of that. And if you want to be employed, you do as much of that as possible as fast as possible until you have a job.
Of course you wouldn't understand the simple relationship between the tw
o.
Well if there is a simple relationship, then you should be able to elucidate it, but you haven't. Because that "simple" relationship doesn't exist.
Hey, you're the one who said the last time you were job hunting was decades ago.
I did, and I explained why that is relevant, and I explained why your attack was a non sequitur. You are obfuscating again buddy.
I already cited the links that prove it. So you're just hoping a big enough lie will be believed by someone. Sad and pathetic.
You have provided some links, but you haven't proven your case. Let's look at your case for employee turnover. You cited document which showed the average tenure had declined from 4.7 to 4.3 years. That has nothing to do with employee turnover. That's a whole other animal.
What that number says is there has been a lot of hiring over the course of the last few years, and that would make sense. Because the unemployment rate has fallen significantly: going from 10% to 4.7%. Millions of jobs were lost during the Great Recession. That statistic indicates those jobs have come back. That statistic indicates there has been a lot of hiring. It doesn't indicate there is a high rate of turnover....oops. A falling unemployment rate indicates there is a lot of hiring, and that fact is validated by the job tenure statistic you referenced. So if you are going to cite a statistic, you should understand that statistic, and clearly you don't understand your statistic and your reference. Unfortunately for you buddy, facts matter.
What you have done is obfuscate. What you have done is offer a plethora of illogical argument. Yes, it is sad and pathetic buddy.
But whose fault it that?
