you can move to a new place
Who's the dumb one who didn't think of that obvious answer?
moving new places requires money that many people do not have. it is stupid, or even beyond stupid, to claim someone did not try and get a job because they did not apply to every open job in the whole ******* country.
But you did answer my question, you really are this dumb
So you think that if you can't get a job withing a 20 minute drive from home that you are not unemployed by choice?
And FYI I'm not the one who said I applied for most of the jobs available, you did
Most employers nowadays won't consider candidates with much more of a commute than that, except for high level positions. The new age thinking is that moderate commutes makes employees much more likely to be late, call out, etc.
very true. During the recession they would also not hire someone they knew was just treading water till they got a better offer, it was not worth it to them. And I fully understand
I think that is still true. Employment practices permanently changed during the recession.
But I don't agree with it at all, especially back then. It makes no sense to be afraid of an employee leaving for a better job in a job market where unemployment was in the double digits. If they wanted to utilize the deep well of available labor to wait for the absolute best possible candidates, they would have jumped at high potential candidates with relatively few options applying "below" their ability, and used the opportunity to cultivate them into long term assets, and allowing them to surpass peers (and even supervisors) with less capability. It is well known that the overwhelming share of voluntary job departures are caused by relationships with bad bosses. It's not about money, it's not about growth opportunities. In reality, the trend had nothing to do with worrying about an employee leaving for a better offer. That was just an excuse. It had everything to do with capitalizing on the economic times to leverage the continued, long term stagnation of wages by targeting candidates who were most likely to settle for the lowest wage the employer could muster for as long as possible, while also being the most likely to accept duties and performance levels above their titular positions.