RE: The third thing you do is assign a cockamamie motive for these folks hiring who they hire, somehow thinking that business is so easy these days that some kind of perverted agenda can be adhered to in hiring policy.
OK, I agree with you — BUSINESS IS *NOT* EASY THESE DAYS. See Post #31 for instance.
My main question is the assumption that those who are laid off are MOSTLY because they are under-performing or incompetent.
I really need statistical proof of that. I don’t think the burden of proof is on my part.
LET ME REPEAT SLOWLY. The assumption is NOT an assumption....it is a recognition of fact. Second, it has nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, zip zero nada, nothing, nothing, to do with original lay off.
It is ALL, as in ALL, as in 100%, about how the person reacted to the adversity of losing that first job. Period. You are trying to assign personal and anecodatal evidences into an impersonal big picture.