Actually it appears so based on the post.
This is the entirety of what he said:
I would hire someone in a heartbeat who took a lower paying job in a tough economy vs. taking unemployment. It is short term, not long term and in the short term tough choices have to be made. Imagine the interview
“noticed that in last two years you performed tasks outside your area of expertise at a pay level much lower than you were used to getting” Please explain
“yes, there were no jobs in my field available due to the economy so rather than take unemployment benefits I decided it was more important to work doing anything”
What do you think the employer would say next?
He seems to agree with me that he intended this in the regular course of hiring.
Why would you hire someone if they didn't have the expertise in the work you need done? That makes no sense.
He never said that's what he'd do. That's what you read into it.
Furthermore, hiring them purely because they worked for less is ignoring the realities of your cost structure.
Only if he's following your self-serving construct, which he doesn't appear to me to be doing.
Why would you
assume he meant anything other than the regular course of hiring, especially as he clarified what he was referring to later? That's baggage YOU bring, not he.
Actually it is. Furthermore, he did not give any other rational.
Doesn't appear to be -- and if he doesn't, that doesn't give you license to make all kinds of assumptions, which you did.
Whoa. What makes you think they got to you if they had no intention of hiring? If they had no intention of hiring, why bother get the person who actually does the hiring involved? Waste of time.
This made me laugh out loud. You must not have much experience with large companies if you think they just randomly interview people without any need expressed by the departments where the jobs would actually be.
My whole beef is the notion that he'd hire solely because the guy worked for less. That he'd rather hire him then bear the cost of unemployment tax on his business. That makes no sense. Hire this guy and pay all of these costs or pay next to nothing comparatively for unemployment for this guy.
That's not what he said. You're making things up. He said he'd be willing to hire someone if they showed that they want to work BY not sitting at home and collecting unemployment and instead taking a lower-paying job.
As I said, given the choice between applicants who would do that and applicants who wouldn't, the hiring choice is obvious. Well, maybe not to you, apparently.
Then we have interpreted his post differently.
Yes, and my interpretation was correct. It's pretty much the interpretation anyone with experience in hiring would first come to, anyway.