|
Post by ty on May 12, 2011 20:23:22 GMT -5
Again, bad idea to check the time on a cell in the middle of a job interview. I have bought my niece several inexpensive watches so she never does that. Maybe you have learned your lessons not to look at your watch or cell during your job interviews. If anyone in the middle of a job interview starts looking at their watch or cell, then I think I would pass them up for hiring. If anyone cannot make it through an interview without gawking at a watch or cell... go somewhere else and look at your tinker toys at the unemployment lines.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 21, 2024 15:11:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2011 20:29:54 GMT -5
"He paid $500 total for the 3 watches, sold one for $600."
If he said "I paid $500 for 2 watches, then I worked digging ditches for $600, so the watches were free" would you agree? It doesn't matter how he made $600, he still paid $500 for the watches. They were not free.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 21, 2024 15:11:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2011 20:37:27 GMT -5
"but I think we see each other's points, so we are just discussing semantics"
I don't think you see my point. My point is that the watches were not free. It is like people that buy stuff they wouldn't normally buy because it is on sale and they will "save money". They aren't saving money and his watches were not free.
|
|
|
Post by ty on May 12, 2011 22:21:01 GMT -5
I agree with you on insulting an employer by breaking eye contract to scr#w around with the cell or watch. Even a watch has to be used with discretion, i.e. glance at it on your way in the door and your way out, not during. Another "kiss of death" is sound devices. A nurse friend of mine was told point blank that she lost out on a job because she had a headphone on her head while waiting to be interviewed. It is all about focus and common courtesy. When I was young, the house rule was, television gets shut off when guests arrive, get up, greet them and shake their hands. So much for common courtesy...
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on May 13, 2011 0:59:33 GMT -5
Again, bad idea to check the time on a cell in the middle of a job interview. I have bought my niece several inexpensive watches so she never does that. I wouldn't look at a watch during an interview either though. I mean, seriously, it makes you look like you're bored or have somewhere more important to be. You might as well ask whoever's interviewing how much longer this is going to take, which would be tantamount to just telling them thanks but no thanks and walking out. Besides, how often are you people sitting in interviews? I'm talking on a day to day basis. I have a cell phone. It's with me at all times. It tells the time. Why do I need a whole seperate device who's sole purpose is to also tell the time? I just don't get it. My cell even syncs up with the local cell tower which is linked to some atomic clock somewhere, so it's always accurate and adjusts for daylight savings automatically.
|
|
suziq38
Well-Known Member
I love to save
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 21:11:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,160
|
Post by suziq38 on May 13, 2011 10:31:56 GMT -5
My DH was interviewing a prospective employee when his cell phone rang during the interview. He was not very bright, so he answered it. Needless to say, he did not get the job.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 21, 2024 15:11:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 10:33:15 GMT -5
Another question, is that 30K gross or net? Would make a big difference
|
|
Clever Username
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 27, 2011 14:15:59 GMT -5
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by Clever Username on May 13, 2011 12:01:44 GMT -5
Another question, is that 30K gross or net? Would make a big difference Um...if you're only earning $30k, even single, taxation is next to nothing. If you've got dependants, you're net is probably larger than your gross. And thanks to some vague wording in the article, this is all hypothetical, there was something about living on $30k "if I need to again in the future."
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 13, 2011 12:12:15 GMT -5
Well, having lived in Naperville where a lot of these high on the hog types live and have lost money-- it's a little tough living on $30K a year in a place where your property taxes suck up $6,000 to $12,000 of that. The OP doesn't mention LCOL area as key to the strategy-- but it definitely is. I have a buddy that lives quite well on $14K a year. His property taxes are $1,100 a year.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 13, 2011 14:25:11 GMT -5
"He paid $500 total for the 3 watches, sold one for $600." If he said "I paid $500 for 2 watches, then I worked digging ditches for $600, so the watches were free" would you agree? It doesn't matter how he made $600, he still paid $500 for the watches. They were not free. Digging ditches is not related to the buying or selling of watches. Suppose we consider the watches an asset - he bought low & sold high. No different than buying a stock low & later selling off a portion of those stocks. Or do we need to tell phil that he has wasted all his money purchasing stocks & that all money he "earned" from selling stocks doesn't count in considering whether or not his stock purchases were a waste of money. He would not have gotten the $600 had he not made the $500 initial investment. How he earned the $600 certainly matters when we consider whether or not the $500 was "wasted" on purchasing watches. He invested $500 & walked away with $600 & 2 watches. Had he earned $600 digging ditches & not selling a watch, then he has $600 & 3 watches, at which point you could argue the $500 was wasted because he could have had $1100 & no watches. But, since the $600 income required the $500 to be spent, then I would argue the two are certainly related & the claim of getting 2 free watches is valid.
|
|
|
Post by bobbysgirl on May 13, 2011 22:35:15 GMT -5
This Movado watch is about $600ish. Does it tell time better than a normal priced watch? Why would anyone pay that much, I'm wondering.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on May 13, 2011 22:38:04 GMT -5
The clock on your phone still works when you don't have cell service. Granted I can't unobtrusively check the time during an interview or something, but if I'm doing something that would require unobtrusively checking the time, it's probably important enough that I should be focusing and the time doesn't really matter.
For the record I still own a watch. I think. I last saw it in Loop's jewelry box about three years ago. I assume it's still in there somewhere but the battery is probably dead.
|
|