<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"><title>RedState</title><link>https://redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/03/04/no-unemployed-need-apply/feed/</link><description>Conservative News &amp; Politics</description><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 20:34:34 -0400</lastBuildDate><item><title>No Unemployed Need Apply.</title><description>&lt;![CDATA[I&amp;#8217;ll summarize this ABC article really quickly: the economy&amp;#8217;s bad, which means that any company that&amp;#8217;s actually hiring has a larger-than-average pool to draw from.  The economy&amp;#8217;s so bad and the pool&amp;#8217;s getting so large, in fact, that companies are finding that they can get away with explicitly stating that they&amp;#8217;re not interested in hiring the unemployed (as Hot Air notes, long-term unemployed individuals are historically more of a risk than the employed).  This is upsetting a bunch of people, because it&amp;#8217;s not actually illegal to do this.  What&amp;#8217;s not explicitly said in the article is that the young are the ones who are really going to take it in the chin, since a lot of companies are taking a blanket &amp;#8220;no-unemployed at all&amp;#8221; policy in order to keep this simple.]]&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 19:00:48 -0500</pubDate><creator xmlns="dc">&lt;![CDATA[Moe Lane]]&gt;</creator><enclosure url="" type="image/jpeg" length="123" /><link>https://redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/03/04/no-unemployed-need-apply-n38185</link></item></channel></rss>