Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread


  • Please log in to reply
5768 replies to this topic

#5221 nasum

nasum

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:25 PM

When I was hourly, I would have been happy to work more than 40 hours in a week at my regular rate of pay. Instead, every hourly job I worked at capped me at 40 hours (although at few jobs, I could score overtime in special situations).

Thanks, unions.


false equivalence. Why not thank your employer for limiting your work?
3DS Buddy Code 2767-0055-5245 send a pm with your code if you add and I will return the favor
XBL - Nasum2

#5222 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:27 PM

Actually she isn't. I can work just fine but I have no medical training, shall I apply for the director of surgery position at my nearest hospital?
I can work just fine, shall I apply for a CFO position at Target?

I'm qualified to do X but there are few openings for X. I'm not qualified for Y so I'm not looking for Y. I'm overqualified for Z and there's no point in me doing Z.
The "everyone should work" theory basically states that all the X people should be doing Z work instead of finding X work that is better pay or going through the process of becoming qualified to do Y work.

It's like the workfare stuff that Guiliani thought was so great. Sure, you've got people on unemployment and welfare going out and cleaning up parks or whatever, but that takes up the time that they could be using to find better and more meaningful work or getting the training necessary to have better jobs. Better jobs that would of course bring in more income tax revenue (as well as giving those earners more spending power which would benefit the economy on the whole) but that isn't the point when the goal is to further push down the middle while giving the city cheap labor.


This sounds like the people that say "I looked all week/month/year for a job in my field and couldn't find any"

Well guess what? Then work outside your fucking field! Just because you're currently employed doesn't mean you have to stop job searching...

I'm overqualified for Z and there's no point in me doing Z.

^ Again part of the problem not the solution

#5223 nasum

nasum

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:32 PM

not all jobs demand the same pay rate and benefits


No one argues that. We all know that medical researcher trumps register jockey. Here's the funny thing, when the "lefties" say equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity, we mean equal pay for the work and equal opportunity.

Here's the best analogy:
We all should have the right to play baseball and enjoy baseball. That does not mean we all get paid like Jeter. It just means we have the chance to play baseball.

Does that clear it up at all for you?
3DS Buddy Code 2767-0055-5245 send a pm with your code if you add and I will return the favor
XBL - Nasum2

#5224 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:38 PM

Hoooooo....You got me, I'm a total socialist. Wanting people to actually contribute rather than sponge off of the producers..

" I'm overqualified for Z and there's no point in me doing Z." uhhh, not if you are trying to feed your kids and pay for all the stuff you charged while working X. Not taking a lower position is selfish, expecting the tax payer's to provide for you until X re-emerges is selfish and irresponsible. Is Z flipping burgers? If so, then there is a tangible "point". You provide a good or service and receive a wage. Is Z cleaning a park? Still a "point" is present. Watch the Stossel video I posted above. It refers to people staying on assistance and turning down job offers pretty consistently. The Danes graph of people finding work just as there benefits expire, even with changing deadlines, is pretty damning.

"...but that takes up the time that they could be using to find better and more meaningful work or getting the training necessary to have better jobs. Better jobs that would of course bring in more income tax revenue...". Problem is that I don't see this as the case very often. I see generational welfare with participants who are quite comfortable and content without ever attempting to better there position at all.

Sorry to Doh, for still quoting with the ol copy/paste method. It is just faster and more efficient for me.

#5225 nasum

nasum

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:41 PM

^ Again part of the problem not the solution


So instead of a small bit of unemployment to keep the rent paid and allowing the time to find a high paying job that has benefits for the state (income tax), you prefer that the individual waste their time picking up a park which prevents them from searching for better work let alone going to interviews and such? What's the benefit?

Here's another thing that your suggestion fails to address:
For every 1 middle income job posted, there are almost 50 qualified applicants. Those other 49 that don't get the job aren't lazy. There simply aren't enough jobs.

But hey, better that we call them lazy and force menial labor heavy tasks that serve no purpose when there's 400 low income applicants for every 1 available job.

"Well at least they're working" is pointless when the end result is further squeezing the low and middle class. It's petty and speaks of "revenge" on people that get a "vacation" while you have to go work hard every day. It isn't a vacation.
3DS Buddy Code 2767-0055-5245 send a pm with your code if you add and I will return the favor
XBL - Nasum2

#5226 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:44 PM

Employers love hiring people who supplement periods of unemployment by working positions they are overqualified for. Six months as a honey dipper? That's the sort of thing that'll get you right back into the world of finance.

...get fucking real.
Posted Image

#5227 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:45 PM

[QUOTE]Sorry to Doh, for still quoting with the ol copy/paste method. It is just faster and more efficient for me.[/QUOTE]

^ I'm not an internet message board wizard like others but you can still "Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V" text and then put quotes around it in an attempt to not clutter posts by using the "Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text" feature. It is the little button that looks like "[q]".

[quote name='nasum']So instead of a small bit of unemployment to keep the rent paid and allowing the time to find a high paying job that has benefits for the state (income tax), you prefer that the individual waste their time picking up a park which prevents them from searching for better work let alone going to interviews and such? What's the benefit?

Here's another thing that your suggestion fails to address:
For every 1 middle income job posted, there are almost 50 qualified applicants. Those other 49 that don't get the job aren't lazy. There simply aren't enough jobs.

But hey, better that we call them lazy and force menial labor heavy tasks that serve no purpose when there's 400 low income applicants for every 1 available job.

"Well at least they're working" is pointless when the end result is further squeezing the low and middle class. It's petty and speaks of "revenge" on people that get a "vacation" while you have to go work hard every day. It isn't a vacation.[/QUOTE]


So I guess people don't have enough time in their day to continue job searching if they take jobs that are "Beneath" them. Gotcha.


[QUOTE]Employers love hiring people who supplement periods of unemployment by working positions they are overqualified for. Six months as a honey dipper? That's the sort of thing that'll get you right back into the world of finance.

...get ing real.[/QUOTE]

Okay so a six month period of complete unemployment looks better at your next job interview then six months where you found part/full-time work while continuing to look for an ideal position?

You get fucking real.

#5228 nasum

nasum

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:51 PM

" I'm overqualified for Z and there's no point in me doing Z." uhhh, not if you are trying to feed your kids and pay for all the stuff you charged while working X. Not taking a lower position is selfish, expecting the tax payer's to provide for you until X re-emerges is selfish and irresponsible. Is Z flipping burgers? If so, then there is a tangible "point". You provide a good or service and receive a wage. Is Z cleaning a park? Still a "point" is present. Watch the Stossel video I posted above. It refers to people staying on assistance and turning down job offers pretty consistently. The Danes graph of people finding work just as there benefits expire, even with changing deadlines, is pretty damning.

1. Unemployment for the first 26 weeks is paid by the employer
2. The subsequent 73 are paid from a federal fund signed in by great patriot bush
3. You're still failing to understand that the goal of workfare is to supress middle and low income wages
4. "paying for stuff that you charged" demonstrates your complete lack of simple economics. That charging provided income to companies that paid for workers within their company. It also creates debt that keeps the credit card company highly profitable, a company that hires more people. So on and so forth. Your understanding of the world is seemingly limited to "I have a job, I buy stuff. Other people don't have jobs, I pay for their life" which is indicitive of your simple mind.

"...but that takes up the time that they could be using to find better and more meaningful work or getting the training necessary to have better jobs. Better jobs that would of course bring in more income tax revenue...". Problem is that I don't see this as the case very often. I see generational welfare with participants who are quite comfortable and content without ever attempting to better there position at all.

Sorry to Doh, for still quoting with the ol copy/paste method. It is just faster and more efficient for me.


Of course you don't see that as the case. Your view is excrutiatingly narrow. And I'll bet you don't see the enormous tax credits given to big box retailers for setting up shop in town as welfare either.

Further demonstrating #4 above, you imply that we should all live in constant fear of job loss and therefore only save and not spend. Not a single ramification on the economy there...
3DS Buddy Code 2767-0055-5245 send a pm with your code if you add and I will return the favor
XBL - Nasum2

#5229 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:53 PM

[QUOTE/]So I guess people don't have enough time in their day to continue job searching if they take jobs that are "Beneath" them. Gotcha.




Okay so a six month period of complete unemployment looks better at your next job interview then six months where you found part/full-time work while continuing to look for an ideal position?

You get fucking real.[/QUOTE]


I totally agree with GBAstar's logic here.

#5230 nasum

nasum

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:55 PM

Employers love hiring people who supplement periods of unemployment by working positions they are overqualified for. Six months as a honey dipper? That's the sort of thing that'll get you right back into the world of finance.

...get fucking real.


directed at me? If so, I think you may have missed something.
3DS Buddy Code 2767-0055-5245 send a pm with your code if you add and I will return the favor
XBL - Nasum2

#5231 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:55 PM

So I guess people don't have enough time in their day to continue job searching if they take jobs that are "Beneath" them. Gotcha.




Okay so a six month period of complete unemployment looks better at your next job interview then six months where you found part/full-time work while continuing to look for an ideal position?

You get fucking real.



I totally agree with GBAstar's logic here.


Just another tip...

If you have a block of text you want to quote the correct tags are:


"QUOTE" Block of text "/QUOTE" where you replace " and " with [ and ]

You don't need a "/" in the first quote tag. Hope that helps

#5232 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:02 PM

So instead of a small bit of unemployment to keep the rent paid and allowing the time to find a high paying job that has benefits for the state (income tax), you prefer that the individual waste their time picking up a park which prevents them from searching for better work let alone going to interviews and such? What's the benefit?

Here's another thing that your suggestion fails to address:
For every 1 middle income job posted, there are almost 50 qualified applicants. Those other 49 that don't get the job aren't lazy. There simply aren't enough jobs.

But hey, better that we call them lazy and force menial labor heavy tasks that serve no purpose when there's 400 low income applicants for every 1 available job.

"Well at least they're working" is pointless when the end result is further squeezing the low and middle class. It's petty and speaks of "revenge" on people that get a "vacation" while you have to go work hard every day. It isn't a vacation.


As I pointed out, this is a regurgitation of some of the worst parts of FDR's "New Deal".

I cannot stress how fail egofed and GBAStar's thinking is - they are psuedo-libertarians advancing failed New Deal policies.

#5233 nasum

nasum

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:02 PM

or just hit that handy quote button...

Having been a hiring manager I'll tell you what we like to see:
An employment gap that shows you're looking to use your skills.

We don't like to see:
A trail of jobs that says you're always looking for a step up and not exactly a loyal employee (you'll jump from my company the second "something better" comes along)

But feel free to keep engaging in your reality bubble.
3DS Buddy Code 2767-0055-5245 send a pm with your code if you add and I will return the favor
XBL - Nasum2

#5234 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:11 PM

Isn't loyalty all but gone from the work place anyway really? I mean people don't tend to stay in the same job as long as they used to. I know I'd jump ship from my current job in a heartbeat if I got offered more money somewhere else.

Yeah It's off topic, better than arguing with those knuckleheads.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#5235 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:12 PM

1. Unemployment for the first 26 weeks is paid by the employer
2. The subsequent 73 are paid from a federal fund signed in by great patriot bush
3. You're still failing to understand that the goal of workfare is to supress middle and low income wages
4. "paying for stuff that you charged" demonstrates your complete lack of simple economics. That charging provided income to companies that paid for workers within their company. It also creates debt that keeps the credit card company highly profitable, a company that hires more people. So on and so forth. Your understanding of the world is seemingly limited to "I have a job, I buy stuff. Other people don't have jobs, I pay for their life" which is indicitive of your simple mind.


Of course you don't see that as the case. Your view is excrutiatingly narrow. And I'll bet you don't see the enormous tax credits given to big box retailers for setting up shop in town as welfare either.

Further demonstrating #4 above, you imply that we should all live in constant fear of job loss and therefore only save and not spend. Not a single ramification on the economy there...


Unemployment versus welfare, which are we debating? I do think 99 weeks of unemployment is f'ing crazy. I am "simple". It's great! I've never had any credit card debt. If I want something, I save up for it and pay for it when I have the cash. (Actually I use my credit card on most everything, just pay it off every month. No fees and a little cash back). I detest corporate welfare. Examine my post history. I say do away with it almost as much as I decry personal welfare. I am not a fan of our current economic system. I think the Fed is corrupt and see almost everyone living outside of their means. I do have a mortgage that I could pay off if they remove the interest deduction. Am I a freaking genius who can run my life in such a responsible way? I would guess you would say "no";-). So how can such a simple concept as work and save be lost on so many? And sitting at home watching TV with heat and food provided by somebody else is a lot of people's idea of a vacation. I have stated before that I am basing my opinions on my personal observations and experiences in gov't subsidized areas in which I work. I tend to believe my own eyes over biased stats and figures. I know of 20 blocks of welfare recipients who are suffering from generational poverty and lack of self responsibility in my city alone. Call it narrow, I call it my experience....


Thanks to GBAstar and others for attempting to help my "non-quoting" ass.

#5236 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:13 PM

Okay so a six month period of complete unemployment looks better at your next job interview then six months where you found part/full-time work while continuing to look for an ideal position?

You get fucking real.


An employer would rather hire the guy who has been sitting on his butt. If someone is hiring for a aeronautics engineer and you haven't been designing planes for the past six months then they're not going to be that interested in what you were doing - unless you were flipping burgers.

This is the real world kiddo - in a super tight job market employers can accept that a promising candidate couldn't land a skilled job for a short timeframe, but seeing a recent job history of low-skilled work is going to tarnish your image and set you back. Real talk

#5237 nasum

nasum

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:14 PM

byproduct of moving pensions to defined contribution plans, stagnant wages and a lack of respect for employees
3DS Buddy Code 2767-0055-5245 send a pm with your code if you add and I will return the favor
XBL - Nasum2

#5238 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:19 PM

An employer would rather hire the guy who has been sitting on his butt. If someone is hiring for a aeronautics engineer and you haven't been designing planes for the past six months then they're not going to be that interested in what you were doing - unless you were flipping burgers.

This is the real world kiddo - in a super tight job market employers can accept that a promising candidate couldn't land a skilled job for a short timeframe, but seeing a recent job history of low-skilled work is going to tarnish your image and set you back. Real talk



sigh...maybe I am out of touch. I would prefer the guy who demonstrated his work ethic and can do attitude by taking what job he could get at the time and providing for his family versus sucking at the gov't teat. If your right about working in any capacity "tarnishing" your image, then we are screwed as a country. Actually, someone told me that an inmate was given a sex change with tax payer money....we are dooooomed.;-)

#5239 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:23 PM

directed at me? If so, I think you may have missed something.

I don't think it was directed at you. Or at least, it wouldn't make sense since you're arguing the same thing albeit less sarcasticly.

As I pointed out, this is a regurgitation of some of the worst parts of FDR's "New Deal".

I cannot stress how fail egofed and GBAStar's thinking is - they are psuedo-libertarians advancing failed New Deal policies.

Funny thing that people forget about that time was that social programs were created to not only lessen the effects of poverty, but also to keep people from being desperate enough to not storm the mansions and start lining people up against the wall. Those programs were a compromise between labor and capital to keep capitalism alive. FDR should be capitalism's greatest hero.

But goddamn it egofed, just hit the stupid "quote" button at the end of the post you want to respond to. It's far easier than what you're doing and it makes it easier for everyone to read and understand your posts.

edit: THANK YOU

#5240 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:24 PM

byproduct of moving pensions to defined contribution plans, stagnant wages and a lack of respect for employees

I was actually going to say about the same, nothing to really hold anyone to a particular company anymore. My grandfather retired as a machinist after working for the same company for almost 30 years, I can't imagine doing that today. It'd have to be a fucking dream job.

But to what you said originally, wouldn't that make it kind of hard to figure out a person's loyalty?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#5241 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:27 PM

I was actually going to say about the same, nothing to really hold anyone to a particular company anymore. My grandfather retired as a machinist after working for the same company for almost 30 years, I can't imagine doing that today. It'd have to be a fucking dream job.


That's assuming that a company would even want to keep someone for that long these days.

#5242 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:29 PM

That's assuming that a company would even want to keep someone for that long these days.

That's true, in some cases they'd rather fire the old timers and bring in cheaper, younger labor. Look at the situation at a lot of auto plants, the old guys actually had a sweeter deal then the new hires because the unions were forced to cave in.

I wonder sometimes though, with the cost of training new people and all, just how much they really save.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#5243 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:39 PM

That's true, in some cases they'd rather fire the old timers and bring in cheaper, younger labor. Look at the situation at a lot of auto plants, the old guys actually had a sweeter deal then the new hires because the unions were forced to cave in.

I wonder sometimes though, with the cost of training new people and all, just how much they really save.

The savings are probably negligible, but there are intangible benefits to the organization in regards to keeping labor in check by reinforcing the message that the cogs are replaceable.

#5244 nasum

nasum

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:39 PM

depends. This company sold last week and I'm unemployed come 1/11/13. I've applied to 100 jobs that are either slightly under, right at or slightly above my current job in the last 14 days. I've had 3 call backs. Hard to say I'm unloyal when my job no longer exists.

But I'm lazy since I'll end up with at least 3 months of unemployment and I'm not going to go to Burger King. Why? Because I need the time to comb job sites, get in touch with my network, post resumes, go to job fairs, head out to every tall building within 20 miles to copy down the companies within and then go back home and look up each one and check out their career sections. Oh yeah, watch TV too. I simply can't do all of this and work the 27 hours per day necessary at $8hr to equal half a day of pay at my job.
3DS Buddy Code 2767-0055-5245 send a pm with your code if you add and I will return the favor
XBL - Nasum2

#5245 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:46 PM

Sorry to hear that nasum, hope things turn out well for you.
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#5246 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:50 PM

depends. This company sold last week and I'm unemployed come 1/11/13. I've applied to 100 jobs that are either slightly under, right at or slightly above my current job in the last 14 days. I've had 3 call backs. Hard to say I'm unloyal when my job no longer exists.

But I'm lazy since I'll end up with at least 3 months of unemployment and I'm not going to go to Burger King. Why? Because I need the time to comb job sites, get in touch with my network, post resumes, go to job fairs, head out to every tall building within 20 miles to copy down the companies within and then go back home and look up each one and check out their career sections. Oh yeah, watch TV too. I simply can't do all of this and work the 27 hours per day necessary at $8hr to equal half a day of pay at my job.

Sorry to hear that, dude. On the brightside, you have a nice ergonomic chair to do your job hunt on.:D Good luck!

#5247 nasum

nasum

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:53 PM

tax prep will fill the gap but that's about 20% of what I make. I suppose I could take on a bunch more clients but I'm too late in the advertising game and I'm not about to pimp my skills on craigslist and get god only knows what for clients.
There's a startup mortgage lender in the stripmall that is a 5 minute walk from my house that's looking for a JR underwriter. I don't have the necessary licenses but could probably get them within 90-120 days depending on the registration backlog. In the meantime I could help with credit analysis and such. I sold myself on being able to do their books too until the business grows to the point where my services are needed there more than in underwriting. They liked that.
3DS Buddy Code 2767-0055-5245 send a pm with your code if you add and I will return the favor
XBL - Nasum2

#5248 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:59 PM

depends. This company sold last week and I'm unemployed come 1/11/13. I've applied to 100 jobs that are either slightly under, right at or slightly above my current job in the last 14 days. I've had 3 call backs. Hard to say I'm unloyal when my job no longer exists.

But I'm lazy since I'll end up with at least 3 months of unemployment and I'm not going to go to Burger King. Why? Because I need the time to comb job sites, get in touch with my network, post resumes, go to job fairs, head out to every tall building within 20 miles to copy down the companies within and then go back home and look up each one and check out their career sections. Oh yeah, watch TV too. I simply can't do all of this and work the 27 hours per day necessary at $8hr to equal half a day of pay at my job.


How can you assume you'll be out of work for at least 3 months?

And for someone that allegedly makes $100K a year (i.e. 27hrs x $8 = 1/2 day of old rate x 2 = full day rate at old job x 5 work days a week = $2,160/wk x 52 weeks = $100K+) I'm sure you have savings right?

#5249 nasum

nasum

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 10:10 PM

Savings yes. I finished my refi a week before finding out. With that reduction in monthly costs I'm solvent for nearly 10 months. Toss in UI at 33% of my current pay and I'm good for another 8 before the budget gets tight. Once Wells Fargo gets off their bums and mails me my escrow from the last mortgage I'll have another 2.5 months paid off there.
You're confusing wage with compensation. I'm including VERY good insurance and a 6% 401k match. It's impolite to talk about such things here, even more so to inquire. Also, the lack of insurance at BK would require me to pick up COBRA which is an enormous cost.
3DS Buddy Code 2767-0055-5245 send a pm with your code if you add and I will return the favor
XBL - Nasum2

#5250 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 31 December 2012 - 10:11 PM

sigh...maybe I am out of touch. I would prefer the guy who demonstrated his work ethic and can do attitude by taking what job he could get at the time and providing for his family versus sucking at the gov't teat. If your right about working in any capacity "tarnishing" your image, then we are screwed as a country. Actually, someone told me that an inmate was given a sex change with tax payer money....we are dooooomed.;-)


Settle down, we are not screwed. It's just how the white collar jobs market works.

I don't think it was directed at you. Or at least, it wouldn't make sense since you're arguing the same thing albeit less sarcasticly.


Funny thing that people forget about that time was that social programs were created to not only lessen the effects of poverty, but also to keep people from being desperate enough to not storm the mansions and start lining people up against the wall. Those programs were a compromise between labor and capital to keep capitalism alive. FDR should be capitalism's greatest hero.


Oh yeah it was a different time and different circumstances to be sure, from what I understand they ditched the make-work projects pretty early on and had folks work on more long-term, beneficial projects ranging from bridge work and water infrastructure to public works of art. I respect what FDR did given the circumstances of the times, but IMHO it's a little too close to centralized planning to be considered as anything but an emergency back-of-the-shelf option to alleviate an extreme economic depression.

Ironic that two of the most self-professed fans of capitalism would advocate such an extreme socialist position.