What would a candidate change?

• O-Trap

  

  FatHobbit;1296668 wrote:I'm not even sure if they all have degrees. (Not that degrees are the be all end all.) But we've had quite a few new people. Not all of them are doing good work and we have a lot of turnover because the ones who don't suck move on to something better. And when things don't work it just gets passed onto someone new who f's it up a little more. The place feels like a big house of cards right now. (and it does not appear that it's going to get any better)

  Felt that way about where I worked before. Hence my leaving.
• sleeper

  

  FatHobbit;1296657 wrote:I just want to work with competent people. Right now the people we have hired are the cheapest people they could find.

  You should ask your non-engineering college grads about what they are getting paid. They are willing to work for next to nothing in my opinion.
• HitsRus

  

  Where is this guy? What is "starting wage?"

  They'll be coming in Friday....I'll ask.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BoatShoes;1296454 wrote:A laissez-faire market does not provide employment for all able bodied individuals who are able and willing to work.

  How do you know? No one on earth has ever seen one.
  

  BoatShoes;1296454 wrote:Take our current economy...it is a capitalist dream...highly profitable enterprises with profits accruing to capital, core inflation hovering at or below 2% and a large reserve army of the unemployed that keeps downward pressure on wages.

  If true, it would be a real mystery why the current economy is so miserable for any business that isn't borrowing from, or being subsidized by, or being bailed out by the government and it's central bank.
• gut

  O-Trap;1296611 wrote:Fulfills unemployment requirements. You have to apply for two jobs per week, as I recall. Doesn't say they have to be viable options.

  I think so. For such a paltry requirement, there should be some sort of social service involved.
  
  But I don't think unemployment alone is enough to live on. As a supplement to some sort of rainy day savings I think it's probably a fair amount (ignoring the extension for 99 weeks). However, when you then add-in food stamps and other welfare I imagine it could be competitive with a min. wage job, even $10/hr. So no real secret, perhaps, that people who really don't want to work or can't keep or like the jobs they get...that they work a job just long enough to qualify for a new round of benefits.
  
  And it's perfectly rational (France & Europe certainly has it's share of people willing to live simply in order to freeload off govt entitlements) - I wouldn't work at McD's when I can sit at home on my ass and get just as much money from the gubmit, either.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1297358 wrote:I think so. For such a paltry requirement, there should be some sort of social service involved.

  I agree. If such a program is going to be maintained, not only should the requirements be higher (especially in the age of the Internet application), but there should be closer monitoring and additional restrictions on what kinds of jobs to which a person can apply.
  

  gut;1297358 wrote:But I don't think unemployment alone is enough to live on.

  It can be. My wife and I lived in it for awhile.
  

  gut;1297358 wrote:As a supplement to some sort of rainy day savings I think it's probably a fair amount (ignoring the extension for 99 weeks). However, when you then add-in food stamps and other welfare I imagine it could be competitive with a min. wage job, even $10/hr. So no real secret, perhaps, that people who really don't want to work or can't keep or like the jobs they get...that they work a job just long enough to qualify for a new round of benefits.

  I personally know people who have this down to a science.
  

  gut;1297358 wrote:And it's perfectly rational (France & Europe certainly has it's share of people willing to live simply in order to freeload off govt entitlements) - I wouldn't work at McD's when I can sit at home on my ass and get just as much money from the gubmit, either.

  Exactly.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;1296591 wrote:In the past week, I've seen the following signs for employment:
  
  Trucking firms are hiring drivers.
  Central Readymix was openly adverstising for drivers with free training.
  The ski shop next to the Chinese food restaurant I frequent had a sign in the window for help.
  My wife's employer, a national restaurant chain, is openly advertising for help in several areas.
  
  So what you ask? Firms are hiring, but they aren't exactly $100K jobs. People are receiving "assistance" from you and me to NOT work as these jobs only match what they're already receiving. In other words, if people are paid to not work, why would they?

  This idea that people would rather sit on benefits than work is largely imaginary but everyone has their anecdotal experience. The bottom line, if you had a full government employment program that required the unemployed to work in order to receive cash assistance...with this wage lower than the wages in the jobs you're describing here...it makes this world that you imagine where people are just sitting on their duff rolling in the cash impossible and essentially eliminates unemployment...so why don't you get behind it?
  
  Also, employers like this really are overly selective in a high unemployment economy as Mitt Romney made in one of his points last night. In a full employment economy with upward pressure on wages, people who often get turned away by those employers who "can't find anybody worth hiring" are more likely to hire the less desirables who we like to claim "aren't willing to work"
• BoatShoes

  gut;1297358 wrote:I think so. For such a paltry requirement, there should be some sort of social service involved.

  This is essentially what I've argued for all along....and here you'd think we're so different
• BoatShoes

  O-Trap;1296508 wrote:Honestly, I can't think of anyone I know who deserves dignity and doesn't have the ability to contribute value. Hell, I even know some who DON'T deserve much dignity, but who are capable of adding value.

  There's a lot here but real quick...I agree in a meta-sense. Shoveling gravel creates at least some value X for the world but not enough that the compensation for such value creation would enable a life with dignity. Yet, the world needs ditch diggers. Thus, I think it's ok since it's unlikely we can achieve moral certainty that we enter as a term in the social contract in which we all willingly sacrifice some liberty that would exist in the state of nature for a greater liberty, that people who create little value, so long as they create some, be compensated in a decent matter through the social contract.
  
  That is to say in less opague terms....If you get fired from your job and certain minimal amount of unemployment insurance runs out...and you don't seem quite talented enough to find full time employment...that the government ought to pay them in a guaranteed "job" some amount lesser than the minimum wage but necessarily higher than the true value of their work...for some type of community service.
  
  So, you get fired and you can't get a job at McDonald's...government will pay you some wage below the minimum wage to mow grass in your community, clean up graffiti, dig a ditch, or what have you.
  
  (I also think the government should get in the business of helping the unemployed find jobs more so that way these folks who take the bare minimum job wouldn't sacrifice finding a better job because they would have agents assisting them in their long term job search...which to me is why some people might be less inclined to take low wage work anyway because it really does cut in on the job search time...
  
  A good example is the legal field. It's tough for lawyers to find a job practicing law right now but because they want to be lawyers many are reluctant to get a job at Starbucks, etc. because it cuts into time finding that law job. Or, they're reluctant to hang up a shingle because that's really hard and it also cuts into job search time. If there was an actual agent type office at the dept. of jobs and family services that had employees that would actively assist them in their job search while the went ahead and got to work...that to me would be a public service worth paying for and also create long run economic growth.
  
  but that is another topic).
• Footwedge

  O-Trap;1296508 wrote:
  Technically, anti-trust laws force businesses to only grow to a certain extent. I tend to disagree with them in principle, because capping someone's success is hardly indicative of something I'd consider free.

  That is not at all indicative of what anti trust laws were implemented to do. Or why they are necessary. You quote the Bible, yet not the Wealth of Nations...
  
  Why?
  
  One book provides a moral guidance with a blueprint for salvation....the other was written by the recognized founder of capitalism.....
  
  Smith understood the reason why the invisible hand would never be truly invisible and recognized that his system needed to be policed..which included safeguards against oligopolies, monopolies and collusion...especially at the corporate level. Smith adamantly apposed any essence of corporations...for a whole pile of rock solid reasons. The lack of corporate governance, whether libertarians like it or not, has bastardized Smith's economic system.....especially here in America.
• Footwedge

  BoatShoes;1297822 wrote:There's a lot here but real quick...I agree in a meta-sense. Shoveling gravel creates at least some value X for the world but not enough that the compensation for such value creation would enable a life with dignity. Yet, the world needs ditch diggers. Thus, I think it's ok since it's unlikely we can achieve moral certainty that we enter as a term in the social contract in which we all willingly sacrifice some liberty that would exist in the state of nature for a greater liberty, that people who create little value, so long as they create some, be compensated in a decent matter through the social contract.
  
  That is to say in less opague terms....If you get fired from your job and certain minimal amount of unemployment insurance runs out...and you don't seem quite talented enough to find full time employment...that the government ought to pay them in a guaranteed "job" some amount lesser than the minimum wage but necessarily higher than the true value of their work...for some type of community service.
  
  So, you get fired and you can't get a job at McDonald's...government will pay you some wage below the minimum wage to mow grass in your community, clean up graffiti, dig a ditch, or what have you.
  
  (I also think the government should get in the business of helping the unemployed find jobs more so that way these folks who take the bare minimum job wouldn't sacrifice finding a better job because they would have agents assisting them in their long term job search...which to me is why some people might be less inclined to take low wage work anyway because it really does cut in on the job search time...
  
  A good example is the legal field. It's tough for lawyers to find a job practicing law right now but because they want to be lawyers many are reluctant to get a job at Starbucks, etc. because it cuts into time finding that law job. Or, they're reluctant to hang up a shingle because that's really hard and it also cuts into job search time. If there was an actual agent type office at the dept. of jobs and family services that had employees that would actively assist them in their job search while the went ahead and got to work...that to me would be a public service worth paying for and also create long run economic growth.
  
  but that is another topic).

  In high socialist countries like Denmark or Sweden, one enrolls his ass in school if unemployed..otherwise..no soup for you. Really, no soup. Maybe we could learn a little something from the socialists in how to handle our unemployment problems, no?
• Footwedge

  BGFalcons82;1296591 wrote:In the past week, I've seen the following signs for employment:
  
  Trucking firms are hiring drivers.
  Central Readymix was openly adverstising for drivers with free training.
  The ski shop next to the Chinese food restaurant I frequent had a sign in the window for help.
  My wife's employer, a national restaurant chain, is openly advertising for help in several areas.
  
  So what you ask? Firms are hiring, but they aren't exactly $100K jobs. People are receiving "assistance" from you and me to NOT work as these jobs only match what they're already receiving. In other words, if people are paid to not work, why would they?

  Obama's policies working, eh?
• O-Trap

  

  Footwedge;1297981 wrote:That is not at all indicative of what anti trust laws were implemented to do. Or why they are necessary. You quote the Bible, yet not the Wealth of Nations...
  
  Why?
  
  One book provides a moral guidance with a blueprint for salvation....the other was written by the recognized founder of capitalism.....
  
  Smith understood the reason why the invisible hand would never be truly invisible and recognized that his system needed to be policed..which included safeguards against oligopolies, monopolies and collusion...especially at the corporate level. Smith adamantly apposed any essence of corporations...for a whole pile of rock solid reasons. The lack of corporate governance, whether libertarians like it or not, has bastardized Smith's economic system.....especially here in America.

  Ah, I said I disagreed with them in principle ... not in practice. I wasn't saying what anti-trust laws were IMPLEMENTED to do. I was describing a result.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;1297987 wrote:Obama's policies working, eh?

  Absolutely. He's successfully convinced millions more Americans that it makes more sense to take handout's from Uncle Sugar than to earn an honest living.
• isadore

  gosh a ruddies I wish candidate romney would have any absolute political belief, a position he would not abandon to be elected.
• gut

  Footwedge;1297986 wrote:In high socialist countries like Denmark or Sweden, one enrolls his ass in school if unemployed..otherwise..no soup for you. Really, no soup. Maybe we could learn a little something from the socialists in how to handle our unemployment problems, no?

  Now you want to force ditch diggers to go to college? Don't we have enough people already throwing away their money on a worthless degree?
• sleeper

  

  gut;1298087 wrote:Now you want to force ditch diggers to go to college? Don't we have enough people already throwing away their money on a worthless degree?

  The problem is, you have people going to Online Upstairs Tech Medical School of California(OUTMSC) and majoring in art philosophy expecting a job that DOESN'T involve ditch digging. Oh and it has to be $50,000 a year or else they are just too good for it.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1298113 wrote:... Online Upstairs Tech Medical School of California(OUTMSC) ...

  I lol'd.
• FatHobbit

  

  sleeper;1298113 wrote:The problem is, you have people going to Online Upstairs Tech Medical School of California(OUTMSC) and majoring in art philosophy expecting a job that DOESN'T involve ditch digging. Oh and it has to be $50,000 a year or else they are just too good for it.

  I agree with this, but I do think someone needs to do something about colleges telling (lying to) people how much money they are going to make when they graduate with a degree from their "prestigious" university..
• sleeper

  

  FatHobbit;1298228 wrote:I agree with this, but I do think someone needs to do something about colleges telling (lying to) people how much money they are going to make when they graduate with a degree from their "prestigious" university..

  Get the government out of the student loan industry and dump it all on private banks. The banks will do their due diligence before loaning $80k to an art major going to OUTMSC. The free market can solve the issue. If someone really wants to go to OUTMSC, then they can find the appropriate bank willing to take on the risk for a higher interest rate(my guess would be no bank would do this).
  
  Although, if you tried to implement this program, people would whine and complain that whoever started it hates education and women. This country has no hope.
• pmoney25

  

  I think that the whole idea of everyone has to go to college is a bit ridiculous. What is wrong with someone going to a tech school and becoming a plumber or carpenter then trying to start their own business. I just think their is a negative connotation that if you don't go to a 4 Year university right away that you are a failure. If you can't afford to go to a regular university right away. Go to Community college for a couple years.
  
  My Dad didn't even make it to 10th grade. However he decided to learn a trade (Carpentry).Opened his own successful business and worked for himself his whole life.
• BGFalcons82

  

  pmoney25;1298277 wrote:I think that the whole idea of everyone has to go to college is a bit ridiculous. What is wrong with someone going to a tech school and becoming a plumber or carpenter then trying to start their own business. I just think their is a negative connotation that if you don't go to a 4 Year university right away that you are a failure. If you can't afford to go to a regular university right away. Go to Community college for a couple years.
  
  My Dad didn't even make it to 10th grade. However he decided to learn a trade (Carpentry).Opened his own successful business and worked for himself his whole life.

  Good for him!
  
  Did you tell him that he didn't build that business?
• Heretic

  

  pmoney25;1298277 wrote:I think that the whole idea of everyone has to go to college is a bit ridiculous. What is wrong with someone going to a tech school and becoming a plumber or carpenter then trying to start their own business. I just think their is a negative connotation that if you don't go to a 4 Year university right away that you are a failure. If you can't afford to go to a regular university right away. Go to Community college for a couple years.
  
  My Dad didn't even make it to 10th grade. However he decided to learn a trade (Carpentry).Opened his own successful business and worked for himself his whole life.

  Good for him!
  
  Did you open the "Retarded Talking Points" handbook in response?
• Footwedge

  gut;1298087 wrote:Now you want to force ditch diggers to go to college? Don't we have enough people already throwing away their money on a worthless degree?

  Are all unemployed people ditch diggers? The point I made was that in these highly socialized nations, there is no free ride. If there is no work, your ass is in school....you know...learning shit.
• O-Trap

  

  Footwedge;1298425 wrote:Are all unem[;oyed people ditch diggers? The point I made was that in these highly socialized nations, there is no free ride. If there is no work, your ass is in school....you know...learning shit.

  Do they have people working on their 12th doctorates?
  
  At some point, school is not about employment. If someone doesn't care, forcing them to go to school isn't going to make them more qualified, because they won't give a rip about the education they receive, which means they probably won't retain much.