This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Dear Person Seeking a Job: Why I Can't Hire You

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

Potential employers have to respond to the incentives and disincentives that exist in today's world, and those do not favor conventional permanent employees.

I know you're hard-working, motivated, tech-savvy and willing to learn. The reason I can't hire you has nothing to do with your work ethic or skills; it's the high-cost Status Quo, and the many perverse consequences of maintaining a failing Status Quo.

The sad truth is that it's costly and risky to hire anyone to do anything, and "bankable projects" that might generate profit/require more labor are few and far between. The overhead costs for employees have skyrocketed. So even though the wages employees see on their paychecks have stagnated, the total compensation costs the employer pays have risen substantially.

Thirty years ago the overhead costs were considerably less, adjusted for inflation, and there weren't billboards advertising a free trip to Cabo if you sued your employer. (I just saw an advert placed by a legal firm while riding a BART train that solicited employees to sue their employers, with the incentive being "free money" for a vacation to Cabo.)

The other primary reason is that there are few (to borrow a phrase used by John Michael Greer) "bankable projects," that is, projects where hiring another worker would pay for the costs of the additional overhead, labor and capital and generate a reason for making the investment, i.e. a meaningful profit.

There is very little real "new business" in a recessionary, deflationary economy: any new business is poaching from an established business. The new restaurant isn't drawing people from their home kitchens, it's drawing customers from established restaurants.

The only competitive advantage in a deflationary economy is to be faster, better and cheaper or have a marketing and/or technology edge. But marketing and technological advantages offer increasingly thin edges. The aspirational demand (driven by the desire to be hip or cool) for a new good or service has a short half-life. As for technology: miss a product cycle and you're history.

Put these together--higher costs and risks for hiring people, and diminishing opportunities for expansions that lead to profit--and you have a scarcity of projects where hiring people makes financial sense.

Faster, better and cheaper usually means reducing the labor input, not increasing it. In a deflationary economy, it's extremely difficult to grow revenues (sales), and as costs continue climbing inexorably, the only way to survive is to cut expenses so there is still some net for the owner/proprietor to live on.

Consider the tax burden on a sole proprietor who might want to hire someone. The 15.3% Social Security/Medicare tax starts with dollar one. After the usual standard deductions, the Federal income tax is 15%, and 25% on all earned income above $34,800. My state tax is around 5%. Since every other advanced democracy pays basic healthcare coverage out of tax revenues, the $12,000/year we pay for barebones healthcare insurance is the equivalent of a tax. That's 15% of our income. Property tax is also $12,000 annually, so that's another 15%.

Above $35,000 in income, my tax burden is 15% + 25% + 5% + 15% + 15% = 75%. You can imagine how much money I would need to clear to be able to afford hiring someone. The number of businesses that generate huge sums of profit are few and far between, and the number of businesses that scale up from a one-person shop to mega-millions in revenues is also extremely limited.

The potential employer is faced with this reality: the money to hire a new employee will come out of my pay, at least at first. Hiring an additional worker only makes sense if the new employee will immediately generate enough additional revenue to fund his/her own wage and overhead costs, the added expense of supervision and a profit substantial enough to offset the risks.

I should stipulate that my knowledge of hiring people and being an employer is not academic. My partner and I launched a business in late 1981, in the depths of what was at that time the deepest recession since the end of World War II. We had a very diverse ethnic workforce and did millions of dollars of work. Rather than make a fortune I lost $50,000 and had to mortgage the house we'd built by hand to make good all debts. I exited in 1987 with my personal integrity intact: nobody lost money working for us.

The losses were basically the result of me pushing the outer boundaries of my experience and thus my competence in an unforgiving, very competitive environment. The learning curve in business is steep and pricey.

I have also been involved in saving/managing a small non-profit organization that had expanded payroll far beyond what the organization's revenues could support.

What newly minted employers understand that employees rarely understand is that the overhead costs of hiring even one person do not scale at first. To hire one person, even part-time, the employer needs to set up a complex infrastructure to manage the payroll taxes and accounting, and comply with a variety of statutes. If the employer does not follow the many laws regarding labor, witholding taxes, workers compensation, liability coverage, disability insurance, unemployment insurance and so on, then the employer is at risk of penalties and/or lawsuits.

If a business does $1 million in gross receipts a year and already has five employees and a manager, it's not that burdensome to hire a seventh employee--the framework is all set up. But the cost of setting all that up for employee #1 is not trivial, especially when you realize the complex machinery all has to be overseen and managed.

In the Silicon valley model, a couple of guys/gals work feverishly in the living room/garage until they have a product/service to sell to venture capital. If the pitch succeeds, the VCs give them a couple million dollars and they hire a manager to sort out all the paperwork, management, etc.

Most small businesses/proprietors don't get handed a couple million dollars. They have to grow organically, one step at a time. Each expansionist step is fraught with risks, especially when opportunities to grow revenue are few and far between and are generally crowded with competitors.

Thirty years ago the employer's share of Social Security tax was not today's 7.65%; it was much less. Worker's compensation rates were lower, as were disability and liability insurance rates. Adjusted for inflation, healthcare insurance was half (or less) of today's absurdly expensive rates. To pay someone a modest $20,000 annual salary today would cost at least $30,000 in total compensation costs, and if the employee is middle-aged or requires family healthcare coverage, it could easily exceed $40,000. That sum many be trivial in the bloated $3.7 trillion Federal government or in Corporate America, but in millions of small businesses that $40,000 is the proprietor's entire net income.

In other words, as costs of hiring anyone to do anything have climbed while revenues have stagnated, the threshold to hire an employee keeps getting higher. Back in the day, I could hire a young person out of high school for a modest cost in overhead, and the work-value they produced to justify the expense was also modest. I could afford to hire marginal workers and as long as they didn't get in the way too much and ably performed basic tasks then I could afford to have them on the payroll.

The same was true of older workers, veterans living on the beach who wanted work, etc.--I could afford to give all sorts of people a chance to prove their value because the costs and risks were low.

That's simply less true today. The costs and risks are much, much higher.

Liability has become a lottery game where anyone with assets or income is a target for "winner take all" lawsuits. I would have to be insane to hire someone to work around my property on an informal basis: if the person injured himself, I would face the risks of losing my property to the legal defense costs and potential settlements that exceed the homeowners' insurance policy.

In an office environment, I could be sued for harassment or for engendering a "stressful work environment." If you think these kinds of cases are rare, you need to get out more.

Simply put, the feeble hope of increasing revenues does not even come close to offsetting the tremendous risks created by having employees.

There's a Catch-22 aspect to all this; small business can't expand revenues without employees, but the costs/risks of having employees makes that a gamble that is often not worth taking. The lower-risk, lower-cost survival strategy is to automate everything possible in back-office work and free up the proprietor's time to grow revenues that then flow directly to the bottom line.

Managing people is not easy, and it's often stressful. Once a proprietor hires an employee, he/she must wear a number of new hats: psychiatrist/counselor, manager, coach, teacher, to name but a few. Frankly, I don't need the stress. I would rather earn a modest living from my labor and avoid all the burdens of managing people. (In my case, that included bailing workers out of jail, loaning them my truck which was subsequently rolled and destroyed, and a bunch of other fun stuff.)

I am not embittered, I am simply realistic. I enjoyed my employees' company, even the one who rolled my truck and the ones who managed to get into trouble with the law. But I got tired of meetings and all the wasted motion of office management, and I got tired of taking cash advances on my credit cards to make payroll.

If anyone out there thinks being an entrepreneur/small business proprietor is easy and a surefire pathway to the luxe life, then by all means, get out there and start a business and hire a bunch of people. I applaud your energy and drive, and sincerely hope you are wildly successful.

I hope you now understand why so many businesses only want to work with contract labor/ self-employed people: having employees no longer makes financial sense for many small enterprises. What makes sense is paying someone a set fee to accomplish a set task, and that's it, the obligation of both parties is fulfilled. If the task isn't completed, then the fee isn't paid.

Revenues just aren't steady enough in many cases to support a permanent employee. When the work comes in, then contract labor is brought in to get the work done. When it's done, they're gone, and all their overhead costs are theirs.

It's extraordinarily difficult to generate revenue in a deflationary economy, and extraordinarily difficult to scrape off a net income as expenses such as taxes, insurance, healthcare, etc. continue climbing year after year.

Self-employment places a premium on professionalism and results. Unlike offices filled with managers and employees, nobody cares about your problems, conflicts, complaints about the common-area fridge or your attendence at meetings. Once you've been self-employed for a while, and you only hire/work with other self-employed people, then you look back on conventional work places as absurdist theaters of schoolyard politics, tiresome resentments and child-parent conflicts acted out by self-absorbed adults.

Once you're self-employed, your focus shifts to nurturing a productive network of clients, customers and like-minded, reliable, resourceful self-employed people who will give you work/work for you when you need help. Building trust and following through on what you promised to do become your priority.

The economy is different now, and wishing it were unchanged from 30 years ago won't reverse the clock. We have to respond to the incentives and disincentives that exist in today's world, and those do not favor conventional permanent employees except in sectors that are largely walled off from the market economy: government, healthcare, etc.

But these moated sectors cannot remain isolated from the deflationary market economy forever, and what was considered safely walled off from risk and change will increasingly face the same market forces that have changed private-sector enterprise.

If you want security and a steady income, it may be more rewarding to build it yourself via highly networked self-employment.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 07/03/2012 - 12:22 | Link to Comment surf0766
surf0766's picture

All your jobs belong to us now

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 12:26 | Link to Comment HelluvaEngineer
HelluvaEngineer's picture

One day we will all work for JPM, but by then we'll just call it "the Government"

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:40 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

July 13th = Silver Bomb!

Buy as much as you can afford that day!

Buy Silver - Crash JPM!

Take back your wealth from the hands of the bankers!

Buy silver!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:14 | Link to Comment economics9698
economics9698's picture

It cost $10,300 in 2008 to hire someone due to federal regulations.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:44 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

Take a single worker with $100,000 productive value...

EMPLOYEE pays 7.65% FICA taxes, 0-10% state/local income taxes, 21.5% federal taxes....almost 39% is TAXED on income

PLUS your employer also pays 7.65% FICA taxes, 1% FUTA, 5-13% SUTA which the cost is passed down to worker.

 

so pretty much half of worker's revenue is TAXED.

 

Then consider after tax taxes like

  • real estate TAX on a decent home/condo/rathole in safe neighborhood (at least $1000~$10000 per annum)
  • job prep tax (aka. college degree) ($7000~$15000 per year)
  • gas TAX for commuting ($500 per year)
  • driver's license + vehicle registration + smog check + auto insurance for getting to work ($1000 per year)
  • sales TAX on your living expenses like soap and clothes ($500 per year)
  • cell phone TAX

which adds up to around $20k in job related COSTS to worker paid with post-tax dollars which is more like $30k in  pre-tax income.....

so the worker is left with $20k to actually spend which pretty much goes to food and mortgage.

 

worker is left with no room for much discretionary spending. they used to call these folks indentured servants.

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:03 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

TAX IS WORKER'S LARGEST EXPENSE as % of INCOME.

 

TAX gets spent by Congress with approval rating 17%

 

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:42 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

I've been told all my life that freedom isn't free and I'll remain free as long as I pay my taxes.

 

That's who is running the show.  The lunatics.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:00 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

you can't be free when you don't even own your own labor. TAXES give government 50% ownership of your labor.

 

basically you pay 50% taxes to be 50% slave.

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 23:19 | Link to Comment in4mayshun
in4mayshun's picture

More like 50% tax to be 100% slave.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:05 | Link to Comment Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

I have a suggestion. Flakmeister believes in global warming and is in favor of carbon abatement.   As we all know, humans are a major source of carbon pollution.  Plus if you have been on any bus, you will notice the smell. So I suggest that we hire him to visit buses, apply his lips to the seats and suck out the carbon pollution.  This is a win win win. We win because we give someone with a useless education a job and don't have to listen to his BS, buses will smell better, and we can stick a cork in his ass to trap the emissions.  When Flakmeister is 'full' we will send him in to invade Iran and stink the mullahs out of existance.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:43 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

global warming, carbon tax is to save American jobs.

 

It is to penalize countries like china who has advantage of surplus cheap labor which US knows she cannot compete. They are trying to set the manufacturing bar high that China has to pay for the higher standard.

 

plus wall st. wants another exchange to "trade" in dollars.

 

not necessarily a bad thing when US sets the rules of engagement.

 

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:00 | Link to Comment Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

carbon tax is to save American jobs? No it's only use is to pay back the "green" exchange initiatives that Gore and Co. have ownership over.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:27 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

as long as americans control it they can spin it whichever ways.

 

who gets what carbon credits? how about black box carbon credits? that's my guess. Sure Gore will benefit and so will goldman sachs.

 

but in the end US government is all about control. they want China to pay US taxes for polluting and buy Japanese environmental tech products, etc.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:40 | Link to Comment Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

China is not going to comply any more than Gore will give up his Lear jet travel. Look. The whole Carbon tax is pure bs. You realize without carbon (CO2) there would be no life? It's the most insane democrat idea yet. Gore pushes this shit because he owns the mechanisms for the exchange and now trys to convince all that the science is on his side. Let him stop flying his lear jet everywhere first or airing his 20,000 sq ft home and then I might listen.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 20:37 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

no different than any other tax.

Beijing wants the carbon tax.....on the consumers not producers...therefore passing the buck back to US.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 20:52 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

In the realm of taxation, there is no mechanism in place or ever devised to prevent "a producer" from passing on any new government tax down to the consumer level through higher prices.

If there is...I want to hear it.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 21:48 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

you don't pay consumption tax when you don't consume.

 

Chinese won't pay consumer tax because they won't buy their own goods, so tax burden is on consuming western countries...so carbon tax becomes net tax on America.

 

but if the tax is on producer side, Chinese pay more taxes than America because they produce more than what America consumes, so it is net tax on China.

 

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 22:20 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

???

"you don't pay consumption tax when you don't consume.".

China has a VAT (end consumer pricing), a consumption tax (end consumer), and a straight up business tax (always a pass through to consumers in pricing).

China doesn't consume anything?

Thats news to me.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 22:38 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

america is net consumer, china is net exporter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 03:32 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

China doesn't consume anything?

_____________________

US citizen nice touch or how strawsmen are invited to the party.

China consumes one third of its production and exports 2 thirds of its production.

Following that, it gives that taxing production would tax a one hundred chinese base while taxing consumption will tax a one third base.

US citizenism at work.

Hard to admit that the constantly bashed US citizen elite is working to preserve the best interests of the US citizen middle class when the struggle of the US citizen elite has no positive effect for yourself.

US citizens moaning their loss of US citizen status.

Too many US citizens, not enough Indians to rob from to maintain US citizens in their entitlements.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 07:20 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Its like trying to interpret ramblings of a dyslexic child.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 12:53 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Correction: an autistic, dyslexic, xenophobic, emotionally disturbed, sociopathic child on crack.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:15 | Link to Comment Stock Tips Inve...
Stock Tips Investment's picture

This happens when the government spends each day more and is forced to "charge" that is easier to do. At the end of the day, threatens employment and therefore against their own income. Worst of all is that the same is applied by many developing countries without any success, as they are still "developing."

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 20:47 | Link to Comment erheault
erheault's picture

You havent even scratched the surface of tax raids , As of Jan 1 we get 20 new taxes and also the great Zeros medical tax ( not a tax according to him but the supreme court called it a tax) if so why is the IRS hiring 16 thousand new workers to handle the Not a tax,  Anybody that votes for any of the ones who have done this to us deserves to become the sheeple who will pay the rest of their lives and receive the misery that will be coming down the pipe. 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:41 | Link to Comment bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

''It cost $10,300 in 2008 to hire someone due to federal regulations.''

That damned Obama!...oh, he came in when?...never mind.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:55 | Link to Comment CH1
CH1's picture

Step away from the Blue/Red poison.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:41 | Link to Comment Hopeless for Change
Hopeless for Change's picture

He came in January 2009.  So what.  In order for a comparison, you need 2 different samples.  Let's see how much it costs in 2013 with the new Obamacare taxes and other "redistribution of wealth" tactics.  Go ask David Axelrod what to post next.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:06 | Link to Comment Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

An Australian father a few days ago placed an ad in the newspaper offering a year's supply of beer valued at $1700 to anyone who would employ his son as an apprentice electrician.

Governments have killed fexibility and stifled profitability with plenty of red tape which makes you feel as if hiring someone is a crime that must be punished.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:38 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

training young apprentice is not profitable so nobody wants to do it.

government only does it when they can tax new workers more.

 

 

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:28 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

It's going to take a awful alot of beer to get through the training.

I have seen temp workers sent into the jungle armed with nothing more than a 20 minute video tape.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 21:52 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

job requirements for temp workers:

 

must be able to think on your feet and bullshit well.

 

 

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 01:56 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Say hello to everyone and remember their names.

When your job is finished, go home. Don't dawdle.

Temps vary by experience. Some are low IQ and are good for basic task on command. (That's right, one task singular) And a few can be leading other temps.

And remember this if anything.

"I am just a temp. A failure of your Company's equipment is not my problem; so don't curse me out."

And never never never... no matter what swing at the customers who treat you badly.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:55 | Link to Comment potlatch
potlatch's picture

Wasn't that a Chris Farley / Adam Sandler skit?

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 01:57 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Australia is a huge fucking prison.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 00:09 | Link to Comment Stoploss
Stoploss's picture

Due to federal regulations, it now costs $103,000 to hire someone.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 01:57 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Money makes the world go round.

The day money stops...

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:19 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

California Republican governor candidate Meg Whitman's illegal mexican maid got paid

$25/hour wage

$25 x 2000 hours = $50,000 salary

NO FEDERAL TAX, NO FICA, NO STATE TAX PLUS QUALIFY FOR ALL KIND OF BENEFITS

 

so that salary is equivalent to American making $80,000/year which is nearly twice the US median HOUSEHOLD income.

 

for someone with no more than high school education, no more pressure than dusting some shit in a huge home rich people are never around, it is better deal than most American college graduates job prospects.

 

 

 

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:35 | Link to Comment maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

Trustworthiness = Value

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:47 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

uhh....the maid sued Meg Whitman and went on a tell-all nearing election time.

 

frankly, she overpaid.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:13 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

post facto we can say she made a poor choice there, considering she later had trouble because she ran for governor, and the media has a double standard for republicans.    Nobody expects democrats to abide by laws or morality overmuch.   She ran has a republican, however.  

An aside here, once regulations and taxes become so ridiculous as they have been in Europe for some decades, a culture of cheating, and acceptance or even adimiration of cheating, becomes rampant, and the squeaky clean, the actual squeaky clean rule following boy scouts, are considered as fools by the rest, and fail, fail, fail, because their costs are higher.     This moral slide starts first with the leftists and left leaning, because that whole vibe is about splitting with traditional values and old rules.   Witness the left and the media's nonchalance about sociopath Clinton's sexual harassment, rape, and sexual antics with very young interns on the Oval Office broadloom.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:05 | Link to Comment Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

take a read of Saul Alinsky.

You'll have a much greater appreciation of the new democrat ...

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:38 | Link to Comment The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

Yeah, but just try to hire an American to do housework these days ... If you find one who will actually do the work, then the fact that they are documented opens you to all the probs pointed out above.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:56 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

maid work used to be done by your wife......TAX FREE, MINIMAL COST (no car, no college debt, etc.), 24/7 availability.

 

Rockefellers pushed feminism (Ms. Magazine was funded by CIA) in order to get untaxed housewives into the labor market to be taxed.

 

Now your wife's earnings are taxed at near 50%, and if you subtract child care costs, then she is basically working for free unless she makes north of $100k/year. Even then, she can get laid off. Whereas if she developed cooking skills, you get $30pp value delicious meal without sales tax, tips, and income tax at home and skills are inflation proof way into retirement age.

 

Plus these days with all the machines doing the work, there isn't much housework if you keep your self organized, dont' hoard uselss shit, and don't buy some 5000sqft ugly McMansion.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:18 | Link to Comment _SILENCER
_SILENCER's picture

Rockefellers pushed feminism (Ms. Magazine was funded by CIA) in order to get untaxed housewives into the labor market to be taxed.

 

This is absolutely true. They kicked their revenues up to mind blowing levels after they had the rest of the adult population slaving away for them, under the guise of liberation.  Now, don't get me wrong, if a woman isn't raising kids she ought to be raising cash, but the insidious nature of the scam perpetrated upon them is typical elitist, fuedal scumbag mentality.

 

I'd really like to unfuck myself from my goddamn social security number and stop paying these motherfuckers.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:58 | Link to Comment potlatch
potlatch's picture

You never would find Gloria Steinem far from Langley, true.  But this is true of the entire cohort: "jet-setting" was just company parlance for the orbital network by which our operators eventually, if needed, would from time to time board Rumsfeld's lightship, for direct instructions and/or consulations with starfleet.

 

Given the magitude of her particular operation, I am quite sure her and Ambassador Rumsfeld are on old friendly terms, and have hsared many a fine sheryy whilst in his preferred high orbit.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 21:38 | Link to Comment Híppos Purrós
Híppos Purrós's picture

..."true of the entire cohort"...  PotLatch

Correct, PotLatch...  Did you know that TheCompany's precursor was the OSS...  which was, for those offended by it's IvyLeague/OldMoney 'tilt', jocularly referred to as "Oh,SoSocial!"...

"PotLatch!"  GreatHandle.  You must be PacificNorthWest.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 20:43 | Link to Comment Malachi Constant
Malachi Constant's picture

+10.

Feminism and massive promotion of homosexuality started in 1972, when the big boys realized the Earth is finite. Look for a book called "The Limits to Growth" by Aurelio Peccei of the Club of Rome fame - it's their bible.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 21:19 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Earth is finite??? Get right out of town!

~~~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L82jlR-37k

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 00:58 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

yo, Malachi - "feminism" predates "1972" by a few centuries - stop it with the Rush Limbaugh College dissertation.

in 1792, Mary Wollstonecraft wrote her Vindications,

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is one of the earliest works of feminist philosophy. In it, Wollstonecraft argues that women ought to have an education commensurate with their position in society and then proceeds to redefine that position, claiming that women are essential to the nation because they educate its children and because they could be "companions" to their husbands rather than mere wives.[80] Instead of viewing women as ornaments to society or property to be traded in marriage, Wollstonecraft maintains that they are human beings deserving of the same fundamental rights as men. Large sections of the Rights of Woman respond vitriolically to conduct book writers such as James Fordyce and John Gregory and educational philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wanted to deny women an education. (Rousseau famously argues in Émile (1762) that women should be educated for the pleasure of men.)[81]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Wollstonecraft#Vindications

she wrote a Vindication of the Rights of Men too - educate yourselves lads, stop relying on bitter old drug addicts to tell you what to think, encouraging the dumb.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 02:23 | Link to Comment michigan independant
michigan independant's picture

 Lilith, however, considering herself to be Adam's equal, refused. Depends on culture. 

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 02:57 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Who's Lilith? and what's an independAnt?  Oy vey! You must be an ex-jewish atheist fermale.   

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 02:44 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

I'm not sure about the "earth is finite" reason, but no one benefited like the lesbians.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 22:25 | Link to Comment PeterSchump
PeterSchump's picture

But now the bitch quit her job after pumping out kids, does not cook, clean, or perform any other type of "service", spending most of her time shuttling kids to the club or a play date (mommy get togethers).  Gov. wins, women win and the man working for a secure future is shafted.  Choices are: 1) Alimony and child support or 2) Cuckold tax slave.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 23:00 | Link to Comment jez
jez's picture

Choices are: 1) Alimony and child support or 2) Cuckold tax slave.

 

Or, of course:

3)  Don't marry. (Don't cohabit, either.)

Beats me why any man would want to marry nowadays. Mug's game.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 00:14 | Link to Comment kkam
kkam's picture

Amen to that. I'm married, have 3 lovely daughters, but in this modern world I really think - why does any man need to marry? It is a mug's game for him.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 00:43 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I trust you share those thoughts with your "3 lovely daughters" - yes?

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 03:28 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Oh that's just one of the unforeseen consequences of liberalism....Men and fathers are replaced by the State...which leads to the breakdown and destruction of society, War and violence ensues...women end up even worse off than they were when they started... Progress!!

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 01:59 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Children are a Joy but it takes two to raise em.

If you don't have time for two, don't do it.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 23:46 | Link to Comment Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

So why did you pick out such a loser for a wife? Seems like you wanted just a maid, seems a bit costly to marry someone and be saddled with baggage. Not all women lead the cushy life yours seems to be living. I certainly didn't, but I had no desire for the vacuous soccer mom lifestyle. I hope you find happiness, life is too short to carry around such bitterness.

Miffed:-)

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 00:42 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

y'know AlHux, and all the rest of you chiming in, this story gets a LOT of mileage here, the "Rockefellers pushed feminism" via Ms. magazine.

the Ms.Mag types are not all the women in the world who work for a living, and don't exist to fuck men, clean their shit up, and pump out the babies; irrespective of the labels, working class women have always worked, almost always at less pay than the same job done by a man ("men support families, women are wives" argument).  have any of you ever wondered who pushed the nuclear family, 2.5 children & a mortgage?  post WW2 Life magazine p'haps?  or even new talk box TeeVee programs?  "Father Knows Best" etc?  it's all a cultural creation - try Century of Self for a start, but it's much much deeper. . .

if you want a maid, hire one.  if you want to fuck someone, pay someone to fuck you.  if you want babies, then you better man up, do a spreadsheet, and make a commitment to a lifetime of supporting the child - with money, love, and time - you don't install a full-time slave to do those things for you, and if you do, and call that slave your "wife" then I'm betting you'll be paying through the arse later, in court.

the rest of the females will just get on with supporting themselves the same way one hopes you do - working.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 01:44 | Link to Comment object_orient
object_orient's picture
I like you
Wed, 07/04/2012 - 02:57 | Link to Comment Edelweiss
Edelweiss's picture

  I can't speak for everyone obviously.  What I have noticed is that women who share my title frequently have lower expectations placed on them.   If lifting is involved, the eyes usually turn to me.  If an aggressive individual needs to be confronted, I'm often the one expected to step up.  These women receive comparable pay to my own.  Should they?  My experience has been that many women want any advantage feminist attitudes can offer (equal pay, even if they don't do equal work) them, but view some situations (dealing with more "physical" aspects of the working world) with more traditional roles in mind.  I do work with women who step up to the plate, and don't make excuses.  To them, respect.  To the others, clearly "part time feminists" in action. 

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 15:39 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

what you are writing about is gender role-playing - women (gendered females) often revert to these "norms" when in the company of men (gendered males) - all it means is that you've been around gendered women more than you've been around females (the "feminist" tag isn't useful, as it's been adopted by many - on both sides - who have zero idea of the history or intent of the original movement - most men use it to denigrate women, mostly out of resentment or even hatred - most women use it as a way of saying they don't want to be used in the ways culture used women historically).

If lifting is involved, the eyes usually turn to me.  If an aggressive individual needs to be confronted, I'm often the one expected to step up.

is specific lifting of specific heavy items in your job description, or the job description of your "equal" woman co-worker? if this bothers you so much, openly deal with it, either complain to your "boss" or tell your co-worker to work to job description.

is the "aggressive individual" another man? go tell on him to your boss.

because if you can't deal with the "part-time feminists" - tell on them.

/sarc.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 05:21 | Link to Comment BooMushroom
BooMushroom's picture

Is expecting the women to pump out the babies a cultural creation? Do you propose we have the men stay home and breastfeed, too?  Culture follows biology.  The nuclear family is pushed because that's what works best for our species.

Due to the wonders of modern technology and finance, some people can, in fact, do just fine without following the pattern.  You may even be one of them.  If so, congrats.  But don't fool yourself into thinking that other ways are just as good.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 16:17 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

expecting women to "pump out babies" is most definitely a cultural creation - in the current "culture" each pumped out baby gets assigned a "tax number" at birth, with the hope that said pumped out baby will eventually contribute increasing percentages of taxed income to the state, which is the ultimate consumer.

let those who wish to pump out babies contract with those who wish to have a tethered sex object work out the contract between them as to who will support each of their desires.

as to what is best for "our species" - obviously nuclear families buying up single homes, installing the baby pumper inside, with attendant consumer "shopping" duties, filling said house with identical objects to the next house, and the next and the next. . . is what capitalist nationstates are ALL about, as they infinitely e x p a n d.

that's culture. . . what might be best for the species would involve women desiring babies gathering together to support their infants with mutual assistance - babysitting, etc. - and let the men desiring fking apply to the individual and work out the details, including providing tangible objects of use to the baby pumpers and their children.   those men desiring to breed specifically can do the usual - provide a home, and maybe trade a few essential items towards the general upkeep of the baby pumpers. 

as most men so eloquently post here, they're just in it for "teh bitchez" not the full spectrum cultural expectations that "fatherhood" demands.  so just rent, don't purchase, and let the baby pumpers decide how they'll raise their offspring - no deadbeat fathers being chased by courts, no enforced pregnancy laws - just honest, unemotional contracting for services.  isn't that "libertarian"?  surely it does away with the lying and coercion that causes so much bitterness, and profit for the law-suits.

I've never followed the "pattern" having been blessed/cursed from early on with pattern recognition - I observed the inherent tensions in the nuclear family model, and later the man/woman role playing - and decided to opt out of the contract offered.  I am my own, and fortunately, once the eyes are trained to "see" other similars, I am surrounded by mentally healthy individuals in my immediate circle of trusted ones.  I have a tolerance for other peoples stories, up to a point, a sort of compassion for their choices, but no desire to be a part of them, as my choices suit my life.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 23:03 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Awesome post Cathartes. Scary to the cavemen.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 10:08 | Link to Comment Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Tx CA, very eloquent and more responsive than I could do. I was too pissed off to pull it off. Why do we always descend into the repub vs dem or the men vs women arguement?! It's so polarizing and we end up focasing on the wrong enemies ( probably by design)

Miffed:-)

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 16:27 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

when you consider the heavily skewed demographics here - white, male, higher incomes, middle-aged, no kids - then you'll see how the majority of responses are like trained monkeys, the label defines the opinions.

this is not true for all, as there are some great observers of culture - which includes all "sides" - and their posts always stand out. . . but sure, a majority have the bitter words that signify the dying status they were born into believing was reality, when in fact it was merely a few generations of engineered prosperity feedlot, that is currently marching slowly to the abattoir.  the corporate human farming is global now, no one is special.

let the "anger" flow through you - else it forces you to "take sides" and play the opposite role, again, by design.  fight club is a great training ground to find your real voice.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 01:46 | Link to Comment dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

Yep.  as soon as I had kids I wanted to be home with them, and if you run the numbers it really doesn't pay to have both parents working. 

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 04:03 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

If ever you cant afford it, I'm sure the State will be more than happy to rear them for you.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:09 | Link to Comment Oquities
Oquities's picture

i'm a retired 60 yr old, living well, but i'd take a cleaning job for $25 cash right now.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:55 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Me too. I'd love to stop feeding the tax-monster.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:04 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

$25/hr cash job = $50,000/year post tax = $80,000 salary = $1M annuity.

 

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 21:44 | Link to Comment Yes We Can. But...
Yes We Can. But Lets Not.'s picture

I'd need at least $1,000/he if there was any chance at all that I might see Meg's face or backside. Plus, I harbor resentment that she wrecked eBay.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 23:21 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

I have a friend who has a small house-cleaning business, and he is definitely not hurting for clients. Might be worth an ad in the local paper or grocery store bulletin board; once you have a few clients, business will grow by word of mouth. Target the local yuppies who have more money than time, and it might make a nice little supplemental off-the-books income.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:29 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Those are called Caregivers because the children cannot be bothered to tend to aging parents.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 20:04 | Link to Comment potlatch
potlatch's picture

and this is a terrible, shameful fact of our society.  life is hard, I understand, but, given that one *knows* ones parents are goiung to get old, to not figure out how to, well, keep them in family so to speak, to care for them in other words...

What will we call that?  Ignorance?  Willfull ignorance?  Feigned ignorance? 

 

it is appaling.  Some things money can't pay for, I'm sorry.  Call me naive and romantic.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 22:07 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

I expect this generation and maybe one or two prior, which was drugged at birth, given drugs through adolescence and will be drugged throughout adulthood and into their twilight years, will not remember why they did what they did and will be so used to having medications given to them by "PhDs" that "diagnosed" them, or that they diagnosed themselves via TV personalities, they will gladly accept a senior village while they drool away medicated until their final breath.

 

I've known too many people that seem to desire this exact lifestyle and it's because there is no need for responsibility and the "pain" of life is minimal. 

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 00:08 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

I'm not sure you can extrapolate your relationship with your parents to the whole population. There is a saying, I think it comes from the bible actually, that goes: "the fathers have eaten bitter fruit and the children's teeth are set on edge." 

Can you imagine parental behavior and acts that are so reprehensible that they negate and obliterate the responsibilities children have traditionally shown to their parents in their old age?

I disagree that this kind of behavior is a shameful fact of our society; it is a direct consequence of it.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 01:09 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

this is something rarely recognised - the parents who committed "acts so reprehensible" that their children have simply wiped their hands of "parents" altogether. . .

there are plenty of people who never should have had children, and never learned how to parent - they were too involved in their own petty dramas to pay any attention to raising their children, and no amount of Facebook wall o' pics and gushing nonsense will draw those children back to their circle of influence. . .

I disagree that this kind of behavior is a shameful fact of our society; it is a direct consequence of it.

absolutely agree - the breakdown of society is reflected in many places.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 00:38 | Link to Comment Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Why you write like Asian person in this room post but not in others?

Make American poster suspicious. 

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 16:41 | Link to Comment Precious
Precious's picture

Arnold want's that kind of deal.  Apparently he and Maria are looking for a replacement maid. They reconciled because Arnold said, he was so drunk, he didn't know he was fucking the maid.  He thought it was Maria's hot water bottle.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:27 | Link to Comment Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

I am going to but only because Max Keiser already suggested it.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:05 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

silver is taxed higher than long term capital gains.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:57 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Only if you consider it a "collectable."

Meanwhile, mine all says "legal tender" on it.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:30 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

As does mine.

Stay with the Eagles idiot. *Slaps...

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:34 | Link to Comment CuriousPasserby
CuriousPasserby's picture

So far you can walk into any coin show and sell PMs for cash. That's one reason the 1099 part of the health care act was so bad and repealed right away.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 02:03 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

That is one thing I will not do for a long time. If ever.

Coin shows draw predators. I am not prey.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 01:36 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

You just made a prediction with 5 exclamated statements which means that you are very SERIOUS about what you're saying.  That's a BIG deal!.... it may cause certain people to make a move.  Tell us why you made the call.  It's a big chance you're taking.  If you're wrong you will be forever written off as a fool on ZH.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 12:28 | Link to Comment The Monkey
The Monkey's picture

Quit your job and trade the tape. Easy 3-4% still ahead. Lever it up.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:35 | Link to Comment Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

I don't pay taxes, dropped my trade license, don't ever pull a permit, pay cash and me and the customer decide what standard we go to.
I and my customers can't afford the gov and their crew members . So, they get cut out.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:50 | Link to Comment F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

That's the way to go; no doubt about it.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:59 | Link to Comment Burticus
Burticus's picture

That's also one of the reasons the biggest peckers in the peckin' order must implement their global cyber-currency.  No more paper and certainly no gold or silver.

The mark of the beast will be optional...only required if you want to buy food.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:20 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

however some access to materials and supplies REQUIRED government license.

 

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:14 | Link to Comment Overfed
Overfed's picture

Like what? I can't think of much that Joe Schmuck can't buy cash and carry in the US.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:19 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

In WW II control freak FDR and his control freak cabinet got to implement such a scheme of rationing and controls on the price and supply of everything.   You go rationed stamps to buy things.

BTW this sort of thing gave us indirectly the crazy system where you can only get healthcare via your employer.   Price fixing included fixing wages, so companies  that wanted to incentivize or keep better employees started offering them benefits instead of pay, and Congress went along with this by not taxing those benefits, so each company now has an army of rididly regulated HR shit to deal with that has nothing to do with their business activity.  

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:37 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

No no no.

Those are called Ration Cards A B or C. For example. Your Value to the War Effort decided what you were allowed each month.

Back then EVERYTHING went into the war effort. Nothing was spared. Even the hose women wear went into the war. You could not book on the train because those were reserved for the Officers and Troops going to war.

Your kitchen pots and pans etc were sent to scrap to be turned into war material.

Some materials such as Copper or Silver etc were not available at any price anywhere because those have been reserved for the Nation.

The best workplaces are those with little to no HR piddly shit in sight.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 20:05 | Link to Comment James
James's picture

You will have a hard time buying wholesale w/out a business/occupational license

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:41 | Link to Comment Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

I'd gladly trade you what I'm repairing for what your making, or vice versa.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:42 | Link to Comment bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

It worked great in Greece!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:52 | Link to Comment Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

The more imposing these taxes become the more people will barter their way in the resulting economy. The result will be an ever decreasing tax base. It's happened all over Europe and it will happen here because the social democrats who run this country are stupid (and thats being kind) when it comes to running an economy.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:34 | Link to Comment sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

(Just wanted to get near post position --- comment not directed at parent)

Dear Employer --- why you've been too stoopid to hire us.

The same tired old refrain:  it's the workers' fault.

Yup, Intel lost $1 billion with their India chip project, so it's the workers' fault (the Indian workers, that is, definitely the American workers on that one!).

Yup, Palm is down the tubes, it's the workers' fault (the Indian programmers and egineers who they long ago replaced all their American programmers and engineers with).

And on and on one could go....

You've offshored our jobs, technology and investment --- and yet you still blame it on everyone else but the colossal lack of American business leaders and managers --- now that talent we really should import!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:04 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

Spew that bullshit to any employer out there and see how far you get.   You'll be selling flowers on the street corner, or worse.

Stop your damn bitching, it's not helping your case at all, just hurting it.

If you have all the answers, put your money where your mouth is jerk, go out there and start your own damn business and hire people and manage it properly and make a profit and see how long you last.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:41 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Although I agree with the "quit bitching" comment, I admit I'm interested in how you'd respond to the substance of the criticism.

If a major business that's making $X profit decides to replace expensive domestic labor with cheap foreign labor, and the cheap foreign labor then doesn't do the same quality work and the business loses money/prestige/market-share/whatever, whose "fault" is that?

Is there no one responsible?  Just like a force of nature?  Is it the domestic labor, for expecting so much money that the business could "only" make $X profit?  Is it the foreign labor for being incompetent?  Is it Obama's for being an asshole, or the public education system's for being ineffective, or the military's for losing Vietnam?

Just curious if there's anywhere to place any responsibility or blame in such a circumstance, in your view.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:07 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

Does identifying the party at fault make you anymore money?

Does pointing out what they're doing wrong make you any more money? 

No and no.

You can't fix a fucked up corporate culture.  You have to knuckle under, put up with it, and keep your damn mouth shut if you wana keep that job.

Or you can give 'em the finger, tell 'em to fuck off, and walk away from it, like I did.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:37 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Seems we're having different discussions.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:38 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

You would want to watch "The Hudsucker Proxy" and learn a few things.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 20:08 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

Are we really?  How do I respond to the criticism in OP's comment?

My response is what good does criticism do?  Who's gonna listen?  Nobody.   What's gonna change?  Nothing.

Face it, employers care about profit, not people.   That's not a criticism.  It's an observation.  An observation you would do well to remember.

You want that employer to hire you instead of that Iranian?  Show him how you'll make him more money than that Iranian will.  Because that's all he cares about.

Personally I would hire an American if there's any way I could justify it economically.   But I would have to justify it economically, because I'm in busines to make money first and foremost.

Yes there's some room for patriotism.  Hire Americans if you can.  But if that Iranian will work for half the pay and do the same job, I would be nuts to hire an American.  I couldn't justify it   Patriotism doesn't go that far.

Don't bitch at me.  Go bitch at the government for letting them come over here on work permits and take American jobs. 

I'm not fucking you over.  Your government is.  Your government is the one with no patriotism, selling you out.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 23:36 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Yeah, I was aiming for morality/ethics, you're doing physics, I think.  You're probably right, in any event. 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 23:45 | Link to Comment poor fella
poor fella's picture

Sounds totally naive, but that's why I make an effort to buy American and stay away from corporate bullshit... It amazes me to see EVERY single little store in the US filled to the gills with Chinese made goods. Quite a logistical acheivement. I've been on a China boycott since I was a child. My mom used to say, "never put a red painted object in your mouth, it probably has lead in it". That was in the 70's!! Tibet - Tienamen - etc. and the US is just as bad. Wall Street's drive for profits and fucked up incentives based on short-term accounting hijinks has screwed everyone but C-street and political insiders.

Nothing new here, but shit man, take a fucking stand and think where your money goes. I only say this because of the "What's gonna change? Nothing."  Pretty sure you're correct, but you still have to fight (You might be a fighter, just saying).

I give the globe about a 12% chance of getting through this without a major klusterfuck. And the ONLY way that's going to happen is if we are forced to solve tiny 'crisis' that don't snowball. Globalization has fucked about 95% of the world's population - since we're all affected by these fucking assholes.

Otherwise, we wait, and the shit REALLY hits the fan since we'll be out of 'way outs'.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 20:09 | Link to Comment potlatch
potlatch's picture

Gross mismanagement and corporate incompetence are vital parts of today's dynamic and ever-chaning world of challenges and opportunities that face the courageous worker!  For those who believe in Principles of Capitalism, future is bright although others try to say system fundamentally broken!  Those who complain only serve to point out that which we will rejoice in as a feature not a bug of glorious system!

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:57 | Link to Comment seabiscuit
seabiscuit's picture

http://www.jsonline.com/business/flag04-n260pc5-161274345.html Seems like a proper 4th of July celebration for this year. It appears that this company is added to the no fly list.

Oh snap..

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 12:24 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

I'm hiring you because of your work ETHnic...

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:44 | Link to Comment Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

Do you think if I renounce my citizenship and apply for a work visa I could get a better job?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:12 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

In that case, you wouldn't need one... You could just apply 4 full bennies, sit on your ass, &/or make babies... COME ON MAN! Get your ass in tune with capitalism & quit dicking around...

~~~

EDIT: Not Quite off topic... But it appears that even "fireworks" salespeople are somehow missing the benevolent social net of Comrade "Hope & Change"...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48062571?gt1=43001

“For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I’m Really Proud of My Country”

~Michele Obama

...oops, francis_sawyer needs to clear out & quit posting right now because an abandoned knapsack was just discovered down the road...

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 19:40 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Sheeit. The Stands around the County are not doing any business because of the fire danger which is quite real.

The Local Police are getting some rest now because tomorrow night they are gonna be apeshit catching those who light them off.

God it's good to be an American.

/sarc

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 22:54 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

OT... But not REALLY OT... I'll let ZH readers decide...

~~~

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 02:05 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

On topic, imo.

If I were to bold one sentence though, this would be the one: "... that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

This is where we are stuck.


Wed, 07/04/2012 - 03:36 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The King was a nasty guy.

Djeee, remember how he kicked the can, blaming all the others but himself when it comes to his responsibilities?

Huh, wrong book, wrong book. That is what US citizens do.

Today, if a similar document was drafted, US citizens would explain that actually the root cause of it all are not themselves but the Chinese, the Zimbabweans...

The King was not half duplicitous as US citizens.

Great progress for humanity right?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 12:24 | Link to Comment reader2010
reader2010's picture

Bullshit. I just hired 16 more last week.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 12:26 | Link to Comment resurger
resurger's picture

ill send you my resume, make it 17

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 12:30 | Link to Comment SemperFord
SemperFord's picture

Really? what kind of wages? Manufacturers I know in Cali have to keep it around $12 dollars an hour because of overhead, who can live on $12 an hour in Los Angeles?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 12:51 | Link to Comment reader2010
reader2010's picture

IT consulting with an average salary about $85K.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 12:51 | Link to Comment HelluvaEngineer
HelluvaEngineer's picture

That and fraud are the only growing industries

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 13:05 | Link to Comment reader2010
reader2010's picture

Sadly most Americans don't have the skills that our industry are looking for. We received 71 applications for the 16 job opennings we had, and only two native-born Americans applied. Perhaps most Americans thought the careers in fraud-based insdustires, as as FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate), were much easier and pay was much better. 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 13:07 | Link to Comment MillionDollarBogus_
MillionDollarBogus_'s picture

Interesting...

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:40 | Link to Comment JohnnyBriefcase
JohnnyBriefcase's picture

Really? I found it to be quite boring.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 13:10 | Link to Comment i love cholas
i love cholas's picture

IT Consulting. Give me a break

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 13:30 | Link to Comment aerojet
aerojet's picture

Give you a break, why?  My company is hiring, in fact, there are tons of companies hiring for IT everywhere I look.  You have to do actual work, of course, which kind of makes it unappealing to 99% of the population.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:33 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

$200k value work while getting paid $50k is not a good deal.

 

It is all about profit sharing, because booms never last especially in technology.

 

These days, labor has same downside to market risk as capital/business as they are laid off "AT WILL".

 

Real problem is education costs + housing costs + taxes which the older generation jacked it up so high to price out new entrants.

 

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 15:48 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

If you want to have a job, you need to make your employer $4 for every $1 he pays you.  I thought this was pretty well known everywhere.  I'm pretty sure this has always been the case.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 16:11 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

that's why good pros go independent and only shitty ones who make employer $1 for $1 of wage stay and become middle managers playing politics.

 

Look around any Fortune 500 corp. how many are actually doing productive work? More likely there is some young slave doing $10 worth of work while getting paid $1 and everyone else is gaming the system just enough not to get fired.....just like government.

 

Employers needs to bring value to the table. you can outsource almost anything these days including your boss' job unless your boss is some rainmaker with political connections.

 

 

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:09 | Link to Comment grid-b-gone
grid-b-gone's picture

I somewhat agree, but as a Fortune 500 middle manager, I worked my butt off - 60-hr weeks for a salary that assumed a 40-hr week.

True, as a new grad working my way up, I was making everyone above me more money than I made myself. It's even worse today with grads being enslaved by internships with the hope of getting permanently hired. Still, like public workers, once you're in, it gets better.

Paying one's dues used to be understood. Today, not so much. Plus, many who paid their dues got screwed in the collapse. Winners today take their profit up front. Losers are learning that the annuity-like promises of the past are to be avoided. The bird in the hand will dominate future labor negotiations. These days, as you pointed out, the full force of worldwide competition hits the bottom levels first and hardest.

I did go independent and fully agree only the best can succeed on their own. It's just me keeping a customer happier than the competition can or is willing to do. That usually means doing a better job for less to remain the best value in the marketplace. As when I was a Fortune-500 manager, that also means putting in many extra unpaid hours.  

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:38 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

corporations showed no royalty... it is written in your contract...."AT WILL"....for whatever reason. New VP doesn't like your haircut, you are gone...no matter how much 60hr work weeks you had put in prior or how good worker you are or whatever. Executives understand this as even CEOs are exchange depending on company need for certain styles or performance, etc. But at least they get paid.

 

Everyone is a free agent now.

 

pay one's dues = promise to suckers. There are very few careers left where the due paid is worth the sacrifice.

smart ones are the ones cheating the system....illega aliens with all of the benefits, rich with 10-15% tax, inside traders, executives getting bonus by laying off workers, cops and firemen unions with outrageous pensions, etc.

 

INNOCENCE LOST

 

 

I've been telling for years now. Middle and upper middle class workers are the worst LOSERS in the curent system. DO all of the WORK, PAY MOST TAXES as percentage of their value add, GET NONE of government benefits, NO political representation as democracts pander to poor, republicans pander to super rich.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:55 | Link to Comment dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

"you can outsource almost anything these days including your boss' job"

I've been saying this for a while.. outsource the managers and leave the engineers/workers/etc and see how well that works.   These days most managers are just paper pushers and have to ask the workers to manage up since they are clueless on how anything gets done.

You can still have CEOs, etc at the top but there are some companies out there that the workers run the whole show and other's that have much flatter org chart than the old pyramid 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 21:15 | Link to Comment Trimmed Hedge
Trimmed Hedge's picture

Nah.. outsource the CEOs, too....

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 22:41 | Link to Comment FEDbuster
Tue, 07/03/2012 - 22:25 | Link to Comment mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

Well, that's happening. Companies outsource their manufacturing for a pop in stock price for the executives and ten years later a Chinese company buys the brand and takes over. If they get big, they open some manufacturing in U.S. but it's a crappy deal for the workers.

 

US is supposed to be a democracy or a republic or something. So it should be organized for the benefit of most of the citizens not just employers.

 

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 01:18 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Dogbert to the Boss: Yea, wow, I'm sorry there big guy, but we just cut our budget by 30% by letting you go. Say hi to Chanandradanadana, our new outsourced CEO. And no travel, we link him via skype. Very low cost.

Boss: Ummm... but I bring value to the company and how could it possibly exist without my expert management?

Dogbert: Actually the projections from accounting are that profits will increase by 30%, employee dissatifaction will decline by 95%, and absenteeism will decline by 80%. Buu bye.

Dilbert, Wally, and Alice, at the water cooler near the door, hear the conversation and break out into laughter with high-fives all around.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 21:25 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Tyler Durden doesn't pay me shit for the AD clicks my comments generate (even tho I generate a lot of them myself & donate)... francis_sawyer must be a model employee...

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:20 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

I was fired from an IT job for doing exactly what you're doing, using the company computer for personal use. 

That was right after receiving a commendation for developing and teaching the best software training course that company ever had based on student course evaluations.

That's when I said fuck this corporate daycare mentality bullshit, and went out and started my own business. 

Now I make 1/3 what I made there, but I'm 3 times happier. 

Enjoying what I do is THE most important thing these days, more important than money even.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 17:44 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

your job as an employee is to look like you are a good worker (PR) while minizing real work done (job protection, stress)

 

if you want to actually do real work, then you need to own your production as independent business owner.

 

people with expectations that corporations will take care of them will be disappointed.

 

COMPANIES MAKE MONEY BY KEEPING PROFIT MARGIN/REVENUE INCREASE FASTER THAN WAGE INCREASE. Meaning you get short changed to the actual value of your work.

 

some people enjoy bullshitting in meetings as corporate middle management telling young talents what to do before they discover they are being exploited.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 22:00 | Link to Comment arizona11912
arizona11912's picture

Thats what I am in the midst of trying to start. Being a corporate slave is no fun, to put in modest terms. Do you use a lot of C in your work?

Wed, 07/04/2012 - 02:10 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Unauthorized use is the most common firing.

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 00:04 | Link to Comment sun tzu
sun tzu's picture

it's the most common excuse when they want to fire someone who they feel is overpaid

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 18:57 | Link to Comment putaipan
putaipan's picture

sure. didn't you know all the four letter agencies are hiring now.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 13:12 | Link to Comment bnbdnb
bnbdnb's picture

What part of the country? I'm always looking for more software engineering work. :)

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 13:23 | Link to Comment reader2010
reader2010's picture

We're not in coding business. We specialize in Oracle database admin work. Most our clients are in the South and the Southeast.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 13:34 | Link to Comment Precious
Precious's picture

I think you specialize in shirking, since it is now the middle of the work day and you are fucking around on the Zero Hedge comment board.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 14:01 | Link to Comment reader2010
reader2010's picture

So you believe ZH is just another adult daycare center for those unemployed like you?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!