100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: conservatives on This Message Board | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I wish americans (whatever label is imposed upon their beliefs) would understand ECONOMY AND MATH EVEN IF EVERY JOB OPENING WERE FILLED, people would be left with no job as there is nearly a six to one ratio of those seeking work and work which is available add to that that those who apply to a job generally have skill sets in the range of THAT JOBS duties so they are less likely to be hired if they have no history in that field so , yes, even when people apply to mcdonalds, the most likely to be hired are those who are just out of school or who have already worked in fast food I guess people havent heard of the term 'overqualified', because so many people still seem to think its as easy as just 'getting' a job as opposed to 'qualifying' and 'competing' for a position which you have the skills and/or experience to fulfill Its a sickening attitude to me that thinks people are without work strictly out of laziness or less of a desire to work than others,,, We know what "overqualified" is. I applied for jobs which they told me I was overqualified for. Didn't stop me from going to the interview. Anyone who truly wants to work can. That's all there is to it. I'm sorry my attitude sickens you. But you must realize that with EOE you would stand a better chance of landing a state or fedxeral job before myself, even if I had more experience. That's why you can say what you're saying. Not being racist here msharmony, just being honest. perhaps not racist , but honest isnt always accurate either, someones honest 'opinion' is often not backed up by FACTS and most people are woefully underinformed about EOE and AA and thats why they ASSUME that its about discrimination instead of about FIGHTING discrimination with EOE, I wouldnt stand a better chance at a job you were more 'QUALIFED' for because employers get to define what QUALIFICATIONS are important to them and hire accordingly but they CANT use race or gender to determine such qualification I say this because I grew up in an EOE home (my mother was an EEO Officer) and made very aware of what those things are and arent and because I STUDIED a little economy in high school which explained that the economy was not and is not set up for EVERYONE to be able to work It's true that not everyone can be employed at once by someone else's company, everyone can be employed. Those who are unemployable by a company for some reason can be self-employed, a free lancer/contractor, etc. (granted there is a VERY small part of the population that is simply unemployable for some reason or another) thats true, but even that usually takes some INVESTMENT which most dont have I have ideas for inventions, I need to invest in the research and development(need money) I have a book, I need to get someone to publish it (need money or to 'know' people) I am administrative/clerical and have been out of 'work' for a year and a half,, worked since I was 18, TWENTY YEARS(because Im not lazy) and this has been the worst dry spell I could ever imagine just irks me to hear people fortunate enough to find an employer putting others down for not finding work(as if they arent trying) or how my minority status gives me some privilege (PUH LEASE) I just found a position with someone(thank God), A YEAR AND A HALF people should count their blessings and stop fooling themself into thinking its all about how deserving they are of them Oh well you have your thoughts and I have mine. If I feel deserving its because I am. After busting my butt since 18, taking initiative and learning, yes I AM deserving. and I feel EXACTLY the same way, IN fact I think everyone who tries is deserving but not all are FORTUNATE, even when they are trying I am deserving because I try hard, even AFTER I lost my job and couldnt find another for a year and a half, those other EIGHTEEN that I worked and educated myself while paying taxes to this country make me as deserving a citizen as anyone else, and now that I have been through this unbelievable downturn in employment, I understand that I happen to also be FORTUNATE because millions of equally deserving people still are not employed,,  I'm glad that you realize that YOU are deserving also MsHarmony. If you and I can do it then why can't others? There is no stopping determined people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish americans (whatever label is imposed upon their beliefs) would understand ECONOMY AND MATH EVEN IF EVERY JOB OPENING WERE FILLED, people would be left with no job as there is nearly a six to one ratio of those seeking work and work which is available add to that that those who apply to a job generally have skill sets in the range of THAT JOBS duties so they are less likely to be hired if they have no history in that field so , yes, even when people apply to mcdonalds, the most likely to be hired are those who are just out of school or who have already worked in fast food I guess people havent heard of the term 'overqualified', because so many people still seem to think its as easy as just 'getting' a job as opposed to 'qualifying' and 'competing' for a position which you have the skills and/or experience to fulfill Its a sickening attitude to me that thinks people are without work strictly out of laziness or less of a desire to work than others,,, We know what "overqualified" is. I applied for jobs which they told me I was overqualified for. Didn't stop me from going to the interview. Anyone who truly wants to work can. That's all there is to it. I'm sorry my attitude sickens you. But you must realize that with EOE you would stand a better chance of landing a state or fedxeral job before myself, even if I had more experience. That's why you can say what you're saying. Not being racist here msharmony, just being honest. perhaps not racist , but honest isnt always accurate either, someones honest 'opinion' is often not backed up by FACTS and most people are woefully underinformed about EOE and AA and thats why they ASSUME that its about discrimination instead of about FIGHTING discrimination with EOE, I wouldnt stand a better chance at a job you were more 'QUALIFED' for because employers get to define what QUALIFICATIONS are important to them and hire accordingly but they CANT use race or gender to determine such qualification I say this because I grew up in an EOE home (my mother was an EEO Officer) and made very aware of what those things are and arent and because I STUDIED a little economy in high school which explained that the economy was not and is not set up for EVERYONE to be able to work It's true that not everyone can be employed at once by someone else's company, everyone can be employed. Those who are unemployable by a company for some reason can be self-employed, a free lancer/contractor, etc. (granted there is a VERY small part of the population that is simply unemployable for some reason or another) thats true, but even that usually takes some INVESTMENT which most dont have I have ideas for inventions, I need to invest in the research and development(need money) I have a book, I need to get someone to publish it (need money or to 'know' people) I am administrative/clerical and have been out of 'work' for a year and a half,, worked since I was 18, TWENTY YEARS(because Im not lazy) and this has been the worst dry spell I could ever imagine just irks me to hear people fortunate enough to find an employer putting others down for not finding work(as if they arent trying) or how my minority status gives me some privilege (PUH LEASE) I just found a position with someone(thank God), A YEAR AND A HALF people should count their blessings and stop fooling themself into thinking its all about how deserving they are of them Let's assume that it's true that "most people can't 'invest' the capital required to be self employed". Every person owns his labor and can sell it for whatever price he wants, even free. A person just trying to get into a career path has the opportunity to volunteer, do work pro bono/without salary, and so forth to build up a resume. All this costs is time and effort. After doing this, one will not only have a valuable skill set, he will have an employment record and a better resume. All without any help from the government whatsoever. accept while building this 'skill set' bills will still be needing to be paid, and time not 'employed' is seen as another strike against potential employees nowadays although I can definitely appreciate the intrinsic value of obtaining UNPAID experience (I have been attending college, which increases my skills) , the reality that people still need MONEY to provide for basics and that employers still have far too many applicants than they have jobs, means that certain services and assistance will be needed and should be available for people who are trying to be 'productive' I will be paying student loans until I die because I have taken whatever opportunities I had to further my education and , by extension, be more productive my tax money IS the government, they are an inseperable entity in my eyes, and when I need to dip into MY money during emergencies and setbacks I think others have a gall to complain about it as if it came from their personal stash and I have paid nothing into it myself telling people to just take 'any job' is like telling a woman to accept 'any offer' of marriage employers and employees have a MUTUAL relationship and they need to be a fit for each other,, Paying the bills is a somewhat different issue. Once upon a time, people took 2-3 part time jobs to do that. The student loan thing is a big problem, I agree. It's treated differently than other debt for no good reason-another example of what Bastiat explained in his "Broken Window" allegory. Had there been no meddling in the economy for the past 110+ years, these problems wouldn't exist. (You wouldn't even have to worry about taxes, because that law wouldn't have been passed back in 1913) I disagree with your analogy of taking any job to accepting any spouse. If you seriously want a job, you have to get experience somehow. The days when an overpriced degree guaranteed one a job are gone now. Now, you must either offer skills an employers demand, self-employ, or live in your local church's poor house. It might not be fun, but it's better than nothing. (don't count on welfare checks coming in indefinitely, btw-at the current rate, the government will default on its loans or go even further into debt, making everyone's situation worse yet) experience isnt the issue, QUALIFICATION is, you can bet that for any position there are QUALIFIED applicants (those who already have that experience) that will receive the position over anyone just seeking to 'gain the experience' I dont fault employers for seeking a candidate who is the best match for their needs, why fault employees for seeking employment that is the best match for their skills and goals? its not so black and white as something vs. nothing, or we wouldnt have minimum wage requirements employers could literally pay people 2 cents per hour for scrubbing toilets and during a recession people would be EXPECTED to accept it just to say they have 'something' meanwhile, they are away from their family 8 to 10 hours per day , with childcare costing upwards of 600 per month per child under kindergarten age and fuel costing upwards of 120 per month just to get BACK AND FORTH to said job,,,,leaving the cost for just being ABLE to work at upwards of 720 dollars per month with that type of expense to be able to go to a job, would it make sense to accept a job that paid only five or six dollars an hour,,it would be a ZERO GAIN investment that is the situation alot of people are in, they DID do the work for years, they DID earn their incomes and live within the means of their income and then their income was STRIPPED AWAY to where they could no longer maintain it unless or until they found an equivalent or more substantial income (foreclosures and debts dont look good on a credit check for which just about EVERYTHING nowadays requires) its a pretty sucky situation for people ( I Believe the majority) who have done exactly as they were told to do, been productive, worked hard and then found themselves in this economy competing with millions of others for just a few job openings It just gets under my skin when I hear the judgmental rantings of those who are not walking in the shoes of the disenfranchised right now,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ha Ha pretending liberals answer questions. XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
once again,, can someone compare/contrast
liberals v conservatives so I can try to remember which one I supposedly am,,,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
once again,, can someone compare/contrast liberals v conservatives so I can try to remember which one I supposedly am,,,,lol Roughly I would say liberals are interested in big government with many social programs. Higher taxes with more government run programs. I would say conservatives would be the opposite. The want the government to do and run less. They want lower taxes and individuals or states to be responsible for more things. IMO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
once again,, can someone compare/contrast liberals v conservatives so I can try to remember which one I supposedly am,,,,lol Roughly I would say liberals are interested in big government with many social programs. Higher taxes with more government run programs. I would say conservatives would be the opposite. The want the government to do and run less. They want lower taxes and individuals or states to be responsible for more things. IMO so its very subjective depending upon ones idea of what 'big' goevernment or 'less' government is,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
once again,, can someone compare/contrast liberals v conservatives so I can try to remember which one I supposedly am,,,,lol Roughly I would say liberals are interested in big government with many social programs. Higher taxes with more government run programs. I would say conservatives would be the opposite. The want the government to do and run less. They want lower taxes and individuals or states to be responsible for more things. IMO so its very subjective depending upon ones idea of what 'big' goevernment or 'less' government is,,, No not really. You base it on what your current government is. No matter how big are small your government is if you want it to be bigger and provide more social programs you would be liberal. If you are for limiting it you would be conservative. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a 'balance point' where government is big enough to perform those things a government should (according to the perception of what is just and fair of the people)... and yet government is not so large that it chokes off the opportunity of the people that support it.
What both 'big' government and 'small' government extremes fail to realize is that our CURRENT government is not being responsible in the way it spends and regulates. It is no longer surving the COMMON GOOD for the people that are governed... It is in a sprial of surving the good of the government at the expense of a majority of the people it is (by our constitution) supposed to surve. If our government continues surving the best interest of the government, and not the people, that government will eventually consume itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting,,what is the term for those who want a government that adapts to need, increasing when more is needed and decreasing when less is needed?
has that term even been created yet?....lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That ideal of government would depend upon the maturity level of its elected officals...
None of the current crop fits such a discription. Most are concerned only with doing what it takes to get re-elected... and not performing the job to which they were elected. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
artlo
on
Tue 02/15/11 03:07 AM
|
|
Ha Ha pretending liberals answer questions. XD Have you even been reading my posts? Or do you just throw these insults in at random? Is it possible that you might have Tourette's Syndrome? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ha Ha pretending liberals answer questions. XD Have you even been reading my posts? Or do you just throw these insults in at random? Is it possible that you might have Tourette's Syndrome? Are you claiming you are the only liberal? I know lots of liberals that don't answer questions but I won't point fingers. The point is you said conservatives don't. Also points you mentioned you always say sound like rhetorical questions. Either way I didn't say anything you didnt say. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you claiming you are the only liberal? OK. My apology for the snottiness. I wouldn't really know about your allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also points you mentioned you always say sound like rhetorical questions. This could be the problem. when I ask, "When did this happen? Did it make it into the news", that isn't meant rhetorically. I am challenging (you) to produce some reason for me to accept that what (you) say happened actually happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also points you mentioned you always say sound like rhetorical questions. This could be the problem. when I ask, "When did this happen? Did it make it into the news", that isn't meant rhetorically. I am challenging (you) to produce some reason for me to accept that what (you) say happened actually happened. This is a forum, you can just as easily research the information as the poster. It is not their job to site sources for you. Now if you research and can't find it and ask them to show it I bet you would get better responses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a forum, you can just as easily research the information as the poster. It is not their job to site sources for you. Now if you research and can't find it and ask them to show it I bet you would get better responses. This isn't the only forum I'm familiar with. I'm pretty sure it's customary for the person making an argument to provide support for his argument. Using your strategy, you are requiring the responder to prove a negative, which, of course, cannot be done. This may provide a clue as to why so many of these forum discussions are so unproductive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a forum, you can just as easily research the information as the poster. It is not their job to site sources for you. Now if you research and can't find it and ask them to show it I bet you would get better responses. This isn't the only forum I'm familiar with. I'm pretty sure it's customary for the person making an argument to provide support for his argument. Using your strategy, you are requiring the responder to prove a negative, which, of course, cannot be done. This may provide a clue as to why so many of these forum discussions are so unproductive. Actually in my experience when I post a link proving my point my post is usually just ignored so I have pretty much stopped bothering. I think others could feel the same way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually in my experience when I post a link proving my point my post is usually just ignored so I have pretty much stopped bothering. I think others could feel the same way If it was a good proof, that is probably an indication that you won your point. Enjoy! If it isn't good proof, then it could mean that your opponent either didn't find it interesting or didn't consider it worth acknowledging. These are the least likely cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually in my experience when I post a link proving my point my post is usually just ignored so I have pretty much stopped bothering. I think others could feel the same way If it was a good proof, that is probably an indication that you won your point. Enjoy! If it isn't good proof, then it could mean that your opponent either didn't find it interesting or didn't consider it worth acknowledging. These are the least likely cases. In either case I normally argue my opinions and when I want to claim facts I typically post a reference. That is just my personal style. I just argue opinions more often because of what I just informed you of. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's something here worth continuing with. People ignoring my links and sources was the whole reason that I started this thread. So, I'm experimenting with just making assertions without bothering with posting links and sources. It's so much quicker and easier this way. Plus nobody has a clue as to whether my assertions are even true. It's an awfully easy way to debate.
By the way, I noticed somewhere your comment that 'there's nothing much going on here' or something like that. I like what's going on with your left arm there. She's a real cutie! |
|
|
|
|
