If we've lost anything it's because the nanny state is here to protect us from ourselves so there is no need for us to do anything for ourselves. Me-Me-Me
Absolute nonsense. If you're poor, WORK. That's how the poor have always become not-poor. If there is any time in history that that has been easy, it is now. There is *no* excuse for the multi-generational poor. The government is the reason, but no excuse.
Not a reason, but another symptom. The ascendancy of group (e.g. rights) over self (e.g. control) is the cause.
No, I was agreeing with Joerg that if you *are* going to drug-test the fry-boy, you certainly should drug-test the CEO as well.
Historically, in some companies that didn't happen -- only the "grunts" had to pass the drug-test.
Jeez, it didn't even sound to me like they were paying you a fortune over there, Keith. :-) I didn't even give Tek my social security number until they actually handed me a job offer...
I dunno, something like 1/3 of small businesses fail within the first year... assuming we get rid of all of the ones with drug problems, would you consider all those failed entrepreneurs to typically be "problem employees?" As a group I'd expect that entrepreneurs tend be above-average employees... And as Joerg pointed out, people who live very frugally often have poor credit scores simple because they've never used credit that much.
I agree, I'm just suggesting that the "high-tech" methods (drug tests, credit checks, psych screens) used to determine "overhead" are not significantly more accurate than traditional face-to-face/gut-feel interviews from decades back.
Sounds like I'd have your support in spending some tax money on a jobs program then? Since surely you'd agree that right now there are one heck of a lot more people who want jobs (many of them very good workers) than there are jobs available, yes? :-)
I would agree that, yeah, there are some people who'll milk welfare for everything they can. I'd even agree that as a percentage of people without jobs, it's likely been increasing in the past handful of decades. Figuring out how to get rid of these folks without unduly harming those who legitimately need help (...and not overburdening the taxpayers who are paying for all that welfare...) is a delicate balancing act.
If they are unable to better their situation, yes, God expects us to help. If it's because of laziness, no.
For the record: The bible does not condone freeloading in any way. On the contrary. Anyone not believing this only needs to read one sentence in there, 2 Thessalonians 3:10 which says "If a man will not work, he shall not eat". Note the word "will" in there, meaning "unwilling".
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
To some maybe. After moving to the US I had experienced the contrary. And in all seriousness some financial folks said "You have to rack up some credit card debt and then pay it off". Ridiculous.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Agreed, but I think there's often a fuzzy line between "unable to better their situation" and "lazy" -- in my mind, if you have someone who's willing to go so far as to sleep on heating grates in winter and eat out of trash cans to survive, there's a very good chance they're mentally ill and fall closer to the former classification rather than the later.
The teenage kid who can crash with friends from night to night, lives off food stamps and welfare (paying for his cell phone :-) ), and might send out a job application or two occasionally but doesn't really have his heart in it -- that is just lazy, and I suspect somewhere there's surely a parable about giving such people a boot in the rear? :-)
I'm all for requiring able-bodied people to work for their welfare, but as mentioned in another discussion we had a few weeks back, the problem with this is that very quickly it effectively just becomes more government jobs -- and there's already too many of those, right? -- So it's a tricky issue...
Yes, we just had a discussion in a group where some actually go out to homeless camps and bring food. Sometimes this is rejected. Some homeless folks (if not a lot of them) are by medical definitions mentally challenged.
Not the boot but there's several passage in the bible dealing with freeloaders. Essentially boiling down to everyone carrying their weight, helping those who truly can't.
Jobs programs and all that, where has that ever worked in the long term? What we need is not government jobs or government sponsored jobs, what we need are clear and most of all long term trustworthy incentives for businesses to hire people. Talking about split roll on property tax and stuff like that (happened here) is a loud and clear message for business to buzz off. And we don't want that to happen.
It's the same with subsidies. They only outwardly appear to do a country any good. In reality they don't, they keep economic activities going that no longer could stand on their own and the vast sums of money flowing into that are being siphoned off from activities where we as a country could really thrive. Call me capitalist but I am a strong believer in the free market regulating this sort of stuff, and not regulators.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
The CCC is generally considered to have been a success (operating "in earnest" from 1933-1942:
formatting link
But I agree that such programs more often than not don't seem to help and it likely would have done just as much if not more good to just write a check to the job recipients directly.
The problem is that while we say that "the government" is addicted to their taxes, it really means "we the people" are: Everyone is willing to cut programs so long as it's not one *they* benefit directly from -- in which case support suddenly plummets.
So taxes just go up and up and up, and now the government goes around trying to find "creative" new ways to make up for all the tax dollars that were lost due to the economic downturn.
They were fools. It's entirely possible to live, and well, with no credit. Look up Dave Ramsey. He is a strong advocate for the completely debt-free lifestyle. Before you ask, no, I'm on the other ideal end of the debt curve.
No, you'd have my support if you proposed tax reductions so business could hire.
Yes, businesses can't hire because they have no idea what's going to happen next with this insane government. If Obama would just let loose of the steering wheel the bus would right itself. Everytime it tries to make a correction the jerk jerks the wheel further to the left.
People milk a job for everything they can, given the chance. Sure they're going to milk ride a free horse until it drops. That pony has been dead for decades and the Demonicrats are still whipping it.
No it's really not. There is no desire to do it so it won't get done until we're all poor. That's what the Demonicrats really want.
I live in a bit of a valley with steep hills all around, and several people have told me that they could not get a good signal. A BGE repair guy tried climbing on a woodpile, and then made his way partway up the hill. I have had two different TracFones, and I was always able to get a good signal.
When the Verizon guys were here last summer to install FIOS, they also had trouble with their cellphones. I offered to loan them my cheap Tracfone, but I think the guy finally got a signal by climbing up on his truck. So much for "Can you hear me now?"
Both of my phones were/are Motorola, and I have seen somewhere that they have especially good sensitivity. So it might not be "the network" after all.
I just said it was "stupid" for the fry-boy or the CEO, actually -- but that if a company is going to do such a thing anyway, the CEO should certainly be included.
Just pointing out that there are some "good" reasons to have lousy credit that are unlikely to make you a poor employee.
Divorce is sometimes another such "good" reason.
Actually I think they're usually done before a regular interview. That was the case with the software my wife's cousin's company worked on -- "here, hand this PDA to your applicants, and if they fail the psych screening, you won't even have to 'waste time' interviewing them!" -- that was how they actually advertised their product.
We've already established that Jim is going to fail the psych screening because (1) he's had overhwhelming urges to kill his fellow employees (socialist-sociopaths they may be) and (2) he's honest so he won't lie when we ask him as much. Yet I'd still hire him to to fry burgers OR design ICs -- wouldn't you?
(The above is meant to be taken slightly tongue-in-cheek... :-) )
But the same people who whine about the homeless make it so they cannot be forced to live in a protected environment or to take drugs that will help them, either. There are only so many ways to help the helpless.
...and charity is quite good at the latter. Government isn't good at any.
There are three groups here...
1) welfare bums - let 'em starve (they'll learn a skill soon enough)
2) incompetent - charities can help (I don't even mind so much for government to help through established - mostly religious- charities)
3) unemployed - get government out of business' business
Make that two. Sounds like you don't think much of "alternate energy", (farm subsidies,...) either. ;-)
I'm all for that too, but then you just end up with budget shortfalls and there's apparently little support for big-time government spending cuts. (Or did you want to add to the debt?)
Not all of them do. See, e.g.,
formatting link
-- a truly incredible story (granted, also a one-in-a-million story too).
Some years ago where I presently work the company was running out of cash and there were huge (like, 50%) pay cuts across the board. As far as I'm aware, the only people who left were a couple who just didn't have the "money in the bank" to be able to absorb the hit -- everyone else stayed, because they had confidence in the guy running the joint and in the long-term viability of the place. It took several years, but eventually the company did recover, attracting new business, and every employer who'd stuck around through the slump was given back everything that'd been cut as well as significant bonuses on top of it to make up for the hardship they'd endured.
I think I just have rather more faith in the good of my fellow man than you do, Keith!
Whether you think it stupid or not, it's not your call. When you hire employees you can hire all of the druggies and the bankrupt.
No, it had nothing to do with the issue.
Perhaps, but it's still an issue that will get in the way of business. Someone who's in a stable relationship is a better employee than one who can't commit, too.
Wrong.
"here, hand
There's nothing wrong with that, but that's not the general case. Each of the drug tests I've taken was after I was "hired". The last one I had to find a testing facility a couple of days before I reported to work (three states down).
I would (though don't know about frying burgers - yuck!) because I'm smart enough to know that he's yanking leftist weenies chain. ...and you jump every time it's pulled.
...and you don't think the $Ts in "stimulus" didn't add to the debt? At least a tax cut would benefit the economy instead of burdening it further.
More red herrings.
If that were the deal, I'd likely stay, too. However I don't work as a charity either. We had a 10% cut a year ago, since reinstated without any back pay. I didn't really have a problem with that, though some did. Much more and I'd want a better piece of the action, though.
Agreed, I specifically mentioned that I don't think any of this should really be illegal, I just believe it's ill-advised and hurting the country.
Yes, but humans are such complex, emotional creatures that there's ALWAYS something for them to worry about... and by some combination of genetics and upbringing, there are some people whose work will be derailed far more when they're worried about whether or not their spouse is going to like their Christmas present than other people who might have gone out and axe-murdered a few transients the night before and think nothing of it -- or perhaps even be a little more productive at work, now that they've finally been able to get those axe-murdering urges out of their system... at least for a time... :-)
I.e., there's just as much variability in people's "state of mind" based on their innate personalities than there is based on the current events of their lives.
I think with IBM I had already been "hired" prior to the drug test, whereas with Tek it was the other way around (just, "you're at the point where we'd be happy to interview you, since you seem like you might be vaguely useful if you don't give in to your socialist-sociopath leftish-weenie leanings and first take a drug test").
Jim is purpotedly skilled in the preparation of many fine items involving a BBQ and various dead animals...
Oh, come on, that story directly refutes your statement that "people milk a job for everything they can."
Well, it was a risky proposition for the people who stayed -- besides not knowing if the company would completely fold or not, there was never any promise that they'd be paid back everything they'd taken in cuts; just faith that the owner was a decent human being who'd do what he could to "make things right."
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.