31 ms·

the majority haven't been looking for work.. I was long term unemployeed.. I sent out a minimum of 10 resumes everyday until I got a job.. it paid shit, but at

the majority haven't been looking for work.. I was long term unemployeed.. I sent out a minimum of 10 resumes everyday until I got a job.. it paid shit, but at least i was no longer on the tit of america. The problem with long term unemployment is the same issue I ran into the other day on an elevator.. One girl asks another girl, "did you get a job yet?" the girl responds, "Giiiirrrrrl, da gubament gonna give me 2 hundred dollas a week, why i gonna get a jerb?" Get em off the tit and get em working or they starve and die.. either way win win for us all.

jiggy2011 13y ago
Great idea, now all we have to do is make jobs for them!
bloat 13y ago
Nice self righteous racial stereotyping there - thanks.
- talmand 13y ago
  It's not stereotyping if it's a quote, but then again, we don't know the accuracy of the quote.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Ok, but "quotes" can be used to further sterotypes, tho. in addition to accuracy there is always context...I'm sure the nazi's quoted a couple of jews in their day.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - talmand 13y ago
      Well, sure it could. But to me, if a quote from a person somehow reinforces a stereotype of a group the quoted person is labeled as part of, then that implies more about the person hearing the quote than the person stating the quote. A person can use a quote out of context all day long but it doesn't truly reinforce the stereotype until a person hearing the quote agrees with the out-of-context usage. For example, if a person from Mars says something stupid and someone provides me with a quote. Do I say to myself; "That person is stupid" or "Martians are stupid"? If I go with the second then the problem is within me, not the quote nor the person who provided it. So, did the Nazi's quote Jews out of context to further their aims of denigrating them? I'm sure they did. But it only worked for people who agreed with the idea in the first place.
  - clebio 13y ago
    Quotes of any person's speech aren't normally written in quasi-phonetic slant-accent jibberish.
    - talmand 13y ago
      It should be if it were spoken that way, otherwise it's not accurate. Of course, that could depend on the context of the quote. If you are just communicating the information given then, sure, correct for grammar and whatnot. If it's to communicate the personality and/or attitude of the person, then you quote verbatim as it was said. That's why the term "sic" exists for quoting people, you are acknowledging that it is known the quoted statement appears incorrect. Because that's the way it was stated.
      - clebio 13y ago
        That's a good point about using 'sic', but then the OP didn't.
- sfg 13y ago
  Has the comment been edited? It does not, as it currently appears on my screen, mention any particular race for the people in the dialogue given.
  - velis_vel 13y ago
    This kind of 'well if it doesn't explicitly mention race it can't possibly be stereotypical' belief is nonsense. If I go 'oh me so solly!' everybody is going to know I'm stereotyping Asians (specifically, Chinese/Japanese) people.
- bassclef 13y ago
  where did I stereotype? Did I make a blanket statement about any race? I'm not sure I did.. Seems you don't even know the definition.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
keiferski 13y ago
Man, if only all the minorities and women would learn how to code, they'd be fine, just like me. /s
zenogais 13y ago
Satire? We can only hope
Strilanc 13y ago
Another solution, that doesn't starve the unfortunate, is basic income. It solves the negative marginal return on the effort of finding a job not by giving nothing, but by unconditionally giving even after you get the job. This shifts the system away from incentivizing you to be unemployed, and towards countering the centralization of wealth.
- talmand 13y ago
  Actually, providing basic income will eventually mean a large number of people simply choosing to not work at all. That may be a good thing or bad thing, I don't know for certain and I believe it's one of those things that might be good for one area but bad for another. My natural inclination is that such a system will create a huge incentive for a percentage of people to willingly choose to be unemployed for most of their lives. If the amount isn't enough as a "living wage" amount then people will either adjust to make it work for them or they will clamor for the powers that be to increase the amount given to make it "livable". I'm sure it would soon become a "right" of some sort. I'm not saying that such a system would inherently be a bad thing, but it has to be designed with that outcome being considered and the consequences it implies. If by countering the centralization of wealth you mean take from Paul to give to Peter, then you're just trading one problem for another.
  - freehunter 13y ago
    If people willingly choose to be unemployed for $15,000/yr (as an example income), that's fine. There's no reason we need to be at 100% employment. Some amount of the population just doesn't need to work. The problem is, basic income will likely lead to inflation. The government would need to control prices in the necessities market (food, rent, utilities, etc) to make basic survival possible on $15,000. The price of luxuries can go up as long as necessities are affordable. There's your incentive. You can survive on the basic income, but if you want any luxuries, you have to have a job. That way the people who don't want to contribute to society are taken care of, and there's an incentive to actually get a job paying more than $15,000. I'm sure we've all heard stories about families on welfare buying expensive toys, TVs, Xbox, dirtbikes, cable TV, etc. If we want to get rid of that, welfare needs to pay exactly what it costs to survive, and nothing more.
001sky 13y ago
I sent out a minimum of 10 resumes everyday until I got a job Not sure what century this was in, but the article is basically saying this strategy is a fail. The resume's get screened to "auto" inbox->Trash, without being read, considered, interviewed, etc. Now, if you got those leads because of your network...you're clearly using a strategy that is not widely available to many people (that's why its a network: it's exclusive, not open). So, in essence you are blaming them for not being priviledged. Again, this is a moot point. These people need to pick a strategy that is <open to them>. Saying you have options that they lack is not a viable piece of advice to them (duh!). You might as well tell them to go to Harvard or MIT and become a programmer. While it's true tha "would" help, its also true that it has zero probability of <actually> helping. In otherwords, it's a humble-brag. It's not advice or critique (or a good comp).
smtddr 13y ago
>>get em working or they starve and die.. either way win win for us all. Speak for yourself. Other people starving & dying isn't a win in my book.
tdees40 13y ago
The jive talk really adds to your story.
nate_meurer 13y ago
In all seriousness, I think you're in the wrong forum here. There are many political web fora where "starve and die" rhetoric is an accepted standard, and I think you'll find the level of discourse there to be more to your taste.
- bassclef 13y ago
  Sorry I don't agree with paying for someone else to be lazy..
AlisdairO 13y ago
Given the radical increase in the number of long term unemployed, what data is it that makes you believe that the number of people wanting to work has gone down, rather than the availability of jobs?
djur 13y ago
You might want to look up "peasant's revolt" to see what happens to rich people when the poor see their only option is to starve and die. Throw in "Marie Antoinette" while you're at it.

jiggy2011 13y ago

Great idea, now all we have to do is make jobs for them!

bloat 13y ago

Nice self righteous racial stereotyping there - thanks.

talmand 13y ago
It's not stereotyping if it's a quote, but then again, we don't know the accuracy of the quote.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Ok, but "quotes" can be used to further sterotypes, tho. in addition to accuracy there is always context...I'm sure the nazi's quoted a couple of jews in their day.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - talmand 13y ago
    Well, sure it could. But to me, if a quote from a person somehow reinforces a stereotype of a group the quoted person is labeled as part of, then that implies more about the person hearing the quote than the person stating the quote. A person can use a quote out of context all day long but it doesn't truly reinforce the stereotype until a person hearing the quote agrees with the out-of-context usage. For example, if a person from Mars says something stupid and someone provides me with a quote. Do I say to myself; "That person is stupid" or "Martians are stupid"? If I go with the second then the problem is within me, not the quote nor the person who provided it. So, did the Nazi's quote Jews out of context to further their aims of denigrating them? I'm sure they did. But it only worked for people who agreed with the idea in the first place.
- clebio 13y ago
  Quotes of any person's speech aren't normally written in quasi-phonetic slant-accent jibberish.
  - talmand 13y ago
    It should be if it were spoken that way, otherwise it's not accurate. Of course, that could depend on the context of the quote. If you are just communicating the information given then, sure, correct for grammar and whatnot. If it's to communicate the personality and/or attitude of the person, then you quote verbatim as it was said. That's why the term "sic" exists for quoting people, you are acknowledging that it is known the quoted statement appears incorrect. Because that's the way it was stated.
    - clebio 13y ago
      That's a good point about using 'sic', but then the OP didn't.
sfg 13y ago
Has the comment been edited? It does not, as it currently appears on my screen, mention any particular race for the people in the dialogue given.
- velis_vel 13y ago
  This kind of 'well if it doesn't explicitly mention race it can't possibly be stereotypical' belief is nonsense. If I go 'oh me so solly!' everybody is going to know I'm stereotyping Asians (specifically, Chinese/Japanese) people.
bassclef 13y ago
where did I stereotype? Did I make a blanket statement about any race? I'm not sure I did.. Seems you don't even know the definition.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

keiferski 13y ago

Man, if only all the minorities and women would learn how to code, they'd be fine, just like me. /s

zenogais 13y ago

Satire? We can only hope

Strilanc 13y ago

Another solution, that doesn't starve the unfortunate, is basic income. It solves the negative marginal return on the effort of finding a job not by giving nothing, but by unconditionally giving even after you get the job. This shifts the system away from incentivizing you to be unemployed, and towards countering the centralization of wealth.

talmand 13y ago
Actually, providing basic income will eventually mean a large number of people simply choosing to not work at all. That may be a good thing or bad thing, I don't know for certain and I believe it's one of those things that might be good for one area but bad for another. My natural inclination is that such a system will create a huge incentive for a percentage of people to willingly choose to be unemployed for most of their lives. If the amount isn't enough as a "living wage" amount then people will either adjust to make it work for them or they will clamor for the powers that be to increase the amount given to make it "livable". I'm sure it would soon become a "right" of some sort. I'm not saying that such a system would inherently be a bad thing, but it has to be designed with that outcome being considered and the consequences it implies. If by countering the centralization of wealth you mean take from Paul to give to Peter, then you're just trading one problem for another.
- freehunter 13y ago
  If people willingly choose to be unemployed for $15,000/yr (as an example income), that's fine. There's no reason we need to be at 100% employment. Some amount of the population just doesn't need to work. The problem is, basic income will likely lead to inflation. The government would need to control prices in the necessities market (food, rent, utilities, etc) to make basic survival possible on $15,000. The price of luxuries can go up as long as necessities are affordable. There's your incentive. You can survive on the basic income, but if you want any luxuries, you have to have a job. That way the people who don't want to contribute to society are taken care of, and there's an incentive to actually get a job paying more than $15,000. I'm sure we've all heard stories about families on welfare buying expensive toys, TVs, Xbox, dirtbikes, cable TV, etc. If we want to get rid of that, welfare needs to pay exactly what it costs to survive, and nothing more.

001sky 13y ago

I sent out a minimum of 10 resumes everyday until I got a job Not sure what century this was in, but the article is basically saying this strategy is a fail. The resume's get screened to "auto" inbox->Trash, without being read, considered, interviewed, etc. Now, if you got those leads because of your network...you're clearly using a strategy that is not widely available to many people (that's why its a network: it's exclusive, not open). So, in essence you are blaming them for not being priviledged. Again, this is a moot point. These people need to pick a strategy that is <open to them>. Saying you have options that they lack is not a viable piece of advice to them (duh!). You might as well tell them to go to Harvard or MIT and become a programmer. While it's true tha "would" help, its also true that it has zero probability of <actually> helping. In otherwords, it's a humble-brag. It's not advice or critique (or a good comp).

smtddr 13y ago

>>get em working or they starve and die.. either way win win for us all. Speak for yourself. Other people starving & dying isn't a win in my book.

tdees40 13y ago

The jive talk really adds to your story.

nate_meurer 13y ago

In all seriousness, I think you're in the wrong forum here. There are many political web fora where "starve and die" rhetoric is an accepted standard, and I think you'll find the level of discourse there to be more to your taste.

bassclef 13y ago
Sorry I don't agree with paying for someone else to be lazy..

AlisdairO 13y ago

Given the radical increase in the number of long term unemployed, what data is it that makes you believe that the number of people wanting to work has gone down, rather than the availability of jobs?

djur 13y ago

You might want to look up "peasant's revolt" to see what happens to rich people when the poor see their only option is to starve and die. Throw in "Marie Antoinette" while you're at it.