Random stupid things on your mind. Post them.

[MV/Liberace!]

You know high school had to be a real bitch with a name and face like that.

since she now works as a shill for facebook, i hope she carries numerous memories of bullying and exclusion over her CHIN.

[Frys Girl]

maybe she's a reptilian.


also, what's this I hear about apple and facebook teaming up? That makes me want to burn all apple products! Makes me want to abandon apple!

[MV/Liberace!]

maybe she's a reptilian.


also, what's this I hear about apple and facebook teaming up? That makes me want to burn all apple products! Makes me want to abandon apple!

I thought you already did abandon Apple.

[analog kid]

People take "Today" really seriously. Ann Curry is a mediocre host on a news program equivalent of a fried twinkie.

[Frys Girl]

I thought you already did abandon Apple.

I still own a phone and some accessories. I meant that I'll stop using my products all together. It'll be hard.....but I'll find a way. Right now, Nokia is looking better than apple to me.

[Frys Girl]

Just want to get this out of the way. I hate facebook, but I love what this artist is doing. He's making celebs into trashy, regular folk:


https://www.facebook.com/pages/Planet-Hiltron/150175044998030


for example:

[ziznak]

Just want to get this out of the way. I hate facebook, but I love what this artist is doing. He's making celebs into trashy, regular folk:


https://www.facebook.com/pages/Planet-Hiltron/150175044998030


for example:

whoa that is some dayum good photoshopping.  I really liked the "Larry King" and "Olsen twins" pics... oh yeah and "the Pitts"

[MV/Liberace!]

whoa that is some dayum good photoshopping.  I really liked the "Larry King" and "Olsen twins" pics... oh yeah and "the Pitts"

yeah, "the pits" were tops.

People take "Today" really seriously. Ann Curry is a mediocre host on a news program equivalent of a fried twinkie.

i don't know a THING about ann curry.  i think you really need to be over 45 or 50 in order to be familiar with these network morning shows.  after reading yesterday that this creature is getting $15 MILLION to STOP FUCKING WORKING, i became puzzled as to how anyone can pity this privileged cunt.

[stevesh]

i think you really need to be over 45 or 50 in order to be familiar with these network morning shows.

Or a 99-week unemployed loser with a medical marijuana card or a brain-dead stay-at-home mom.

[Zircon]

Or a 99-week unemployed loser with a medical marijuana card or a brain-dead stay-at-home mom.

Excuse me but do you think a person would rather take a pay cut for 99 weeks (substantial in most cases) instead of working? Your label of "loser" kind of pisses me off.

[MV/Liberace!]

Excuse me but do you think a person would rather take a pay cut for 99 weeks (substantial in most cases) instead of working? Your label of "loser" kind of pisses me off.

i understand the rationale behind this post, but i also believe offering 99 weeks of unemployment to someone makes it less likely he/she will find work within that 99 week window.

[analog kid]

I hope the a

i don't know a THING about ann curry.  i think you really need to be over 45 or 50 in order to be familiar with these network morning shows.  after reading yesterday that this creature is getting $15 MILLION to STOP FUCKING WORKING, i became puzzled as to how anyone can pity this privileged cunt.

Think the appeal is also a woman thing? The news about how upset people are that they axed Curry has really been mind boggling. Fans petitioned and rallied and wept.

[Juan]

She's been on the show for a good 20-years.  She's another example of news management not understanding the difference between someone who reads news from a teleprompter, which she did initially, (think sNoory) and an engaging interviewer (think Art).  The same thing happened when they moved Deborah Norville off the anchor desk and replaced Jane Pauley with her.  With the same result.

[stevesh]

Excuse me but do you think a person would rather take a pay cut for 99 weeks (substantial in most cases) instead of working? Your label of "loser" kind of pisses me off.

It isn't (IMO) about how much you make, it's about whather you want to work or not. Ninety-nine weeks is insane. When you subsidize something (unemployment, in this case) you get more of it.

I don't know where you live, but I could go out tomorrow and get a job here. Wouldn't be a good one, and might not pay as much as unemployment, but at least I would be able to look in the mirror and see a man. There are 24 hours in a day - two 8-hour jobs should exceed the unemployment rate.

C'mon back.

[Juan]

I was essentially unemployed for 20-months.  I drew unemployment, worked a 3-hour some weeks PT job and mowed lawns to survive.  Over that time I applied for more than 520 jobs - everything from burger flipper at McDonald's to Associate Professor of Journalism at a local college.  I was qualified for each of those jobs and would have taken whatever salary was offered.  I've been unemployed for short periods in the past, but never encountered a job market like what we've seen over the past four years.

[BobGrau]

I once got TURNED DOWN when I applied for a job at sickDonalds. hah!

[Ben Shockley]

..There are 24 hours in a day - two 8-hour jobs should exceed the unemployment rate.

But what will you do for the other 8 hours, you #@$&ing slacker?!?   Become less informed, and engage in less political activity, hopes the socioeconomic elite.

Mark this date as I quote G.W. Bush: "that's uniquely American!" to have to work multiple menial jobs just to survive.
Some like Stevesh might might see "a man" looking back from the shithouse mirror in the workplaces where you'd live 24/7, but the people who forced you into that life will see only a safe, neutered chump.

[Ben Shockley]

... I applied for more than 520 jobs - everything from burger flipper at McDonald's to Associate Professor of Journalism at a local college.  I was qualified for each of those jobs and would have taken whatever salary was offered...

I once got TURNED DOWN when I applied for a job at sickDonalds. hah!

I am firmly convinced that the world of posting job ads and vetting the applications ain't entirely straightforward.
Even setting aside the old "had their man before they placed the ad" prospect (which is entirely probable in many cases), some "employers" MUST be just --for lack of a better word-- screwing with the applicants.

[BobGrau]

I've never gotten a job through the conventional application process, it's always been a case of being in the right place at the right time or, yes, knowing the right people (meaning knowing people who can vouch for my reliability and so on).

I have been on the unemployed-and-looking-for-work merrygoround several times over the last 20 years, and believe me it's an industry all of it's own.

[onan]

But what will you do for the other 8 hours, you #@$&ing slacker?!?   Become less informed, and engage in less political activity, hopes the socioeconomic elite.

Mark this date as I quote G.W. Bush: "that's uniquely American!" to have to work multiple menial jobs just to survive.
Some like Stevesh might might see "a man" looking back from the shithouse mirror in the workplaces where you'd live 24/7, but the people who forced you into that life will see only a safe neutered chump.

This is probably the most brilliant response I have read on this forum.

I am not of the conspiracy type. But I am very afraid of where this country is heading. I have water cooler conversations with the CEO and CFO of the hospital I work at. They scare me. Stockholders demanding profits over patient safety. Downsizing by the Bain Capitals. And workers are too afraid to ask for a better wage.

I know I am rambling, but the essence of this thread seems to have taken the turn that if one is unemployed that is their lot in life. So now instead of being concerned about all our manufacturing being done in other countries. Investment banking being more lucrative than actually making something. We blame the unemployed slacker that is a loser.

[stevesh]

But what will you do for the other 8 hours, you #@$&ing slacker?!?   Become less informed, and engage in less political activity, hopes the socioeconomic elite.

Jesus. I'll be sleeping, you moronic hump. Everything isn't about your stupid left-wing politics. My point, despite the fact that you aren't smart enough to understand it, was that making a living (one hopes without the forced assistance of the rest of us) comes first. Then you get to whine about 'political activity'.

[onan]

Jesus. I'll be sleeping, you moronic hump. Everything isn't about your stupid left-wing politics. My point, despite the fact that you aren't smart enough to understand it, was that making a living (one hopes without the forced assistance of the rest of us) comes first. Then you get to whine about 'political activity'.

From: Why Is Unemployment Still So High?

By Alejandro Reuss

...some unemployment is necessary for capitalists to make profits. When unemployment is relatively high, workers are fearful of losing their jobs and have relatively little bargaining power. Employers find it relatively easy to keep wages down (or even push them down further), and to keep the pace of work high (or even increase it). When unemployment is very low, workers are less fearful of losing their jobs and enjoy relatively high bargaining power. They may be able to win higher wages, and force down the pace of work. Higher wages and a lower work pace, however, drive up labor costs per unit of output, and can “squeeze” profits. Employers may respond by substituting machinery for workers, or even cutting back production (as long as it remains unprofitable). These responses, if taken by enough employers, can drive the unemployment rate back up, and bring down workers’ bargaining power again. For this reason, substantial unemployment is the normal state of affairs in a capitalist economy like that of the United States. Even during the “boom” years of 2006-2007 the number of unemployed workers remained consistently around 7 million (almost half the level it reached during the depths of the current crisis). Radicals do not attribute this unemployment mainly to a lack of appropriate skills (as mainstream economists explain “structural” unemployment), pointing out that even so-called “unemployable” workers do get hired when a boom lasts long enough. Rather, they argue, this “reserve army” of unemployed workers is necessary to keep workers scared of losing their jobsâ€"and therefore willing to work hard enough, and for low enough wages, to ensure capitalist profits

.

Our unemployment rate is in the mid teens. What we need now is more tax cuts and more downsizing.

Cuz we are doing way too much to help those lazy bastards that expect more than 8 hours at home.

[Ben Shockley]

Jesus. I'll be sleeping, you moronic hump. Everything isn't about your stupid left-wing politics. My point, despite the fact that you aren't smart enough to understand it, was that making a living (one hopes without the forced assistance of the rest of us) comes first. Then you get to whine about 'political activity'.

And my use of "you" was rhetorical, though apparently, from the vitriolic nature of your "response," you aren't smart enough to understand that.
You sure seem distressed by my hopes of better conditions of life for everyone, including you.   Almost like you ("you" meaning "Stevesh," not rhetorical) are willing to be a hopeless wage slave, IF MAYBE it could somehow also force "left-wing" "moronic humps" like me into the same situation so that we would have no time for "whining."
Wow!  That's a hell of a price for you and the rest of the bitter, resigned know-our-place types to be willing to pay just to keep us smarty-pants types quiet!

[McPhallus]

Excuse me but do you think a person would rather take a pay cut for 99 weeks (substantial in most cases) instead of working? Your label of "loser" kind of pisses me off.

I would also take issue with the "loser" label.  I don't know anyone who likes being on unemployment, and after six months or so, it really starts to fuck with your head.  In my case, the maximum amount of unemployment would barely pay the rent.  Luckily, I live in a large metropolitan area and have only had to occasionally dip into that well.

[MV/Liberace!]

From: Why Is Unemployment Still So High?

By Alejandro Reuss

...some unemployment is necessary for capitalists to make profits. When unemployment is relatively high, workers are fearful of losing their jobs and have relatively little bargaining power. Employers find it relatively easy to keep wages down (or even push them down further), and to keep the pace of work high (or even increase it). When unemployment is very low, workers are less fearful of losing their jobs and enjoy relatively high bargaining power. They may be able to win higher wages, and force down the pace of work. Higher wages and a lower work pace, however, drive up labor costs per unit of output, and can “squeeze” profits. Employers may respond by substituting machinery for workers, or even cutting back production (as long as it remains unprofitable). These responses, if taken by enough employers, can drive the unemployment rate back up, and bring down workers’ bargaining power again. For this reason, substantial unemployment is the normal state of affairs in a capitalist economy like that of the United States. Even during the “boom” years of 2006-2007 the number of unemployed workers remained consistently around 7 million (almost half the level it reached during the depths of the current crisis). Radicals do not attribute this unemployment mainly to a lack of appropriate skills (as mainstream economists explain “structural” unemployment), pointing out that even so-called “unemployable” workers do get hired when a boom lasts long enough. Rather, they argue, this “reserve army” of unemployed workers is necessary to keep workers scared of losing their jobsâ€"and therefore willing to work hard enough, and for low enough wages, to ensure capitalist profits

other than the bullshit college professor tone here which predictably seems to suggest capitalism is inherently evil, i can't find much in alejandro's quote to disagree with.  the only substantive thing i'd disagree with is the notion that the unemployment rate is organized and deliberate for the purpose of benefiting "capitalists."   although high unemployment does benefit employers, i think that benefit is incidental.  this isn't to suggest business wouldn't organize such a thing if they could because i think most companies will do just about anything to be profitable so long as they can avoid being caught.  it's just that i can hardly imagine the mechanism by which such a thing COULD be organized on such a grand scale.  people can't even agree on the best way to peel a potato, let alone how to organize something on this order.

Our unemployment rate is in the mid teens. What we need now is more tax cuts and more downsizing.

i'm more than willing to be schooled on how a tax increase on someone down the street or across town will make my life more economically pleasing... or yours.

[MV/Liberace!]

oh, and just to add... couldn't the argument also be made that high unemployment is harmful to employers because they will face a decrease in potential customers as a result?

[McPhallus]

it could somehow also force "left-wing" "moronic humps" like me into the same situation

My humps, my humps; my lovely moron humps.

[onan]

other than the bullshit college professor tone here which predictably seems to suggest capitalism is inherently evil, i can't find much in alejandro's quote to disagree with.  the only substantive thing i'd disagree with is the notion that the unemployment rate is organized and deliberate for the purpose of benefiting "capitalists."   although high unemployment does benefit employers, i think that benefit is incidental.  this isn't to suggest business wouldn't organize such a thing if they could because i think most companies will do just about anything to be profitable so long as they can avoid being caught.  it's just that i can hardly imagine the mechanism by which such a thing COULD be organized on such a grand scale.  people can't even agree on the best way to peel a potato, let alone how to organize something on this order.

i'm more than willing to be schooled on how a tax increase on someone down the street or across town will make my life more economically pleasing... or yours.

stopping tax cuts isn't the same as raising them. I too am sensitive about more taxing on my income. At the same time, I am a bit weary of the corporate welfare that is hardly ever talked about. Certainly not talked about with the level of anger that someone that collects medicare and medicaid... or god forbid an unemployment check (no not by you, MV).

As to a need for organization for keeping a downward pressure on wages; I am not sure any significant teamwork is needed when the over all direction of large corporations has been to downsize and outsource for the last 15 - 20 years.

[MV/Liberace!]

As to a need for organization for keeping a downward pressure on wages; I am not sure any significant teamwork is needed when the over all direction of large corporations has been to downsize and outsource for the last 15 - 20 years.

but i've always been told large corporations are far from being the #1 source of american employment.  i'm too lazy and depressed to look up any statistics at the moment, though.

[onan]

but i've always been told large corporations are far from being the #1 source of american employment.  i'm too lazy and depressed to look up any statistics at the moment, though.

I doubt lazy is in your list of attributes... disappointed, perhaps a bit disenfranchised.

I think you are correct more people are employed by small business. But I am not sure that really changes much. I work for a rather large small business that employs roughly 250 people. It happens where I work.