Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   OWS protester scores Wall Street job, which means the rest of you smelly hippies have to go home and let Wall Street bankers enjoy their Christmas bonuses in peace   (nypost.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Occupy Wall Street, Wall Street, Financial District, biomedical sciences, Zuccotti Park, peace, Tracy Postert  
•       •       •

10419 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2011 at 10:07 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



371 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-12-05 01:49:35 PM  

rawbert7: You got me interest. Now cite some sources of what you're talking about and I can jump in. What co-ops are you talking about in Mexico are being violated by their government? I doubt doubt there are, I'm interested in what you are reading/read. I'm from Mexico.


The Zapatistas, and other subsequently autonomous areas such as the occupations in Chiapas and other places.
Argentina has had a rise in worker run factories.
Both were reactions to neo-liberal policies destroying their economies.
 
2011-12-05 01:51:34 PM  

GaryPDX: OR, you could start your own business.


Not a viable option when you need guaranteed income. 90% of businesses fail in their first year.
 
2011-12-05 01:53:00 PM  

Smiths: DROxINxTHExWIND: What the fark is happening here? Am I becoming a Republican?? I could not disagree with you more. Take a step back and look at what you're saying. You're basically advocating giving up trying until the protests force the job creators to come down from the mountain and sprinlke everyone with jobs.

this is scaring me more and more also with these OWS "protests"

I mean when Michelle Farkin' Bachmann gets a greenlight with a quote saying "OWS is looking for handouts" and I go "that's what i bel--OH MY GOD I NEED TO JUMP OUT OF A WINDOW RIGHT NOW"

something is wrong.

I am not a teabagger and do not agree with the religious right and the evangelical sweeping of the country....

but my god I do not agree with this overly hippie liberal "give us all money it sucks these rich people are so rich" thing because then my brain is going "didn't the share the wealth/spread the wealth.. we are all equal... uhh... i see Red?"

farkin' scares me.


Groan.

Way to fall for a contrived media narrative, dumbos. You should pick up "Manufacturing Consent" or the like and find out that the reason you are all thinking "uhhhh durrrr OWS wants handouts and everything for free" is because that's all you've been hearing over and over in the mass media. The very same mass media that is wholly owned and operated by the power elite and corporations who are scared of the OWS movement and the awakening of the regular folk to the inequality and unfair playing field the elites have created for themselves.
 
2011-12-05 01:53:20 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Come on, you're a Republican male. We know you all ignore race in matters of the penis.


libertarian. I'll fark anything that'll say hi to me

DROxINxTHExWIND: //I like how its only well said when you agree. ;-)


I was really commenting on the sentiment rather than the writing, sir.
 
2011-12-05 01:55:28 PM  

m2313: EWreckedSean: A worker doesn't remotely risk more than somebody who starts a business. Anybody who believes that has never been involved in a start up before. A worker has almost no risk, excepting some risky fields, and the risk that they are investing their time poorly. A business goes under, a worker simply goes and finds another job.

Another job that might not exist.
The worker (in many cases, not all) risks injury, and (in all/most cases) risks being unemployed, having their wages cut, being treated like shiat.
The wealthy owner often risks none of this.


I hope you aren't serious. That may be the dumbest thing I have ever read. Do you seriously think that a business owner isn't losing anything when the business fails? Wow.

I wouldn't hire you. Delusional employees are bad for the bottom line.
 
2011-12-05 01:56:26 PM  

m2313: The workers should get rid of the parasites of state bureaucrats and private managers and take the workplace that is rightfully theirs. Maybe form an unemployed union/co-op and just start taking care of each other instead of pointlessly addressing the people who stole from them and are trying to enslave them. A voluntary community/co-operative system to resist corporate and state oppression.


[not-sure-if-serious.jpg]
 
2011-12-05 01:56:43 PM  

freewill: DROxINxTHExWIND: What the fark is happening here? Am I becoming a Republican??

[www.badassoftheweek.com image 408x273]

/ It happens to all of us who work for a living, eventually.


ftfy
 
2011-12-05 01:57:34 PM  

stainedglassdoll: bhcompy: Not worthless. Biomedical engineering field also has certifications, the article doesn't mention if she has them. Also, NYC isn't the best place for biomed. Places like San Diego, Orange County, etc have strong biomed presences, and are on the other side of the country.

Biggest problem with these OWS kids is that they expect shiat to come to them. Hell, this girl looks healthy. The armed forces take all sorts of engineers, and an advanced degree generally means you can go in as an officer.

To be honest, having been in the field for 7+ years now, I'm not aware of any BME certifications. But I agree with you that NYC is not the best place for biomed. I do disagree that all OWS 'kids' expect shiat to come to them. While some of them do seem to have that misguided attitude, plenty of protesters that I personally know have jobs and are more concerned with discoupling Wall St. and the government, in addition to secondary education financial reform.

DROxINxTHExWIND: What? If there is no demand for her services, why should she be paid a high wage simply because she went to school for a long time? There has to be a demand for your service. If what you can do does not produce or contribute to the production of a prodict or service that can be traded for money, there is very little incentive for anyone to pay you.

Do you really think there is no demand for new medicines and medical technology? Frankly, I'm not sure why she's having trouble finding work, it is possible she is just a shiatty scientist and would be better in her new Wall St. job.


There's a bit of a disconnect between the academic style Biomedical Engineering, and the more machine oriented Biomedical Engineering.

The people that fix all of the equipment that has direct patient contact in hospitals are "Biomedical Engineers" with certifications. They need to be trained for these repairs and understand things like "Just how much current can a compromised human heart take before it stops working correctly?" Hospitals are required by law to have a staff of these engineers on hand, or contract the services out to a company that has certified technicians.

The academic Biomedical Engineering is more of a mashup of several other fields, which I would guess is what you are pursuing your advanced degree in.
 
2011-12-05 01:58:10 PM  

mod3072: I considered going for my PhD just so I could make people call me "Doctor". In the end, the cost/benefit on that one didn't quite work out.


I changed my first name to "Doctor." A lot faster, a lot cheaper and just as legal.
 
2011-12-05 02:02:59 PM  

mod3072: I considered going for my PhD just so I could make people call me "Doctor". In the end, the cost/benefit on that one didn't quite work out.


In my experience in the liberal arts college of a fairly notable public university, there are two kinds of people in liberal arts programs.

1) People who have realistic expectations about their degree, understand the practical applications of the field they have chosen, are aware of the market for it, and have planned accordingly. Some go into academia, some do not.

2) People who see professors as the highest level of authority and believe that, by attaining a PhD, they will be paid well to sit in a room full of dusty books all day and boss students like themselves around, thereby becoming true Masters of the Universe. These are the people who sincerely believe that performing the grind to complete a PhD, regardless of the discipline, proves that they are the smartest people in the room.

It's the latter, I suspect, that take out huge loans and are disappointed to find out that nobody is impressed and that they will most likely never earn a living wage, eventually considering themselves lucky if there's enough room for them to adjunct without benefits at a community college in rural Idaho. They're also the ones who show up on Fark, condemning everyone who chose to major in and excel at something non-obscure as "uneducated".

Baloo Uriza: Not a viable option when you need guaranteed income. 90% of businesses fail in their first year.


That statistic is usually "80% in two years", and it's a myth. The actual source was likely a Dun & Bradstreet study that found that 80% of restaurants, a notoriously risky business, fail in their first two years.

I believe NBIA surveys of employer firms (those large enough to hire at least one employee) show that about 50% of new businesses are still operating after four years, and the failures include those that closed for reasons other than financial insolvency, such as a family crisis, severe illness, death, or retirement.

That said, it's true: if you're worried about having enough money, it's a sketchy proposition. Under-capitalized businesses are usually doomed.
 
2011-12-05 02:06:55 PM  

Primum:
Groan.

Way to fall for a contrived media narrative, dumbos. You should pick up "Manufacturing Consent" or the like and find out that the reason you are all thinking "uhhhh durrrr OWS wants handouts and everything for free" is because that's all you've been hearing over and over in the mass media. The very same mass media that is wholly owned and operated by the power elite and corporations who are scared of the OWS movement and the awakening of the regular folk to the inequality and unfair playing field the elites have created for themselves.



*Groan back*

I'm not here responding to "The Media". I'm responding directly to comments made by people who appear to be advocating taht we all sit on our hands until our protests are heard. I'm WELL aware that we all get worked hard for not enough pay. Every time I make more money, the cost of living goes up double time and even though I'm progressing in my career, it feels like I'm not where I should be. I understand that this is systematic and it is not an accident. I support what I believe OWS is trying to do. But, here you are running out the old, tired, "you must be brainwashed by the media" bullshiat while you attempt to call me out for not thinking as an individual. Thats rich.
 
2011-12-05 02:08:29 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: Fissile: Most people waste their time...and money.... pursuing a Ph.D.

The Ph.D. Glut Revisited (new window)

That is a fairly accurate article, and I was about to take issue with it until I found the one point I was looking for

"except in a field where industry hires people with advanced degrees,"

I am in a PhD program, but it is very quantitative in nature and all of efforts (courses, avenues of research) are designed to land me a job in industry, not academia. But yeah, I would be concerned if I was in one of those areas where the only outlet was academia, particularly if I was one of those that was bad at research, which apparently is a fair number of them.

In addition to the problems listed by the article - too many PhD students - I think the graduate schools emphasize the wrong skills in the selection process. So much weight is given to undergarduate gpa when it doesn't really predict performance in graduate school in the dimensions that matter. Sure, those students will probably get As in grad school as well, but the ultimate criterion in graduate school and academia is research, not gpa. I have seen plenty of straight A students who just don't have the imagination to put together a quality study, whereas there are some who never wow anybody with their grades, but can put together some of the most badass studies. Graduate schools should put that skill at the top of their list and treat grades and GRE scores as secondary.

Oh, and lets not forget that quality of the program still matters....a lot. Phoenix online and Capela have "PhD" programs, but I think anyone who pursues one of these online degrees is just wasting their time. To a slightly lesser extent, that is true for those peripheral schools that have recently added PhD programs. Stick with the prestigious programs with well regarded faculty.

In summary, if maximizing your lifetime earning power is your primary objective, forget about PhD programs. If you

a) have a giant ego
b) want/need intellectually stimulating work
c) don't care that much about money
d) have the vision and imagination to make a good researcher

then a PhD progam may be for you.


True dat. My oldest brother has a post-PhD from HARVARD in International Relations. His wife has a PhD in Behavioral Science. They both are "professional" students at their respective Universities were they also teach. I make more than both of them combined and have been out of school for three years.

/Double major Finance/Economics.
 
2011-12-05 02:09:51 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: I'm responding directly to comments made by people who appear to be advocating taht we all sit on our hands until our protests are heard.


For posterity, I'd just like to officially mark the day that DROxINxTHExWIND essentially told someone to "get a job, hippy".
 
2011-12-05 02:12:04 PM  

Primum: power elite and corporations who are scared of the OWS movement


yeah... no.

i don't respond to "the media". Hell, I actually gather my info by myself and read multiple outlets and form an opinion.
Actually, you and the other son Fark have provided a great source for collecting info and forming an opinion as well. there was mister "student loans = slavery" followed by his inane supporters..
there's always one of you "the media told you they want handouts so you believe it" people.
Yet you laugh uncontrollably when Sarah Palin calls it the "LSM". Hypocrite.
you like the media when it says what you agree with.

we all do. we like to hear "we're right!"

In fact I would say your posts, and your "brethren" in the "99%" are what is helping form most of my opinion about this "movement"

if you're the representatives and honestly think you're making the rich people "scared"... you've got a world of delusion going on.

they don't give a shiat about you. all you're doing is making the people that do give a shiat about you give up on caring.

Unless you plan on Occupying the Superbowl or something... this is just what? a "campaign of awareness"

great. they make money. you don't like they make money. you want reform so they make less money and you can make more money.

huzzah!
 
2011-12-05 02:16:17 PM  

freewill: DROxINxTHExWIND: I'm responding directly to comments made by people who appear to be advocating taht we all sit on our hands until our protests are heard.

For posterity, I'd just like to officially mark the day that DROxINxTHExWIND essentially told someone to "get a job, hippy".


I for one am thoroughly enjoying watching someone of a like mind break through the cognitive dissonance of the collective confusion we call life. A true independent thinker you are DRO.. and a true liberal you will never be.
 
2011-12-05 02:16:59 PM  
for the record.. i came into OWS threads in the beginning have a supportive stance on them. It was a nice idea. Was nice to see people up and exercising their rights responsibly.

Then it turned into a campsite in Baltimore with Playstation 3s. Then it turned into a "we will surround you until you release our friends you have arrested" with people trying to spin it as "non-violent" (I dunno.. telling police officers "IF YOU RELEASE OUR FRIENDS [if you release our friends] WE WILL LET YOU LEAVE [we will let you leave]" seems rather.... terrorist demanding there)

Now it's turned into a "liberating public space by camping out in a building slated for demolition"?

How do you support this? It's beyond the ideals now and is being overrun with people who do not understand what

a) they are protesting about
b) how to do it
 
2011-12-05 02:17:05 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Every time I make more money, the cost of living goes up double time and even though I'm progressing in my career, it feels like I'm not where I should be. I understand that this is systematic and it is not an accident.


What, exactly, does the universe owe you that you don't have? A bigger house? A nicer TV? A better car? Freedom from any and all anxiety? A bigger piece of the pie? The right to play a game where there are no winners and no losers? When have things been better for the 99% of people in this country in terms of lifestyle, security, and health? Oh, and back it up with data. Not data about "real wages" but data that those "real wages" led to measurable improvements in quality of life. I don't know if the 1% are responsible for your ennui.
 
2011-12-05 02:19:25 PM  

freewill: DROxINxTHExWIND: I'm responding directly to comments made by people who appear to be advocating taht we all sit on our hands until our protests are heard.

For posterity, I'd just like to officially mark the day that DROxINxTHExWIND essentially told someone to "get a job, hippy".



Meh, I'm probably a little more conservative than Fark allows me to be. But when I say, for example, that there have historically been impediments which made it harder for African-Americans to succeed in America most of these folks hear, "Hey whitey, gimmie yo money so I can spend it on drugs and shiat". I have no tolerence for people who abuse the system, either. But, I know they're not the root of all evil.
 
2011-12-05 02:22:55 PM  
This story does sound like the wall street guy decided to get his own "I offered a job but the jobless lazy shaits refused it" story to tell his palls at the country club but the girl just so happened to call his bluff. Now he is posing for photos because he made a piss-poor decision in hiring an unqualified person right out of a demonstration, just because that person had a cardboard sign.
 
2011-12-05 02:28:28 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND:

My mother is a self-made African-American woman who, without a degree, worked her way up the ladder in the finance department of a major corporation. She was there for 15 years. TWO MONTHS AGO, she was laid off. Instead of biatching about what degree she didn't have, she got up everyday like she had a job and spent 8 hours a day at her computer shopping her resume. She is now employed, making less than she was in the old job, but more than enough to sustain her lifestyle because she lives within her means. While I TRULY believe in the mission of OWS, I think its being corrupted by the lazy and by people who don't even have enough information about our financial system to make judgements about whats fair and whats not. Your post sounds like you're saying, "Waaaah, I may have to go get more skills if I want a job and that would cost me time and money, so therefore there are no jobs." It's crazy talk.


Would it be possible for someone without a degree today to land the job she started out in?
 
2011-12-05 02:30:28 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Every time I make more money, the cost of living goes up double time and even though I'm progressing in my career, it feels like I'm not where I should be. I understand that this is systematic and it is not an accident.


Well, it depends. There are plenty of costs you can fix. The most expensive and obvious revolving and necessary cost is housing. This is where buying a house makes you a winner. Hedge against that rent inflation with a fixed rate loan. Second, of course, is a car. Buy used with cash, or don't trade your car in when your loan is up. There are hundreds of other costs, many that you can't fix, but car and shelter make up the biggest percentage of most people's monthly revolving budget.
 
2011-12-05 02:32:32 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: m2313: EWreckedSean: No, the alternative is a different employer. It's not like you have the choice of one employer or none. People get new jobs all the time. It isn't rocket science here. The only people who are wage slaves are those with no valuable or marketable skills.

You're pretending that other jobs are widely available, or available at all, and that they don't have multiple barriers to entry would put one further in the hole.

What the fark is happening here? Am I becoming a Republican?? I could not disagree with you more. Take a step back and look at what you're saying. You're basically advocating giving up trying until the protests force the job creators to come down from the mountain and sprinlke everyone with jobs.

My mother is a self-made African-American woman who, without a degree, worked her way up the ladder in the finance department of a major corporation. She was there for 15 years. TWO MONTHS AGO, she was laid off. Instead of biatching about what degree she didn't have, she got up everyday like she had a job and spent 8 hours a day at her computer shopping her resume. She is now employed, making less than she was in the old job, but more than enough to sustain her lifestyle because she lives within her means. While I TRULY believe in the mission of OWS, I think its being corrupted by the lazy and by people who don't even have enough information about our financial system to make judgements about whats fair and whats not. Your post sounds like you're saying, "Waaaah, I may have to go get more skills if I want a job and that would cost me time and money, so therefore there are no jobs." It's crazy talk.


I'm somewhat surprised someone hasn't used that idiotic "bootstrappy" in a response to this yet.
 
2011-12-05 02:33:28 PM  
Aw, man, there was supposed to be a .gif of Orson Wells applauding there.
 
2011-12-05 02:34:21 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: stryker4526: OBBN: Famous Thamas: She's gonna have a great time as a junior analyst building all those spreadsheets and reports for the seniors. Could she make a cool six figures one day? Sure, after 5-10 years of working 70-80 hour weeks. Even then, only if she's lucky...

You mean to tell me that to get a job paying in the six figures or higher one must actually pay some sort of dues? You must work your way up from the bottom, become competent and excel? Wow, and to think I thouht you just showed up at the door, filled out a quick application and they paid you a few hundred thousand a year. I had no idea you actually had to work for it!

80 hour work weeks goes a bit beyond "paying your dues."
It's more like "being raped for all you have."

Pfff! When I was paying my dues 80 hour work weeks were light weeks. I've worked a hundred or more hours in a week. Hell one January I don't think I slept more then 4 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the entire month and had moved into the office. I had a cot, a shower, and my clothes there.

Of course I was incoherent and homicidal by February. I quit the day one of my co-workers smarted off to me with his back turned and I realized I had my pocket knife out and was thinking about slitting his neck. Now I have a fat pay check, an office, and screw around on Fark more then I should.


And you think this is okay? That this is "just the way it is" and we should deal with it?
Sorry but no, that is part of why people are out there protesting. Nobody should be forced to work 80-100+ hour work weeks. I mean hell there are only 168 damn hours in a whole week! It's just ludicrous.
 
2011-12-05 02:35:09 PM  
api.ning.com

GreatBunzinni: This story does sound like the wall street guy decided to get his own "I offered a job but the jobless lazy shaits refused it" story to tell his palls at the country club but the girl just so happened to call his bluff. Now he is posing for photos because he made a piss-poor decision in hiring an unqualified person right out of a demonstration, just because that person had a cardboard sign.


Probably. They'll hedge her out eventually, and if they manage to play it right they'll either wave her story around as, "proof that all those dirty hippies are unemployable," or harass her into pitching a lawsuit and waving the story around as, "proof all those dirty hippies want handouts."

There really are so MANY ways to fark someone into a no-win scenario in the corporate world, it's just a question of which one they want to use...
 
2011-12-05 02:39:00 PM  

Sir Roderick Glossop: DROxINxTHExWIND: Every time I make more money, the cost of living goes up double time and even though I'm progressing in my career, it feels like I'm not where I should be. I understand that this is systematic and it is not an accident.

What, exactly, does the universe owe you that you don't have? A bigger house? A nicer TV? A better car? Freedom from any and all anxiety? A bigger piece of the pie? The right to play a game where there are no winners and no losers? When have things been better for the 99% of people in this country in terms of lifestyle, security, and health? Oh, and back it up with data. Not data about "real wages" but data that those "real wages" led to measurable improvements in quality of life. I don't know if the 1% are responsible for your ennui.



See, the problem with arguing on the side that institutional unfairness and economic inequality exists is that anyone disputing your point can just say you're playing the blame game. I never said anyone was more responsible for my life than I am. But that does not mean there are not problems with our current financial system. From the laws making it more difficult to form unions to the underfunding of public education and the incredible cost of higher education, there is unfairness in the system. They tell us we HAVE to go to college to qualify for employment if you want a well paying job, they inflate the price of an education, and then they loan you what you need to get the education at loan shark rates. People are spending the rest of their lives paying for the right to work. And they are being asked to compete with people who were born on third base. Ultimately, the success or failure of every individual usually is in their hands. But, that doesn't mean we can never notice or speak out when we see things that are not right.
 
2011-12-05 02:39:39 PM  

bhcompy: DROxINxTHExWIND: Every time I make more money, the cost of living goes up double time and even though I'm progressing in my career, it feels like I'm not where I should be. I understand that this is systematic and it is not an accident.

Well, it depends. There are plenty of costs you can fix. The most expensive and obvious revolving and necessary cost is housing. This is where buying a house makes you a winner. Hedge against that rent inflation with a fixed rate loan. Second, of course, is a car. Buy used with cash, or don't trade your car in when your loan is up. There are hundreds of other costs, many that you can't fix, but car and shelter make up the biggest percentage of most people's monthly revolving budget.


No, DRO is right.. The government has not accurately stated inflation (as CPI) since the mid 90's. At least prior to that, the basis was accurate and honest, if not entirely practical.

/drove a 16 yr old beater while making 6 figs, for many years.
// didn't help that much, in the way of my wages outpacing the hidden costs of 'practical' living
 
2011-12-05 02:40:12 PM  

stryker4526: And you think this is okay? That this is "just the way it is" and we should deal with it?
Sorry but no, that is part of why people are out there protesting. Nobody should be forced to work 80-100+ hour work weeks. I mean hell there are only 168 damn hours in a whole week! It's just ludicrous.


If only there were some sort of system where people who want to work like this could exercise that option, and as a result, get a higher remuneration while those who don't want to work like that could exercise that right, and receive less in return...
 
2011-12-05 02:45:49 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Sir Roderick Glossop: DROxINxTHExWIND: Every time I make more money, the cost of living goes up double time and even though I'm progressing in my career, it feels like I'm not where I should be. I understand that this is systematic and it is not an accident.

What, exactly, does the universe owe you that you don't have? A bigger house? A nicer TV? A better car? Freedom from any and all anxiety? A bigger piece of the pie? The right to play a game where there are no winners and no losers? When have things been better for the 99% of people in this country in terms of lifestyle, security, and health? Oh, and back it up with data. Not data about "real wages" but data that those "real wages" led to measurable improvements in quality of life. I don't know if the 1% are responsible for your ennui.


See, the problem with arguing on the side that institutional unfairness and economic inequality exists is that anyone disputing your point can just say you're playing the blame game. I never said anyone was more responsible for my life than I am. But that does not mean there are not problems with our current financial system. From the laws making it more difficult to form unions to the underfunding of public education and the incredible cost of higher education, there is unfairness in the system. They tell us we HAVE to go to college to qualify for employment if you want a well paying job, they inflate the price of an education, and then they loan you what you need to get the education at loan shark rates. People are spending the rest of their lives paying for the right to work. And they are being asked to compete with people who were born on third base. Ultimately, the success or failure of every individual usually is in their hands. But, that doesn't mean we can never notice or speak out when we see things that are not right.


Hmmm. Not sure we're at "loan shark rates" when the discount rate is so low. In fact, cheap credit has a pretty inflationary effect on expensive stuff in general, and that's partly why our private debt is so high.

That said, I'm really not trying to say that there is no unfairness in the system. I'm just asking when has there been less unfairness, and when has that unfairness materially affected the 99% less. I'm not going to waste my time defending the status quo, but the OWS seems shrill, hysterical and as a result, largely dismissible.
 
2011-12-05 02:47:27 PM  

Sir Roderick Glossop: stryker4526: And you think this is okay? That this is "just the way it is" and we should deal with it?
Sorry but no, that is part of why people are out there protesting. Nobody should be forced to work 80-100+ hour work weeks. I mean hell there are only 168 damn hours in a whole week! It's just ludicrous.

If only there were some sort of system where people who want to work like this could exercise that option, and as a result, get a higher remuneration while those who don't want to work like that could exercise that right, and receive less in return...


Hey as soon as you see a salaried job that doesn't expect you to put in ludicrous hours you let me know, because everyone I've talked to about how many hours would be expected of an employee on the job as told me at least 50, more like 60-80 per week, with a salary that works out to not much higher than minimum wage at those hours.
It's almost like supply-side economics is all bullshiat and employers are taking advantage of the down economy to wring as much as they can from people who have no other choice...
 
2011-12-05 02:51:48 PM  

stryker4526:
Hey as soon as you see a salaried job that doesn't expect you to put in ludicrous hours you let me know, because everyone I've talked to about how many hours would be expected of an employee on the job as told me at least 50, more like 60-80 per week, with a salary that works out to not much higher than minimum wage at those hours.
It's almost like supply-side economics is all bullshiat and employers are taking advantage of the down economy to wring as much as they can from people who have no other choice...


Perhaps you should consider hourly-wage jobs if you don't like the idea of working for a salary. These exist at the low end of the spectrum (e.g. fast food) as well as the high end (nursing, law). You're kind of complaining about a key feature of salaried work- they pay you more for the expectation that you won't grouse about having longer than a 40 hour work week...

Please don't complain that they jobs you want don't behave in the way you want them to behave though. Sounds kinda, I don't know... infantile.
 
2011-12-05 02:51:59 PM  

stryker4526: Sir Roderick Glossop: stryker4526: And you think this is okay? That this is "just the way it is" and we should deal with it?
Sorry but no, that is part of why people are out there protesting. Nobody should be forced to work 80-100+ hour work weeks. I mean hell there are only 168 damn hours in a whole week! It's just ludicrous.

If only there were some sort of system where people who want to work like this could exercise that option, and as a result, get a higher remuneration while those who don't want to work like that could exercise that right, and receive less in return...

Hey as soon as you see a salaried job that doesn't expect you to put in ludicrous hours you let me know, because everyone I've talked to about how many hours would be expected of an employee on the job as told me at least 50, more like 60-80 per week, with a salary that works out to not much higher than minimum wage at those hours.
It's almost like supply-side economics is all bullshiat and employers are taking advantage of the down economy to wring as much as they can from people who have no other choice...


They're just trying to see if you are hungry.. And you are showing them you aren't.

You must have other options.
 
2011-12-05 02:53:23 PM  
stryker4526 2011-12-05 02:34:21 PM
Pfff! When I was paying my dues 80 hour work weeks were light weeks. I've worked a hundred or more hours in a week. Hell one January I don't think I slept more then 4 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the entire month and had moved into the office. I had a cot, a shower, and my clothes there

----------------------------------

I'm with you man, when I got laid off 20 years ago I started my own business. I worked 80 hrs a week, slept under my desk, ate ramen and taco bell, and paid myself less than any of my 20 employees (sometimes not getting paid at all so I could pay my employees).

I didn't have any student loans to pay off because I paid for my tuition UP FRONT. I worked nights and summers and would take a semester off now and then to save up for more tuition. Most of these OWS are a bunch of farkin pussies who just want to whine and complain and take the money I worked so hard for. They can go f*ck themselves.
 
2011-12-05 02:54:12 PM  
FTA: "CEO Thomas Belesis said he believes Postert will be a great asset.
"She was ranting about Wall Street, and now she's working on Wall Street. Banks are not so bad. I hope we have opened her eyes," he said."

I had to read this twice. This asshole is so clueless that he actually said this dumb sh*t out loud.

What whizzed past his dumb ass is that people will take almost any job these days that pays them enough to eat regularly, stay indoors with heat, and get new shoes every six months or so. This PhD, who not long ago would have had a good job and not the just-above-minimum wage potscrubber position they hired her for, probably doesn't give a rolling rat sh*t about him, his bank or Wall Street. If given the choice between starvation and temporarily serving the devil, I'd get Satan his breakfast in bed with a vase of flowers. That's the real world.

Does this idiot really think this gesture makes people, even those who aren't protesting, think that most of these huge banks and the people that run them are nothing but amoral assholes? News flash for you dude - you didn't open sh*t. I guran-damn-tee-ya that as soon as she finds as better opportunity (which is any one that doesn't involve that New York financial cesspool) she is out of there. You think that just because she has a job now she will become a Wall Street supporter? An acolyte for all things financial? If she has any self esteem or conviction (as she showed with her protests), I seriously doubt that.

Clueless moron. Proof positive these people live on a whole different planet than we do.
 
2011-12-05 02:55:02 PM  

Sir Roderick Glossop: stryker4526:
Hey as soon as you see a salaried job that doesn't expect you to put in ludicrous hours you let me know, because everyone I've talked to about how many hours would be expected of an employee on the job as told me at least 50, more like 60-80 per week, with a salary that works out to not much higher than minimum wage at those hours.
It's almost like supply-side economics is all bullshiat and employers are taking advantage of the down economy to wring as much as they can from people who have no other choice...

Perhaps you should consider hourly-wage jobs if you don't like the idea of working for a salary. These exist at the low end of the spectrum (e.g. fast food) as well as the high end (nursing, law). You're kind of complaining about a key feature of salaried work- they pay you more for the expectation that you won't grouse about having longer than a 40 hour work week...

Please don't complain that they jobs you want don't behave in the way you want them to behave though. Sounds kinda, I don't know... infantile.


That's the thing though, they don't pay you more. Yeah the amount is great at a 40-hour work week, not so much at a 70 or 80 hour one.

ArachnidDude: stryker4526: Sir Roderick Glossop: stryker4526: And you think this is okay? That this is "just the way it is" and we should deal with it?
Sorry but no, that is part of why people are out there protesting. Nobody should be forced to work 80-100+ hour work weeks. I mean hell there are only 168 damn hours in a whole week! It's just ludicrous.

If only there were some sort of system where people who want to work like this could exercise that option, and as a result, get a higher remuneration while those who don't want to work like that could exercise that right, and receive less in return...

Hey as soon as you see a salaried job that doesn't expect you to put in ludicrous hours you let me know, because everyone I've talked to about how many hours would be expected of an employee on the job as told me at least 50, more like 60-80 per week, with a salary that works out to not much higher than minimum wage at those hours.
It's almost like supply-side economics is all bullshiat and employers are taking advantage of the down economy to wring as much as they can from people who have no other choice...

They're just trying to see if you are hungry.. And you are showing them you aren't.

You must have other options.


So systematically taking advantage of the common worker is "just trying to see if [they] are hungry?"
Have you gone off the deep end?
Wait, nevermind, looking at your other posts it's clear that you're rather out of touch with reality.
 
2011-12-05 02:56:24 PM  

Sir Roderick Glossop:
Hmmm. Not sure we're at "loan shark rates" when the discount rate is so low. In fact, cheap credit has a pretty inflationary effect on expensive stuff in general, and that's partly why our private debt is so high.

That said, I'm really not trying to say that there is no unfairness in the system. I'm just asking when has there been less unfairness, and when has that unfairness materially affected the 99% less. I'm not going to waste my time defending the status quo, but the OWS seems shrill, hysterical and as a result, largely dismissible.



On this, we "mostly" agree. It may be a mistake for the right to ignore them because they have the potential to offset some of the momentum of the Tea Party (which peaked too soon). But if they don't get a list of shiat they want and synch it with the other protests across the country, they'll just be mutherfarkers with drums who are standing in the cold. Hell, I support the movement and I don't always know what they're doing. They were hollering about affordable housing while they were building a wooden structure in DC this weekend on the Mall. I saw it and thought, WTF are we doing, again?
 
2011-12-05 02:56:59 PM  

pxlboy: we'll have no rational discussions here!


Thanks. I'm not sure if Gary's even going to read that, but it's a pet peeve of mine when people try to just dismiss the entire OWS movement using the Fox News narrative of them as a bunch of lazy hippies "libruls" who want government handouts. It's just not the case at all. That's just, IMHO, the tool that the prevailing political establishment is trying to use in order to quash potential competition.

There's always going to be people who are richer than others, I have no objection to that. What I, and the OWS movement in general, have a problem with is when the folks and organizations with the most money are able to use that money to buy off the political class and force that gap ever wider and wider, and accumulate more and more of society's wealth in the hands of a very few (it's actually more like 99.9% vs. 0.1% than 99 vs 1). I don't want a rich guy to have to sell all his mansions and move into the poor house, I just want him to maybe have 4 mansions instead of 5 (that he gets with LEGITIMATE means and not using tax dollars and risky financial instruments which drain wealth from the rest of society) so that fewer people have to live in poverty and struggle to survive - or even just struggle to make ends meet.

We now have income inequality worse than farking UGANDA!! Not only them but Ivory Coast, Iran, Vietnam... Hell even RUSSIA has better income distribution than we do... can anyone really argue that this is not a problem?!? The list of countries which beat us at that game is a litany of "how the fark are we losing to them?"

And we have a consumer based market economy. We need capital to flow around, in private, between as many hands as possible for our economy to be healthy. Having all of our wealth tied up in the hedge funds and offshore accounts of a few is a recipe for an economy that simply does not function well. How can the masses buy the things they need to buy in order to keep our economy moving if we continue to impoverish them? I'd suggest that if the common man hadn't seen his wages shrink so terribly over the last few decades that this recession would not be nearly as hard to get out of as it's proving to be... We need consumer spending to rise, but somehow that's supposed to happen magically without wages rising too - and all so that we can make sure that the super-rich can have yet ANOTHER mansion. Un-farking-believable.

The fact that as a Republican me simply saying this in public is such a heresy that I'd be drummed out of the party were I a candidate is simply insane to me.
 
2011-12-05 03:02:12 PM  

mongbiohazard: pxlboy: we'll have no rational discussions here!

Thanks. I'm not sure if Gary's even going to read that, but it's a pet peeve of mine when people try to just dismiss the entire OWS movement using the Fox News narrative of them as a bunch of lazy hippies "libruls" who want government handouts. It's just not the case at all. That's just, IMHO, the tool that the prevailing political establishment is trying to use in order to quash potential competition.

There's always going to be people who are richer than others, I have no objection to that. What I, and the OWS movement in general, have a problem with is when the folks and organizations with the most money are able to use that money to buy off the political class and force that gap ever wider and wider, and accumulate more and more of society's wealth in the hands of a very few (it's actually more like 99.9% vs. 0.1% than 99 vs 1). I don't want a rich guy to have to sell all his mansions and move into the poor house, I just want him to maybe have 4 mansions instead of 5 (that he gets with LEGITIMATE means and not using tax dollars and risky financial instruments which drain wealth from the rest of society) so that fewer people have to live in poverty and struggle to survive - or even just struggle to make ends meet.

We now have income inequality worse than farking UGANDA!! Not only them but Ivory Coast, Iran, Vietnam... Hell even RUSSIA has better income distribution than we do... can anyone really argue that this is not a problem?!? The list of countries which beat us at that game is a litany of "how the fark are we losing to them?"

And we have a consumer based market economy. We need capital to flow around, in private, between as many hands as possible for our economy to be healthy. Having all of our wealth tied up in the hedge funds and offshore accounts of a few is a recipe for an economy that simply does not function well. How can the masses buy the things they need to buy in order to keep our economy moving if we continue to impoverish them? I'd suggest that if the common man hadn't seen his wages shrink so terribly over the last few decades that this recession would not be nearly as hard to get out of as it's proving to be... We need consumer spending to rise, but somehow that's supposed to happen magically without wages rising too - and all so that we can make sure that the super-rich can have yet ANOTHER mansion. Un-farking-believable.

The fact that as a Republican me simply saying this in public is such a heresy that I'd be drummed out of the party were I a candidate is simply insane to me.


Well actually, you could make upwards of $500k per year and still be in the bottom 99% of wage earners in America, so I'm pretty sure it's not actually the 99% vs the 1% but more like the 70-80% vs the 20-30%.
 
2011-12-05 03:02:30 PM  

stryker4526: Yeah the amount is great at a 40-hour work week, not so much at a 70 or 80 hour one.


RIght. But we all have always thought we should get paid more money for less work. I'm not sure where the crisis is in this, or what is surprising or enraging about it.

You see, I was totally down with OWS when I thought it was about the emperor-has-no-clothes boy-geniuses- are-really boy-idiots WS bailout. I thought it was great that people were protesting the nationalization of risk and the privatization of profit. Then, the longer it went on the more I realized that was, at best, a tiny sliver of what people were protesting.

OWS is a Rorschach test. We see what we want to see in it. I convinced myself that they were agreeing with me until things got progressively looney that I had to just throw up my hands and conclude at this point it's mostly cry-babies and wanna-be tough guys who want to posture and get arrested for the glory of it all.
 
2011-12-05 03:02:34 PM  

otto the bull: I wonder which one of those Dukes will win the $1 bet.


"Mortimer, your brother is not well. We better call an ambulance."
"F*ck him!"
/love that movie
//when eddie and dan were still funny
 
2011-12-05 03:05:25 PM  

Sir Roderick Glossop: stryker4526: Yeah the amount is great at a 40-hour work week, not so much at a 70 or 80 hour one.

RIght. But we all have always thought we should get paid more money for less work. I'm not sure where the crisis is in this, or what is surprising or enraging about it.

You see, I was totally down with OWS when I thought it was about the emperor-has-no-clothes boy-geniuses- are-really boy-idiots WS bailout. I thought it was great that people were protesting the nationalization of risk and the privatization of profit. Then, the longer it went on the more I realized that was, at best, a tiny sliver of what people were protesting.

OWS is a Rorschach test. We see what we want to see in it. I convinced myself that they were agreeing with me until things got progressively looney that I had to just throw up my hands and conclude at this point it's mostly cry-babies and wanna-be tough guys who want to posture and get arrested for the glory of it all.


So you're completely fine with wages that have been stagnant or declining for decades in the face of ever rising inflation and the fact that companies will pay people a pittance rather than "fair" compensation? (I put it in quotation marks because it is clearly a bit subjective of a term)
I guess that's where we differ, then.
 
2011-12-05 03:06:39 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: On this, we "mostly" agree. It may be a mistake for the right to ignore them because they have the potential to offset some of the momentum of the Tea Party (which peaked too soon). But if they don't get a list of shiat they want and synch it with the other protests across the country, they'll just be mutherfarkers with drums who are standing in the cold. Hell, I support the movement and I don't always know what they're doing. They were hollering about affordable housing while they were building a wooden structure in DC this weekend on the Mall. I saw it and thought, WTF are we doing, again?


Dude, that's gold. You should get this published somewhere. I just posted a response to someone else where I kind of came to the same conclusion. I was right there with OWS until it just totally spun out into the ditch. It pisses me off, because it could really be great to penalize wall street and the politicians who are in their pocket, but at this point it's just kind of an anarchic mess of god-knows-what...
 
2011-12-05 03:11:40 PM  

stryker4526: Well actually, you could make upwards of $500k per year and still be in the bottom 99% of wage earners in America, so I'm pretty sure it's not actually the 99% vs the 1% but more like the 70-80% vs the 20-30%.



Putting aside the main point of my rant for a moment, I'd still say no. Those folks making upwards of $500k a year are still not the problem. That's a small business owner, not the head of Goldman Sachs. Those $500k guys are not essentially handing legislation to congress to pass, or getting their favorite pocketed politician to block any challenges to their burgeoning oligarchy. The very VERY rich are the ones who do that.

Like I said, just because someone is wealthy and someone else isn't is NOT the issue. We're always going to have that, and that's fine. But the gap between those at the tippy top and everyone else in this country is just amazing and hideous.
 
2011-12-05 03:12:15 PM  

stryker4526: So you're completely fine with wages that have been stagnant or declining for decades in the face of ever rising inflation and the fact that companies will pay people a pittance rather than "fair" compensation? (I put it in quotation marks because it is clearly a bit subjective of a term)
I guess that's where we differ, then.


I just don't know who is the arbiter of determining what is "fair". I don't think a bunch of guys screaming at a line of obese cops are necessarily in the best position to judge though.
 
2011-12-05 03:13:41 PM  

m2313: rawbert7: You got me interest. Now cite some sources of what you're talking about and I can jump in. What co-ops are you talking about in Mexico are being violated by their government? I doubt doubt there are, I'm interested in what you are reading/read. I'm from Mexico.

The Zapatistas, and other subsequently autonomous areas such as the occupations in Chiapas and other places.
Argentina has had a rise in worker run factories.
Both were reactions to neo-liberal policies destroying their economies.


I'm not familiar with the Argentine quarrel but as far as the EZLN, my cousin personally knows Marcos from run-ins in the jungle during rafting expeditions. I'm assuming you're position is referring to "Apart from opening the Mexican market to cheap mass-produced US agricultural products, NAFTA spells an end to Mexican crop subsidies without a corresponding end to US ones, and drastically reduced the income and living standards of many southern Mexican farmers who cannot compete with the subsidized, artificially fertilized, mechanically harvested and genetically modified imports from the United States. The signing of NAFTA also resulted in the removal of Article 27 Section VII in the Mexican Constitution which previously had guaranteed land reparations to indigenous groups throughout Mexico."

While I sympathize with their globalization plight, my economic side must lean toward the "greater good". Specialization of that imported agriculture makes food cheaper for everyone, including themselves. Although, I AM vehemently against subsidies of any sort. If you've ever been to Chiapas, I have, you'd realize the State is rich in land fertility, so they could educate themselves into producing something that the US can't. Or explore other viable income-producing ventures, such as, "green tourism". They share the same jungle that Costa Rica has but don't offer any of the same attractions. Not to mention all the Mayan archeological sites they could promote.

I wasn't aware of what exactly the EZLN was ever advocating, but I like their take on government servants (politicians) only serving limited terms. However, two weeks seems inefficient as well as ineffective. Everyone would be briefed on a position to only be replaced once they knew what they were doing.

I read an interesting article by Noam Chomsky who was interpreting Adam Smith's idea of free-markets and capitalism, which not surprisingly, has nothing to do with where we're at today. In a nutshell, capitalism is good but you have to also limit the size of corporations so you don't risk complete panic if and when they fail.
 
2011-12-05 03:14:36 PM  

stryker4526: Hey as soon as you see a salaried job that doesn't expect you to put in ludicrous hours you let me know, because everyone I've talked to about how many hours would be expected of an employee on the job as told me at least 50, more like 60-80 per week, with a salary that works out to not much higher than minimum wage at those hours.
It's almost like supply-side economics is all bullshiat and employers are taking advantage of the down economy to wring as much as they can from people who have no other choice...


Everyone on salary in my company pulls down at least $25/hour, including overtime. I have no degree, just four years of experience in the field. I average a very reasonable 50 hours a week with no discernible commute, and my estimate excludes the Christmas bonus.

The only people I've known with that kind of pitiful story, working that much for what works out to minimum wage, are in entry-level finance or politics. I'm sure there are others out there, but I have genuine difficulty believing it's the norm. I mean, the math on your claim doesn't even sound plausible.
 
2011-12-05 03:15:35 PM  

Sir Roderick Glossop: stryker4526: So you're completely fine with wages that have been stagnant or declining for decades in the face of ever rising inflation and the fact that companies will pay people a pittance rather than "fair" compensation? (I put it in quotation marks because it is clearly a bit subjective of a term)
I guess that's where we differ, then.

I just don't know who is the arbiter of determining what is "fair". I don't think a bunch of guys screaming at a line of obese cops are necessarily in the best position to judge though.


I don't claim to know that either, but surely being expected to put in backbreaking hours for something barely above minimum wage is somewhere less than "fair," no?
And the media just loves to portray OWS as that kind of movement when the simple fact is the majority is not made up of those types of people.
But hey, showing the regular people that go to the protests and don't do outlandish things just doesn't bring in the ratings for the infotainment channels now, does it?
 
2011-12-05 03:23:01 PM  

stryker4526: But hey, showing the regular people that go to the protests and don't do outlandish things just doesn't bring in the ratings for the infotainment channels now, does it?


You have a point. The nut jobs crapping on police cars are the public face, and that isn't fair to paint them all OWS with the same brush.

However... your sense that people are putting in "backbreaking hours" seems a touch...strident. It's not like Triangle Shirtwaist days, nor is this The Jungle. Kids aren't getting lowered into chimneys and people in this country aren't laboring under the horrendous conditions that exist in other parts of the world.

Again, I'm not going to vigorously defend the status quo here, but things aren't "To the barricades!" bad for anyone in this country. That is histrionic, romantic hogwash and only serves to undermine the legitimate concerns people might have.
 
2011-12-05 03:28:49 PM  
stryker4526:
Hey as soon as you see a salaried job that doesn't expect you to put in ludicrous hours you let me know, because everyone I've talked to about how many hours would be expected of an employee on the job as told me at least 50, more like 60-80 per week, with a salary that works out to not much higher than minimum wage at those hours.
It's almost like supply-side economics is all bullshiat and employers are taking advantage of the down economy to wring as much as they can from people who have no other choice...


Well the nice thing about a salaried job is that you get to slack off on fark all day when its slow in the office. Paid to surf the net, how can you beat that.

/still expected to work that 50-60 hr week during busy season.
 
2011-12-05 03:31:02 PM  

Sir Roderick Glossop: stryker4526: But hey, showing the regular people that go to the protests and don't do outlandish things just doesn't bring in the ratings for the infotainment channels now, does it?

You have a point. The nut jobs crapping on police cars are the public face, and that isn't fair to paint them all OWS with the same brush.

However... your sense that people are putting in "backbreaking hours" seems a touch...strident. It's not like Triangle Shirtwaist days, nor is this The Jungle. Kids aren't getting lowered into chimneys and people in this country aren't laboring under the horrendous conditions that exist in other parts of the world.

Again, I'm not going to vigorously defend the status quo here, but things aren't "To the barricades!" bad for anyone in this country. That is histrionic, romantic hogwash and only serves to undermine the legitimate concerns people might have.


I never claimed things were that bad yet, but with the way the government is seemingly scrambling to deregulate the shiat out of everything... who knows?
And of course I didn't mean literal back-breaking hours. Nobody is leaving work with a broken back (well, not 99.9% of the time, I'm sure there are some back-breaking accidents that happen, literally).
Of course I also realize the responses that my posts will garner when I'm posting on an American website, because I am more progressive than probably a good 95% of America.
Maybe I just don't have the same work ethic as some people (okay, I KNOW I don't), but I am just the kind of person who sees people just accepting low pay or high hours as the way it is and says "why? That's kind of messed up."
 
Displayed 50 of 371 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report