Gwyrddu: Ah yes, the complete idealization of a past that never existed outside of your head. Actually, the revolution happened for a number of reasons, including the monopolistic practices of the East India trading company, the fact that the south was heavily indebted to England for a number of luxury goods to the rumors that England would end slavery (which they did far before the US). And no, a lot of people weren't able to take care of themselves before social security. There was this thing called the Great Depression, maybe you need to look it up.

Did you just state that the Great Depression had, as one of it's causes, the lack of Social Security? Did you also use the Great Depression as a reason that people couldn't plan for retirement? Are you actually that ignorant of history?

Gwyrddu: Putting your money on the stock market is gambling with your money. This is no guarantee what if any your return will be. And past performance isn't a guarantee of future output either, as the buyers of Facebook's IPO have found out. Social Security is just that, it is security. If you are so good with the stock market then there is nothing preventing you from investing your spare money in the stock market, and then it won't matter what taxes are being taking out. And if you aren't making enough for a spare income, maybe you need to talk to those union bosses.

Social Security is security until it isn't. And investing in good mutual funds has been very rewarding. Even with market downturns, long term investments do well. The key there is long term. When I started my working career, the stock market was at 2000. There have been a lot of ups and downs but overall, from 2000 to 12000 is a substantial gain.

But the middle class kid whose parents are underwater on their mortgage is going to graduate with a ton of debt and pay a ton of money into a system that may or may not be there when he wants to retire. Those costs will not give him enough left over after expenses to invest in much of anything. That's where the government is destroying the middle class. The poor have never had anything and probably never will. The rich and those few who make a fortune can always save for a rainy day and build real wealth. The middle class used to be able to save a little and put it away for a house or other real wealth. But with the government's ever-increasing confiscation of the laborer's hire, that ability is going away. A banker who makes millions may not be contributing anything to the economy in terms of wealth creation, he may be unethical as the day is long but he's not taking money out of the pockets of the average middle class worker. The government that confiscates 50% of the cost of employment, through taxes, fees, regulations, various "insurances" and the like, is far more damaging to the average worker than any banker. All of those costs are supposedly for your own good. But they are taking money out of your pocket and deciding how you want it spent.

Take health insurance. A full-service, family policy costs better than $1000/month. Less deductibles, copays, etc. it pays for your health care. If you are sick during the course of the year, it looks like a good investment. The vast majority of folks, however, could cover all of the health expenses for a year for considerably less than the insurance policy costs. Suppose that folks were allowed to buy their own insurance and have a Health Savings Account. It would cost a few hundred per month but have a high deductible, let's say $7500/year. If you paid $400/month for the policy and stayed healthy with only a couple thousand in medical expenses, you would save a few grand over the full coverage policy. If you had a catastrophic illness, you'd pay as much as the full coverage policy. With the HSA, you could bank a bunch of money if you stayed healthy. With the full-coverage policy you'd not have that option, regardless of health - that money would be gone regardless of health. Is it a gamble? Yes. But with a private plan, there are winners and losers. With a government sponsored plan, there are no winners. Everybody loses equally.

Bullseyed Smartest
Funniest
2012-06-04 09:02:37 AM


HotIgneous Intruder: zzrhardy: The old saying is "beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes right to the bone".

True that. Whenever I meet a pretty woman and she starts prattling on about Jesus, it just kills it for me.

/Mass delusion: It's not just annoying, it's mental illness.

0/10

Fail troll is fail.



Obviously not, since you took the time to bite on the "troll".

FAIL is you

Gwyrddu: Ah yes, the complete idealization of a past that never existed outside of your head. Actually, the revolution happened for a number of reasons, including the monopolistic practices of the East India trading company, the fact that the south was heavily indebted to England for a number of luxury goods to the rumors that England would end slavery (which they did far before the US). And no, a lot of people weren't able to take care of themselves before social security. There was this thing called the Great Depression, maybe you need to look it up.

You're obviously one of those that got a degree. In all the wrong stuff and from a bunch of liberal revisionists.

The U.s. went from a bunch of colonies that couldn't win their own Revolution the the greatest economic superpower in the world in a little over 100 years because of capitalism and private property rights. The Great Depression was a speculative stock market crash that was turned into a Depression by government intervention, starting with Hoover and continuing through FDR.

If you're going to study history, study the whole thing, not cherry-picked parts your Marxist professors wanted to tell you about.

jeaux65: Bullseyed: Ed Willy: I am 26, in student loan debt and often feel like there is no hope. I took a cross country trek for new job opportunities and even with a hub of alumni I can't find regular work. I don't know, for a while I've really given up on the idea that there are regular jobs that pay money and somewhere along the line the older generations broke the system and we are the first generation dealing with the blowback of it.

Nope, it's just fine. You just don't have any useful skills. I had to let two companies fight over me once I finished school.

/24 and just bought a house. Will be debt free at 39 or less.

What degree do you have, 'cause I know what I want to be... ;)
Actually, going to start a 2 year RN program in the fall.

I had two companies bidding over me when I graduated in 07, bought my first house at 25, just sold it 4 months ago for a 10% gain over what I paid. Closed on my 2nd house a month ago.

I have an Environmental Health Sciences degree from EKU. I do Safety and IH, although I could have gotten into public health. Either way, my field is super-varied, really fun, and pays well. Plus you can't automate it away.

ronaprhys: Stagnating wages are not the same as what you said. Way to try and move the goalposts there, sparky. What you said is that if you reduce the cost of an employee, the company will use that as an excuse to pay their employees less. Now, try to defend that actual statement or admit that you were wrong.

It's called hyperbolic discounting. If workers have any say in their wages, they will discount future benefits for more immediate pay-offs. Employees would take advantage of this and pay workers a little more now which would sound better than paying much more later.


Did you just state that the Great Depression had, as one of it's causes, the lack of Social Security? Did you also use the Great Depression as a reason that people couldn't plan for retirement? Are you actually that ignorant of history?

Way to completely misinterpret what I said. The great depression is an example on how events can completely turn on its head, throwing off any legitimate planning one might have for the future. The stock market is useless in a situation where most companies go under, and anything you invest in doesn't make you money because nobody has any. And before the FDIC people couldn't even get to their money thanks to bank runs. Why do you SS system was created when it was?

Mr. Right: ...a bunch of liberal revisionists...your Marxist professors...

This stuff never gets old.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Gwyrddu: Way to completely misinterpret what I said. The great depression is an example on how events can completely turn on its head, throwing off any legitimate planning one might have for the future. The stock market is useless in a situation where most companies go under, and anything you invest in doesn't make you money because nobody has any. And before the FDIC people couldn't even get to their money thanks to bank runs. Why do you SS system was created when it was?

Not to mention that half of all seniors lived in poverty before SS, and that has been cut to 10%.

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Wyldfire: This hits somewhat close to home. High school graduation and we all went up to a friends cabin for a classwide celebration. Most of us got totally smashed. This kid Aaron, who was a real straight arrow, didn't have a sip to drink. When he left, he took a turn down a hill too fast and ran head on into an 18 wheeler and died on impact. The guy passed out beside him walked away with a black eye.

That really sobered up our graduating class to the fragility of life.

Why does alcohol give such insane powers of preservation?


/godspeed to your friend who died


Not sure if someone else commented, but it's simple, Alcohol relaxes the body. You go with the flow in an accident and are less prone to injury, especially internal injuries. Sober? Tense up like a mofo on impact and cause all kinds of damage. Moral is, if you're sober and about to be in a car accident and it can't be prevented(esp. if you're the passenger) just let go and go with the flow. It might just save your life.

Fark I am disappoint...


I expected famous last words quotations, like my grandfather's

"What truck?"

Gwyrddu: It's called hyperbolic discounting. If workers have any say in their wages, they will discount future benefits for more immediate pay-offs. Employees would take advantage of this and pay workers a little more now which would sound better than paying much more later.

That's not, however, what you said. You said they'd pay less because a cost was removed. There are lots of drivers within wages themselves. I would argue, however, that the immediate pay-off depends on several different factors. At this point in history I'd argue that people aren't necessarily planning on staying in one position for significant periods of time. As such, the immediate pay-off might be a better economic choice. Earn a bit more now because the future benefit is unlikely to be realized since the person has taken a promotion or moved to another company.

As for the rest, it's bunk. The companies pay market wages. Plain and simple. If the market wages are lower (as defined by replacement value and value to the company), then they'll pay less. If higher, they'll have to pay more or suffer from lack of competitiveness.

Way to completely misinterpret what I said. The great depression is an example on how events can completely turn on its head, throwing off any legitimate planning one might have for the future. The stock market is useless in a situation where most companies go under, and anything you invest in doesn't make you money because nobody has any. And before the FDIC people couldn't even get to their money thanks to bank runs. Why do you SS system was created when it was?

To appease the masses and buy votes? In something like the Great Depression, exactly what would SS do? Either you're a senior and already getting paid or you're out of luck. Also, please consider the difference in society between then and now. The difference in jobs, family structures, communities, etc.

eldritch2k4: zzrhardy: eldritch2k4: What? Are you too fat to fit through the goddam office doors?

No-one likes fat people, or ugly people. God help if your fat and ugly.

Doesn't matter if it is a girl, some person behind a counter, a client or a job interviewer. Your appearance dictates how everyone responds to you.

The general consensus is "go be fat somewhere else".

Fat people are the best farking people to farking hire and interviewers know that shiat. At least for good career choices; maybe not for the counter at Victoria's Secret, but a good career that will lead to a comfortable life, fark yeah. Beautiful people don't have to cultivate a good personality growing up because they can coast through the first 30 or so years of their life on their looks. The fat guy? The fat guy is gonna be great because he spent his time learning how to farking do shiat right and growing a great personality because he's farking fat and ugly and how the fark else is he going to have interpersonal relationships.

The interviewer working for a major banking corporation that plans on giving someone a biatchin' salary; awesome health, dental and vision; and a farking ladder to climb isn't going to want some pretty, vapid coont working for them (unless they are stuck in the 1950s and know nothing of sexual harassment law), they're going to want the guy who has the biatchin' personality and interpersonal skills that PVC up there never had to learn how to possess because she was surrounded by other pretty, vapid coonts that just formed a pretty, vapid echo chamber that resembles the farking Debbies from The motherfarking Oblongs.

So, yeah, go be fat somewhere else. Like at the farking upper management level of a major corporation instead of the trendy nightspot. Sounds like a motherfarking plan.

/Yes. I'm fat.
//Yes. I'm fine with that.
///Why? Because I'm farking awesome.

That's not always the case. Some interviewers believe that being fat shows that the interviewee has little self control and/or motivation.

Being ugly is one thing-you cant fix ugly, but to say that interviewers would prefer someone who doesn't have the self control and motivation to be fit is stupid.

I bet the average body fat percentage of upper management is lower than that of middle management because the people who make upper management typically need a drive to do so.

Ed Willy: I am 26, in student loan debt and often feel like there is no hope. I took a cross country trek for new job opportunities and even with a hub of alumni I can't find regular work. I don't know, for a while I've really given up on the idea that there are regular jobs that pay money and somewhere along the line the older generations broke the system and we are the first generation dealing with the blowback of it.

Damn those older generations for forcing us to bury ourselves in debt to pay for a degree in something worthless! My Women's Studies degree would have made me millions back in the 70s!

Gwyrddu: What this is the truth. Productivity has been increasing dramatically over time but wages have stagnated since the 70s. Companies never pay you what you are worth, they pay you just enough to keep you from quitting.

Hmm. I wonder what has changed since the 70s that would cause such a jump in productivity? It certainly couldn't have anything to do with the rise of computers and automation rather than the workers themselves. It would make perfect sense to give somebody a raise for farming out their work to a robot.

umad: Damn those older generations for forcing us to bury ourselves in debt to pay for a degree in something worthless! My Women's Studies degree would have made me millions back in the 70s!

Watch, as I non-sequitir a heavy national problem into nonexistence! Magic!

They're 22 and he had a Lexus? Oh, and speed wasn't a factor in the accident. Riiiight.

Jjaro:That's not always the case. Some interviewers believe that being fat shows that the interviewee has little self control and/or motivation.

Being ugly is one thing-you cant fix ugly, but to say that interviewers would prefer someone who doesn't have the self control and motivation to be fit is stupid.

I bet the average body fat percentage of upper management is lower than that of middle management because the people who make upper management typically need a drive to do so.

All of this depends on the position and what the department is like.

-For outside sales positions (or something like it where you meet with customers face to face), ugly is generally a Very Bad Thing. It can be overcome if you're incredibly personable or have a clear track record of success, though.
-Inside and telesales, however, are used to fatties so it's all about personality and ability. Fatness is easily overlooked. Same with lots of technical positions.

Now, for upper management, I'd disagree. In general, those positions go to performers. Fatness isn't really considered all that much (see above caveat about sales). Additionally, what I've seen is the inverse. It's less about drive and more about where the drive is applied. Lots of folks in upper management literally have almost no life outside of work (especially during the week). Through in travel, company and customer dinners, and all of the normal and you end up with folks who do their jobs very well - but sacrifice their health. For the next level down, however, they may be very good at their jobs but they've decided to put their efforts towards balancing their work and life - and manage to exercise, what their food consumption, etc.

Ed Willy: I am 26, in student loan debt and often feel like there is no hope. I took a cross country trek for new job opportunities and even with a hub of alumni I can't find regular work. I don't know, for a while I've really given up on the idea that there are regular jobs that pay money and somewhere along the line the older generations broke the system and we are the first generation dealing with the blowback of it.

This: She wrote about the fears she and others shared, in their early 20s, "that it is somehow too late. That others are somehow ahead. is the story of my life. It's the story of my generation's life. The previous generation sacrificed us so they could have just one more Hummer.

This needs to be fixed.

Didn't become an actor until after 40 years as a stunt man. Yes, 22 is very very young. There's plenty of time.

Forecaster18: Mr. Right: ...a bunch of liberal revisionists...your Marxist professors...

This stuff never gets old.

[img229.imageshack.us image 391x390]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

What gets old is someone such as yourself with a refrigerator temperature IQ thinking that your post is somehow either clever or makes some kind of point.

wyltoknow: umad: Damn those older generations for forcing us to bury ourselves in debt to pay for a degree in something worthless! My Women's Studies degree would have made me millions back in the 70s!

Watch, as I non-sequitir a heavy national problem into nonexistence! Magic!

You guys are probably right. The world really is out to get our generation. We bear no responsibility for our current situations.

PsiChick: Ed Willy: I am 26, in student loan debt and often feel like there is no hope. I took a cross country trek for new job opportunities and even with a hub of alumni I can't find regular work. I don't know, for a while I've really given up on the idea that there are regular jobs that pay money and somewhere along the line the older generations broke the system and we are the first generation dealing with the blowback of it.

This: She wrote about the fears she and others shared, in their early 20s, "that it is somehow too late. That others are somehow ahead. is the story of my life. It's the story of my generation's life. The previous generation sacrificed us so they could have just one more Hummer.

This needs to be fixed.

Wah, it's someone else's fault. I'm magically supposed to be able to get a job with any and every degree available, wah.

topcon: PsiChick: Ed Willy: I am 26, in student loan debt and often feel like there is no hope. I took a cross country trek for new job opportunities and even with a hub of alumni I can't find regular work. I don't know, for a while I've really given up on the idea that there are regular jobs that pay money and somewhere along the line the older generations broke the system and we are the first generation dealing with the blowback of it.

This: She wrote about the fears she and others shared, in their early 20s, "that it is somehow too late. That others are somehow ahead. is the story of my life. It's the story of my generation's life. The previous generation sacrificed us so they could have just one more Hummer.

This needs to be fixed.

Wah, it's someone else's fault. I'm magically supposed to be able to get a job with any and every degree available, not only was our generation directly lied to about college equaling jobs, government is literally paying companies in the form of tax breaks to ship jobs overseas, there is no such thing as job security or unionization anymore, and we have let corporations trample over human rights, not to mention the world economy, without any consequences whatsoever, wah.

FTFY.

/Hate to point this out, bud, but the facts disagree with you.

I should continue arguing with someone who thinks they're a psychic.

jeaux65: Girion47: jeaux65: Bullseyed: Ed Willy: I am 26, in student loan debt and often feel like there is no hope. I took a cross country trek for new job opportunities and even with a hub of alumni I can't find regular work. I don't know, for a while I've really given up on the idea that there are regular jobs that pay money and somewhere along the line the older generations broke the system and we are the first generation dealing with the blowback of it.

Nope, it's just fine. You just don't have any useful skills. I had to let two companies fight over me once I finished school.

/24 and just bought a house. Will be debt free at 39 or less.

What degree do you have, 'cause I know what I want to be... ;)
Actually, going to start a 2 year RN program in the fall.

I had two companies bidding over me when I graduated in 07, bought my first house at 25, just sold it 4 months ago for a 10% gain over what I paid. Closed on my 2nd house a month ago.

I have an Environmental Health Sciences degree from EKU. I do Safety and IH, although I could have gotten into public health. Either way, my field is super-varied, really fun, and pays well. Plus you can't automate it away.

Thanks for the info, I think I know what I'm going to do now..or at least look into more thoroughly.

/26, Mother of 2, married waaaaay too young.
//Not too late to start over.

If you need someone to talk to about it, Dr. Gary Brown, or Dr. Carolyn Harvey at EKU are excellent sources of information, my program won't let anyone teach unless they have 10 years experience in the field they are teaching, it also helps that they are both CIH's, Certified Industrial Hygienist, it is kind of the PhD of my field, with that you're making 6 figures in any private industry.

Fear the Clam: Does anyone know when they changed the rules about elementary school cutoff dates? When I was a kid, just about everyone was 10 years old in 5th grade, and graduated when they were 17/18.

Nowadays it seems like everyone's been held back a year. I see this stuff about someone graduating college at age 22 and my first thought is "Are you slow or something?"

Graduating college takes longer than it used to due to increased tuition costs (fewer courses taken per year), fewer classes available due to budget cuts for state schools (fewer classes available per semester), more units (credits) needed for certain majors than in past years, and an overall cost of living increase (less time for classes due to work). All these things and more contribute to an increased length of time involved in reaching a milestone that once upon a time took only 4 years.

My BA + AA took five years, and that included at least 6 to 9 units of summer classes every year with a full plate of 12 - 15 units per regular semester, every semester. That's all I had time for, as mommy and daddy weren't supporting me.

If your birthday is before June (meaning you're 18 when the fall semester begins), you can forget about finishing a bachelor's before you're 23, at the earliest. If your birthday is in the fall or winter, meaning you're officially only 17 upon HS graduation, you might squeak by @ 22. That's still 5 years, if you can get the classes, and if you have the money.

Mr. Right: Take health insurance. A full-service, family policy costs better than $1000/month. Less deductibles, copays, etc. it pays for your health care. If you are sick during the course of the year, it looks like a good investment. The vast majority of folks, however, could cover all of the health expenses for a year for considerably less than the insurance policy costs. Suppose that folks were allowed to buy their own insurance and have a Health Savings Account. It would cost a few hundred per month but have a high deductible, let's say $7500/year. If you paid $400/month for the policy and stayed healthy with only a couple thousand in medical expenses, you would save a few grand over the full coverage policy. If you had a catastrophic illness, you'd pay as much as the full coverage policy. With the HSA, you could bank a bunch of money if you stayed healthy. With the full-coverage policy you'd not have that option, regardless of health - that money would be gone regardless of health. Is it a gamble? Yes. But with a private plan, there are winners and losers. With a government sponsored plan, there are no winners. Everybody loses equally.

Do you enjoy advocating for a "there are winners and there are losers" health care policy, the kind that enforces suffering on the unfortunate because you think you can score a few dollars more in your pocket?

Because with the plan you propose, if you got hit with a chronic illness, or hit with "bad luck" several years in a row (requiring medial expenses in excess of your deductible), that right there is a recipe for bankruptcy for the average family. And your HSA? Most insurance policies require you to spend your HSA before the end of the balance year, or lose the remaining balance of your account. So: no savings.

With a government-sponsored plan, at the very least no one runs the risk of having something genetic, environmental, or random ruin their financial lives lives. Yes, if you're "lucky" and don't experience any of those risk factors you may feel a little hosed. But endorsing the idea that the balance of risk is acceptable of you being exposed to those factors is incredibly short sighted, not to mention morally and ethically bankrupt.

Considering right now the whole issue is that the balance of those risks I mentioned outweighs the ability of the current system to pay for them.

Fear the Clam: Does anyone know when they changed the rules about elementary school cutoff dates? When I was a kid, just about everyone was 10 years old in 5th grade, and graduated when they were 17/18.

Nowadays it seems like everyone's been held back a year. I see this stuff about someone graduating college at age 22 and my first thought is "Are you slow or something?"

Wouldn't that be the right age to graduate? Most people graduate high school at 18. College is typically 4 years. Graduating at 22 would be the appropriate age. Just because someone graduated high school at 17 due to having a birthday in the summer or early fall and thus graduates college at 21 doesn't mean they're smarter. It just means their birthday is a few months later than the rest of their class. I bring this up because this was the case for me. My birthday is in the fall and so I graduated at 17 and 21. I was not typical though. I was always younger than 99% of my class.

Bullseyed: PanicMan: Bullseyed: Easy to do when college pays you to go to school there and you work anyway.

Where did you go to school, and what degree do you have?

Electrical Engineering + MBA

Let them keep their innocence only for a little while longer.

imashark: Because with the plan you propose, if you got hit with a chronic illness, or hit with "bad luck" several years in a row (requiring medial expenses in excess of your deductible), that right there is a recipe for bankruptcy for the average family. And your HSA? Most insurance policies require you to spend your HSA before the end of the balance year, or lose the remaining balance of your account. So: no savings.

With chronic illness, a family would pay as much as they would for a full insurance policy and NO MORE! So it would no more bankrupt them than any other insurance policy. And you're thinking of MSAs instead of HSA. I've had one for years and it rolls over very nicely. I've had a couple years where we've exceeded our deductible and after that, 100% is paid, prescriptions and all. Can you say the same for a "full coverage" policy?

When I mention winners and losers, I'm referring to the fact that some families will be able to build a savings while others won't. Under the full coverage insurance plans, nobody gets any savings. So there aren't so much losers as those who don't win. Their out-of-pocket cost would be no greater than the regular insurance policy. A gppd friend of mine has a chronic illness and the same kind of policy I do. He meets his deductible every year but his total family health care cost is no more than if he paid for a full coverage policy.

What is morally bankrupt is the notion that an employer shells out thousands of dollars a year for an employee but the employee never gets it and has little or no say in how it is spent. The employee must produce enough that the employer can charge customers enough to pay for that insurance. But the insurance may not be what the employee wants or needs. It's no different than the old company towns and company stores. A large chunk of your paycheck is completely out of your control. Give me the money and I'll decide how to spend it.

Also, if patients were directly involved in paying for their health care - even if it's only the large deductible - health care costs would go down. When insurance covers it, the patient perceives no cost and thus is uninterested in the amount. If he has to write a check he will pay attention.

What do you bet that the driver in either car was texting?

Krieghund: Mostly because it's a little late in the thread to troll, but throwing a barely related image in helps grab what eyeballs you can get.

Nice classic cognitive dissonance, slamming the New Yorker, then using words like "bon mots" and refering to Updike, Cheevers and Proulx.

The "she supports legalization therefore she was killed in a DUI therefore she deserved to die" chain was a bit over the top, but I'm surprised you didn't get any takers.


The drawing of that dandy, Eustace, is the symbol of the New Yorker and is very important in illustrating what a useless rag it is and they publish it at least once a year in some iteration.

Updike, Cheevers and Proulx are the most over rated authors I could think of and there is no better example of literary inbreeding than the fact that the New Yorker had Updike review a biography of Cheevers. Proulx is a frequent contributor and Brokeback Mountain was originally published in the New Yorker.

What explanation do you think is more likely for a one car accident without any other mentioned factors like weather or time of day. I'll bet they didn't even do a tox screen on her and she would have had an autopsy. She got killed by her "principles" if you can call getting high a principle. As far as deserving to die or not it is not a moral judgment but rather a logical outcome. Unfortunately logic and actions having consequences are foreign concepts for the New Yorker's target audience because they are so well insulated from it in their summer homes and irrevocable trusts. It's not trolling when it's all true.

Jjaro: That's not always the case. Some interviewers believe that being fat shows that the interviewee has little self control and/or motivation.

Being ugly is one thing-you cant fix ugly, but to say that interviewers would prefer someone who doesn't have the self control and motivation to be fit is stupid.

I bet the average body fat percentage of upper management is lower than that of middle management because the people who make upper management typically need a drive to do so.

Some people are shallow. All interviewers are people. Some interviewers are shallow. More than that, you're a farking retard if you think that the drive to be fit will trump a properly displayed drive to farking excel at the job.

Point of my posts: being fat isn't what's standing in the way of MadSkillz getting a good job; not being able to sell himself is. Being fat can be overcome by being awesome. And I'm not talking about "oh, if you get to know me you'll find that I'm" awesome. I'm talking about "from the moment you walk into a room everyone's self-esteem jumps due to proximity" awesome. The kind of farking awesome that, when asked, "Where do you see yourself in five years," you respond, "On the other side of this farking desk. Haven't you gotten the memo? This is my desk. I don't know where you're going, but clear your shiat out because this is mine now."

That's the drive that employers like: focused on the job. Oh, but you have the drive to make sure that you are 2% body fat? Fantastic, you have the drive to spend every free moment in the gym. True, employers like that, but they like "holy shiat, you're driven to spend every free moment dedicated to advancing your position?" more. You walk into a farking interview as a fat ass and declare "While all you svelte motherfarkers were learning how to dominate calories, I was busy learning how to dominate this farking job."

ChaoticLimbs: You're remarkably incorrect. You know what I think when I interview an obese person?

Nobody ever got a (gut,ass) like that from hustling.

You're remarkably shallow and aren't even worth a bit of foul language.

Fear the Clam: Does anyone know when they changed the rules about elementary school cutoff dates? When I was a kid, just about everyone was 10 years old in 5th grade, and graduated when they were 17/18.

Nowadays it seems like everyone's been held back a year. I see this stuff about someone graduating college at age 22 and my first thought is "Are you slow or something?"

Really? You're going to ask someone who graduates with a four year degree at 22 if they're slow? Basic farking math, you tard: 22 years old - 4 year degree = Started college at 18. Glass houses, dumbass, glass houses.

eldritch2k4: Jjaro: That's not always the case. Some interviewers believe that being fat shows that the interviewee has little self control and/or motivation.

Being ugly is one thing-you cant fix ugly, but to say that interviewers would prefer someone who doesn't have the self control and motivation to be fit is stupid.

I bet the average body fat percentage of upper management is lower than that of middle management because the people who make upper management typically need a drive to do so.

Some people are shallow. All interviewers are people. Some interviewers are shallow. More than that, you're a farking retard if you think that the drive to be fit will trump a properly displayed drive to farking excel at the job.

Point of my posts: being fat isn't what's standing in the way of MadSkillz getting a good job; not being able to sell himself is. Being fat can be overcome by being awesome. And I'm not talking about "oh, if you get to know me you'll find that I'm" awesome. I'm talking about "from the moment you walk into a room everyone's self-esteem jumps due to proximity" awesome. The kind of farking awesome that, when asked, "Where do you see yourself in five years," you respond, "On the other side of this farking desk. Haven't you gotten the memo? This is my desk. I don't know where you're going, but clear your shiat out because this is mine now."

That's the drive that employers like: focused on the job. Oh, but you have the drive to make sure that you are 2% body fat? Fantastic, you have the drive to spend every free moment in the gym. True, employers like that, but they like "holy shiat, you're driven to spend every free moment dedicated to advancing your position?" more. You walk into a farking interview as a fat ass and declare "While all you svelte motherfarkers were learning how to dominate calories, I was busy learning how to dominate this farking job."

ChaoticLimbs: You're remarkably incorrect. You know what I think when I interview an obese person?

Nobody ever ...

You sound like a prick that I would hate to think would ever even be in the same room as one of my clients.

Girion47: You sound like a prick that I would hate to think would ever even be in the same room as one of my clients.

And you sound like a farking imbecile if you think for a moment, if you were my boss, that you'd ever know how I sound on the internet. Especially since you are basing your opinion of me on a semi-anonymous forum where I'm actively trying to sound over the top.

If you were my farking boss, all you would ever know is that I'm damn good at my job and I'm looking to advance in the company. You wouldn't know me outside of work because I'm not farking retarded and I don't interact with my bosses on the internet or in my personal life. You wouldn't have a farking chance to see what I post on Facebook, FARK or any other online system. I keep my shiat separate for exactly this reason.

In the meantime, I'll be crying a river because some asshole I don't know would be afraid to have my internet ramblings in front of his clients.

eldritch2k4: Girion47: You sound like a prick that I would hate to think would ever even be in the same room as one of my clients.

And you sound like a farking imbecile if you think for a moment, if you were my boss, that you'd ever know how I sound on the internet. Especially since you are basing your opinion of me on a semi-anonymous forum where I'm actively trying to sound over the top.

If you were my farking boss, all you would ever know is that I'm damn good at my job and I'm looking to advance in the company. You wouldn't know me outside of work because I'm not farking retarded and I don't interact with my bosses on the internet or in my personal life. You wouldn't have a farking chance to see what I post on Facebook, FARK or any other online system. I keep my shiat separate for exactly this reason.

In the meantime, I'll be crying a river because some asshole I don't know would be afraid to have my internet ramblings in front of his clients.

I agree with keeping personal life secret from your employer, and I do the same thing.

Its just that bravado isn't necessary or even desirable if I, as a project manager, am going to send you on-site to work under a client as mine and their employee. In fact I need you as sheepish as possible so that the employees there don't see you as a threat to their employment, it could be that your voice is too loud and if they ask me to pull you off the project, I have no choice.

eldritch2k4: Jjaro: That's not always the case. Some interviewers believe that being fat shows that the interviewee has little self control and/or motivation.

Being ugly is one thing-you cant fix ugly, but to say that interviewers would prefer someone who doesn't have the self control and motivation to be fit is stupid.

I bet the average body fat percentage of upper management is lower than that of middle management because the people who make upper management typically need a drive to do so.

Some people are shallow. All interviewers are people. Some interviewers are shallow. More than that, you're a farking retard if you think that the drive to be fit will trump a properly displayed drive to farking excel at the job.

Point of my posts: being fat isn't what's standing in the way of MadSkillz getting a good job; not being able to sell himself is. Being fat can be overcome by being awesome. And I'm not talking about "oh, if you get to know me you'll find that I'm" awesome. I'm talking about "from the moment you walk into a room everyone's self-esteem jumps due to proximity" awesome. The kind of farking awesome that, when asked, "Where do you see yourself in five years," you respond, "On the other side of this farking desk. Haven't you gotten the memo? This is my desk. I don't know where you're going, but clear your shiat out because this is mine now."

That's the drive that employers like: focused on the job. Oh, but you have the drive to make sure that you are 2% body fat? Fantastic, you have the drive to spend every free moment in the gym. True, employers like that, but they like "holy shiat, you're driven to spend every free moment dedicated to advancing your position?" more. You walk into a farking interview as a fat ass and declare "While all you svelte motherfarkers were learning how to dominate calories, I was busy learning how to dominate this farking job."

ChaoticLimbs: You're remarkably incorrect. You know what I think when I interview an obese person?

Nobody ever ...

It's not about being shallow. If you don't have the self-control to not eat that pack of Oreos, people will think you don't have self control when it comes to work either.

You either display strong self control or you don't, and interviewers are going to determine the most they can from what they see.

And to imply that fat people dominate jobs or focus on them better than fit people is completely misguided. They just choose to spend their free time doing less-intensive activities like playing more computer games. I'm not talking people with an extra 15 pounds on them-you can be a bit heavy, but not really look fat, and never work out, its about the self control and life style choices, and the fact that you are saying that fat people are better at their jobs makes you sound like a bitter fat person.

Jjaro: It's not about being shallow. If you don't have the self-control to not eat that pack of Oreos, people will think you don't have self control when it comes to work either.

You either display strong self control or you don't, and interviewers are going to determine the most they can from what they see.

And to imply that fat people dominate jobs or focus on them better than fit people is completely misguided. They just choose to spend their free time doing less-intensive activities like playing more computer games. I'm not talking people with an extra 15 pounds on them-you can be a bit heavy, but not really look fat, and never work out, its about the self control and life style choices, and the fact that you are saying that fat people are better at their jobs makes you sound like a bitter fat person.

And still, you don't farking get it. Number one, self-control isn't an on or off thing. If you don't get that, farking kill yourself. Suggesting you do that, because your being on about all fat people lack self-control is farking stupid. Maybe you have a thyroid issue or maybe as a farking kid your parents didn't make healthy meals and didn't reign you in and at 15 your were 360 pounds and 5'6" and, yeah, you've lost 100lbs, but you're still farking fat.

Number two, and more importantly, being fat does not prevent a person from getting a good job. The detrimental aspects of being fat in an interview can easily be countered by displaying a strong work ethic and drive to succeed to the interviewer. If this were not the farking case, I wouldn't be surrounded by successful fatasses at work.

I never said that fat people were automatically better at a job than a skinny person; I said that fat people need to walk into an interview ready to dominate. I said that the skinny biatch at Victoria's Secret is more likely to be a vapid coont because she was more likely to coast through her early life on her looks than the fat ass. Fat asses tend to have more personality because there are two things that get you through social situations: looks and personality. It's like a blind man having awesome hearing, if you don't have one, you need to have lots of the other to make up for your lack.

Am I bitter? Yes, I'm farking bitter, but it sure as shiat has nothing to do with my being fat. I haven't let my being fat get me down since my sophomore year of high school some 15 years ago. I farking like me. My bitterness stems from watching ostensibly intelligent people do and say farking retarded shiat all day, every day. shiat like, "I'm fat, so I can't get a good job," or "You're fat, so you must be an unreliable piece of shiat."

eldritch2k4: Number two, and more importantly, being fat does not prevent a person from getting a good job. The detrimental aspects of being fat in an interview can easily be countered by displaying a strong work ethic and drive to succeed to the interviewer. If this were not the farking case, I wouldn't be surrounded by successful fatasses at work.

In theory, almost nothing prevents someone from getting a good job. In practice the world is full of people who don't have the wherewithal to overcome the obstacles put in front of them. The ones who do you see who have succeed have done so because they have been better than average to overcome any prejudice, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of average or even below average fat people out there.