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.

(Yahoo)   U.S. Employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years, they are in no hurry to fill them. We're living in a fear-based environment right now, thanks Obama   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line 91
    More: Sad, United States, job opening, staffing firm, environmentalisms, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago  
•       •       •

3168 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 Apr 2013 at 4:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-10 06:44:18 AM  
8 votes:
I own a small company that sells to small companies. I've been in this business for twenty years, and I've seen things slowly change over those years. You want to know what the future is as I see it? Well small business in farked. Why? Because large corporations are crushing the small businesses that they can't buy. They use the legal system, they use government, they use competitive practices, both legal and illegal, that the small guy can't compete with. Big corporations have written our laws, and at the same time have the staying power and resources to ignore the law when it suits them. For every time a big corporation gets caught, they get away with breaking the law countless times. And I'm not even talking about skirting the laws they helped write. I'm talking about the outright breaking of laws.

So I see the future, and it's one where a handful of mega corporations act as a shadow government, and no small business can exist that they don't allow to exist. The new royalty in this system will be the ultra rich. Not just the 1%, but the 1% of the 1%. And the rest of us will be the plebes, the serfs, that dutifully serve our lords and masters.
2013-04-10 05:56:18 AM  
8 votes:

Old enough to know better: Well of course they're keeping the labor market tight. Business owners are probably scared shiatless of what employee's are likely to do to them should workers ever gain the upper hand again in this economy.

Payback is a biatch.


Everybody is waiting for the other guy to make the first move. Employees have been overworked for the better part of a decade and they're getting worn out. What's going to happen is a few companies are going to decide that it's a good time to get a permanent increase in market share at the expense of their frightened competitors. To do that, they're going to have to hire. Those who do will be able to expand while the rest will have to play catch up.

Once the hiring frenzy gets started, things are going to get really crappy for employers as employees bitter about the way they've been treated jump ship. The company they go to probably will be just as guilty as the company they left of mistreating employees but they won't know that or won't care since it didn't happen to them (no bad mental associations everyday going to the same office). This will be really bad for employers because a huge amount of institutional knowledge will be walking out the door. If a few people leave, new people can be hired and they can learn from those still around. Large numbers of people leave and that knowledge is gone forever and will have to be rediscovered at a high cost.

Productivity numbers are likely to take a nose dive and there will be nothing employers will be able to do to get it back since employees will be able to leave if the employer tries to whip them into higher productivity. It's not a situation where you want to be the employer trying to keep up with a competitor who is taking your market share and racing away. It's unlikely these trailing companies are going to understand why this happened to them. I foresee lots of middle managers who have spent the last half a decade crapping on employees getting the boot as they're not mentally able to adjust to not having the power in the employee relationship anymore. It's also going to be funny to watch HR departments get overworked trying to replace the people they spent much of their time telling "shut up and get back to work, you're lucky to have a job" when employees complained about poor management behavior.

I opted out of the labor market a little over a year ago. It's interesting to see my former employers reaching out to try to hire me even though I haven't so much as posted a resume. The dumbest is my last employer who I left because of poor treatment. After six months of searching they hired someone to replace me and three months later ran the guy off. According to my former co-workers, the guy was a good worker, he just wasn't willing to put up with the department manager treating him like dirt. They simply can't figure out why they can't keep people around, blaming the labor market instead of their own stupidity. The next five years is going to be fun to watch as companies have to tear themselves apart to remake themselves or die when their competitors grab market share that use to belong to the dysfunctional company. Maybe they'll try staffing up with "do the needful" visa holders.
2013-04-10 03:00:10 AM  
8 votes:
Nothing says people have to just accept how things are, Americans have in the past moved to change things. Plenty of things that could be done now to move things along. Like get rid of all exemptions to overtime pay and mandate all hours over 40 come with overtime. Oh sure Goldman and Sachs will cry like a spoiled brat but that's hardly a downside.
2013-04-10 01:00:07 AM  
6 votes:
There's also the idea that employers have openings, but the"re getting the same productivity out of terrified employees who will do anything not to lose their jobs.  Why would you hire people when the work is already getting done?
2013-04-10 05:43:58 AM  
5 votes:

Albino Squid: The good news is that a sudden upswing in the economy and concurrent downswing in the unemployment rate would probably convince employers that hiring someone qualified, rather than waiting for a Nobel laureate to apply for that position, isn't such a bad thing, because soon you might have a whole bunch of competition for skilled workers.

The bad news is that austerity fever is busy kneecapping the economy such that it won't happen.


My employer has enjoyed hiring Nobel laureates for a few years now. The mid-level managers who make the hiring decisions walk around with their chests puffed out, bragging about how they hired someone with a Master's degree for a job that doesn't even require a Bachelor's degree. On the one hand, that new hire leaves quickly and my employer wastes a lot of time and money on turnover, recruitment and training, and lost productivity. But on the other hand, a few mid-level managers get to walk around with their chests puffed out. You've got to have priorities.
2013-04-10 05:04:40 AM  
5 votes:
If we shift more taxes from employers to employees, shift more taxes from the 1% to the 47%, eliminate more regulations and oversight, and throw in some more million dollar ceo bonuses, perhaps they'll consider ending our current wage deflation program and returning to the more stable wage stagnation policy we've enjoyed for nearly half a century. But we'd better not ask for clean air or affordable healthcare, because that would introduce uncertainty and require more wage deflation.
2013-04-09 09:58:24 PM  
5 votes:
We're living in a fear-based environment right now, thanks Obama Boehner, Ryan, Cantor, etc.

FTFY
2013-04-10 10:55:56 AM  
4 votes:
Or you could get your Class A license and become a truck driver!
That way, you could never be home while living in a truck and driving/working 10 hours a day (the federal limit, which everyone drives/works up to), and get two days off every two weeks.
You'll earn $40K per year, which is about $26,800 netted after taxes.
Driving 70 hours per week, times 52 weeks, equals 3,640 hours working, divided into $40K, is about $11 bucks per hour.
To enjoy that princely renumeration, you'll need a perfect driving record and be able to pass drug and alcohol screening tests at any moment. You'll need to comply with DOT regulations continuously in the event of random inspections. You, as the driver, take responsibility for the condition of your truck, which you won't own, being a newbie. You'll eat out of a cooler if you're lucky and gain ten pounds per year eating road food. And your daily working conditions will involved driving in all traffic and road conditions, day and night, in all weather, everywhere. You'll be expected to remain accident free while maneuvering long trailers everywhere.

And you know what?
Your federal government will consider your job "Unskilled."
And all for eleven bucks per hour, not including benefits, if any, and before expenses that arise from living out on the road, with the plus of being away from your family constantly.
Trucks. Everything you buy arrives on trucks. Everything.

Nice economy you've got here, Americans.
2013-04-10 05:04:28 AM  
4 votes:
Well of course they're keeping the labor market tight. Business owners are probably scared shiatless of what employee's are likely to do to them should workers ever gain the upper hand again in this economy.

Payback is a biatch.
2013-04-10 12:24:51 AM  
4 votes:
If we're spending so much on our military, why do we have to pay our debts?
2013-04-09 10:31:14 PM  
4 votes:
The last two companies I've worked for have plans to grow over the next few years.  But things being what they are, both companies are going for slow, sustainable growth.  So they'll be hiring those new employees slowly and over years.

In the long run, I like to think this is good for everyone.  In the short term, you get a lot of seemingly empty promises that new jobs are coming.  From what I've seen, at least in the IT industry, they are.  Good luck everyone!
2013-04-10 12:33:50 PM  
3 votes:

MFK: You know what small business needs to thrive? Customers.
Not tax breaks, not fewer regulations, but customers.

Unfortunately, nobody is getting paid enough to support a small business economy and the lack of taxes and regulations are making it easy for companies like big boxes to eat everyone's lunch, but even those guys are hurting because people are using the brick and mortar stores as "showrooms" and then they turn around and buy the same products from Amazon.com for $5 less because they don't have the overhead so they can undercut.


This. This right here.

I also have a small business. I'm in my third year of selling dolls at conventions and online, and it's been ... educational to watch the buying trends shift. In 2011, on a Friday-Sunday con, Friday was the second-biggest sales day (first is always Saturday, the one-day pass market is largest then) because people would love a doll and buy it without thinking, and Sunday was really slow because people had impulse-bought all weekend and now were broke. By the end of 2012's season (our con season is roughly Feb-Aug) Friday and Sunday had effectively traded places; everyone on Friday was saying "OMG cute! But today's my looking day, I have to see everything once first", and then on Sunday, people were legit returning to the table and buying stuff, in droves compared to what we expected. People who wanted two dolls were literally flipping coins to decide because they only had enough for one. One person we saw at Otakon told us that she saw us two months earlier at AnimeNEXT, couldn't afford one then, but had set aside a little money every paycheck and now had enough to buy from us - and she did so. We had even raised our prices in the interim and she didn't blink.

tl;dr I'm selling a good product at a good price to the right market, but the market has no money in their hands to give me. I can't make them have money.

We notice other trends too, not just in how people buy from us. People who take cosplay almost professionally seriously - you know the ones, full armor and contact lenses and elaborate props, the ones who go for the whole weekend so they can show off multiple outfits - started showing up at our table wearing Saturday-only badges. More and more people are checking into the hotels carrying flats of bottled water and ramen noodles (as opposed to buying con food). Friday is a slow day until about 7pm, because no one can afford to take that day off work anymore.

Give the customers money and the problem ... well I'm not gonna say the economy will fix itself. But it'll sure as crap right a lot of wrongs.

/shameless plug ahead
//buy my stuff guys! link in profile
///ok i'm done
/slashies are still free, right?
2013-04-10 11:06:19 AM  
3 votes:

MFK: You know what small business needs to thrive? Customers.
Not tax breaks, not fewer regulations, but customers.


Ding ding ding. Aggregate demand has fallen off a cliff because the consumer class has no money to spend. The middle class is not overtaxed, they are underpaid.
MFK
2013-04-10 11:04:22 AM  
3 votes:

X-boxershorts: Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.

Well, Gee...It's too bad that small business' target demographic for sales is both, broke and overworked.
No money and no time.

/So..vote republican?


You know what small business needs to thrive? Customers.
Not tax breaks, not fewer regulations, but customers.

Unfortunately, nobody is getting paid enough to support a small business economy and the lack of taxes and regulations are making it easy for companies like big boxes to eat everyone's lunch, but even those guys are hurting because people are using the brick and mortar stores as "showrooms" and then they turn around and buy the same products from Amazon.com for $5 less because they don't have the overhead so they can undercut.

We've convinced ourselves that if a company grows so massive that they control everything it's because they are "successful" and not at all because they have bought politicians to rig the game for them. 100 years ago, we all knew monopolies were bad and took steps to prevent that sort of game rigging. 100 years later, we are showing that we have learned exactly nothing.
MFK
2013-04-10 10:21:34 AM  
3 votes:
teeny:
Best bedtime story evar. It makes me smile to think of my former douchebag employer weathering that shiatstorm.

CSB: Mine couldn't weather it. During the recession, I was made to eat such an enormous pile of shiat. I was managing a department of four people that was responsible for bringing in as much revenue as the national and retail sales teams combined. Since my department wasn't flashy or sexy, we were at the bottom of corporate's radar so when layoffs came in '09, my dept got hit especially hard since one person represented a quarter of the team. Well, we lost 2 and I had to pick up the slack for 2 missing members. Then one more got laid off in the next round and then it was me and one sales rep responsible for pulling in as much revenue as two dozen people from other departments. When that person got fed up with it and quit, the bosses pulled me aside and said "We're not hiring a replacement. We've decided that you are going to do all the work yourself and no, we're not adjusting your revenue goals to reflect the loss of four other people. We're going to require that you do your job, their jobs and do it for $20,000 less than when you started. And if you don't like it, there's the door."

Of course i looked for other work but in 2010, there were so many unemployed people that employers were having a field day - requiring senior level experience but offering entry level wages which were still worse than what i was making with the pay cut. So for three years I ate that shiat sandwich every day, the stress landed me in the hospital twice - once with shingles which cost me the use of my eye permanantly. Finally, when things started to pick up, I asked for a raise. Not a lot, just to bring myself back to what I was making in 2008 considering i was doing the work of 5 people and actually pulling it off. Their response was this: "we hired this girl. She's agreed to work for $25K/yr (the amount of raise I asked for), she's not going to work for you, she's going to... fill in for you if you need a day off or want to take a vacation so if you could just teach her everything you know, that'd be great".

Obviously, I was being asked to train my replacement. So I started looking for work more aggressively while taking my time teaching this girl how to replace me. So I found a new job for slightly less money, but soooo much better for me and decided to use some of my "use it or lose it" vacation time and fark off for a week or so before giving my notice. So i go in on a monday to do one more round of production and give my notice at the end of the day to discover that the girl I had spent three months passing all of my 10 years of institutional knowledge to had just quit that friday since the workload was stupid crazy.

With a huge smile on my face, I go into the VP's office to give my 2 weeks' notice and they begged me to stay on a few more months to train another person. I gave them 2 weeks. They hired someone with zero sales experience 3 days before I left and I just kind of showed her where stuff was and said that she'd have to figure it out since I didn't really care.

With my departure, the company realized that they had lost every person with any institutional knowledge on how to run that department and incoming revenues plummeted. By being stingy on $20K they had essentially taken a million dollars in annual revenues that I was bringing in by myself and flushed it down the toilet.

Three months later, The Boston Phoenix went out of business for good.
2013-04-10 07:38:30 AM  
3 votes:
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint.  When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."  - Helder Camara
2013-04-10 07:32:36 AM  
3 votes:

BigBooper: Well small business in farked. Why? Because large corporations are crushing the small businesses that they can't buy. They use the legal system, they use government, they use competitive practices, both legal and illegal, that the small guy can't compete with.


It's annoying to hear corporate apologists complain about over-regulation when quite a bit of the regulation we have was designed by the big guys to make it too expensive for the smaller players in the market to be able to compete. I use to do consulting work at the headquarters of a Fortune 10 company. Every day they'd send out multiple emails to employees telling them to contact government officials to support or oppose different regulation proposals based on what would best serve the company's goals.

It was laughable when they'd use the excuse of "too much government intrusion" in emails encouraging opposition to regulation when an hour before they'd sent out an email promoting the benefits of some other bit of regulation. But with several hundred thousand employees, even if only a small percentage of them contacted legislators, it was enough to scare the law maker into voting the company's way. All of this without even bothering to donate a penny to a campaign or provide an under the table bribe.
2013-04-10 07:30:27 AM  
3 votes:

GameSprocket: Also, the companies can make you work the equivalent of three positions and when you complain they can point to the open position req and tell you that it is only "temporary". As long as they can keep it going, they get the same work done for much less money.


Also, every time someone leaves, they distribute out those positions to everyone else's jobs without corresponding pay increases.  The other option is that they try to rehire someone, but expect someone fully qualified for all those jobs.  Then when they find out no such person exists, they complain that they're trying so hard to hire someone, but there are no qualified applicants.  This, even when the person who just left would be considered far less qualified for their old position than many of the new applicants.
2013-04-10 06:58:28 AM  
3 votes:
Also, the companies can make you work the equivalent of three positions and when you complain they can point to the open position req and tell you that it is only "temporary". As long as they can keep it going, they get the same work done for much less money.
2013-04-10 06:45:37 AM  
3 votes:

randomjsa: vygramul: What were we doing in 2000?

Watching the tech bubble burst.

But the job losses that resulted from that along with the 9/11 attack in 2001 should be no excuse... All the job losses from 2001-2005 were Bush's fault. The DNC campaign ads in 2004 told me this so it must be true.

But nothing is ever Obama's fault, particularly not the economy since he took office so you can't blame him for the record high number of people on welfare or the 20-30+ year record for lowest labor participation rate. You certainly can't blame Obama for insisting come hell or high water on a tax increase at the start of the year, nor can you blame him for proposing another 700 billion in tax increases in his budget, nor can you blame him for the boondoggle known as ObamaCare which is making companies less willing to hire.


I agree - Obama is way too conservative. This country needs a real progressive, like FDR.
We need to start by raping the GOP in 2014.
2013-04-10 05:55:24 AM  
3 votes:
We need to go back to the tax rates of Reagan.  It pays companies too much to just sit on cash right now.
2013-04-10 05:24:02 AM  
3 votes:
simply...management is cowardly.
2013-04-10 04:22:16 AM  
3 votes:

Snotnose: FTFY


No, this one is 100% on the GOP. Unless the Democrats recently started screeching that "GAY RIGHTS, WOMEN'S RIGHTS, WORKERS' RIGHTS AND TAXES ARE ALL COMMUNIST NAZI SOCIALISM AND THE BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE WILL TAKE YOUR GUNS AND REPLACE AMERICA WITH SHARIA LAW" and I missed it.
2013-04-10 12:46:44 AM  
3 votes:
I'm a cpa and have a lot of small business clients. It's weird out there. Everyone is walking on egg shells. Te number one question is something along the lines, "What do you think is going to happen?" People seem to be holding on to any cash they have. Anecdotal but I've seen a bit of a down turn on the whole from 2011.
2013-04-09 09:48:52 PM  
3 votes:
Isn't it wonderful that fear will make full-time engineer-level employees accept part-time technician pay and be glad to work fifty hours a week with no benefits?
2013-04-09 08:54:05 PM  
3 votes:
Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?
2013-04-10 02:22:11 PM  
2 votes:

Aidan: The Bananadragon: We notice other trends too, not just in how people buy from us. People who take cosplay almost professionally seriously - you know the ones, full armor and contact lenses and elaborate props, the ones who go for the whole weekend so they can show off multiple outfits - started showing up at our table wearing Saturday-only badges. More and more people are checking into the hotels carrying flats of bottled water and ramen noodles (as opposed to buying con food). Friday is a slow day until about 7pm, because no one can afford to take that day off work anymore.

Give the customers money and the problem ... well I'm not gonna say the economy will fix itself. But it'll sure as crap right a lot of wrongs.

Thank you for this. I've been thinking this is what's been happening for a long time (I'm generally a one-day pass person and I... just don't go now), but I haven't seen a good confirmation of my suspicions.

I also agree. There IS money in the US economy (I really liked this video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM). But maybe JUST MAYBE if we shifted it just a LITTLE down to the rest of Americans, we'd see a real positive response. Money moving around again. But I forget; that's socialist, right? :P


For starters, if they raised the capital gains taxes to closer to that of income, it would help out.  Right now companies are making loads of money simply by shifting paper around Wall St. and getting taxed at a far lower rate than if they'd made that money by making and selling things.  If you only shift money around Wall St., you don't need to pay for manufacturing or employees or other overhead.  There's no incentive to make things.  If the poor and the middle class have no money, they can't buy things, which drops the demand for things that the rich companies aren't making, so the economy stagnates and all the money stays at the top.

Put money in the hands of the poor and middle class, and they will spend it on things, which will increase demand, which will increase employment, and the money will still float to the top.
2013-04-10 12:50:46 PM  
2 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Of course. If they couldn't sell for less than competitors, they wouldn't command so much of the market. And if they are causing lower prices for customers, why is it a problem?

Market concentration only becomes a problem when a seller has monopolistic ability to raise prices indiscriminately because there isn't any competition to undercut.


Well, it's not a problem unless you give it more than superficial thought.

The problem in this race to the bottom in terms of price means that the quality of the product suffers, as do people whose jobs depend on producing and selling the product.  And that's not to mention the end consumer, who has paid for a product that won't last and will ultimately end up paying more for multiple instances of a shiatty product than had they been able to purchase a quality product at a somewhat higher price.  Unfortunately, the market for that higher-priced, better quality item is gone since people can't afford to pay that higher price, what with their manufacturing or retail job outsourced or negated resulting in limited purchasing power.

So, yes, there are problems with allowing businesses using undercutting tactics to dominate the marketplace.
2013-04-10 11:52:03 AM  
2 votes:

Red Shirt Blues: I'm a cpa and have a lot of small business clients. It's weird out there. Everyone is walking on egg shells. Te number one question is something along the lines, "What do you think is going to happen?" People seem to be holding on to any cash they have. Anecdotal but I've seen a bit of a down turn on the whole from 2011.


A lot of people are convinced that the economy is going to collapse, and soon. I'm one of them, but not on the "soon" part so much.

We have a completely dysfunctional government thanks to the GOP that has failed to address any of the real problems posed by 2008: no significant new regulation, no attempt to counter "too big to fail," etc. What they have done is manufacture new potential economic crises by playing chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States. And they created an astroturf terrorist organization designed to scare lawmakers, especially Republicans, into never dealing with any of these problems- and replace them with an even stupider model of congressman if they try.

Frankly I'd be farking terrified if I weren't so busy trying to ensure my parents don't lose their house.
2013-04-10 11:33:43 AM  
2 votes:
I call it BS. I think employers are not hiring because either
A. They are in a position of greed and they are hoarding the cash and making the workers do two or three peoples jobs worth for one persons pay
(or bringing in the outsourcing) or
B. They are barely holding their business afloat, perhaps needing to hire 2 or 3 people they just can't afford to pay for.

It doesn't take a whole lot of thought to know which businesses are A or B.
2013-04-10 11:18:06 AM  
2 votes:
Fear based economy? Oh, subby means employers are afraid to to hire because it might cut into they extra money they save by having 1 person do the work of 3.
2013-04-10 11:00:18 AM  
2 votes:

Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.


With an attitude like that, it sounds like you're selling the wrong product in the wrong market.
Small business, indeed.
2013-04-10 10:58:40 AM  
2 votes:

Wooly Bully: MFK: Three months later, The Boston Phoenix went out of business for good.

That whole story is so horrible, I feel for you man and hope some day there is payback for those bastards.


Well. The newspaper biz is rapidly going the way of the buggy whip makers.
Even zombies know that.
In 2004 I walked away from a fairly secure gig. I just couldn't handle the amorality of the whole thing and the a-hole I would have had to become to fit in there.
2013-04-10 10:45:45 AM  
2 votes:

Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.


Pretend small business owner detected.
2013-04-10 09:25:57 AM  
2 votes:

teeny: Best bedtime story evar. It makes me smile to think of my former douchebag employer weathering that shiatstorm.


It went down in similar fashion after the dot com bubble burst. The most ruthless managers got put in charge while things sucked because they were able to squeeze as much as possible out of existing employees and would cause others to quit thus saving the employer increased unemployment insurance premiums. But when things got better, those same managers had no clue how to adjust. Most of the ones I knew from that era ended up getting kicked out or demoted. And once that happened, they were untouchable for other manager jobs in the industry so a new crop of freshly minted arseholes were required to whip people through the current economic crisis. No doubt they'll screw up the adjustment back to being human as happened with the previous group. I for one look forward to hearing about these guys only being able to find work as managers of the grounds crew at a low end public golf course.
2013-04-10 09:25:29 AM  
2 votes:

Therion: Isn't it wonderful that fear will make full-time engineer-level employees accept part-time technician pay and be glad to work fifty hours a week with no benefits?


Seriously. This kind of thing has been coming for YEARS and everyone was all, "no, it's not, what are you talking about, that's not what corporate overlords want at all." OF COURSE IT IS.
2013-04-10 09:14:39 AM  
2 votes:

Tomahawk513: FC Exile: U.S. employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years. That's in part because they seem in no hurry to fill them.

Isn't "not being in a hurry to fill them"  just another way of saying they're not hiring.

It means they want the perfect candidate.


It means they don't want to pay what the job is worth.
2013-04-10 08:58:23 AM  
2 votes:

o5iiawah: Obama's policies are almost identical to FDR.  To suggest he's a conservative means you should probably ask for your money back from whatever institution provided you with an education.


i.imgur.com
How, in the name of Cthulu, are Obama's policies similar in ANY way, shape, or form to FDR's New Deal?

Please explain this one to me. Because of Obama tried to do what FDR tried to do before World War II, he would have been thrown out onto the white house lawn with torches and pitchforks.
2013-04-10 08:23:59 AM  
2 votes:

PC LOAD LETTER: o5iiawah: Obama's policies are almost identical to FDR

FDR was fairly fiscally conservative (no, really, he never intended most of his policies to be anything except a short-term measure, and his actions in 1936 underscore this). Obama is far more conservative than him. Obamacare? Forces people to buy from private corporations. Now that's something I would have expected out of a Republican.


Obama is a corporatist, just like Clinton.  We haven't had a "liberal" President since Carter and he only got in on the anti-Nixon backlash.  They're all pro-big corporation first, anything else a distant second.
2013-04-10 08:08:53 AM  
2 votes:

EngineerAU: Old enough to know better: Well of course they're keeping the labor market tight. Business owners are probably scared shiatless of what employee's are likely to do to them should workers ever gain the upper hand again in this economy.

Payback is a biatch.

Everybody is waiting for the other guy to make the first move. Employees have been overworked for the better part of a decade and they're getting worn out. What's going to happen is a few companies are going to decide that it's a good time to get a permanent increase in market share at the expense of their frightened competitors. To do that, they're going to have to hire. Those who do will be able to expand while the rest will have to play catch up.

Once the hiring frenzy gets started, things are going to get really crappy for employers as employees bitter about the way they've been treated jump ship. The company they go to probably will be just as guilty as the company they left of mistreating employees but they won't know that or won't care since it didn't happen to them (no bad mental associations everyday going to the same office). This will be really bad for employers because a huge amount of institutional knowledge will be walking out the door. If a few people leave, new people can be hired and they can learn from those still around. Large numbers of people leave and that knowledge is gone forever and will have to be rediscovered at a high cost.

Productivity numbers are likely to take a nose dive and there will be nothing employers will be able to do to get it back since employees will be able to leave if the employer tries to whip them into higher productivity. It's not a situation where you want to be the employer trying to keep up with a competitor who is taking your market share and racing away. It's unlikely these trailing companies are going to understand why this happened to them. I foresee lots of middle managers who have spent the last half a decade crapping on employees getting the boot as they' ...


Best bedtime story evar. It makes me smile to think of my former douchebag employer weathering that shiatstorm.
2013-04-10 08:08:22 AM  
2 votes:

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Clearly we need to get rid of unions, pensions, minimum wage laws, OSHA and DEP, *then* those skittish corporations will finally feel safe.


Of all the things that I think the big corporations need to see would be a solid strike that disrupts the country to its very core.
2013-04-10 07:48:40 AM  
2 votes:
no hurry? they need more time to figure out how they can pay as little as possible, offer no benefits whatsoever, and all this while increasing their bottom line. because no matter how fat the profit is, it is never enough. never ever.
2013-04-10 07:33:06 AM  
2 votes:

NewportBarGuy: and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies


Can you explain how a tax cut - which involves money never entering the treasury in the first place is responsible for debt (which involves money leaving the treasury)?

jso2897: I agree - Obama is way too conservative. This country needs a real progressive, like FDR


Obama's policies are almost identical to FDR.  To suggest he's a conservative means you should probably ask for your money back from whatever institution provided you with an education.
2013-04-10 07:21:24 AM  
2 votes:

randomjsa: You certainly can't blame Obama for insisting come hell or high water on a tax increase at the start of the year


Why are you opposed to paying the bills the GOP congress has racked up?
2013-04-10 05:29:08 AM  
2 votes:
The good news is that a sudden upswing in the economy and concurrent downswing in the unemployment rate would probably convince employers that hiring someone qualified, rather than waiting for a Nobel laureate to apply for that position, isn't such a bad thing, because soon you might have a whole bunch of competition for skilled workers.

The bad news is that austerity fever is busy kneecapping the economy such that it won't happen.
2013-04-10 05:26:58 AM  
2 votes:

rogue49: simply...management is cowardly.


bears repeating
2013-04-10 05:11:59 AM  
2 votes:

WhyteRaven74: Nothing says people have to just accept how things are, Americans have in the past moved to change things. Plenty of things that could be done now to move things along. Like get rid of all exemptions to overtime pay and mandate all hours over 40 come with overtime. Oh sure Goldman and Sachs will cry like a spoiled brat but that's hardly a downside.


Class warfare!

Corporations have a right to bilk their workers out of fair pay for their labor.
2013-04-10 04:53:17 AM  
2 votes:
Why hire employees when you can make your money through speculation instead.
2013-04-10 04:26:10 AM  
2 votes:
Quite a few of my friends have been told they wont hear anything on jobs until after tax season for places they applied to, but a lot of places are taking applications and interviewing
2013-04-10 01:26:20 AM  
2 votes:

Lando Lincoln: Therion: Isn't it wonderful that fear will make full-time engineer-level employees accept part-time technician pay and be glad to work fifty hours a week with no benefits?

THAT'S CLASS WARFARE.


No it isn't. That's the wonderful capitalist system working.

Questioning why such employees are working for lower level wages and no benefits...THAT'S class warfare
2013-04-09 09:36:54 PM  
2 votes:
Well, the government isn't threatening to shut down anything for a few more months, at least, and once the sequester does its damage and works its way through the system it looks like were poised for some real recovery once businesses aren't afraid of Congress's incompetence. We just need Congress not to do anything monumentally stupid for about 10 months. In other words: we're boned.
2013-04-12 01:39:41 PM  
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Zero sum game.


Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. If it was, there'd be no point to investing in the first place.
2013-04-11 01:00:31 AM  
1 votes:

o5iiawah: The purpose of money is to represent property, or on a more basic level, units of labor or raw goods. Money exists to give durability to perishable things. We can trade our labor in for money which then becomes our property. This money outlasts the life of what it once represented, whether its fish, bread or our own lives since we as humans are perishable.


I don't disagree with any of this. But you're neglecting that the chief function of a healthy economy is that the MONEY HAS TO MOVE!!

Right now, the MONEY IS NOT MOVING.

o5iiawah: To suggest that money is a social property and that a man who holds money is under a social imperative to do certain things with it is to say that man doesnt own his own labor


I think there's something you don't quite understand about "social property", especially of property in a complex socio-economic system that exists almost entirely to ensure the very rights and ownership of that property.

The system does not exist to give you privilege and position. Rather, your position exists to provide for the system. And if you fail in that one task, the system will take what it needs from you because it prefers to survive at your expense rather than let you profit while it suffers.

By what right do you deserve to own ANYTHING if you refuse to support the infrastructure necessary to ensure that right?

o5iiawah: Youre fixated on this hatred of the 1% and you believe what Slate or Mother Jones tells you to.


I don't read Slate or Mother Jones. And I love how you can't address my points but whine about some ad hominem bullshiat instead. Like I couldn't have come up with these things myself.

After all, you're the guy who::
thinks the Federal Reserve has destroyed 98% of the US dollar since its inception
that if you remove a tax burden, companies will magically reduce the retail price of products out of the goodness of their hearts
thinks Reagan didn't raise taxes (or that it's a lie spread by liberals)
thinks the government doesn't create jobs
thinks public education shouldn't exist
thinks social programs have never improved liberty, human rights, working conditions, wealth or prosperity
thinks OWS was astroturf by George Soros and Move-on and actually had leaders
thinks the government has nationalized student loans, healthcare, the auto industry, mortgages and banks
thinks social security should be abolished
thinks supply proceeds demand
doesn't understand Keynesian economics AT ALL
2013-04-10 07:27:40 PM  
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Actually, corporations and rich people put their money in banks,


Yes and no. You have to make a distinction about which banks you're talking about and what banking industry they're putting their money in. To wit, they are mostly NOT dropping their funds into vaults or savings accounts (where banks can then turn around and lend to small businesses. This is NOT happening). In fact, a great deal of their liquid assets are tied up in hedge funds, capital investments, stocks, bonds, and the derivatives market. While this might sound good because it improves fiscal liquidity on Wall Street, it is actually not very helpful for the economy because the money is not being spent on the sectors where it can do the most good: Production, employment, working class sectors, and general consumption of tangible goods and services.

The purpose of money is to change hands -- it's supposed to be spent. It doesn't matter who has the money so long as it keeps moving. But the money MUST move north-south. It must move from rich to poor to middle back to rich. It's like the water cycle: If it stops, everyone dies.

Right now, the money is not moving north-south, it is moving laterally -- from one rich portfolio to the other, so it stays within the coffers of the 1%. This is bad. It is not getting out into general circulation and it is not helping ANYONE.

What supply-side has created is an insulated money vortex among the upper classes where the money just keeps getting passed through various financial portfolios like playing cards, increasing the value of each and spiraling their paper-wealth up through the stratosphere. They sit on each others Boards, they invest in each others companies, they buy stocks from each other and they prop up each others holdings like sheeves of corn. It's good business if you can get into this little circle, because it doesn't interact at all with the outside world.

It has created, in effect, a culture of insulated elites so divorced from the extreme consequences of their decision-making that they are barely-affected by anything going on in the country around them. They then use their power and influence to control policy and insulate themselves further and even as standard of living grows more decrepit their lives are unaffected and they fight to ensure that things remain this way (in other words, they don't care how bad things get so long as they remain on top).

/this is like the third time I've copy-pasted this schpiel to you. Why are you so god damn stupid?
2013-04-10 06:38:37 PM  
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: The tax rates dont create jobs, nor to they really impact the deficit.

So you agree that cutting taxes was a dumb idea.

I agree. Reverse all the Bush tax cuts now!! Who's with me?


I'm with you. Repeal all the Bush tax cuts, make capital gains tax 3% under the max income tax rate with exemptions for certain rental property or small business gains, push the cap on FICA to $150k, push Medicare tax to 7.5%, repeal the ACA, enroll every American in Medicare, give Medicare the power to negotiate with drug companies and to set customary testing practice, have the Fed push inflation to 25% over ten years, set the minimum wage at $12, end corporate welfare, reinstate Glass-Steagal, and launch a public works program to create 10 million (yes, motherfarker, 10 million) engineering and construction jobs. Oh, and while you're at it, give the Consumer Protection Agency a real director and the biggest farking stick you can find.

Eventually the super-rich will find their profits evaporating because there are no longer any consumers to buy their products. Or they'll find themselves the guests of Mme. Guillotine.
MFK
2013-04-10 05:09:30 PM  
1 votes:

you have pee hands: AdmirableSnackbar: It also made sure that other stores had to sell at lower prices, driving the quality of available goods down at every retailer. DSC is ignoring the fact that in the long run the consumer pays more to repair and/or replace the cheap, poorly made product than if they could purchase the more expensive, higher quality product. The vast majority of the market stupidly only cares about up-front costs and not long-term costs (and apparently DSC sides with the morons on that point). So ultimately, as I said before, it's a race to the bottom - and I don't see how anyone could argue that that's a good thing.

WalMart also by its sheer size distorted the entire music industry.  I don't know if they still only sell radio edits or if iTunes has eaten into their market share but for a while they represented such a big chunk of all CD sales they could push studios around and have an affect on album content.

They can essentially behave in abusively monopolistic ways while selling products like CDs, paperbacks, and pickels.


Not to mention that they became the arbiters on what was "fit to sell". Got a swear word on your record? Anything remotely edgy or controversial? Forget about selling it at Walmart.

I also feel that it's worth pointing out that Walmart pays such paltry wages, that more than 50% of Walmart employees are on welfare and we, the taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart's outsized profits. (six of the top ten richest Americans are Waltons).
2013-04-10 03:05:56 PM  
1 votes:

Dog Welder: If you only shift money around Wall St., you don't need to pay for manufacturing or employees or other overhead.


That's exactly right. Businesses are incentivized to not hire people, they're incentivized to move money around Wall Street. Give companies larger tax breaks for hiring and R&D, increase capital gains, and heavily tax offshoring jobs. Also, tax companies laying people off.
2013-04-10 02:13:30 PM  
1 votes:
I've been pounding the bricks and getting lots of phone screens on jobs that have been open for months. They seem to look for any excuse to balk at hiring. All of those postings are still open, too. It's a shame because the people I've met on rare in-person interviews are overwhelmed and exhausted.

It sucks, but I may have to drop my price to get them past that hurdle. Then, while ensconced, I am going to keep looking to find a spot where I can normalize my salary again.

BTW - the only reason I have to work at all is for medical insurance. If we had Canada style health care, I'd sell my house, move to an old house with a porch in a semi-rural spot and volunteer read Dr. Seuss to the local kids at the library.
2013-04-10 01:59:53 PM  
1 votes:

groppet: FuturePastNow: I wonder how many jobs are unfilled because the terms offered are downright insulting.

Ive been offered a few jobs and the last time I made that kind of money I was in high school. $8.30 an hour to run a S&R department. Jeezus even my company isnt that cheap.


There was a good article on job growth in TX from when Perry was eh front-runner and the majority were min wage or piece-wage jobs while at the same time TX lead the US in employed people with no benefits.
MFK
2013-04-10 12:28:55 PM  
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Of course. If they couldn't sell for less than competitors, they wouldn't command so much of the market. And if they are causing lower prices for customers, why is it a problem?

Market concentration only becomes a problem when a seller has monopolistic ability to raise prices indiscriminately because there isn't any competition to undercut.


What if a company lowers its prices artificially to put its competition out of business? Walmart for example, caused a lot of record stores to go out of business because they would use CDs as loss leaders, selling them for $9 when other merchants were selling for $12.

They were able to absorb those "losses" by paying lower wages and paying their vendors less. How is any of this good for anybody besides Walmart?
2013-04-10 12:18:14 PM  
1 votes:

FuturePastNow: I wonder how many jobs are unfilled because the terms offered are downright insulting.


Ive been offered a few jobs and the last time I made that kind of money I was in high school. $8.30 an hour to run a S&R department. Jeezus even my company isnt that cheap.
2013-04-10 11:59:41 AM  
1 votes:

Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.


And the imaginary small business owners I mentioned earlier have arrived.
2013-04-10 11:33:19 AM  
1 votes:

Tomahawk513: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Tomahawk513: FC Exile: U.S. employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years. That's in part because they seem in no hurry to fill them.

Isn't "not being in a hurry to fill them"  just another way of saying they're not hiring.

It means they want the perfect candidate.

It means they don't want to pay what the job is worth.

Also very true.  No, I will not fix your computers for $11 / hour.


OMG!
Sounds like a job offer that I received from some NJ company a few months ago.
/caller sounded like he was not from the US
//never replied to the email that was sent --- after looking at the wage
///slashies come in threes
2013-04-10 11:16:39 AM  
1 votes:

MFK: X-boxershorts: Lawyers With Nukes: I swear, it's like you farksters live in a cartoon or something.

"Evil rich...(slurp)...gimme jerb...(herp)...I'll kill you and take your stuff...please hire me...(derp)"

Want to understand what's going on? Go out and start a small business. Small business owners are hurting bad and dont know what the future will bring. Meanwhile the applicants either suck, or have a sucky attitude.

Well, Gee...It's too bad that small business' target demographic for sales is both, broke and overworked.
No money and no time.

/So..vote republican?

You know what small business needs to thrive? Customers.
Not tax breaks, not fewer regulations, but customers.

Unfortunately, nobody is getting paid enough to support a small business economy and the lack of taxes and regulations are making it easy for companies like big boxes to eat everyone's lunch, but even those guys are hurting because people are using the brick and mortar stores as "showrooms" and then they turn around and buy the same products from Amazon.com for $5 less because they don't have the overhead so they can undercut.

We've convinced ourselves that if a company grows so massive that they control everything it's because they are "successful" and not at all because they have bought politicians to rig the game for them. 100 years ago, we all knew monopolies were bad and took steps to prevent that sort of game rigging. 100 years later, we are showing that we have learned exactly nothing.


How exactly did Amazon com "rig" the game 15 years ago when some U-W PERL programmers sat down and wrote a shopping cart engine from scratch?

I'm not saying Amazon isn't actively in the "bribe local governments" game now, particularly where their picking and shipping orgs are concerned.

But the original business was 100% start up with not all that much venture capital either.

They beat Best Buy, Wal-Mart and everyone else to the punch with regard to online sales, it even took them 5 or 6 years to show a profit, but once they worked out the bugs in their original shipping/fulfillment model look out, the worlds greatest catalog company.

Now you get to hate them. But for 10 yrs at least, they were every bit just a clever company solving problems and being rewarded for it.
2013-04-10 10:39:55 AM  
1 votes:

MFK: Three months later, The Boston Phoenix went out of business for good.


That whole story is so horrible, I feel for you man and hope some day there is payback for those bastards.
2013-04-10 10:10:01 AM  
1 votes:

verbaltoxin: FC Exile: U.S. employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years. That's in part because they seem in no hurry to fill them.

Isn't "not being in a hurry to fill them"  just another way of saying they're not hiring.

It depends on the industry too. Fark skews too heavily towards IT and pretend small business owners. In defense, this time of year they start bidding on next fiscal year's contract, and at the same time they start headhunting and resume-gathering. The actual hiring doesn't begin until around the summer. What's f*cking everything up is the sequester though, because companies are waiting for something to happen. Naturally they are sitting on unfilled billets or pussy-footing around with determining what they'll need next year. It's a giant pain in the ass, and I'll probably be working at the local casino come fall because of it.


So glad I didn't take that job in DC two years ago. Big ugly corrupt town full of military/governmenty politics, so unlike most of the west coast start up and tech company world.
2013-04-10 10:02:46 AM  
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: BunkyBrewman: NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?

Spend on credit seems to have worked as well, hasn't it?

Please enlighten us... WHAT exactly worked before?

austerity has a brilliant track record, then?



Austerity has a perfect record.

It's never worked.
2013-04-10 09:21:00 AM  
1 votes:

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Tomahawk513: FC Exile: U.S. employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years. That's in part because they seem in no hurry to fill them.

Isn't "not being in a hurry to fill them"  just another way of saying they're not hiring.

It means they want the perfect candidate.

It means they don't want to pay what the job is worth.


Also very true.  No, I will not fix your computers for $11 / hour.
2013-04-10 09:17:00 AM  
1 votes:

FC Exile: U.S. employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years. That's in part because they seem in no hurry to fill them.

Isn't "not being in a hurry to fill them"  just another way of saying they're not hiring.


It depends on the industry too. Fark skews too heavily towards IT and pretend small business owners. In defense, this time of year they start bidding on next fiscal year's contract, and at the same time they start headhunting and resume-gathering. The actual hiring doesn't begin until around the summer. What's f*cking everything up is the sequester though, because companies are waiting for something to happen. Naturally they are sitting on unfilled billets or pussy-footing around with determining what they'll need next year. It's a giant pain in the ass, and I'll probably be working at the local casino come fall because of it.
2013-04-10 08:36:10 AM  
1 votes:
I wonder how many jobs are unfilled because the terms offered are downright insulting.
2013-04-10 08:29:31 AM  
1 votes:

Mike_LowELL: Why would I hire more workers at a time when Taxbongo has already collected two of the relics and only needs the Ivory Jackal to achieve global domination?


I KNEW Obama was the Jacquio in disguise!

/obscure?
2013-04-10 08:25:21 AM  
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Obama's policies are almost identical to FDR. To suggest he's a conservative means you should probably ask for your money back from whatever institution provided you with an education.


images.encyclopediadramatica.se
2013-04-10 08:24:31 AM  
1 votes:

PC LOAD LETTER: Obama is far more conservative than him. Obamacare? Forces people to buy from private corporations. Now that's something I would have expected out of a Republican.


Well yeah, they all loved it until a black guy pitched it. They can't call him their preferred slur anymore, so they went with socialist. Never mind that it doesn't make any sense.
2013-04-10 08:08:18 AM  
1 votes:
Clearly, there aren't enough tech workers in America.

There are job openings, there's high unemployment, but we need more h1b visas ?????
2013-04-10 08:04:40 AM  
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Obama's policies are almost identical to FDR


FDR was fairly fiscally conservative (no, really, he never intended most of his policies to be anything except a short-term measure, and his actions in 1936 underscore this). Obama is far more conservative than him. Obamacare? Forces people to buy from private corporations. Now that's something I would have expected out of a Republican.
2013-04-10 07:41:11 AM  
1 votes:

Mike_LowELL: Why would I hire more workers at a time when Taxbongo has already collected two of the relics and only needs the Ivory Jackal to achieve global domination?


If you were a chocolate bunny I would eat your ears
2013-04-10 07:24:08 AM  
1 votes:

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Clearly we need to get rid of unions, pensions, minimum wage laws, OSHA and DEP, *then* those skittish corporations will finally feel safe.


Sorry, EPA, not DEP. DEP is Pennsylvania only. But get rid of them, too, just to be safe. The gas drillers will just police themselves like those noted environmentalists that ran the coal industry 100 years ago did.
2013-04-10 07:22:34 AM  
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: BunkyBrewman: NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?

Spend on credit seems to have worked as well, hasn't it?

Please enlighten us... WHAT exactly worked before?

austerity has a brilliant track record, then?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321

"... President Harding's  economic policies during the 1920-21 recession, combined with a coordinated aggressive policy of rapid government downsizing, had a direct influence (mostly through intentional non-influence) on the rapid and widespread private-sector recovery."
2013-04-10 06:21:27 AM  
1 votes:

vygramul: What were we doing in 2000?


Watching the tech bubble burst.

But the job losses that resulted from that along with the 9/11 attack in 2001 should be no excuse... All the job losses from 2001-2005 were Bush's fault. The DNC campaign ads in 2004 told me this so it must be true.

But nothing is ever Obama's fault, particularly not the economy since he took office so you can't blame him for the record high number of people on welfare or the 20-30+ year record for lowest labor participation rate. You certainly can't blame Obama for insisting come hell or high water on a tax increase at the start of the year, nor can you blame him for proposing another 700 billion in tax increases in his budget, nor can you blame him for the boondoggle known as ObamaCare which is making companies less willing to hire.
2013-04-10 05:43:55 AM  
1 votes:
Just want to double-check:

We aren't informing people of these job openings by flinging applications at them while they protest outside our banks, rights?

/live and learn, I guess
2013-04-10 05:19:02 AM  
1 votes:

impaler: Snotnose: 2wolves: If anyone knows fear mongering it's today's GOP politicians.

FTFY

Both sides are badbought!

2013-04-10 02:42:22 AM  
1 votes:

Snotnose: 2wolves: If anyone knows fear mongering it's today's GOP politicians.

FTFY


Both sides are bad!
2013-04-10 02:26:06 AM  
1 votes:

2wolves: If anyone knows fear mongering it's today's GOP politicians.


FTFY
2013-04-10 01:19:30 AM  
1 votes:
Obama should wave his magic wand and fix everything.
2013-04-10 12:58:22 AM  
1 votes:
Why would I hire more workers at a time when Taxbongo has already collected two of the relics and only needs the Ivory Jackal to achieve global domination?
2013-04-10 12:38:18 AM  
1 votes:

jaylectricity: If we're spending so much on our military, why do we have to pay our debts?


We don't. It's mostly a courtesy.
2013-04-09 10:45:18 PM  
1 votes:

BunkyBrewman: NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?

Spend on credit seems to have worked as well, hasn't it?

Please enlighten us... WHAT exactly worked before?


What were we doing in 2000?
2013-04-09 10:31:24 PM  
1 votes:

NewportBarGuy: Tax and spend seems to have worked and we've never incurred as much debt as with tax CUT policies. Why don't we go back to what worked before?


Spend on credit seems to have worked as well, hasn't it?

Please enlighten us... WHAT exactly worked before?
2013-04-09 10:15:55 PM  
1 votes:
If anyone knows fear mongering it's today's GOP.
2013-04-09 09:04:22 PM  
1 votes:

clancifer: Because black and brown poor people have gay marriages and abortions.


I hear tell that they also abscond with live lobsters on the first of the month with their food stamps. How the f*ck am I supposed to host a proper luncheon with fake lobster meet? Or, lubetser, as they term it.

These people need to be liquidated.
2013-04-09 09:02:16 PM  
1 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 91 of 91 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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