Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

Honestly, at this point I would be fine with a job cleaning floors and windows for 7 or 8 dollars an hour. Being a teenager, that's the majority of what I'm qualified for. I can't get those jobs, either, because they're looking for someone with more experience.

As a store clerk, I was making $7.25/hour with no experience requirement.  (I distinctly remember those $.25 raises for some reason.)  This was about ~1996-1999 and it wasn't Wal-Mart (I don't know what they pay, but $7.25 is still minimum wage(?))  There wasn't a janitorial requirement to the job.  It was mainly helping customers, "facing" stock, and generally goofing off with the intercom system in the store.  If 7-8 bucks an hour is your goal, that may still be a viable option.  I wouldn't tell someone not to take those jobs.  They are a great learning experience dealing with people and merchandise/systems and it's a very relaxed set of requirements.  I wouldn't recommend making a life goal out of it though.  I had to share an apartment with 2-3 other people to have enough money to have some fun on the weekends, but it was one of the most memorable/fun times of my life.

[freeformschooler]

It's always something, though. If it's not qualifications, it's experience. If it's not experience, it's a filled position. If it's not a filled position, someone else was better suited to the position, so they chose that person.

But I'll get something eventually.

[palsch]

It's when having a job becomes a requirement to get a job that there are real problems.

[Nadaka]

Honestly, at this point I would be fine with a job cleaning floors and windows for 7 or 8 dollars an hour. Being a teenager, that's the majority of what I'm qualified for. I can't get those jobs, either, because they're looking for someone with more experience.

As a store clerk, I was making $7.25/hour with no experience requirement.  (I distinctly remember those $.25 raises for some reason.)  This was about ~1996-1999 and it wasn't Wal-Mart (I don't know what they pay, but $7.25 is still minimum wage(?))  There wasn't a janitorial requirement to the job.  It was mainly helping customers, "facing" stock, and generally goofing off with the intercom system in the store.  If 7-8 bucks an hour is your goal, that may still be a viable option.  I wouldn't tell someone not to take those jobs.  They are a great learning experience dealing with people and merchandise/systems and it's a very relaxed set of requirements.  I wouldn't recommend making a life goal out of it though.  I had to share an apartment with 2-3 other people to have enough money to have some fun on the weekends, but it was one of the most memorable/fun times of my life.

Convenience store clerk was my junior college job. I enjoyed it, but you need at least 3 of those incomes combined to live reasonably well.

[MonkeyHead]

I have only applied formally for one professional position ever. Granted, before holding my current post there were a number of more informal jobs (shop assistant, bar work, and a number of jobs within my uni department involving things from driving to research assistant to minor tv work). When applying, 3 people made it to the final stage: Me, fresh out of undergrad work, and 2 way more experienced Physicists. I am under no illusions as to why they chose me...

1: I was far cheaper as a newbie to the game. They could offer me a basic set of terms and i would take it. The other two cost about twice as much as me.

2: Personality. I am a massive extrovert. Despite it sounding arrogant, I know how to stand out in a crowd as interesting, different or unique. I knew I could come across as far more employable than my rivals. Granted, this was a trick I learnt after being looked over for a minor job in my youth folowing some dubious hiring policies by a pet store, but thats a story more related to sexism.

3: Possibly specific to my field, all 3 applicants were observed delivering a tutorial session to a group of students with minimal prep on a field chosen by the application panel. Mine was a poor session on a topic I detest (Thermodynamics - ugh), and more like a lecture. In the formal final interview, I was aksed how I felt it went. I was honest, and admitted it was crap and suggested how I would have improved it if I had to deliver the same thing over again, echoing the feedback given to the panel by the students. This, above and beyond the other 2, was apparently the clincher. An awareness of how to be more effective. The lesson I took from that was "dont bother bullshitting, as no-one is great at everything - honestly indentify your weaknesses and overcome them"...

Of course, chances are this wont help you at all, as most employers have a pretty good idea of what sort of person they want to employ before anyone has applied,  and will go with someone who gives a first impresson matching that image... or you could do what I did recently and employ someone you trained yourself (technically, poach from a competitor, but they will get over it with time) just to make your live one hell of a load easier.

[SalmonGod]

2. People have been lied to in college. The stereotype of current young'uns getting out of college and expecting the world at their feet is... widespread to say the least.

I think it's a product of rapid change between generations, too.  My dad finished his Masters in the mid-80s and didn't even have to search.  Employers called him.  His education also didn't cost much.  My parents were very poor back then, but they were still able to come out ahead with my dad doing some TA work and my mom dropping out to raise me and work at McDonalds, without any family support or scholarships.

His generation's kids have now been graduating for the last few years, and finding their degrees that they struggled and paid many times as much to obtain are near worthless.

[Nadaka]

Vector occasionally mentions "ableism" as an issue. I'm here to post another positive football story.

http://www.denverpost.com/preps/ci_19179910

[Vector]

Vector occasionally mentions "ableism" as an issue. I'm here to post another positive football story.

http://www.denverpost.com/preps/ci_19179910

;_________________________;

I'll admit that it's easy to make me cry, but I appreciate your handing it off to us.  Thank you.

[Truean]

Yeah, ableism really is a problem coming in a lot of crappy flavors.

A.) "You don't look hurt." Lots of people are but do not look, injured. I know a woman with a ligament disease; she can only stand painfully for about 30 minutes. Other than that, she uses a motorized scooter or canes/walker. People will see her standing/walking and think "Aha, I've caught you. You're not disabled at all." I assure you the MRI and physicians say otherwise....

B.) "You're not that hurt." /"Suck it up." It's amazing how much we lack compassion. We don't care that people have broken bones or other various ailments. We cut them no slack.

C.) "Not my problem." This gets complex and sometimes it isn't, but other times it is. Then there are those times when, though the law says it is someone's problem, the real world makes that impossible. Handicap parking in condominiums is a prime example with four prime causes. First, those places were often built when a family had one car, now multiple cars seem to be far more normal (initial parking shortage). Second, due to dense construction/occupancy there literally might not be room to put in more parking. Third, with an aging population that frankly failed to plan for retirement on average, we now have people who need assisted living trying to make condos into that.... Therefore, you end up having a lot of disabled individuals demanding a greater share of the parking be handicapped parking.... This makes the parking shortage that much worse. Finally, a condo association is not made up of a wealthy landlord, but only those individuals who own the condos.... There isn't a lot of money to work with to make improvements anyhow. Thus, "reasonable accommodations, become difficult if not impossible to implement.

Basically we can recognize people's limitations and work with them or not. If we don't, then we're constructively exiling people from participation in society for something they have no control over. Moreover, financing this is increasingly difficult with a public who would rather a billionaire have another yacht than raise taxes.... At some point, adding parking spaces (where there is even room) costs money and no one seems to want to pay for it.

Sometimes disabled people are incredibly talented. Steven Hawking, Howard Hughes, were. Hell, Presidents FDR, and JFK had serious injuries. ( JKFs were partially from military service...). And I'm sorry but for all this talk about the sanctity of life, but only when its politically convenient, we don't seem to act on that, especially when there's money involved.... What percentage of bankruptcies are due to medical bills again?

>60%....
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH

We are a cruel bunch of bastards....

[Truean]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Oil-rises-near-94-as-traders-apf-2703593361.html?x=0

Oil demand is sluggish (down) and supply is up, but they're hoping Europe will pull it together in the debt deals.... A.) That is completely uncertain. B.) So what? C.) Why not pay attention to the actual numbers we have now....

"The American Petroleum Institute said late Tuesday that crude inventories rose 2.7 million barrels last week while analysts surveyed by Platts, the energy information arm of McGraw-Hill Cos., had predicted an increase of 200,000 barrels.

Inventories of gasoline added 153,000 barrels last week while distillates dropped 1.8 million barrels, the API said."

So much for "supply and demand."

[shadenight123]

you know, it might seem heartless to say, but since i just entered the conversation with my brother two days ago (concerning the state and why it has to be a "public debt" and not a (my idea) "a public credit") we ended up on the subject of "bringers of handicap".
the conversation went like this:
"why should the state be in debt, and the people in credit? i mean, wouldn't the opposite be better? the people are always indebted to the state, and the state is always in credit to the people. So, the people buy things indebting themselves with the farmers, the shops, and so on, and the states is the one with the money who loans it out to have things payed, and he gets payed back through the amount of work people do. You're a a farmer, you get "farmer loans/tickets" with them you can choose what to do, you can either buy "farming supplies" or utensils, or "food" if you're a CEO and have no need for farming utensils, you spend double or triple "ceo tickets" to buy farming utensil, because you don't need it, it's a surplus, and you must pay dearly to have it. while you could buy a ferrari with just "one ceo ticket"
i know the chat seems mad, and certainly it is, now that i read it again, but it's necessary to reach the point.
So my brother answered:
"no, because the law of *strange name* dictates that the state is to be considered the one in debt, because it should indebt itself to make life better for the masses, and to always search for the masses benefit, even when against his own"
"but then it's always in loss"
"well, it's the public debt, the state spends money for many things, like salary, handicapped benefits like free weelchairs (he was being simplicistic) help in house for the elderly, free sanitary care (i AM italian. even though this is changing thank to the nice democracy we have here) and the like"
"why does it do that?"
"well, think you are giving birth to a mentally handicapped person. The state tells you he will pay for a little of the expenses you are going to have to do for growing him up, in exchange, you grow him up, when he grows up, maybe he's retardness isn't that big, and he can work, and take a job, and earn money, which then flows back in taxes, and in the economy. so the state earns back the 1000 euros it has spent in having you keeping it, furthermore, you can't just throw them out of the windows"
"and in the case of severe handicap? i mean, there are cases where there's nothing they could do except being held by hand everytime"
"that's the risk, and the reason the states release bonds, and similar, you give him 1000 euros he will in 5 years give you back 1200 euros"
"but it's a LOSS again in 5 years"
"but in 5 years, the inflaction has grown, maybe, and so it's the same or even less. OR taxes increase, or there are mentally handicapped people who started working and make tax material"
"or not, and the debt is still there and increasing"
"that's why the state makes a fuss of it and makes cut."
"so in the end, we should just remove the people from the state?"
"the state of it's own HAS NO PEOPLE. the state, the government, the govern is composed of A THOUGHT: the benefit of every person living under it."
"except when there's to decrease the salaries of the government officers"
"yes, if you like to say it like that, yes"

[Aqizzar]

So much for "supply and demand."

I've noticed for years, and I tell everyone I talk to and they notice it too.  Any time there is news of financial or political or environmental or industrial uncertainty, of any kind anywhere in the world, it is cause for oil prices and by extension gas prices to rise.  The one and only event I have seen in my entire life that coincided with gas prices going down (and like a stone) was the election of a Democrat president.  It is always a good time for oil to be more expensive, and gas to be more expensive, except for the six months or so after an election where oil companies feel like they might be called into a Congressional hearing for price gouging.  There is no other downward pressure on gas prices.

[Rose]

and yet you guys still get gas prices two thirds of what we get.

[Leafsnail]

Is it really surprising that something with an ultimately limited supply and almost unchangable demand keeps rising in price?

[MonkeyHead]

I will admit to getting annoyed at people in the US complaining about how much they pay for petrol, when I consider how much it costs mainly due to tax/duty being slapped on it in the UK. £1.45 a litre at the moment. Thats around $2.35 per litre, with there being 3.8l per gallon...

How many US citizens would be willing to pay around 9 dollars per gallon? As thats what your pals in the other bits of the western world are doing.