Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

>
> Well, we are in disagreement. The guy with more money has that much
> more options. When we're talking millions to billions, its infinitely
> more options.
>
Yes, more money means more options but what difference does it make if
you are unwilling to take advantage of the few options you have?

> > We all have choices but few
> > of us really take advantage of those choices.
>
> You use the word choice as if behind every choice is a viable job. In
> fact, the only thing behind every choice is nothing more than a
> strategy for a job-hunting operation. Like the hunter-gatherer days,
> if there was no saber-toothed tiger to bring down that day, nobody ate
> dinner that night.
>

Right, if there was no tiger that day nobody ate tiger meat and you
had to settle for roots.  So what do you do the next day, sit in the
cave and continue to eat roots because you assume there won't be a
tiger today?

> =A0 It is far easier for
>
> > most to head to the local ice house for a cold beer than to attend
> > cl***** at the local Jr. College.
>
> Sure, I agree that there are a lot of lazy, unresourceful people
> around.
>
>
> > > Yeah, but here is my gripe: the executives get a better "safety net"
> > > and have a better deal in general than the underlings and the
> > > underlings have zero control over anything. Cor****ations are,
> > > basically, dictator****ps with a guy basically no different than
> > > _kings_ or emperors in earlier history except that the wars are
> > > economic rather than military.
>
> > I agree with you completely on the golden parachute bull **** but that
> > is really making a super issue out of the tip of the tip of the
> > iceburg. =A0The problems in all cor****ate environments isn't just with
> > the top but from every level top to bottom. =A0The CEO's are simply
the
> > most visible element but many of the decisions that most effect the
> > rank and file workers are made at various levels throughout the
> > organization often without the knowledge of the CEO's. =A0 =A0The
decisi=
on
> > to layoff and outsource where I was working was made by a mid-level
> > manager.
>
> Yeah, but its all part of the same problem:too much of your life is
> NOT under YOUR control. =A0AND, its YOU that is inconvenienced by the
> unemployment dumped on your head not because you did anything wrong.
>

Yes, I was inconvenienced by the unemployment, especially since I did
not qualify for any unemployment benefits but when I look back at some
of my own decisions I realized that I set myself up for much of what
happened.  I was probably more prepared than most but not nearly as
prepared as I should have been.

> > Took a tem****ary position as a Project Manager that led to a position
> > as Senior Billing Analyst. =A0Both were total departures from my Lead
> > Systems Designer position that I had been working for years. =A0Found
> > that the IT field had totally collapsed following the Y2K and dot.com
> > bust. =A0I could complain that I ran into a lot of age discrimination
as=

> > well but the reality was that I had ridden my experience for several
> > years instead of staying on top of current trends.
>
> > The worst part of being out of work in your late 50's or early 60's is
> > that your network of associates is mostly retired or worse, dead.
>
> Yes, true, but I'll go beyond that. Worst part is having a hundred
> other applications for that one job and ten of those guys are as good
> as you, or better, and they are younger, too.
>

How true.

> =A0The
>
> > second worst part is that you will find yourself interviewing with
> > people half your age who don't want to hire you because they are
> > insecure having someone older and more experienced working for them.
>
> So, they do hire the younger guys for a second reason: they can be
> paid less than you.
>

Again true.

> > My only choice was to fully exploit my network of former clients and
> > associates with an open attitude and promote my business experience as
> > well as my IT experience. =A0I got the position because I was willing
to=

> > use my experience, to learn and most im****tant, I was willing to take
> > responsibility.
>
> But it does not work for everyone.
>

And it didn't work for me for over 18 months.


>
> > Too many of them think that the only thing they had to do was get that
> > degree and everyone would just automatically beat a path to their
> > door. =A0Its not what you have but what you do with it.
>
> Not altogether. If you have ten guys around a fi****ng pond with five
> fish in it, then five guys (maybe more) are going to have no dinner
> that night).
>

You can take the best bait in the world to the lake but if you don't
bait the damn hook and throw it into the water you aren't going to
catch a damn thing.

> > > You really have no answer, do you, for the fact that when the number
> > > of applicants exceed the number of jobs that there will be real
losers=

> > > and not because they want to be losers. And, this is why we are
seeing=

> > > a lot of programmer/IT guys in the USA ending up bagging groceries
at
> > > Walmart for $8/hour.
>
> > If those programmer/IT guys were really smart enough to be good at
> > their jobs, they have the same smarts to learn something new.
>
> I have to ask WHY is it OK for CEOs to _force_ innocent underlings to
> learn something new when, at least up to the time they were laid off,
> they were working and getting paid what they were due, and the CEOs
> did not have to do anything except put their signature on a memorandum
> (which does not require any learning or time or money or anything).
>

That CEO is really no different from anyone else.  They have a product
(themselves) to market.  They must market that product to their
customer and hope the customer will buy.  If the product is faulty or
doesn't meet the need of the customer, they are out.  Each of us has a
product to sell to our employer.  If our product is not valuable
enough to our employer for them to continue to buy it, we must either
improve the product or find another.

> And, the other part of the question is WHY do we just forget the
> underlings, among which there will be a failure rate in getting a job
> in alternative training, and that will be because there are less jobs
> in the new field and more guys chasing those jobs, so the losers will
> be greater than before.
>
You said you had your own company and so did I for over 30 years.  Did
you hire people that you didn't need or couldn't afford just to have
more employees?  Would you maintain any employee just because they
needed a job even though they could no longer provide a service to
your company?

> So, the CEOs get the guarantees (golden parachutes, bonuses, packages)
> and the underlings get the shaft. Where is the justice in that?
>
I agree, there is no justice in that but as I said before that is
really just the tip of the tip of a very large iceburg.


> > > And, that is also an elitist view. You look at the vast majority of
> > > people anywhere in the world who are born in poverty and ignorance
and=

> > > all of the demographic studies will show that your _chances_ of
> > > getting out of that are near zero, or very low. Most of the kids
that
> > > really do have a _chance_ are the ones coming out of typically
middle
> > > class backgrounds or above.
>
> > I am not talking about those people, they don't have the options that
> > we have and that is clear.
>
> Well, then, are they just going to be victims and you have no answers
> for them?
>
> =A0 What is also clear is that they are
>
> > starting to climb the ecnomic ladder and as they do, they are
> > threatening those of us who chose to climb up a few rungs on the
> > ladder and then rest for the remainder of our life.
>
> And, I'm asking why is it that we have a mindset that says "OK, some
> are going to be winners (and everything is OK) and some are going to
> be losers (and we're going to not talk about them at all, or care
> about what happened to them)?
>

I care very much and have always been willing to help anyone who is
willing to take the first step.

> Its the same moral problem as in wars over all of history: the guys
> with the swords kill the guys without, and we don't ask whether this
> is good or bad, and even more, don't even talk about whether it might
> be good to prevent this from happening in the future.
>
> Swords? How about just plain crooks and criminals that take guns into
> banks and shoot the tellers and customers and take the money?
>
> > > =A0Most of us would still be crawling on our hands
>
> > > > and knees if we had taken the same attitude when learning to walk.
>
> > > The fact of the matter is that out of a clutch of young birds just
out=

> > > of the egg, a few will fall out of the nest before they learn to
fly,
> > > and a few of those will fall into the mouths of predators waiting on
> > > the ground for them with their mouths open.
>
> > If not for that, the predators would starve. =A0Its called natural
> > selection.
>
> So, then, its OK with you if people get kicked into the sewer,
> involuntarily, and its OK if predators live by this method? =A0Or, did
> you just mean to say "**** happens and so what?"
>

**** Happens!  Its a fact of life.  That by no means is acceptance of
the "getting kicked into the sewer involuntarily" actions.

> > > > Why is it that as adults we suddenly believe that we can no longer
> > > > learn something new?
>
> > > It takes more than ability to learn something new to actually learn
> > > something new.-
>
> > You are right about that, it takes a willing attitude as well. =A0The
> > real problem is that most of us really don't want to be forced to
> > learn something new.
>
> Fine, I see two aspects of this: Yes, people need to be willing to
> learn something new, but, No, why should a bunch of people (the
> underlings) be forced to learn something new by a few (CEOs) simply
> because the net result might be to make a few (CEOs and stockholders)
> richer and a bunch of guye (the underlings) poorer?

Again with the CEO's.  I am sorry, I hate most of the big Cor****ate
CEO's too but there really is more to it than that.  We are all upset
about the offshoring of "our" jobs to people in China and India but
aren't we trying to do the same to those people that the CEO's are
doing to us?  We are in competition with those people and right now
they are willing to do exactly what we do but for less money.  If we
can't compete is it fair or right to keep them in poverty by any means
possible just so we can continue with our lifestyle?