All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > OT- North Carolina and Duke in a mess
10/22/2012 11:17 AM
Posted by bistiza on 10/20/2012 5:54:00 PM (view original):
It's BS to give jobs to people like that with the player's mom. I'm so sick of people getting jobs they don't deserve because they know someone.
Welcome to Earth.
10/22/2012 11:51 AM
Posted by ryrun on 10/22/2012 11:08:00 AM (view original):
How is today's education/training of little value?  I don't agree with that at all.  

I'm a developer and we're always sending people off for training, and it is unquestionably valuable to our department/company.  Be it a new technology like iOS/droid development a while back or windows 8 development lately, to say that there is little value in that is preposterous to me - it is absolutely necessary for us to keep up and stay relevant.  My wife is a nurse and, again, they are sent to training to learn new methods and practices for their various responsibilities... If you were hospitalized, would you want the nurse who is still performing his/her job the same way for the past fifteen years or the one who has adapted to new methodologies learned in training over that time?  Do you realize they used to give pregnant women a "whiff" of ether (seriously, that was the measurement, a whiff) to deal with the pain?

And team chemistry is a large factor in our hiring decisions as well since a lot of our projects are team oriented.  I might be working on a front end while someone else is working on a service layer and someone else is working on a data layer while we are all communicating with our analysts, then eventually bringing all of those components together.  If we can't/don't have effective communication, then problems will arise.  We try to weed that stuff out early in the interview process based on past experiences - it's only logical.
Good thread run way off topic to be sure but I meant education/training pre-employment.  You are sending people off to training, meaning that you as an employer train the individual.  Same with your wife.  If you valued education/training that people came to an interview with at such a high level, there wouldn't be a need for continuing ed or training.  But since industries are always changing, as you point out, a person needs and receives their most  important training after hire or while doing the job.  I would hope you would agree we're making the same point.

I also completely understand that team chemistry is important but if you can't/don't have effective communication, that is most likely an issue with more than one person.  My point would be that too often sacrifices are made in talent to make the workplace more comfortable, and that is not the attitude of a winner or what made this country great.  Imagine Einstein interviewing for a job at your company-- would he get it?
10/22/2012 11:59 AM
Bis-  I don't think I have as negative a view on baby boomers as individuals as you and would offer many did "what they were supposed to" as far as go to work, support their family and save for retirement.  I just think many were distracted by shiny toys and arena games to what actually was happening.  Many still don't realize that their wealth came from and resulted in the situation we're currently facing.  I also think most baby boombers top priority is "leaving something for their children"-- The problem is misunderstanding about what "leaving something for their children" really should mean?
10/22/2012 1:20 PM

tbird,

I think a lot of baby boomers (and others, to be fair) have nice SENTIMENTS about things that are akin to "leaving something for their children" and "doing what they're supposed to do", but they don't actually care about anyone but themselves.

If you suggest to any person over the age of about 50 that they will be able to retire and use government programs as a part of that but younger people won't be able to do the same, they almost always have some version of the same basic response: They don't care. As long as they get what they want, it doesn't matter what happens to younger people - they can fend for themselves when the time comes.

Based on everything I've seen from credible sources plus my own financial analysis, it is quite possible the only way I'll ever get to retire (and actually be able to afford to live when I do) is if I manage to win the lottery, because there won't be enough social security, medicare, and other programs to go around by the time that happens - and that's even if they still exist at all.

I'm very cynical as a result. I view retired people or those who are bragging that they are newly retired or soon will be as the same as people who collect welfare checks and other help when they don't need it. I think the older folks now should keep working more so they don't cause us as much damage later, but I have a feeling the overwhelming response to any such suggestion would be "I'll do what I want" because they just don't care about anyone but themselves.

10/22/2012 1:26 PM
I'll retire when they pry this job from my cold, dead hands.
10/22/2012 1:40 PM
Posted by bistiza on 10/22/2012 1:20:00 PM (view original):

tbird,

I think a lot of baby boomers (and others, to be fair) have nice SENTIMENTS about things that are akin to "leaving something for their children" and "doing what they're supposed to do", but they don't actually care about anyone but themselves.

If you suggest to any person over the age of about 50 that they will be able to retire and use government programs as a part of that but younger people won't be able to do the same, they almost always have some version of the same basic response: They don't care. As long as they get what they want, it doesn't matter what happens to younger people - they can fend for themselves when the time comes.

Based on everything I've seen from credible sources plus my own financial analysis, it is quite possible the only way I'll ever get to retire (and actually be able to afford to live when I do) is if I manage to win the lottery, because there won't be enough social security, medicare, and other programs to go around by the time that happens - and that's even if they still exist at all.

I'm very cynical as a result. I view retired people or those who are bragging that they are newly retired or soon will be as the same as people who collect welfare checks and other help when they don't need it. I think the older folks now should keep working more so they don't cause us as much damage later, but I have a feeling the overwhelming response to any such suggestion would be "I'll do what I want" because they just don't care about anyone but themselves.

Except that they pais SS taxes their entire lives...
10/22/2012 1:54 PM
I agree with your sentiment 'don't care about anyone but themselves.'.   Earlier this year, there was a survey of self-professed 'Tea Partiers'.  When they voted on which government programs should be cut, the only one that passed was foreign aid, which is less than 1% of the federal budget.  The voters didn't want to do away with anything that might benefit themselves personally

Some seniors have the belief, "I've been told my entire working life that social security and medicare would be there for me.  Younger people have been warned that it may not be available for them. So they have plenty of years to plan alternatives."
10/22/2012 2:37 PM
Posted by alblack56 on 10/22/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
I agree with your sentiment 'don't care about anyone but themselves.'.   Earlier this year, there was a survey of self-professed 'Tea Partiers'.  When they voted on which government programs should be cut, the only one that passed was foreign aid, which is less than 1% of the federal budget.  The voters didn't want to do away with anything that might benefit themselves personally

Some seniors have the belief, "I've been told my entire working life that social security and medicare would be there for me.  Younger people have been warned that it may not be available for them. So they have plenty of years to plan alternatives."
1 - Citation needed. 
2 - As someone who's going to get f'd by the SS thing, I have absolutely no problem with their attitude in that situation.  They did put into it, so they do deserve to get to take out of it.  Just because others (me) aren't as lucky is no reason for them to feel any sort of obligation to do anything other than get what's theirs.
10/22/2012 2:46 PM
isack,

I'm all for people getting back what they put in - except that's not how the system was set up. So the fact they paid the taxes their whole lives is irrelevant, because there is no way to designate that they get back what they put into it.

What they really should do is allow people the choice of putting their money into social security and medicare or into their own retirement accounts. That would end this ridiculous madness where the rest of us continually pay for the bills of the retire people of this country.

If they paid SS taxes their entire lives, then the money should be there to give back to them. It shouldn't be coming out of the pockets of those working now, who have their own bills to pay and will probably never get to retire.

alblack,

If any of those seniors want to tell me about alternatives, I'd suggest this: Allow me the choice to opt out of paying social security so that I can invest in alternatives. That way I can use my money to fund my own retirement instead of theirs.

Alternatives mean nothing when there isn't funding for them, and there certainly would be if my social security and medicare tax could be invested in my own plans instead of going to pay for all the old people to retire when I probably won't ever get to retire.

Those who take social security and medicare and other government programs for the retired are to me just as bad as those who live off of welfare checks and the like. The rest of us will work until we're 100 (if we live that long) so that they can sit back and retire, and very few of them care about any of us.
10/22/2012 4:51 PM (edited)
"isack,

I'm all for people getting back what they put in - except that's not how the system was set up. So the fact they paid the taxes their whole lives is irrelevant, because there is no way to designate that they get back what they put into it.

What they really should do is allow people the choice of putting their money into social security and medicare or into their own retirement accounts. That would end this ridiculous madness where the rest of us continually pay for the bills of the retire people of this country.

If they paid SS taxes their entire lives, then the money should be there to give back to them. It shouldn't be coming out of the pockets of those working now, who have their own bills to pay and will probably never get to retire."

Not in a 1:1, no, but they paid in their entire life.  Now you're just going to tell them that they're no longer going to receive SS?  Talk about ****** up.

I'm fine with your solution.  But that can't be the way it is for people currently on or near SS.

And of course it was paid ahead.  That's how it works.  No one appropriately predicted the population increase, so we screwed ourselves.  It's not that "they" didn't pay enough, it's that SS accountants were too stupid to see what was coming.  But that doesn't mean these people who depend on SS should be cut off from a very important (and often only) income source.
10/22/2012 5:28 PM
Posted by tbird9423 on 10/22/2012 9:58:00 AM (view original):
ars-- Hmm, that would be all and good in a free-market system but since we don't have anything like that and most American businesses are at least some way nowadays supported by my tax dollars, I should have a voice in how those tax dollars are spent.  If your business isn't funded by, isn't contracted with/for and isn't in business dealings with the government, then hire whoever you want.  I'll hold my breath for an example of an American business that meets that critieria.  All the rest of the businesses (every business in America) should quit taking care of friends, family or any race and realize that the last two American generations' legacy will be that of scalping America and its future (their own descendants) for meaningless shiny things (including friendships).
    I guess my point is, you can't have it both ways.  Either stand on your own and dictate your own choices or take my tax money and get my opinion if not also my will along with it.
bistiza-- I hope your obvious experience with American baby boomers doesn't color your judement on people in general.  Baby boomers didn't intentionally set out to screw everything up and actually did so most often out of love rather than greed.  Today's young people understand the unhappiness that is present in that generation and are more aware of the reasons behind that unhappiness than many of the baby boomers themselves.  I personally have big hopes that the Baby Boomer's naitevity will be replaced by a thirst for actual truth beyond a 30- second TV commercial and that search for truth will hopefully in turn yield a return to the justice that I believe you to be yearning for based off of your responses. 
   One of the funniest things you will ever hear and you probably have heard often is, a baby boomer complaining about jobs going overseas in the same conversation that they complain that their 401k took a hit.  If my 7 year old can understand that concept, how come the generation provided the most opportunity in the history of the world cannot?
you serious about that first part? tons of companies have no government funding and are not like, government sub contractors or part of the government military complex.
10/22/2012 5:32 PM
Posted by bistiza on 10/22/2012 8:47:00 AM (view original):
Bistiza, who you know has always been and will always be at least as important in obtaining employment as how qualified or capable you are.  But then, we know how you feel about the real world.  You want all people to behave in the way you think is appropriate.
It's about doing what is RIGHT, dahs.

If someone were hired because of their race or gender despite those of other races or genders who were far more qualified, there would be people screaming about how it was wrong.

Yet many people simply seem to accept that it's okay to hire someone based upon them being friends or family to the person or people who make the hiring decision.

Both of these things are equally wrong. Yet there are ridiculous programs in place to protect people based on race and gender which often result in someone less qualified being hired because the program is in place and makes sure certain quotas are set, regardless of who is the best candidate.  Still, there are no programs in place to force those doing hiring to recuse themselves from the process if they are related to or are good friends with candidates. Honestly, if that came out later, they should both lose their jobs.

But let's face it in "the real world" as you like to say, people love cheating the system to get ahead, and most people will do so at every chance they get. I've seen and expereinced it first hand. There is no way to stop a cheat if they are determined enough and smart enough to find a way to get away with it.

People hiring friends and relatives or those of a certain race and gender over others who are obviously more well qualified has always been and will always be wrong. But you're right - it'll keep happening because most people don't care about right and wrong and will do what they want.

Don't get me started because honestly this is a hot button issue for me and I will rant all day if I must.

bistiza - i agree completely with the sentiment that "People hiring friends and relatives or those of a certain race and gender over others who are obviously more well qualified has always been and will always be wrong".

i work at a 15 year old family business, and we hire friends/relatives of both the original employees (who were the family founders) and tons of our great employees since. the simple reality is that if you find a great person, a company man/woman through and through, and they go "hey, person X would be great for role Y" - that recommendation is often worth more than a little stronger resume or whatnot. tons of people have strong resumes but are total ****. theres a huge uncertainty factor and id take a person i have a higher certainty is good, based on a strong recommendation, than a person who might appear more qualified any day of the week. its not even close, and thats just good business. to an outsider, it might look like a friend or family member was hired over a more qualified person, but its my responsibility and the company responsibility to hire people in a way that is in the best interest of the company - and you can do that, while still from an outside perspective, you may be playing "favorites".
10/22/2012 9:21 PM
?And of course it was paid ahead.  That's how it works.  No one appropriately predicted the population increase, so we screwed ourselves.  It's not that "they" didn't pay enough, it's that SS accountants were too stupid to see what was coming.  But that doesn't mean these people who depend on SS should be cut off from a very important (and often only) income source.
The population increase is a very small part of the problem. The main problem was the government borrowing against social security, which was completely financially stable in and of itself. When the government borrows, it never pays people back (that's why we have a national debt that keeps rising), so of course it didn't pay social security back and that's why there is no future in the program despite what they want us to believe.

You think it's wrong to cut off people who paid their whole lives into the system, and to an extent, I agree. In fact, I think that's what will happen eventually, probably to people of my generation - WE will be the ones who pay our whole lives for those sitting on retirement now and in the near future, and when WE get there, there will be nothing left.

I want to cut my losses now, pull my money and put it into something that at least I know my share will be there if I need it. the problem is the government is continuing to force me and others like me to subsidize a system that won't be there for me. Whatever I'm putting in might as well be flushed down the toilet as far as I'm concerned, so while you're worried about people on the system now being cut off, I think it is inevitable someone will be cut off and I'm saying it shouldn't have to fall all on my generation - the older generation should have to take some cuts too, but they don't want to do that because they don't care about anyone but themselves.

gillespie,

I understand what you are saying about hiring someone you know or is recommended, and that's fine to an extent, but there is a point at which it isn't wise, both to the company and to the people who are hired.

If it's a close race between real qualifications, a reference or knowing someone can be the key to the difference. But if it's not even close, the person who knows someone or has a reference shouldn't leapfrog someone who would be much better for the job just because of that.

I want the person I believe will be the best all around candidate for the job working for me. If that's someone I know, then so be it, but if someone I know isn't that person but applies, I'm not going to hand them the job anyway.

10/22/2012 10:15 PM
"I want to cut my losses now, pull my money and put it into something that at least I know my share will be there if I need it. the problem is the government is continuing to force me and others like me to subsidize a system that won't be there for me. Whatever I'm putting in might as well be flushed down the toilet as far as I'm concerned, so while you're worried about people on the system now being cut off, I think it is inevitable someone will be cut off and I'm saying it shouldn't have to fall all on my generation - the older generation should have to take some cuts too, but they don't want to do that because they don't care about anyone but themselves."

So how does that make you any different from them?

10/22/2012 10:32 PM
"The population increase is a very small part of the problem. The main problem was the government borrowing against social security, which was completely financially stable in and of itself."

And this is true in the short-run, but it was going to go bankrupt because of the population increase anyway.  "Very small part of the problem" is not accurate in the long-term.
of 9
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > OT- North Carolina and Duke in a mess

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.