Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reason this post ticked me off is the woman interviewed in the profile. She and her husband have good, full time jobs, and she's noting how both she and her husband are competing like mad to get a 2nd "seasonal" job for the holidays because the economy has caused her husband to lose his overtime and they were counting on it to get Christmas gifts for their kids.
All I could say to this was, well, it can't be printed and this thread would probably be closed if I did say it.
First off, with millions of people with no job at all, often both spouses in a dual-parent family, how dare you even compete for these jobs when you AND your spouse are working full-time. If I was in your shoes, I would be thinking about those people and not take part-time jobs from them when I and my spouse have a full-time one (no, we don't, but I'm saying if we did).
Second, it sounds like this couple has no notion of cutting back or living within means. So your kids get "lesser" presents this year, you know what, this is the way the world is right now and it will teach them a good lesson anyway. It's more important that they know you love them!
I was going to comment with others in the actual article, but someone (you have to scroll a page or two) already made these points. But now I share this disgusting story with you. Fire away!
Yes, it's sad. But most people are totally blind to the suffering of others. It's ME, ME, ME, all the way. They won't GET it till it lands in their back yard. And these are the folks who don't have the coping and other skills necessary to survive in this new wreck of an economy.
Who me? Order domestic champagne and caviar this year? Never! That's for the rest of you plebeians! But at least they are willing to work more to support their lifestyle.
This is America. If someone wants or needs to work extra to buy their kids Christmas presents they are more than free to do so. It may not be fair in some eyes but thus the competitive portion of the marketplace.
And let's me honest, it is complete bull**** that anyone on here says they would place complete strangers before their family and themselves.
I do think it was odd for the article to feature people who want seasonal jobs for "extra." No doubt there are many people who want and need them for working, period.
I don't think the people in the article are at fault for "taking a job away" from someone. I mean, it's not like they can choose who will get it. Aren't they taking a job away from someone by having two full-time earners in the household? Etc.
I do get tired of economic articles that assume a pretty high floor to people's situations, or assume that everyone has a 401k or mortgage, or "house prices are improving" which means going UP- not good news for people trying to buy a first house.
Also get tired of people who are job-hunting, who might have to bite the bullet and get a retail job or bartend or something. Perhaps they don't know how unavailable those jobs are, too.
Am I the only person who knows lots of people who live a lot closer to the bone than all that?
The reason this post ticked me off is the woman interviewed in the profile. She and her husband have good, full time jobs, and she's noting how both she and her husband are competing like mad to get a 2nd "seasonal" job for the holidays because the economy has caused her husband to lose his overtime and they were counting on it to get Christmas gifts for their kids.
All I could say to this was, well, it can't be printed and this thread would probably be closed if I did say it.
First off, with millions of people with no job at all, often both spouses in a dual-parent family, how dare you even compete for these jobs when you AND your spouse are working full-time. If I was in your shoes, I would be thinking about those people and not take part-time jobs from them when I and my spouse have a full-time one (no, we don't, but I'm saying if we did).
Second, it sounds like this couple has no notion of cutting back or living within means. So your kids get "lesser" presents this year, you know what, this is the way the world is right now and it will teach them a good lesson anyway. It's more important that they know you love them!
I was going to comment with others in the actual article, but someone (you have to scroll a page or two) already made these points. But now I share this disgusting story with you. Fire away!
You do realize how NUTTY you sound right?-lol That couple is not supposed to look for additional sources of income because there are people with no job at all? Why would they care about that when they are trying to bring extra funds into their home??
I don't think the people in the article are at fault for "taking a job away" from someone. I mean, it's not like they can choose who will get it. Aren't they taking a job away from someone by having two full-time earners in the household? Etc.
Many here are missing the point. These people have full-time jobs and from what I can see in the article, don't really NEED the extra income. I don't expect them to have NO job or income, so of course I would think it is silly that their FULL-TIME, REGULAR job takes a job away from someone. We're talking about them trying to get an extra job (and a temporary one at that) when they probably in all honesty "need" it to not even 1/10 the degree that many out there "need" it as a first job ASAP. They are not going to lose their home or car without this 2nd job, they're just going to have to give "less nice" Christmas gifts to their kids. I so feel for them.......
If this was someone making $9/hour at McDonald's f/t and they need the extra income than yes, I'd say compete with the completely unemployed for that temporary, P/T job. But again these are people who in my view really doesn't NEED the extra job(s), they had a small setback compared to most (in my view, barely a setback at all for these times), and they should be cutting back like every other person and business out there first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVandSportsGuy
You do realize how NUTTY you sound right?-lol That couple is not supposed to look for additional sources of income because there are people with no job at all? Why would they care about that when they are trying to bring extra funds into their home??
We need to step back a bit from the "I have mine, too bad you can't have yours" mentality. The long-term unemployed situation is the gravest it has been in almost everyone's lifetime, and if it continues long enough is going to be a humanitarian crisis here in our own country! In a way you're also saying, "why have charities?", "why have any form of social safety net?". Yes, healthy competition is good for society but "survival of the fittest" isn't, this is 21st Century civilization, not caveman days.
Many here are missing the point. These people have full-time jobs and from what I can see in the article, don't really NEED the extra income. I don't expect them to have NO job or income, so of course I would think it is silly that their FULL-TIME, REGULAR job takes a job away from someone. We're talking about them trying to get an extra job (and a temporary one at that) when they probably in all honesty "need" it to not even 1/10 the degree that many out there "need" it as a first job ASAP. They are not going to lose their home or car without this 2nd job, they're just going to have to give "less nice" Christmas gifts to their kids. I so feel for them.......
If this was someone making $9/hour at McDonald's f/t and they need the extra income than yes, I'd say compete with the completely unemployed for that temporary, P/T job. But again these are people who in my view really doesn't NEED the extra job(s), they had a small setback compared to most (in my view, barely a setback at all for these times), and they should be cutting back like every other person and business out there first.
We need to step back a bit from the "I have mine, too bad you can't have yours" mentality. The long-term unemployed situation is the gravest it has been in almost everyone's lifetime, and if it continues long enough is going to be a humanitarian crisis here in our own country!
How can you say that their full-time jobs is enough??-lol It obviously is not enough or they wouldn't be looking for additional employment.
We worked pt jobs with full time jobs, we don't have to apologize for making money honestly. People make more money than we do and don't stay awake nights worrying about us!
That's just the way it goes, to the victor goes the spoils.
I remember the days WHEN you could work full time and easily get a part time job. I did it myself when I was going to go to grad school and needed every penny I could get my hands on.
I remember the days WHEN you could work full time and easily get a part time job. I did it myself when I was going to go to grad school and needed every penny I could get my hands on.
And I'm not against it at all either, it's just that these are extraordinary times only truly rivaled by the 1930's......and back then what I'm saying was espoused by the government and society as well to help get things back on track, boy we have changed! A lot of the wage/hour/overtime laws developed then were to encourage less "hogging" of jobs given the severity of joblessness, not because gov't felt all workers were exploited or anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marylee54
Hey, its every man for himself!
We worked pt jobs with full time jobs, we don't have to apologize for making money honestly. People make more money than we do and don't stay awake nights worrying about us!
That's just the way it goes, to the victor goes the spoils.
This is probably the first time in your lifetime that we are truly building a large class of possibly "permanently unemployable" people if we don't start thinking differently. Why do you think government is virtually extending UI ad infinitum and unlike other actions for the recession, gets little real backlash from Republicans? Because they are really afraid of what happens if these people truly are going to have no income long-term, at best it will make our economy nosedive more, at worst, you may start seeing violence. As I stated before, healthy competition is the backbone of our country and society, everyone doesn't have to be equal (that's Communism and it doesn't work!), everyone in society doesn't have to be rich, but we are headed towards an unprecedented extreme of "have and have nots" that is not going to be oretty, you can already see it in a degree of political polarization in our society last seen during the Civil War!
I would normally be against this with my UI example (reasonable limits "kick start" people to do something without putting them in the poorhouse) but again these are highly extraordinary times, we have come to the point where getting ANY job is almost like winning the lottery, that's what people have to realize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVandSportsGuy
How can you say that their full-time jobs is enough??-lol It obviously is not enough or they wouldn't be looking for additional employment.
Yeah, well from the article it sounds like for them it's NEVER enough. That's how we got into this mess in the first place.
Last edited by 7 Wishes; 10-12-2009 at 07:08 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
