Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
And it make sense from a societal standpoint:
|
Actually it makes no sense.
In the past, employers would hire new people who had no experience and train them. Education was crappy in the past and nothing's changed. So employers took action. Today's employers want OTHER employers to train their employees.
Quote:
As deliberate action has degraded the value of work itself,
|
We have people devaluing work and also devaluing workers. It is all part of a dehumanizing philosophy that has infected society designed to devalue people and make it easy to push really evil agendas.
Quote:
and things have been explicitly restructured so as to provide fewer and fewer opportunities to "ride the top of the wave", society rewards fewer and fewer people for having gained the credentials necessary to do so, and rewards those who do "ride the top of the wave" less since there is more supply and lower demand for workers with those credentials.
|
And what we have are employers whining loudly that there is a talent shortage. Talent responds by getting the training and education the employers are looking for. Then the employers reject those people for not having experience.
This is like someone who's huge building is on fire, complaining about the shortage of firefighters. A fire truck rolls up, and the firefighters say "We heard your cry for help. We just graduated yesterday from the fire academy at our own expense, and paid for this fire truck out of our own pocket." The person whose building is on fire then says "I refuse to hire you because you have no experience."
The catch-22 makes no logical, rational or reasonable sense.
Quote:
Clearly, one side's big changes are helping many on both sides, while the other side's big changes aren't.
|
Neither side is helping ordinary people. Both the R and D half of the one party system seek to enrich cronies at everyone else's expense.
A politician has a constituent with $0 in campaign contributions, and a crony who donated a nice chunk of cash to the politician's coffers. Who has the more persuasive case? The only difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe is legality, and the politicians determined that.