Occupy Wall Street - Page 4

DrPhil · #46 10-09-2011, 08:45 PM

Maybe, maybe not @ amIblue and AGDee

Either way, job workshops have encouraged people to edit and tweak their resume'. Resume` refers to any account of education and work history, even if you are not submitting an actual resume`. That is how people have always highlighted certain aspects of themselves for certain jobs--the same applies to downplaying certain aspects of yourself for certain jobs.

If you are unable to do that for whatever reasons, do not be shocked if you apply for a job where an MBA or having a certain job history will be frowned upon. Of course Walmart would not hire an MBA to be a cashier. They shouldn't.

Elephant Walk · #47 10-09-2011, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Obama employment bill would prohibit companies from turning down unemployed applicants**

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44836466...iness-careers/

**But we know that it really only prevents companies from overtly discriminating on this basis.

**Should the government be intervening in this regard, though? There are pros and cons to everything and I see some cons to an employment bill that prohibits companies from (admittedly) turning down unemployed applicants. There are occupations and careers where being unemployed for a number of years means that you need to be retrained, re-educated, etc. (Does the reason behind the unemployment matter? Are they going to say that all reasons for being unemployed are equal? For example, for generations, stay-at-home mothers who went back into the labor force have been denied employment because they were unemployed, lacked job history, lacked experience, etc. Is that also going to be covered with this bill? Or will gender and other forms of discrimination be kept under the rug in preference of "unemployed discrimination"?)

What say you, GCers?

It'll be good to get the trial lawyers rich.

DrPhil · #48 10-10-2011, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by article

The job market has been a rollercoaster this year.
In the beginning of 2011, hopes were high for a labor market turnaround: the economy added nearly 750,000 jobs in the first four months of the year, and the unemployment rate was down almost an entire percentage point from the end of 2010.
Then came the fifth month. Employment increased by only 25,000 jobs in May, the start of what would prove to be a summer of labor-market stagnation– a summer that ended with Bureau of Labor Statistics' data showing employment growth that was completely flat in August.

http://msn.careerbuilder.com/custom/msn/careeradvice/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2781

PiKA2001 · #49 10-10-2011, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Obama employment bill would prohibit companies from turning down unemployed applicants**

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44836466...iness-careers/

**But we know that it really only prevents companies from overtly discriminating on this basis.

**Should the government be intervening in this regard, though? There are pros and cons to everything and I see some cons to an employment bill that prohibits companies from (admittedly) turning down unemployed applicants. There are occupations and careers where being unemployed for a number of years means that you need to be retrained, re-educated, etc. (Does the reason behind the unemployment matter? Are they going to say that all reasons for being unemployed are equal? For example, for generations, stay-at-home mothers who went back into the labor force have been denied employment because they were unemployed, lacked job history, lacked experience, etc. Is that also going to be covered with this bill? Or will gender and other forms of discrimination be kept under the rug in preference of "unemployed discrimination"?)

What say you, GCers?

I don't like the idea of someone being written off by an employer just because he is currently employed but that being said I don't think we should have a regulation on it. As others have said, while the uptick in discrimination lawsuits may be good for the lawyers, the employers may cut down on hiring to avoid lawsuits or worse yet, just shut down their U.S. operations and move to an "anything goes" place like Mexico or Asia.

PiKA2001 · #50 10-10-2011, 07:21 PM

I was watching a news story on CBS yesterday about this movement and they interviewed a few dum-dum's who quit their job so they can protest indefinitely... hopefully that move doesn't f*ck them in the long run. From what I've been hearing from these protesters (on TV) I'm starting to believe that their gripes are misdirected. They should be protesting Washington, not Wall ST.

*winter* · #51 10-10-2011, 08:10 PM

They quit their jobs to protest? In THIS economy!?!?!

If it does f**k them in the long run...I certainly wouldn't feel bad. Their parents might, since they will probably be camping out in their basement when they are not "protesting."

And I agree 100% on the unemployment hiring regulation issue. Just an overall bad idea. What if the best candidate happens to be employed?

DrPhil · #52 10-10-2011, 08:18 PM

Wellllll...of course not all of those people out there are unemployed or protesting only during their off-time. It isn't uncommon for people to make protesting a full-time job. Part of the protest is to fully protest. It proves you truly believe in the protest.

I just hope they don't blame the 1% for their unemployment.

PiKA2001 · #53 10-10-2011, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Wellllll...of course not all of those people out there are unemployed or protesting only during their off-time. It isn't uncommon for people to make protesting a full-time job. Part of the protest is to fully protest. It proves you truly believe in the protest.

I just hope they don't blame the 99% for their unemployment.

@ Bold

But what are they trying to accomplish again? I get what they are feeling, just still not sure what they actually want to see happen.

- Ok, lets say we tax the "rich" at an extra 5 or 10 percent, that money would most likely just go to fill in the billions in dollars deficits that the U.S. Gov has every fiscal year. I don't see tuition going down, medical costs going down, jobs springing up and the economy recovering just because a family making 300k a year pays an additional 1k in taxes.

DrPhil · #54 10-10-2011, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

@ Bold

But what are they trying to accomplish again? I get what they are feeling, just still not sure what they actually want to see happen.

- Ok, lets say we tax the "rich" at an extra 5 or 10 percent, that money would most likely just go to fill in the billions in dollars deficits that the U.S. Gov has every fiscal year. I don't see tuition going down, medical costs going down, jobs springing up and the economy recovering just because a family making 300k a year pays an additional 1k in taxes.

For starters, I meant to type "I just hope they don't blame the 1% for their unemployment."

I don't know what they hope to accomplish. Perhaps what Warren Buffet recommended.

AnchorAlum · #55 10-10-2011, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I listen to NPR everyday, too, Dr. Phil...bring on more of those topics. I find them interesting. The OWS movement seems rudderless, but if it survives will likely be co-opted by a leader or group of leaders who will have an agenda. If nothing else, I'm glad to see the financial sector come back under the microscope after escaping from the mortgage backed securities fiasco essentially unscathed. Let 'em feel the heat for awhile.

Hmmm. I've read lots of posts here from folks with varying takes on OWS, but I largely agree with yours.

AnchorAlum · #56 10-10-2011, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I was watching a news story on CBS yesterday about this movement and they interviewed a few dum-dum's who quit their job so they can protest indefinitely... hopefully that move doesn't f*ck them in the long run. From what I've been hearing from these protesters (on TV) I'm starting to believe that their gripes are misdirected. They should be protesting Washington, not Wall ST.

And I agree with this one too!

Hey, if they are "demanding" a free college education AND a living wage whether they have a job or not, why do they need to waste four years in college in the first place? Anyone else find this contradictory? Why not spend the ENTIRE four years getting stoned instead?

CutiePie2000 · #57 10-10-2011, 11:25 PM

http://www.occupyvancouver.com/

Similar protests are happening north of the border also.

KSUViolet06 · #58 10-11-2011, 12:05 AM

www.facebook.com/occupysesamestreet

knight_shadow · #59 10-11-2011, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

www.facebook.com/occupysesamestreet

I can't stand you. At all. LOL

DrPhil · #60 10-11-2011, 01:54 AM

LOL

Oscar finally has a reason to grouch.

Kanye West? That's so random.