Unbelievable

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Well if you were concerned about money then you wouldn't pursue a career in social work! But, yes, that is an exception to the rule.

Most jobs in the private sector follow that trait...In my business, the tech industry, you pretty much need a masters to get into middle management. And having one allows you to climb the corporate ladder faster. My brother is a HR manager for a huge automotive parts manager. He said that a person with a masters commands an average of 25% more for the same job at entry level in his industry...

A college degree has become the standard level of education for most white collar positions in this country.

Rob

Except that most of those jobs are being exported overseas now.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Except that most of those jobs are being exported overseas now.

Yes..definitley the software programming jobs. Sad, really. But I understand why some of these companies do. The tech industry is dominated by a few big players and a bunch of small "mom & pop" shops. The only way the little guys can compete is to cut their costs. And an Indian programmer can accomplish the same job as an American for 1/4 of the salary.

A dilemma for our industry.

Actually, Dell, one of my competitors, got into a lot of trouble for outsourcing all their phone support to India. When they did, they dropped their prices to almost unbeatable levels, but their support tapered off. They got hammered for it.

It will be interesting to see what unfolds...

Rob

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Not necessarily Show me a social worker with a masters that makes more than $28,000 and I'll show you Bush's left ass cheek.

Bachelors and masters don't make much of a difference.

Darling - what is so special about showing us the same thing he shows for free everytime he opens his mouth

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Darling - what is so special about showing us the same thing he shows for free everytime he opens his mouth

Good one!!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention


Good one!!!

My New Year's Day quip just for you.

I am HUNGOVER beyond words - But I did have a Met Soprano sing the mad scene from Donizetti's "Lucia Di Lammermoor" directly to me at about 1:30 this morning at some party. Then, I BELTED Mozart's "Exultate Jubilate" in full tenor even if was slurred a little. Despite her obviously shocked perhaps horrified expression, she was kind!!! AND - she was a Stevie fan and went to the SYW concert in the Garden. Go Figure!!!!!

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
My New Year's Day quip just for you.

I am HUNGOVER beyond words - But I did have a Met Soprano sing the mad scene from Donizetti's "Lucia Di Lammermoor" directly to me at about 1:30 this morning at some party. Then, I BELTED Mozart's "Exultate Jubilate" in full tenor even if was slurred a little. Despite her obviously shocked perhaps horrified expression, she was kind!!! AND - she was a Stevie fan and went to the SYW concert in the Garden. Go Figure!!!!!

Oh to have been there! I'm glad you had such a wonderful time.

[gldstwmn]

Here's a very interesting read on our job situation in America. Before you slam this as partisan, you might want to note the author's name.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36355

Bu****e betrayal of working America

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Rob67
I completely disagree with supporting illegal immigration. I cannot agree with the rationalization of your last two paragraphs. EVERY politician is "corporate-sponsored" in Washington.

You haven't addressed the issue, though, have you? It's very easy to sit back and say I agree or disagree without having to explain your position. The fact is illegal immigration exists because employers hire foks who come into this country illegally. I say end the charade, give these folks a decent wage and grant them amnesty. Otherwise, knock it off and start penalizing the greedy bastids who knowingly exploit these vulnerable people.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by jwd
With all due respect you're wrong. Not all white males are from middles class suburbia. There are white males who grow up in inner cities too who are poor. Where is the justice for them? Affirmative Action discriminates, plain and simple, based on color and gender.

I challenge you to quote any part of my statement alluding to "all white men" being from suburbia. Never said it. Never will. The fact you bring up that point indicates to me that you do not understand the "historical wrong" part of my argument. And frankly that is the problem with a lot of opponents of Affirmative Action -- a lot of opinion and entirely too little historical perspective.

Black people were plucked from their homeland and brought here as slaves, traded like cattle and worked like dogs. They did not make a choice to come to this country. Many generations lived in conditions hardly fit for beasts of burden. Now you have a legacy of a disproportionate number of black people being denied opportunity in this country in comparison to white folk.

I feel for anyone who is unfortunate, but you cannot deny the historical wrong that led to the creation of Affirmative Action. Like it or not, it is there because it needs to be there.

[jwd]

CarneVaca:
If they have lower grades than a white applicant, is it because they had to contend with social, monetary and family pressures the white suburban kid didn't experience? Or is it because the inner-city minority kid is less capable?

Could you possibly understand that those roles could be reversed, with the minority being from midle class suburbia and the white applicant having grown up in the inner city, poor and down on his luck. Would it be fair to give the middle class minority from suburbia the job over the poor white applicant from the inner city because a quota had to be met? I completely understand the historical perspective on why Affirmative Action was implemented. I never said not to help minorities or ANYONE who needs it. My problem is that Affirmative Action has made the generalization that all minorities should get a "boost" whether they really need it or not, and it excludes/discriminates against a race and or gender simply based on that alone. It's just not fair.


Joe

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Black people were plucked from their homeland and brought here as slaves, traded like cattle and worked like dogs. They did not make a choice to come to this country. Many generations lived in conditions hardly fit for beasts of burden. Now you have a legacy of a disproportionate number of black people being denied opportunity in this country in comparison to white folk.

I feel for anyone who is unfortunate, but you cannot deny the historical wrong that led to the creation of Affirmative Action. Like it or not, it is there because it needs to be there.

I agree - but the same could be said for the Irish, who were imported during the famine - they were actually cheaper to pay than slaves and they usually died which was a financial boon to the owner who did not then have to care for them in old age. So, why aren't they included in AA. Similar instances exist for indentured servants who were mostly white. Moreover, I am sure now that the human race is ten generations from the end of slavery in 1864, a significant portion of American society has a bloodline related to a slave. I base this on the horror of the white master taking advantage of the many female slaves and/or the flight of the mulatto children to the North and "passing" for white and the fairly common interracial marrying since the 1960's. So, certainly those white progeny should also deserve the same treatment under AA.

So, I say forget about the past (which I assert no amount of time will be able to cure) and concentrate on a future that includes everyone and base social advantage a la AA on poverty alone.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Funny you should mention that. Back in the 80's when you were still in grade school, a guy named Neil BUSH was getting an awful lot of SBA loans in the state of Wyoming. They were being handed out through Silverado Banking. Guess what? The companies all folded and those government backed loans were paid by guess who? And guess what happened to Silverado, a company that Neil Bush was heavily mixed up in? I was talking to a client of mine yesterday, who is a Hispanic woman. She was trying to get a government backed loan (SBA) at the same Neil Bush was and guess what? You get the picture now. She didn't get it. Poppy's boy did. Since the inception of the Patriot Act, it has in fact been more difficult for immigrants to get government backed loans.

How can you compare his criminal actions with Silverado to every other institution that processes these loans? The younger Bush has been leading a shady life, and I believe he got a slap on the wrist for Silverado. But this doesn't change the fact that it is still easier for immigrants and minorities to get a SBL then it is for me. It's not that I couldn't get one or that I think there shouldn't be some incentive for minorities. I am just against this claim that no one can succeed in this country if they come from poverty. It is simply an overblown statement.

The Owners of my company are a married couple who have an equal stake. She technically owns 51% of the business because they found that they could get better credit lines and better rates on loans if she was the majority owner. She thinks that it is unfair but why not play the game and take advantage.

I suggest a good book called "Hunger of Memory : The Education of Richard Rodriguez" by Richard Rodriguez. It tells a good tale of making it in this country and minority views on Affirmative Action...a good read.

Rob

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
How can you compare his criminal actions with Silverado to every other institution that processes these loans?
Rob

Silverado was just the tip of the iceberg.
Did it ever occur to you that your boss's wife may simply have better credit and less personal debt? The Equal Credit Opportunity Act specifically prohibits lending or not lending to borrowers on the basis of gender, race, religion, naitonal origin, marital status or age. So if in fact what you are saying is correct then the owners of your company have the basis for one hell of a lawsuit against whomever told them that she could get a better rate and more credit because she was a woman. Do they have it in writing?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67

The Owners of my company are a married couple who have an equal stake. She technically owns 51% of the business because they found that they could get better credit lines and better rates on loans if she was the majority owner. She thinks that it is unfair but why not play the game and take advantage.
Rob

Is anyone else speechless at the utter hipocrasy of this statement?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Is anyone else speechless at the utter hipocrasy of this statement?

I am never speechless darlin'

Marissa and I are having cocktails as we speak!!!!! Wish you were here!!!!