Let Us Clarify Something: Thier is no such thing as "your job"

[tnitsuj]

Unless you own your own company or are otherwise self employed...thier is no such thing as "your job". You work for someone else. You are within your rights to negotiate the terms and conditions of such employment, but in the end your future employment depend on the company and your value to the company. No one owes you a job.

Because your whole family has been making cars in Michigan for 40 years or furniture in North Carolina for 100 years does not make a job your job.

Get over yourselves people. The sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Unless you own your own company or are otherwise self employed...thier is no such thing as "your job". You work for someone else. You are within your rights to negotiate the terms and conditions of such employment, but in the end your future employment depend on the company and your value to the company. No one owes you a job.

Because your whole family has been making cars in Michigan for 40 years or furniture in North Carolina for 100 years does not make a job your job.

Get over yourselves people. The sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

So just because your family has been in politics for years that doesn't mean you have a right to a job in the White House?

Or just because your family has gone to Yale for years that doesn't mean you have a right to go to Yale?

You're right about the sense of entitlement. You're just targeting the wrong people.

If useless wastrells like Bush can benefit from entitlements then working people deserve them too. After all, working people are the consumers who fuel our economy. At least they give something back instead of only taking more for themselves ala Bush.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Unless you own your own company or are otherwise self employed...thier is no such thing as "your job". You work for someone else. You are within your rights to negotiate the terms and conditions of such employment, but in the end your future employment depend on the company and your value to the company. No one owes you a job.

Because your whole family has been making cars in Michigan for 40 years or furniture in North Carolina for 100 years does not make a job your job.

Get over yourselves people. The sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

So just because your family has been in politics for years that doesn't mean you have a right to a job in the White House?

Or just because your family has gone to Yale for years that doesn't mean you have a right to go to Yale?

You're right about the sense of entitlement. You're just targeting the wrong people.

If useless wastrells like Bush can benefit from entitlements then working people deserve them too. After all, working people are the consumers who fuel our economy. At least they give something back instead of only taking more for themselves ala Bush.

Your example is just about as relevant as bringing Clinton up anytime Bush does something.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Unless you own your own company or are otherwise self employed...thier is no such thing as "your job". You work for someone else. You are within your rights to negotiate the terms and conditions of such employment, but in the end your future employment depend on the company and your value to the company. No one owes you a job.

Because your whole family has been making cars in Michigan for 40 years or furniture in North Carolina for 100 years does not make a job your job.

Get over yourselves people. The sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

So just because your family has been in politics for years that doesn't mean you have a right to a job in the White House?

Or just because your family has gone to Yale for years that doesn't mean you have a right to go to Yale?

You're right about the sense of entitlement. You're just targeting the wrong people.

If useless wastrells like Bush can benefit from entitlements then working people deserve them too. After all, working people are the consumers who fuel our economy. At least they give something back instead of only taking more for themselves ala Bush.

Your example is just about as relevant as bringing Clinton up anytime Bush does something.

Listen, just because you're easily brainwashed doesn't have anything to do with the relevance of my statement.

You are either blind or intentionally fail to recognize that entitlement programs in this country are completely skewed to favor people outside the realm of the normal working American. You know, the people who make up the majority of our democracy. But you choose to attack working people. Are you a Republican?

If corporations can operate as they please without any loyalty (that commodity they DEMAND of us but lack themselves) to the nation they build and sell their products in that nation will suffer unemployment, poverty, recession, corporate crime and cronyism.

Oh, wait, we have all that now.

Some interesting facts and figures compiled at:

Corporate Accountability Project

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Unless you own your own company or are otherwise self employed...thier is no such thing as "your job". You work for someone else. You are within your rights to negotiate the terms and conditions of such employment, but in the end your future employment depend on the company and your value to the company. No one owes you a job.

Because your whole family has been making cars in Michigan for 40 years or furniture in North Carolina for 100 years does not make a job your job.

Get over yourselves people. The sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

So just because your family has been in politics for years that doesn't mean you have a right to a job in the White House?

Or just because your family has gone to Yale for years that doesn't mean you have a right to go to Yale?

You're right about the sense of entitlement. You're just targeting the wrong people.

If useless wastrells like Bush can benefit from entitlements then working people deserve them too. After all, working people are the consumers who fuel our economy. At least they give something back instead of only taking more for themselves ala Bush.

Your example is just about as relevant as bringing Clinton up anytime Bush does something.

Listen, just because you're easily brainwashed doesn't have anything to do with the relevance of my statement.

You are either blind or intentionally fail to recognize that entitlement programs in this country are completely skewed to favor people outside the realm of the normal working American. You know, the people who make up the majority of our democracy. But you choose to attack working people. Are you a Republican?

If corporations can operate as they please without any loyalty (that commodity they DEMAND of us but lack themselves) to the nation they build and sell their products in that nation will suffer unemployment, poverty, recession, corporate crime and cronyism.

Oh, wait, we have all that now.

Some interesting facts and figures compiled at:

Corporate Accountability Project

I'm not attacking working people. I am attacking people who expect other people to give them jobs when they really haven't done anything to make themselves more marketable/effecient/cost-effective/skilled than someone in a sweat shop in a 3rd world company. Thier are educational opportunities available for you. Use them. Don't whine about "your jobs" being sent overseas.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Unless you own your own company or are otherwise self employed...thier is no such thing as "your job". You work for someone else. You are within your rights to negotiate the terms and conditions of such employment, but in the end your future employment depend on the company and your value to the company. No one owes you a job.

Because your whole family has been making cars in Michigan for 40 years or furniture in North Carolina for 100 years does not make a job your job.

Get over yourselves people. The sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

So just because your family has been in politics for years that doesn't mean you have a right to a job in the White House?

Or just because your family has gone to Yale for years that doesn't mean you have a right to go to Yale?

You're right about the sense of entitlement. You're just targeting the wrong people.

If useless wastrells like Bush can benefit from entitlements then working people deserve them too. After all, working people are the consumers who fuel our economy. At least they give something back instead of only taking more for themselves ala Bush.

Your example is just about as relevant as bringing Clinton up anytime Bush does something.

I had a bad read on you at first....guess the old adage is true: You can't judge a book by its cover. It's nice to know that reasoning isn't dead around here. As to your entitlement premise, I could not agree with you more.

 

[shuan24]

There's nothing wrong with sending our jobs overseas, I think it actually makes us stronger.

If you're refering to the computer world, than its even better for us young engineers because that forces us to learn higher material and become a smarter and better engineer. (Companies dont send highly sensitive stuff overseas, nor do they send highly technical jobs either. --IMO)

But if you're refering to sweat shops, then it does make our economy a weaker because alot of manual labor jobs are being displaced in which they are badly needed in times of recession. Honestly, there's nothing like good ol' manual labor.

As far as BOBDN's response, he's absolutely correct about the "high society" entitlement privileges that these rich baboons get. Thats capitalism for ya, at its best: Money dominates all.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Unless you own your own company or are otherwise self employed...thier is no such thing as "your job". You work for someone else. You are within your rights to negotiate the terms and conditions of such employment, but in the end your future employment depend on the company and your value to the company. No one owes you a job.

Because your whole family has been making cars in Michigan for 40 years or furniture in North Carolina for 100 years does not make a job your job.

Get over yourselves people. The sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

So just because your family has been in politics for years that doesn't mean you have a right to a job in the White House?

Or just because your family has gone to Yale for years that doesn't mean you have a right to go to Yale?

You're right about the sense of entitlement. You're just targeting the wrong people.

If useless wastrells like Bush can benefit from entitlements then working people deserve them too. After all, working people are the consumers who fuel our economy. At least they give something back instead of only taking more for themselves ala Bush.

Your example is just about as relevant as bringing Clinton up anytime Bush does something.

Listen, just because you're easily brainwashed doesn't have anything to do with the relevance of my statement.

You are either blind or intentionally fail to recognize that entitlement programs in this country are completely skewed to favor people outside the realm of the normal working American. You know, the people who make up the majority of our democracy. But you choose to attack working people. Are you a Republican?

If corporations can operate as they please without any loyalty (that commodity they DEMAND of us but lack themselves) to the nation they build and sell their products in that nation will suffer unemployment, poverty, recession, corporate crime and cronyism.

Oh, wait, we have all that now.

Some interesting facts and figures compiled at:

Corporate Accountability Project

I'm not attacking working people. I am attacking people who expect other people to give them jobs when they really haven't done anything to make themselves more marketable/effecient/cost-effective/skilled than someone in a sweat shop in a 3rd world company. Thier are educational opportunities available for you. Use them. Don't whine about "your jobs" being sent overseas.

9-30-2003 Consumer Confidence Drops Unexpectedly

"I think the tax cuts helped boost confidence earlier in the summer, but now we're settling back a bit," said Gary Thayer, chief economist..."

How many times are they going to keep saying this and not admit the Economy is sunk?

A ton of Factories have closed down and unemployment rampant, how far did they possibly expect a one time Tax check to bring the Economy back, sheesh...

 

[amok]

Entitlement? Getting into a school where your father has given them tons of money is entitlement? Lol, they have to pay way more than the average student to get into that school, and its an entitlement? Please. See how long those schools offer a full curriculuum without alumni contributions.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Unless you own your own company or are otherwise self employed...thier is no such thing as "your job". You work for someone else. You are within your rights to negotiate the terms and conditions of such employment, but in the end your future employment depend on the company and your value to the company. No one owes you a job.

Because your whole family has been making cars in Michigan for 40 years or furniture in North Carolina for 100 years does not make a job your job.

Get over yourselves people. The sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

Something Dubya will find out next year

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: amok
Entitlement? Getting into a school where your father has given them tons of money is entitlement? Lol, they have to pay way more than the average student to get into that school, and its an entitlement? Please. See how long those schools offer a full curriculuum without alumni contributions.

Actually, what you just defined is actually entitlement. Is it not? Your're just putting it in a good light, where as other posts were putting it in the bad light. So you're saying, theoretically, that if schools recieved no alumni conributions, then we would no longer have schools "offering a full curriculum"? Thats in effect saying that we would no longer have colleges! Now thats a far stretch isnt?

Yes, schools would have to increase tuition to support themselves. I would have to pay more tuition to attend school. Either that, or have a rich kid whose father bought his road for him and have him later on in life be my boss? Who may not have been AS qualified, but because his father "donated money" then thats a sacrifice good enough? You please!

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: shuan24

Actually, what you just defined is actually entitlement. Is it not? Your're just putting it in a good light, where as other posts were putting it in the bad light. So you're saying, theoretically, that if schools recieved no alumni conributions, then we would no longer have schools "offering a full curriculum"? Thats in effect saying that we would no longer have colleges! Now thats a far stretch isnt?

No, it's not a far stretch. Who is going to pay for the buildings and the professors? You?

Yes, schools would have to increase tuition to support themselves. I would have to pay more tuition to attend school. Either that, or have a rich kid whose father bought his road for him and have him later on in life be my boss? Who may not have been AS qualified, but because his father "donated money" then thats a sacrifice good enough? You please!

Cut off your nose to spite your face. Lovely. What about the people (parents) who can't afford $50,000 a year in tuition and are middle-class, so they don't get any financial aid.

 

[BOBDN]

So let me get this straight.

It's OK for morons like GWB to be admitted to Yale because their families made contributions over the years. And you people have no problem with that?

Aren't the Bushies the same people who made it harder for working people to afford college? Didn't they cut programs that help the children of working families pay for higher education?

And aren't the Bushies the same people who are hell bent on ending affirmative action in college admissions? Didn't Condi Rice benefit from affirmative action? Didn't she oppose her boss's administration entering the Supreme Court battle in the Michigan case?

So it's OK for people like Bush (and there are many of them) to be admitted to college based on their family's deep pockets but it's not OK for working people's kids or minority kids who don't have an equal chance to go to college?

Hypocrites.

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: shuan24

Actually, what you just defined is actually entitlement. Is it not? Your're just putting it in a good light, where as other posts were putting it in the bad light. So you're saying, theoretically, that if schools recieved no alumni conributions, then we would no longer have schools "offering a full curriculum"? Thats in effect saying that we would no longer have colleges! Now thats a far stretch isnt?

No, it's not a far stretch. Who is going to pay for the buildings and the professors? You?

Yes, schools would have to increase tuition to support themselves. I would have to pay more tuition to attend school. Either that, or have a rich kid whose father bought his road for him and have him later on in life be my boss? Who may not have been AS qualified, but because his father "donated money" then thats a sacrifice good enough? You please!

Cut off your nose to spite your face. Lovely. What about the people (parents) who can't afford $50,000 a year in tuition and are middle-class, so they don't get any financial aid.

So basically what you're saying is only people who can afford school should go to school? there is always aid, and contrary to what you beleive, NOT ALL students at Harvard or MIT are products of rich parents. Students at top colleges should BE top students, not products of rich parents.

 

[Lucky]

is this whole thread a satirical circle jerk or am I reading things the wrong way?

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Lucky
is this whole thread a satirical circle jerk or am I reading things the wrong way?

it is, like many threads around here, masturbatory.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: Lucky
is this whole thread a satirical circle jerk or am I reading things the wrong way?

Sort of, except a circle jerk is more organized, and you have to do it with lights on so you know who's won. This thread is some kind of unhappy collision between a circle jerk and a Chinese fire drill.

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: shuan24

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: shuan24

Actually, what you just defined is actually entitlement. Is it not? Your're just putting it in a good light, where as other posts were putting it in the bad light. So you're saying, theoretically, that if schools recieved no alumni conributions, then we would no longer have schools "offering a full curriculum"? Thats in effect saying that we would no longer have colleges! Now thats a far stretch isnt?

No, it's not a far stretch. Who is going to pay for the buildings and the professors? You?

Yes, schools would have to increase tuition to support themselves. I would have to pay more tuition to attend school. Either that, or have a rich kid whose father bought his road for him and have him later on in life be my boss? Who may not have been AS qualified, but because his father "donated money" then thats a sacrifice good enough? You please!

Cut off your nose to spite your face. Lovely. What about the people (parents) who can't afford $50,000 a year in tuition and are middle-class, so they don't get any financial aid.

So basically what you're saying is only people who can afford school should go to school? there is always aid, and contrary to what you beleive, NOT ALL students at Harvard or MIT are products of rich parents. Students at top colleges should BE top students, not products of rich parents.

No, you read what I said the wrong way. It isn't an entitlement, because they are paying for it (paying more than their fair share). Buying your way into something isn't an entitlement, because its coming out of your pockets, not anyone else's.

As for the other part of your accusations, you should get a clue before attacking someone. I never said that only wealthy people should go to school, or that opportunities shouldn't exist for people who can't afford it. Who do you think provides the money for all those scholarships at the more prestigious schools? A big chunk of those come from wealthy alumni. And what seperates less prestigious schools from their highly regarded bretheren? Facilities, faculty, and research money. Who provides a good chunk of those? You might want to stop criticizing the very system that allows the top rate schools to be top rate. If they have to take in a few slightly underqualified students in order to service the majority of bright ones, so be it.

 

[shuan24]

I see what your saying. I just dont agree with you. Entitlement is defined as the act or process of furnishing with a right or claim to something. So, if rich kids going to top schools because of their father's contribution is NOT entitlement, then the school should have a choice in NOT allowing the kid in, based on qualifications, without any regard about the contributions. However, in reality, schools like Harvard lets underqualified kids in BECAUSE they're rich parents contributed money, therefore the parents are claiming entrance in to the school for their kid. I see their act of contributing/claiming as entitlement.

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: shuan24
I see what your saying. I just dont agree with you. Entitlement is defined as the act or process of furnishing with a right or claim to something. So, if rich kids going to top schools because of their father's contribution is NOT entitlement, then the school should have a choice in NOT allowing the kid in, based on qualifications, without any regard about the contributions. However, in reality, schools like Harvard lets underqualified kids in BECAUSE they're rich parents contributed money, therefore the parents are claiming entrance in to the school for their kid. I see their act of contributing/claiming as entitlement.

They do have that choice, they just rarely act on it. Its easier to keep their contributors happy and continue providing a top rate education.

 

[glenn1]

Thier is no such thing as "your job"

If it's not my job, then why do i end up having to do all that work? I think most people can distinguish between being entitled to their position and filling it at the continued desire of their employer. So fine if you want to make the point that "my" job is simply on loan from the company, until they hire someone else to do it I doubt they'll mind my taking verbal ownership of it.

 

[LunarRay]

There is no such thing as "your job"

HeHehehehehe.. I suppose you could look at it that way.. I look at it a bit different.. "there is no such thing as your company without me"

We are in the barter business. I sell time. It is my job to sell my time... you job mister company owner is to acquire time, among other things. I may not choose to sell you my time but, if you do your job right and I do my job right we'll both exchange our commodities and be happy campers..

Oh... you say if it was not for the Companies I'd have no place to sell my time??? Really... If we choose not to sell you our time... you'll not long be a company.. you'll be a nothing..

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
There is no such thing as "your job"

HeHehehehehe.. I suppose you could look at it that way.. I look at it a bit different.. "there is no such thing as your company without me"

We are in the barter business. I sell time. It is my job to sell my time... you job mister company owner is to acquire time, among other things. I may not choose to sell you my time but, if you do your job right and I do my job right we'll both exchange our commodities and be happy campers..

Oh... you say if it was not for the Companies I'd have no place to sell my time??? Really... If we choose not to sell you our time... you'll not long be a company.. you'll be a nothing..

Exactly Lunar. These morons fail to realize without the US governemnt (which is the poeple) printing money though the fed and loaning it to commerical banks who then loan it to corps and other businesses thier would be no business. So whos giving who the job?

 

[Bleep]

Exactly Lunar. These morons fail to realize without the US governemnt (which is the poeple) printing money though the fed and loaning it to commerical banks who then loan it to corps and other businesses thier would be no business. So whos giving who the job

It dont quite work that way. I put money in the bank or buy certificates and they pay me 2-3% on my money and loan it to you for 8-10% to buy yourself a new car, no goverment money there.
Or the fed makes money available to pay the debt to a large bank that loaned the gov money and then the bank loans it out to someone else. Prove that the fed prints more money just to loan it out. Business makes money by selling stock, that is how most large business get money.
It is not necessary to borrow money to start a business just a good plan a good product and good marketing. Start small and end up large. This is experience speaking.

Bleep

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bleep

Exactly Lunar. These morons fail to realize without the US governemnt (which is the poeple) printing money though the fed and loaning it to commerical banks who then loan it to corps and other businesses thier would be no business. So whos giving who the job

It dont quite work that way. I put money in the bank or buy certificates and they pay me 2-3% on my money and loan it to you for 8-10% to buy yourself a new car, no goverment money there.
Or the fed makes money available to pay the debt to a large bank that loaned the gov money and then the bank loans it out to someone else. Prove that the fed prints more money just to loan it out. Business makes money by selling stock, that is how most large business get money.
It is not necessary to borrow money to start a business just a good plan a good product and good marketing. Start small and end up large. This is experience speaking.

Bleep

Commercial banks only need a 10% reserve. How else you think money is created? Do you think we have the exact same amount in circulation and non-circulation as when the country started? No we have 100 times more money at least. they borrow at the discount rate from the fed and loan it.

Actually works more like this:
There are four basic catagories of Banks and the money flows as follows.

1. Federal Reserve, only one and only one which can print money.

2. Federal Reserve dispositories, which borrow money from #1 at the super low rate (called the Federal funds Market rate) of around 1.15% right now.

3. US Commerical Banks, which borrow money from #2 at something called the discount rate of 2.25% right now.

4. US corporations and regoinal banks, Are able to borrow from #3 at what's called the Prime rate of 4.45% right now.

Now we as consumers can only borrow from the last one at insane rates relative.