Should we put limits on welfare

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: RichardE
Who will find gold faster? the one who sits in one spot, looking at one pile of mud, sifting and sifting, or the one who explores the entire river, looking for all the gold he can?

To answer your quote section that i snipped: My pedigree, pubs, and refs are all top notch. Trust me. Im turning my back on academics because i have been through the cycle 3 times with no success. I applied for an NRSA and scored ~400. I have done TWO postdocs that both ended prematurely. If you want to go into academics GOOD LUCK! Honestly.

Now, for your quote above. For the last 7+ months i have been looking for everything from image processing/computer vision R&D (phd only to entry level BS), to web development. The in between is everything from usability, scientific programming, consultation, health care stats, R&D healthcare, and even some "marketing" crap. Does this sound like im "sifting one spot?"

No, but your previous post of "I won't work in India/China" does. There are more R&D sectors than the US.

Edit: Though, ths US is by far the best.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Probably me for having to pay for it...

Paying for "suckers" is indeed the larger sucker. Paying for those who cannot because of "legitimate" reason is not....

 

[Stunt]

While RichardH is advocating sifting the river, I've been a far bigger fan of concentrated efforts.

If you are throwing resumes all over and don't know about the company or how you are going to help them succeed, you will not look attractive to them. If you concentrate your efforts on a quality CV and cover letter proving your extensive knowledge in the company and where you want to go within; they will give you a real chance. Especially with a PhD, they are going to expect a big ego, as if you can leave them at a whim. Companies love a person who is loyal and devoted, and they will reward you as such; but the only goal you should be emphasizing in the hiring process is what you can offer for their specific needs. You should be researching these companies as if it is a matter of life and death. Make sure you focus on key credendials for that specific job on your resume and cover letter, usless information will make the content too long and look like you are scrounging for information to include. Also make the resume as short as possible, preferably one page as it will looked jam packed with information applicable to that job and is less likely to have repeat material; encourage employers to research you more through the interview process...resume should be a teaser not a reference manual.

An email I sent to my friends who will be looking for work this spring:

Hey Guys,

I threw this post together while it was fresh in my mind. I know you
will all be job hunting in the next year, so I thought this
information may be helpful.

The Cover Letter is important as it is an open opportunity to get your
foot in the door with the company; shows interest and research in the
company. Secretaries typically go through the resume to make sure
credentials are in order, and the managers will skim it as cover
letters are to be treated like a memo.

I broke my cover letter into 4 sections, I consider it a bit long as
the managers don't like to waste their time reading long letters. As
long as every sentence has a direct point or skill applicable to the
specific job, you shouldn't worry too much about length.
1st paragraph: What attracted you to them, and where you found the
job/company, also an opportunity to show you know who they are and
youare researched.
2nd paragraph: Practical work experience/qualities applicable to the
job. If you have a good story with lots of attractive skills
apparent, use it.
3rd paragraph: Personality traits and technical knowledge, support
these claims with brief experiences, try to maintain a list format.
4th paragraph: Thank them for consideration, when you are available to
work, transportation if they request it.
Make sure to date, sign, address, etc.

Resumes are 1 or 2 pages for our level. No matter what size you
choose, make sure to use the whole page. 1 full page, or 2 full pages.
Anything else looks sparse and unqualified, it's a subconscious
thing. My Resume includes "Skill Summary, Work Experience, Education,
Technical". I'm missing "career objective/goals" and "volunteer exp",
i don't have volunteer and career goals I like to say in person after
I understand what they want me to do. If you do put a goal, pretend
you want to grow within their company, you are ambitious, and have no
limit to what you can do. Last thing they want to do is dump lots of
money into training a guy looking to go into his own business or jump
to a competitor. My resume is a little cramped, but it looks loaded
and all information has a point, there should never be filler on a
resume, straight up to the point. If anything seems weak and
irrelevant, it's going to look like you are scrounging for 'good
stuff'.

As for Interviewing, Workopolis has an excellent site on potential
questions they could ask, career services has a few good resources.
Simple etiquette stuff like how to dress, sit, what is off limits to
talk about in the first interview and the like.

All my resume and cover letter formats are custom and have been sent
to some friends, it will look stupid if all you guys potentially have
the same format as me when applying to jobs. So try to make yours
different, even though i've had complements on it in the past. Don't
pass around my personal information to everyone, I don't mind sending
the advice around though.

Good luck guys, you'll all do fine.

Don't tell me I don't do anything for you guys

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: RichardE

No, but your previous post of "I won't work in India/China" does. There are more R&D sectors than the US.

Edit: Though, ths US is by far the best.

Just saw the edit, but i have to ask: are you planning on India/China for employment? The schtuff i read about regulating/banning nanaotech stateside will put you squarly in Korea, China, Japan, or India. Your own medicine will be bitter as hell in a few years. Enjoy.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: RichardE

No, but your previous post of "I won't work in India/China" does. There are more R&D sectors than the US.

Edit: Though, ths US is by far the best.

Just saw the edit, but i have to ask: are you planning on India/China for employment? The schtuff i read about regulating/banning nanaotech stateside will put you squarly in Korea, China, Japan, or India. Your own medicine will be bitter as hell in a few years. Enjoy.

Actually, was looking directly at China and Korea for R&D, US/Canada/Europe/China for Academic if I need to go that route. As well as Canada for R&D depending. I am currently taking Mandarin classes and private mandarin classes (for China and Taiwan) I am looking at other language courses. I want to specifically work in R&D, where there is funding, that is where I will be going for.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Stunt
Probably me for having to pay for it...

Paying for "suckers" is indeed the larger sucker. Paying for those who cannot because of "legitimate" reason is not....

I recently (without choice) applied for unemployment. There is no incentive for these supposed "dead beats, minorties, lazy folk, etc" to rely on unemployment. Its less than HALF what i made as a severely underpaid postdoc. Is this a thing that you are unwilling to "pay" for--even though you "pay" only a fraction? Again, im tired of myopic parasites like you. Do you benefit from living in a society?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Stunt
Probably me for having to pay for it...

Paying for "suckers" is indeed the larger sucker. Paying for those who cannot because of "legitimate" reason is not....

I recently (without choice) applied for unemployment. There is no incentive for these supposed "dead beats, minorties, lazy folk, etc" to rely on unemployment. Its less than HALF what i made as a severely underpaid postdoc. Is this a thing that you are unwilling to "pay" for--even though you "pay" only a fraction? Again, im tired of myopic parasites like you. Do you benefit from living in a society?

I'm not sure why you're ranting at me ( I think the above is a rant) but I do think that there are those that abuse the system and give it an appearance that everybody does it. I didn't say to cut everybody off. I just think that there are those that abuse the system and should be cut off. I have seen this first hand (growing up in Eastern KY and living across the border from West Virginia).

Yes, I do benefit from living in society. However, there is nothing wrong for wanting to make it better....IMO.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Actually, was looking directly at China and Korea for R&D, US/Canada/Europe/China for Academic if I need to go that route. As well as Canada for R&D depending. I am currently taking Mandarin classes and private mandarin classes (for China and Taiwan) I am looking at other language courses. I want to specifically work in R&D, where there is funding, that is where I will be going for.

Congrats to you. You have a much better handle on whats currently "marketable" than i did in grad school a few years ago. I thought for sure that i would easily find something after finishining when i was accepted at berekeley. However, i did not predict that most companies would start offshoring R&D jobs for cheaper labor (cant knock this given that the bottom line is gawd to capitalists) or that there was going to be a glut of academics in my area. If you have a solid nanotech/engineering background plus some mandarin i would bet that youre golden for quite a while. Congrats. I wish i had your foresight so many years ago.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Stunt
Probably me for having to pay for it...

Paying for "suckers" is indeed the larger sucker. Paying for those who cannot because of "legitimate" reason is not....

I recently (without choice) applied for unemployment. There is no incentive for these supposed "dead beats, minorties, lazy folk, etc" to rely on unemployment. Its less than HALF what i made as a severely underpaid postdoc. Is this a thing that you are unwilling to "pay" for--even though you "pay" only a fraction? Again, im tired of myopic parasites like you. Do you benefit from living in a society?

I'm not sure why you're ranting at me ( I think the above is a rant) but I do think that there are those that abuse the system and give it an appearance that everybody does it. I didn't say to cut everybody off. I just think that there are those that abuse the system and should be cut off. I have seen this first hand (growing up in Eastern KY and living across the border from West Virginia).

Yes, I do benefit from living in society. However, there is nothing wrong for wanting to make it better....IMO.

Bad quoting on my part. Sorry Engineer, my comment was meant for stunt. However i do agree that there should be a point where folks get cut off. In Philadelphia it happens to be 24 weeks @ 50% of your gross pay for 5 quarters. Quite "generous," eh? It makes me wonder how much Stunt (and his amurikan ilk) really pays for poor/unemployed folk versus corporations. All while touting capitalism izz teh roxorz!!!!!!!

 

[Stunt]

The idea of capitalism is not to minimize my contributions, and maximize the burdenon companies...because in the end, companies will pass these costs down to me and everybody as a consumer.

The point of capitalism is to put the responsibility on the individual.

You decided to educate yourself, you should have the responsibility to make your own life. Your countrymen should not be burdened by your decisions, incompetence or life decisions.

Just the same, you should not benifit from others decisions, good fiscal management and success.

 

[WyteWatt]

What's amazing to me is how many DirecTV satellites I see when driving by Section 8 housing. Nice to know where the tax $$ is going towards - socialized cable television

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: WyteWatt
What's amazing to me is how many DirecTV satellites I see when driving by Section 8 housing. Nice to know where the tax $$ is going towards - socialized cable television

Keep the people appeased, it is easier to herd them along that way.

 

[arsbanned]

8 weeks of unnecessary war and you're cut off. You see, that's why I disagree with such bullsh!t, draconian ideas, because people are more than willing to vote for an a-hole who spends billions on corporate welfare and wars, but damn, cut the little guy off at the knees. It's beyond absurd. And they do it with a straight face!

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
8 weeks of unnecessary war and you're cut off. You see, that's why I disagree with such bullsh!t, draconian ideas, because people are more than willing to vote for an a-hole who spends billions on corporate welfare and wars, but damn, cut the little guy off at the knees. It's beyond absurd. And they do it with a straight face!

So any attempt to curtail spending or fix spending problems is absurd because other spending issues are happening? Are we suppose to stop it all at once, or slowly make changes.? We are suppose to support them because they are the lazy guy?

 

[MCsommerreid]

Originally posted by: conjur
A brief synopsis of my opinion on this:


Two years of full benefits (including child care) to allow someone to obtain job training or, say, a two-year degree. After the 2nd year, the benefits are greatly reduced as the recipient should now have a good job but keep a bit extra going to give them a good foundation (esp. to cover costs of child care) After the 3rd year, no more Federal benefits. If a person still has no job after 3 years, they must then rely upon private charity.

I totally agree with conjur, except I think 3 years might be a little too long for anything but say state child care, which should be accessable untill the child is old enough to stay home alone or the family gets an income it can live on. Perhaps full assistance and job search aid for 1 year, then childcare and partial aid for half a year, and then just child care untill the family is self sufficient or the child is old enough to stay home alone.

There should, however, be regular checks to make sure that the family isn't wasting their money or their time. Satilite TV on welfare? Welfare is cut off then and there. Newest air Jordans? Goodbye welfare.

The costs would probably be taken up just by adding the new tax payers and perhaps a small tax increase on the exorbinantly wealthy.

 

[Rainsford]

Every time the welfare debate some up, it really becomes a debate on who is on welfare. The people who, for lack of a better word, are against welfare never shape their argument as being against helping people who for some reason that is in no way their fault, are unable to support themselves. It's always limiting people who COULD work, but are just lazy and taking advantage of the system. Those for welfare see the argument the exact opposite, we're not supporting lazy people who should really get off the couch and find a job, we're supporting the single mother who's husband ran off and she's stuck working whatever low wage job she can get with a high school education.

So...it seems like the only intelligent way to solve this issue is to do some sort of needs based program. Because neither side can be totally right here, I'm sure there are people who abuse the system, just like I'm sure there are people who really do need society's help. A good way to approach the issue would be to base welfare on evaluations and, more importantly, tie it to some sort of education/work program. Help those who can help themselves, and the handouts are reserved for those who can't. Otherwise we have a system that is either wasteful and doesn't help people get back on their feet, or we have a system run by assholes who believe in social karma, even though THEY almost certainly never had to claw their way up from the bottom of the economic ladder.

 

[bctbct]

Welfare is much more complicated than the thought of just cut them off.

If you do this, how will the children be fed and clothed?

Would it lead to higher crime rates?

Should someone be penalized and lose everything because they lose their job and cannot find a suitable replacement?

Heath care and child care costs trap people into staying on welfare.

I have reached a point where I am for cutting off welfare to other countries. We dont care enough about our people and cities.

The money we send overseas dwarfs the welfare system in this country and if you want to cut spending, start here.

US tax payer dollars are putting computers in the schools of Iraq, yet US school districts are asking parents to contribute $1500 for their kids to have one here.

Spending needs to be cut...but not from welfare that has been trimmed considerably from past programs.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: bctbct
The money we send overseas dwarfs the welfare system in this country and if you want to cut spending, start here.

Not even close. The entire foreign aid budget for 2004 is in the 20-billion range AFAIK, an very small percentage of overall budget.

Originally posted by: bctbct
US tax payer dollars are putting computers in the schools of Iraq, yet US school districts are asking parents to contribute $1500 for their kids to have one here.

Because each additional computer with access to the Internet in school in Iraq will take another 50 (guesstimate) people off the streets and out of the terrorist schools.

Originally posted by: bctbct
Spending needs to be cut...but not from welfare that has been trimmed considerably from past programs.

Usually that implies "useless" budget items, like NIH, NASA, etc...

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: bctbct
The money we send overseas dwarfs the welfare system in this country and if you want to cut spending, start here.

Not even close. The entire foreign aid budget for 2004 is in the 20-billion range AFAIK, an very small percentage of overall budget.

Originally posted by: bctbct
US tax payer dollars are putting computers in the schools of Iraq, yet US school districts are asking parents to contribute $1500 for their kids to have one here.

Because each additional computer with access to the Internet in school in Iraq will take another 50 (guesstimate) people off the streets and out of the terrorist schools.

Originally posted by: bctbct
Spending needs to be cut...but not from welfare that has been trimmed considerably from past programs.

Usually that implies "useless" budget items, like NIH, NASA, etc...

Why would you consider NASA useless?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Why would you consider NASA useless?

I don't. I was being sarcastic, because I've lost count of how many times I've been told that we should shut down NASA and eliminate federal research grants.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: RichardE
Why would you consider NASA useless?

I don't. I was being sarcastic, because I've lost count of how many times I've been told that we should shut down NASA and eliminate federal research grants.

ah ok I was about to jump all over you for it :beer:

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: RichardE
Why would you consider NASA useless?

I don't. I was being sarcastic, because I've lost count of how many times I've been told that we should shut down NASA and eliminate federal research grants.

ah ok I was about to jump all over you for it :beer:

Me <-- scientist

I would never think that. Heh.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: RichardE
Why would you consider NASA useless?

I don't. I was being sarcastic, because I've lost count of how many times I've been told that we should shut down NASA and eliminate federal research grants.

ah ok I was about to jump all over you for it :beer:

Me <-- scientist

I would never think that. Heh.

heh, Im hopefully going into R&D so I love getting into these grants debates

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: bctbct
The money we send overseas dwarfs the welfare system in this country and if you want to cut spending, start here.

Not even close. The entire foreign aid budget for 2004 is in the 20-billion range AFAIK, an very small percentage of overall budget.

Originally posted by: bctbct
US tax payer dollars are putting computers in the schools of Iraq, yet US school districts are asking parents to contribute $1500 for their kids to have one here.

Because each additional computer with access to the Internet in school in Iraq will take another 50 (guesstimate) people off the streets and out of the terrorist schools.

Originally posted by: bctbct
Spending needs to be cut...but not from welfare that has been trimmed considerably from past programs.

Usually that implies "useless" budget items, like NIH, NASA, etc...

Meant to say the welfare cost is much lower than international aide

If we have 130K troops in Iraq and we are still allowing them to have terrorist schools....maybe they need the computers.....

 

[tommywishbone]

I know we're a big rough & tough country... lots of testosterone... guns... wars... the death penalty, but maybe we can give the poor & broken citizens a few crumbs. Let them have their welfare. A little compassion... maybe?