patrick.net

HousingWatcher says

"prohibition of discrimination in employment on the basis of an individual's status as unemployed."

was the only single sensible item in the Bill.

But it still wont create jobs, it will just create legal complications over the few jobs that are available. It might even stagnate jobs, as is this becomes an issue, employers will be afraid to hire fill positions. Because they wont be allowed to choose the most qualified or effective but the most mandated needy.

That being said, bill or no bill, you'd think it would be unlawful to deny employment based on the length of unemployment(with in reason).

...They should hit him over the head with it... right away!

Only one state so far has banned discrimination based on unemployment status... New Jersey. It was signed into law by Republican governor and GOP action hero Chris Christie.

Oh great. If I was an employer, instead of me telling the candidate that I will not hire him because he is unemployed, I can just not call him back. If he stirs up trouble, I can just say we found someone better.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/14/132056874/the-hard-truth-companies-don-t-hire-unemployed

I know that it sounds dumb, but there are people who can't get jobs... and from what I read, if they're not employed for a year or so, employers are looking at them with suspicion. Rather than to consider that people might be out of work because there's no job, the employers figure the job seekers are lazy.

This bill is aimed at employers who post stuff like this:
"Some job postings include restrictions such as "unemployed candidates will not be considered" or "must be currently employed." http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm

Of course, with this bill the employers just won't be as open about not hiring someone. There are still millions of unemployed people out there.

Ellie I've heard employers are looking as little as a three month unemployment gap as a huge negative.

I actually took 6 months off one time to work on my own projects and to build systems for a friend.

The next employer was actually impressed by the fruits of my labor and it aided them in the decision to hire me.

I think today it would have been viewed differently.

Tenouncetrout says

Ellie I've heard employers are looking as little as a three month unemployment gap as a huge negative.

Then again, as someone who actually is involved in hiring people, we ignore gaps that short because we know the economy is rough right now. The gap would have to be far larger to raise any eyebrows in this economy.

shrekgrinch says

Do you actually have the arrogance to believe that just because you see things that way that other companies 'must automatically do the same as well'?

No, where did I say that? It's clearly marked as my own experience. I don't generally try to overgeneralize one person's words to massive groups of people like you typically do.

I have never seen a group of people try so hard to get rid of one person's job at the expense of a million jobs.

Truthplease says

at the expense of a million jobs.

A large part of the problem is that we're expecting government to do something to create jobs.

It really shouldn't work that way.

The public isn't being given the scorecard of what needs fixing, and we're not smart enough to figure it out on our own, or organized enough to push that into policy even if we were.

shrekgrinch says

corntrollio says

The gap would have to be far larger to raise any eyebrows in this economy.

'any' is not a sub-set that just means 'controlio'..it means 'anyone out of the entire population' really.

Erm.. I didn't interpret it as you did shrek. It appears he used any because he likely works in a team environment. He is not the shot-caller. Just because he says hire does not mean candidate X will get hired; the involved people will likely have to collaborate. He was speaking of how his team works it seems. I'd say he's qualified to represent his colleagues in a situation like this.

vain says

I didn't interpret it as you did shrek. It appears he used any because he likely works in a team environment. He is not the shot-caller.

Yes, that's correct -- I'm not the only shot-caller. It's pretty clear from context that I'm talking about my colleagues and me.

Apparently as a job creator, I'm part of the peanut gallery. :p

Why don't they just give each new worker 1% tax break for 1-5 years on the next job for each month of employment; after the 15% in the payroll/SS tax is eaten up, cut into the income tax. That way, the job applicant can do the math and ask for a voluntary wage reduction at the interview and give the employers the incentive to hire them . . . or at least remove the disincentive/frictional loss caused by the taxes.

You gotta give the Obama team credit for the $4k hiring credit though: it's a round-about way of circumventing the minimum wage law without upsetting the crowd that has embraced the superstition that wage is set by government instead of the market place.

Corntrolio posted his opinion, and all you can do is attack him. In fact, that's all that you do on every thread - when you can't find a reason to attack the message, you attack the messager.

Shrek is an anti-dentite. A rabid anti-dentite.

elliemae says

Corntrolio posted his opinion, and all you can do is attack him. In fact, that's all that you do on every thread - when you can't find a reason to attack the message, you attack the messager.

Yeah, I gave a quite obvious anecdote of personal experience. Is it ambiguous to anyone else in context? Is it unclear to anyone else what I was saying in context?

Shrek usually can't make a good argument that's supported by facts, so he attacks the messenger a lot. He confuses this as being "libruhl" for some reason, which is equally nonsensical. People can disagree without being at an ideological pole in the real world.

Please, in the future, be corntrollio says

The gap would have to be far larger to raise any eyebrows in this economy.

When you said "any" I thought you meant "any person who has eyebrows."

However, it's now obvious that your post applies to anyone, both with & without eyebrows. I can now see the error of my ways and I apologize profusely if my ignorance created any hurt feelings. At all - any at all! For anyone! I mean, like, anyone in the world, both with & without eyebrows.

Although I would like to add that, frankly, what confuses me about your post is how to apply it to unibrows.

shrekgrinch says

No...no one can disagree about what is in the dictionary or proper word usage.

Actually, that shows a terrible grasp of the principles of linguistics. Modern theories of linguistics talk about the language adapting to the people rather than another way around. In any case, your point is still absurd -- my comment was clear enough in context, and you're just splitting hairs and trying to find an error because you got showed up. Again, I leave it open to other people as to whether what I said was ambiguous.

shrekgrinch says

There's an argument

No, it's not an argument, it's an interpretation.

Yeah, shrekgrinch makes awesome constitutional arguments, we all know. :p

What's wrong, corntrolio?

elliemae says

frankly, what confuses me about your post is how to apply it to unibrows.

Are you too afraid of the truth to explain yourself? The english language doesn't lie, you know. Even if your posts were to contain egrigious grammatical errors and your sentence structure were to resemble that of an 8th grade stoner at times while you displayed a terrible grasp of the principles of linguistics, you should still be able to shed some light on the unibrow issue.

Even if your every post was designed to attack people and turn it into a political argument with asinine theories and accusations; even if you were to personally attack another poster repeatedly merely because he bests you at your every turn; even if you were to pay homage to yourself in a thread because you're feeling unloved and picked upon; even if you were to remain unable to comprehend that you are the glowing example of a troll; even if you were to hijack every thread to the point that the forum is no longer a fun place to be (hence the mass exodus), you still refuse to address the issue at hand...

I shall dub this "Unibrowgate."

elliemae says

I shall dub this "Unibrowgate."

You're hilarious elliemae.

What shrekgrinch doesn't get is that I attack his arguments, not him. They are generally poorly stated, display a failure to think critically, and often are not fact-based, as numerous people around here have stated. A large part of the issue is his extreme use of ideology -- which means that he often makes circular arguments and falls into other logical fallacies fairly consistently. This is a problem with many ideological people on all parts of the spectrum.

Good thing the record is public, and no one actually has to take shrek's word for anything. If his arguments improve at some point, I'm happy to revise my statement.

corntrollio says

You're hilarious elliemae.

You dodge the question, grasshopper. Duck & cover, duck & cover... I demand to know why you won't address what those people with a unibrow would do if there were a far larger gap in an employment application.

Would they stand on a chair?

Enquiring minds want to know how a person afflicted with synophrys would react in this specific situation. If you don't answer, I shall out your spouse on the interwebs and attack you personally until another, more interesting thread is started.

shrekgrinch says

EM -- I am heartened to see you dish it out 'equal opportunity style'...even if it may only be in jest. Thank You.

corntrollio says

What shrekgrinch doesn't get is that I attack his arguments, not him.

...and what he obviously doesn't get is that I was referring to him:

elliemae says

your every post was designed to attack people and turn it into a political argument with asinine theories and accusations

shrek, check...

elliemae says

even if you were to personally attack another poster repeatedly merely because he bests you at your every turn

shrek, check...

elliemae says

even if you were to pay homage to yourself in a thread because you're feeling unloved and picked upon

shrek, check...

elliemae says

even if you were to remain unable to comprehend that you are the glowing example of a troll

shrek, check...

elliemae says

even if you were to hijack every thread to the point that the forum is no longer a fun place to be (hence the mass exodus)

...and shrek, check.

Proving yet again that "intelligent" doesn't necessarily translate into "smart."

Only gullible people would believe that this so called jobs bill will create jobs or prosperity. These dang politician crooks will say anything to spend our tax dollars

Bellingham Bob says

A large part of the problem is that we're expecting government to do something to create jobs.

WHEN has gubmint ever added to the GDP by creating jobs. They CANNOT.

Why don't we hire Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, John Chambers, Ceo's from various Manufacturing and Service industries, offer THEM big stimuli to CREATE jobs. EVEN THEY CANNOT !!!! What a fractured joke. Our elected leader is a used car salesman telling the unwitted that the knocking you here from under the hood is to be expected. Gubmint's JOB is to attempt to sustain confidence. Deception works on too many. While they blow another half a trill. Bellingham Bob says

The public isn't being given the scorecard of what needs fixing, and we're not smart enough to figure it out on our own, or organized enough to push that into policy even if we were.

Pictures of a TRILLION DOLLARS. http://thechive.com/2009/03/12/what-does-1-trillion-dollars-look-like-8-photos/

We had NO problem with unemployment til the end of the evolution of the information age. all THOSE jobs are no longer required, they vanished ! POOF ! OBAMA implies he will just invent NEW POSITIONS out of thin air, IF we cough up more CASH/CREDIT. I need an audio of Sam Kinisin Screamin.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/sep/17/frustration-depression-plague-long-time-unemployed/

(note: while I'm still waiting for an answer on unibrowgate, I'll be serious for a moment.) The economy sucks - and for people who believe that the woman mentioned in the article is responsible for her job-related problems, it might help to remember that casino jobs have been plentiful for years. People with this woman's skills were greatly desired; in fact, kids just out of high school were able to get valet jobs where they made well over $100k.

Just like when the steel mills shut down and decimated entire towns, that's what's happening in Vegas. We need jobs, not promises. Not bipartisan arguments. The economy soured before Obama took office and even if he's re-elected, it will take years before there's a turnaround.

I just wish, instead of Shrek's hateful accusations and blaming this on his imagined enemies, we could have a real discussion.

shrekgrinch says

elliemae says

I just wish, instead of Shrek's hateful accusations

What 'hateful accusations'?

Please re-read your posts on every thread. You cross the line wayyyyyyyyyyy too much and contribute nothing beyond how much you hate liberals. If a thread is about anything else, you still manage to blame it on liberals.

You've driven away many posters with your drivel. Congratulations, you must be so proud.

It's not your reputation, sherk. It's that you've made it all about you & your hatred of Obama.

You've fucked up your reputation on your own.

corntrollio says

What shrekgrinch doesn't get is that I attack his arguments, not him.

I don't think that shrek can differentiate between the two.

shrekgrinch says

elliemae says

It's that you've made it all about you & your hatred of Obama.

No, Obama fucked things up. I am merely point it out and the rest of you Obama ass kissers on here HATE that.

Be honest.

I am be honest. Me speak truth. You - thread hijacker, hater. Maybe book-learned smart but reality not your strong suit. I am merely point it out.

elliemae says

Maybe book-learned smart

Mmmm... I don't think book smart is a strong suite either.

Although I won't claim that the bill itself would help create jobs.....

Congress has to pass something because constantly saying no to everything Obama says will hurt them in the long run.

All Obama would have to say is everything is political and the majority are against me so to get something done relelect me and put more democrats in office. Otherwise we might be going back to Bush (in image but not reality)

shrekgrinch says

leoj707 says

I don't think that shrek can differentiate between the two.

I don't have to...simply logic does that for me.

I rest my case.

Inless the bill had huge import tarrifs, it won't really create any new jobs in the US.