Working For Bill O'Reilly

Scataphagos · Apr 25, 2014

Caught his show the other night.

He espouses the notion of "America as a meritocracy"... you earn and advance by what you ACCOMPLISH! Says, "I don't care about ethnicity, religion, sexual preference or gender. What I care about is that you be well-spoken, work hard, and produce results. If you're not that or can't do that, then you can't work for me."

That USED to be "what America was all about". In addition, O'Reilly says there is a $100 fine for using such words as "awesome", "cool", "dude", "bro"... and others.

The Founders, my sage, old grandfather and I wholeheartedly agree.

FWIW...

Ricter · Apr 25, 2014

So there are enough jobs for all, it's just that many are choosing to not take them?

blah12345678 · Apr 25, 2014

Ricter said:
So there are enough jobs for all, it's just that many are choosing to not take them?

More likely, there are enough jobs, but there is a major mismatch between experience and skills needed vs what the job seekers actually possess.

Businesses live for the here and now (in their quest for lower operating expenses, higher net profits, and higher stock prices), so they buy/hire what they need right now. They don't invest for the future. They want results now, and are willing to pay for it.

I think the reason we have any unemployment is that the job seekers fail to take initiative and adapt to the changing needs of the marketplace. Specifically, populating their resumes/CV with the right companies and right buzzwords/acronyms.

If you don't have what the companies want, you're not going to get hired. They're not going to change to accommodate you. You have to change to accommodate them.

maxpi · Apr 25, 2014

I'm in my late 60's, entirely healthy, very skilled, MENSA member... I'm not going to get a job no matter what...

Ricter · Apr 25, 2014

blah12345678 said:
More likely, there are enough jobs, but there is a major mismatch between experience and skills needed vs what the job seekers actually possess.

Businesses live for the here and now (in their quest for lower operating expenses, higher net profits, and higher stock prices), so they buy/hire what they need right now. They don't invest for the future. They want results now, and are willing to pay for it.

I think the reason we have any unemployment is that the job seekers fail to take initiative and adapt to the changing needs of the marketplace. Specifically, populating their resumes/CV with the right companies and right buzzwords/acronyms.

If you don't have what the companies want, you're not going to get hired. They're not going to change to accommodate you. You have to change to accommodate them.

Could be. We should see strongly rising wage offerings in such circumstances, though.

blah12345678 · Apr 25, 2014

Ricter said:
Could be. We should see strongly rising wage offerings in such circumstances, though.

In the major cities/industries, this is true. Like NYC, Chicago, Boston, LA, or Silly Valley.

My rate as a contractor jumped from $12/hr to $50/hr in 3 years as I progressed as a Unix SA back in 1995-1998...

Ricter · Apr 25, 2014

blah12345678 said:
In the major cities/industries, this is true. Like NYC, Chicago, Boston, LA, or Silly Valley.

My rate as a contractor jumped from $12/hr to $50/hr in 3 years as I progressed as a Unix SA back in 1995-1998...

I believe your sector is one of the very few for which this is true.

bigarrow · Apr 25, 2014

maxpi said:
I'm in my late 60's, entirely healthy, very skilled, MENSA member... I'm not going to get a job no matter what...

Besides bragging rights were there any benefits to being a mensa member ? I took the test back in the college days and made high enough score to join and went to a mensa mixer, it was kinda boring. My plate was pretty full back in those days with a full time job, wife and a kid and going to school so I didn't join.

blah12345678 · Apr 25, 2014

Ricter said:
I believe your sector is one of the very few for which this is true.

Well, I think the universe of high paying jobs/industries is larger than one thinks...

legal
medical
technology
marketing
public relations
entertainment
financial
lobbying
government contracting
c-level positions in the Fortune 2000

I imagine there are at least 1-20 million employed in these industries...

Honestly, I do not know why anyone wants a job. Nowadays, its not as secure as doing your own thing.

One of my wild hair ideas in my non-published manifesto is to tax companies with greater than $5B in annual worldwide revenue at a tax rate of 25% of worldwide revenue. To avoid the tax, companies would need to split up into much smaller pieces. Each piece requires separate independent management and ownership structures. And maybe a provision to prevent them from recombining in the future through mergers..

The intent is to move to "smaller is better" - allow people to fill the resulting voids by running their own shops instead of working for the big corp. Allow/encourage them to embrace responsibility for their own lives instead of relying on big companies or government.

The big conglomerates like Berkshire Hathaway, GE, ATT, Proctor & Gamble, RJ Reynolds, Cisco, Microsoft, etc, would be relics of the past...

Opponents would argue that getting bigger offer economies of scale. In my view, the only economies of scale they offer are bigger pay packages for the C-level employees and board members....

Ricter · Apr 25, 2014

blah12345678 said:
Well, I think the universe of high paying jobs/industries is larger than one thinks...

legal
medical
technology
marketing
public relations
entertainment
financial
lobbying
government contracting
c-level positions in the Fortune 2000

I imagine there are at least 1-20 million employed in these industries...

Honestly, I do not know why anyone wants a job. Nowadays, its not as secure as doing your own thing.

One of my wild hair ideas in my non-published manifesto is to tax companies with greater than $5B in annual worldwide revenue at a tax rate of 25% of worldwide revenue. To avoid the tax, companies would need to split up into much smaller pieces. Each piece requires separate independent management and ownership structures. And maybe a provision to prevent them from recombining in the future through mergers..

The intent is to move to "smaller is better" - allow people to fill the resulting voids by running their own shops instead of working for the big corp. Allow/encourage them to embrace responsibility for their own lives instead of relying on big companies or government.

The big conglomerates like Berkshire Hathaway, GE, ATT, Proctor & Gamble, RJ Reynolds, Cisco, Microsoft, etc, would be relics of the past...

Opponents would argue that getting bigger offer economies of scale. In my view, the only economies of scale they offer are bigger pay packages for the C-level employees and board members....

My argument is not that there are few high paying jobs, but that wages and compensation are not rising rapidly or even significantly across the general economy, so the idea that unemployment is mostly structural can at best only be true for a few sectors.