|
Recruiters and much of HR have to be some of the biggest grifters in the private sector. Literally do nothing but pretend to know how to hire The Best People all day long and still get normal-rear end employees.
|
#
¿
May 13, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
People do move to the city because they think their life will be better there, whether that’s because they want to go clubbing, because their desired work industry is there, or because they are discriminated against in their home community. Also because, even if they don’t have a specific career in mind, there is generally more opportunity for work in cities. These are all acceptable reasons to move to a city and we should not discourage people. What is not acceptable is disgustingly wealthy people, foreign or domestic, buying up tons of real estate that they’ll never use and squeezing everyone else out. Or NIMBYs camping out in neighborhoods and slowly strangling everyone else to death by refusing to allow any changes that would do anything other than increase their property value. Or landlords squatting on acres of vacant property seeking fantastical rents. So let’s not blame the actual residents of cities before we blame the people who use the cities for everything except living and working in.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:There's a lot of discourtesy on the hiring side that I think is often compeltely unnecessary. In 2019 an HR department should at least be able to process a polite mass rejection email to candidates who weren't selected. Often I think delays are caused by the team a person's being hired for not having their poo poo together or having other things to do and being professionals about thier jobs but not about that, so it's probably a hard problem to solve. I’ve actually found my most “transactional” bosses to be some of my best, due to their respecting me as a human being who needs to work in order to make money. On the other hand, the other bosses, who I will call “lifestyle bosses”, tend to be some of the worst. They want you to hurl your heart and soul into the job because of course you love it. So you do that, and you stake a great deal of your self-worth on it, but the boss of course can just hide behind “the budget”/“corporate”/his/her boss when they inevitably deny your devoted rear end a raise. So it’s personal for you, transactional for them. On a related note, these also tend to be the bosses with shelves full of airheaded books on management.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
If you find yourself lamenting that workers are being too transactional, ask yourself what you’re doing for them in order for you not to be approaching their work in a transactional way. Is it cool if they slack off a lot? Is it cool if they take long lunches sometimes? Do you offer good insurance, time off, parental leave? Will you go way out of your way to avoid firing them? Because if you’re doing all you can to maximize profit off of their work, you’re approaching the relationship transactionally.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Fair enough, but this still doesn't say too much. Using your Texas figure, 5% of the workforce over the age of 25 works for minimum wage there, where the state and federal minimum wages are the same figure. I'd imagine there's an increase in the percentage of workers making minimum wage in states with higher state minimum wages, but I can't imagine it's significant enough to make that number "massive." The median household income is nearly $60,000, which would require 2 people making, in wage terms, over $14 an hour discounting overtime, or one person making a whole hell of a lot more than minimum wage. With that being the case in over half of American households, the situation isn't as godawful as some people here are trying to make it seem, although there's obviously a bunch of room for improvement on the income inequality and personal debt fronts. It's the bottom quarter of the income bracket that is getting pinched at the moment, not the bottom three quarters like it seems to be portrayed here by people acting like engaging in the US economy is for suckers. And a solid chunk of the people on the low end of the scale aren't doomed to be in that situation for the rest of their life. They've just hit a rough patch or haven't gotten their footing in their current/future career path. That's not the case for everyone certainly, and that needs to be addressed yesterday, but that doesn't change the fact that most of y'all don't have an excuse. I don’t completely disagree with you, but I also want to point out that even if we tracked exactly how many people made federal and state minimum wage, that does not count people making ¢10 over minimum, which is common at a lot of “minimum wage” jobs. Or ¢20 or ¢30 or whatever. But yeah a lot of people make quite a bit more. They struggle with rising rent and healthcare costs too, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2019 12:58
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I'm amazed San Diego is that low, to be honest. My wife and I had to move outside of Boston proper, which broke my Boston heart, just to find something affordable on the T that wasn't enough of a commute that I would miss too much time with my infant son, and we pay $1500 for a pretty modest apartment (and it's considered a steal - we knew somebody who knew somebody, thanks, white-people social capital - and if we had to move and stay in the area, we'd probably be paying $500 more). Parents lived in Boston for a while, have a few friends there. Boston COL is *nuts*. I straight up do not know why people bother trying to live there sometimes. Also, like everything is outside of Boston proper because the city itself is microscopic.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Some of us were born here and don't want to leave, basically. What I mean I guess is that Boston is way bigger than Boston proper would lead you to believe, because in any other city (like Chicago where I live), places like Cambridge would be neighborhoods.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
I think the reason people on the left opposed UBI is the reasonable fear that life will become Vonnegut’s Player Piano. We have a bunch of stuff for free and money to spend on treats, but a couple of guys still own everything and ultimately everything, including UBI, is designed first and foremost to funnel more money into their pockets. Which means it is sub-optimally designed to meet actual people’s needs.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2019 14:57
|
|