pettie4sox Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 06:04 PM) I giggle with anticipation of all these government workers actually having to get a real job without some criminal union protecting their incompetence. Welcome to the real world guys! You may have to work once and a while. With family that works for the government, I have to say that your comment is most unpleasant sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 (edited) http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/19/...oWhatsNewsThird American incomes have tumbled over the last decade. But for many people in Washington, D.C., it’s been something of a party. The income of the typical D.C. household rose 23.3% between 2000 and 2012 to an inflation-adjusted $66,583, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, its most comprehensive snapshot of America’s demographic, social and economic trends. During this period, median household incomes for the nation as a whole dropped 6.6% — from $55,030 to $51,371. The state of Mississippi, which had one of the biggest declines, dropped 15% to $37,095: Nearly one in three people there have an income that is near the poverty line. This a fundamental aspect of Obamanomics. Tax the poor so you can give generous pay raises to the wealthy in DC. The increase doesn't even include the billions in bribe money. Edited September 20, 2013 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 Somebody appears to have scammed another fortune by getting news of the Federal Reserve's announcement that they'd continue their bond-buying program a couple milliseconds early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 I might be the only one who giggles at the irony, but the Twitter IPO filing is 120,000 words long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 04:16 PM) I might be the only one who giggles at the irony, but the Twitter IPO filing is 120,000 words long. I think you should set up a twitter account and gradually tweet your way through it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) I think you should set up a twitter account and gradually tweet your way through it. So I couldn't resist... The entire IPO document comes in at 754,890 characters, including spaces (which twitter does) meaning you would need 5393 tweets to put the entire IPO up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Sep 19, 2013 -> 09:49 AM) They don't have pensions and are not nearly paid as well as their government counterpart. Are you suggesting then that competent people accept jobs that pay less and do not offer pensions? Why do they do that if government jobs are so much better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) So I couldn't resist... The entire IPO document comes in at 754,890 characters, including spaces (which twitter does) meaning you would need 5393 tweets to put the entire IPO up. Being that you are a hard working private industry employee, why aren't you getting started? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 07:05 PM) Are you suggesting then that competent people accept jobs that pay less and do not offer pensions? Why do they do that if government jobs are so much better? Really? Get one of those really great government jobs without being the daughter's step-sister's cousin of a connect politician. Oh, you mean because it's easier to get work in the private sector when you don't know anyone? About what I thought. Welcome to the real world, Tex. You don't get those awesome government jobs without being born into the royal family that is US politics...or being lucky enough to actually become a freiend of a family member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Really? Get one of those really great government jobs without being the daughter's step-sister's cousin of a connect politician. Oh, you mean because it's easier to get work in the private sector when you don't know anyone? About what I thought. Welcome to the real world, Tex. You don't get those awesome government jobs without being born into the royal family that is US politics...or being lucky enough to actually become a freiend of a family member. I got my job with no connections at all, and all but 3 of the hundreds of people I've ever hired had no connections I was aware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 08:07 PM) I got my job with no connections at all, and all but 3 of the hundreds of people I've ever hired had no connections I was aware of. Sounds like a load of crap. You are 39, claiming to have hired "hundreds of people", and out of those hundreds, just 3 were connected. That is a mathematically awesome, and seemingly impossible ratio. If it was just you, I'd say you were the exception to the rule, but being that you've claimed to hire "hundreds" of full time -- unconnected employees -- at the ripe old age of 39...is laughable. TL;DR: Bulls***. Edited October 12, 2013 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 08:23 PM) Sounds like a load of crap. You are 39, claiming to have hired "hundreds of people", and out of those hundreds, just 3 were connected. That is a mathematically awesome, and seemingly impossible ratio. If it was just you, I'd say you were the exception to the rule, but being that you've claimed to hire "hundreds" of full time -- unconnected employees -- at the ripe old age of 39...is laughable. TL;DR: Bulls***. My dad didn't get his federal job through any connections beyond a former co-worker let him know there was an opening. If you're talking about political appointment positions that's one thing, but you're talking out of your butt for the average federal employee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Sounds like a load of crap. You are 39, claiming to have hired "hundreds of people", and out of those hundreds, just 3 were connected. That is a mathematically awesome, and seemingly impossible ratio. If it was just you, I'd say you were the exception to the rule, but being that you've claimed to hire "hundreds" of full time -- unconnected employees -- at the ripe old age of 39...is laughable. TL;DR: Bulls***. Three had connections that I knew of, and if I was the one doing the hiring and wasn't aware of their connections, then it doesn't really matter that they were connected, does it? I've been a Federal employee for 14 years, with 8 of those as a direct supervisor and 3 as a manager of a 400+ person operation, so why is it unrealistic that I've hired hundreds of people, especially in an agency that hires half a million temps every 10 years? I'm sure that high level hires in politically-sensitive positions probably work like you think they do, but out here where we have thousands of workers making $25K/year and supervisors making $35K/year it operates much more like a regular business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 12, 2013 -> 07:15 AM) My dad didn't get his federal job through any connections beyond a former co-worker let him know there was an opening. If you're talking about political appointment positions that's one thing, but you're talking out of your butt for the average federal employee. Federal hiring is done on a weighted point system based on a lot of different factors, including sex, age, race, veteran status. It is completely different than being hired in the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Yeah, it seems to be very proceduralized. Again, not for patronage/political appointment positions, but for an overwhelming majority of the federal workforce. OTOH many, many times in the private sector it's all about knowing someone who works there, especially these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 07:58 PM) Really? Get one of those really great government jobs without being the daughter's step-sister's cousin of a connect politician. Oh, you mean because it's easier to get work in the private sector when you don't know anyone? About what I thought. Welcome to the real world, Tex. You don't get those awesome government jobs without being born into the royal family that is US politics...or being lucky enough to actually become a freiend of a family member. What percentage of the jobs are hired that way? Is it just federal, or state, and local also? There are millions and millions of people who work for government agencies in this country, from the lady who accepts your water bill at your city office, to school teachers, garbage workers, cops, soldiers, postal carriers, inspectors, Doctors, lawyers, accountants, researchers, translators, and there are enough relatives to cover all those positions. Of course nepotism and favoritism doesn't exist in the private sector? You are joking correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 12, 2013 -> 10:48 AM) What percentage of the jobs are hired that way? Is it just federal, or state, and local also? There are millions and millions of people who work for government agencies in this country, from the lady who accepts your water bill at your city office, to school teachers, garbage workers, cops, soldiers, postal carriers, inspectors, Doctors, lawyers, accountants, researchers, translators, and there are enough relatives to cover all those positions. Of course nepotism and favoritism doesn't exist in the private sector? You are joking correct? It exists in the private sector too. But much moreso in the public sector. Of course, to be fair, this is largely a thing of the past and is slowly going away, but growing up in Bridgeport, which is basically a town of Chicago city workers, everyone knew somebody, and that's how they all have their jobs today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 It exists in the private sector too. But much moreso in the public sector. Of course, to be fair, this is largely a thing of the past and is slowly going away, but growing up in Bridgeport, which is basically a town of Chicago city workers, everyone knew somebody, and that's how they all have their jobs today. Try to not compare the most corrupt government in the world to the rest of the government entities. That would be a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Pope Francis: Capitalism is “a new tyranny” Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 He didn't exactly say all of capitalism is a "new tyranny," but it's a pretty interesting read. And it makes a point I've been at for a while: No to a financial system which rules rather than serves 57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside of the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”.[55] 58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and a return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings. The theology aside, too often our modern economic systems are treated as immutable, natural forces, something like the laws of motion that we are powerless to change and can only work with or around. Money, economies, markets should serve people, and, where they do not, should be changed, abolished or regulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I think there's at least one person here who will enjoy an article entitled "The incredible stock-picking ability of SEC employees" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 What's the delta (odds) the Dems produce a budget this year?....I am at 7....for those who don't know...the lower the delta the smaller the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 given that they said today that they aren't going to because they just finished a reconciliation budget deal for the next year last month... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2014 -> 07:54 PM) given that they said today that they aren't going to because they just finished a reconciliation budget deal for the next year last month... The next year already being five months old. So new fiscal year starts in October. Just wondering. I think with the election in November, no way Reid makes the Redstaters take a vote before it occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Ryan and Murray agreement was for a two year budget deal. So there will not be one this year. Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts