Shortly after reading the following e-mail content, I
happened to look at the label of a jar of Heinz
sandwich slice pickles. Yep...."Made in Mexico" Check
some of your other Heinz products.
"Sen. John Kerry keeps talking about U.S.
corporations leaving this country and setting up shop
in foreign countries, taking thousands of jobs with
them. He is right, because that has happened.
However, he is trying to blame it on George W. Bush.
As far as I know, Bush has not moved one factory out
of this country because he is not the owner of a
single factory. That cannot be said about Kerry and
his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry.
Pretty interesting stuff - seems like Kerry would like
2 rules - one for him and his wife and the other for the rest of the country.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Kerrys own
32 factories in Europe and 18 in Asia and the Pacific.
In addition, their company, the Heinz Company, leases
four factories in Europe and four in Asia. Also, they
own 27 factories in North America, some of which are
in Mexico and the Caribbean.
I wonder how many hundreds of American workers lost
their jobs when these plants relocated in foreign
countries. I also wonder if the workers in Mexico and
Asia are paid the same wages and benefits as workers
in the United States. Of course they're not. However,
Kerry demands that other companies that relocate
should pay the same benefits they did in the U.S.
Why does he not demand this of the Heinz Company,
since he is married to the owner?
If Kerry is elected, will he and his wife close all
those foreign factories and bring all those jobs back
to America? Of course they won't. They're making
millions off that cheap labor. However,uninformed
people will still vote for him, because they think he is a great American leader.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Just Something That I hope People Will Read ane Think About
Just Something That I hope People Will Read ane Think AboutFollow
I'm not even an expert at this sh[i][/i]it, but let's see...
Does Bush's business history include outsourcing?
What about Cheney?
Smash?
Does Bush's business history include outsourcing?
What about Cheney?
Smash?
#3REDACTED,
Posted: Aug 02 2004 at 6:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You are very lucky that I am bored at work, because I read it. Now I would like my five IQ points back for making me that much stupider.
10 posts
Um actually outsourcing started with Clinton (a liberal)
Um actually I am being a little general and incorrect there.... Clinton passed a bill when he was in office that gave companies rewards for sending companies over seas or to other countries.
Edited, Mon Aug 2 19:50:03 2004 by Aivis
Um actually I am being a little general and incorrect there.... Clinton passed a bill when he was in office that gave companies rewards for sending companies over seas or to other countries.
Edited, Mon Aug 2 19:50:03 2004 by Aivis
Quote:
Um actually outsourcing started with Clinton (a liberal)
FU[/i]CK YOU, You fu[i]cking Fu[/i]ck-Fu[i]ck...hop in your fu[/i]ck truck, go the fu[i]ck back to Fu[/i]ckland, and fu[i]ck your fu[/i]ckety, fick fack fu[i]ck self.
Thanks and Fu[/i]ck off.
[i]Edited, Mon Aug 2 19:52:56 2004 by pickleprince
Another issue at work here is exploitation. Workers in SE Asia are treated as close to slaves as you could imagine. Crappy work conditions and terrible pay. Funny that Kerry should be so hypocritical in this respect, he is a dem right? Last I checked taking low wage jobs from Americans and worker exploitation are too things liberals fight against. Regardless I'm still voting for Kerry. You have to take the good with the bad, and besides, neither of these issues really affect me at all, but it is still hypocricy. (whats new in politics anyway)
Edited, Tue Aug 3 11:37:23 2004 by FigNewton
Edited, Tue Aug 3 11:37:23 2004 by FigNewton
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
It's just sucha fu[/i]cking blatant sock-fu[i]ck.
And that sh[i][/i]it is getting tired.
Bleh!
And that sh[i][/i]it is getting tired.
Bleh!
In the real world, the first lady contender has little financial connection to Pittsburgh's H.J. Heinz. She was married for 25 years to a member of the founding family, Republican U.S. Sen. John Heinz, until his death in a plane crash in 1991.
She chairs the Heinz Endowments, which still own stock but not enough to meet the 5 percent ownership threshold that requires notifying the Securities and Exchange Commission.
There's been no Heinz family member involved in the management of the business since the late 1980s, said company spokesman Jack Kennedy. And the family drastically reduced its holdings in 1995 in a secondary stock offering.
Even the Heinz Co.'s foundation is separate from the Heinz family endowments.
While the Federal Election Commission's Web site listed a $2,000 contribution on Dec. 31, 2003, by Teresa Heinz Kerry to the "John Kerry For President Inc." cause, it also lists a $5,000 contribution on June 3, 2003, to "Bush-Cheney '04 Inc." by the H.J. Heinz Co. Political Action Committee -- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Sadly, even O'Reilly was still trying to use this line on a caller the other night. Poor pubbies need to make stuff up, I guess.
She chairs the Heinz Endowments, which still own stock but not enough to meet the 5 percent ownership threshold that requires notifying the Securities and Exchange Commission.
There's been no Heinz family member involved in the management of the business since the late 1980s, said company spokesman Jack Kennedy. And the family drastically reduced its holdings in 1995 in a secondary stock offering.
Even the Heinz Co.'s foundation is separate from the Heinz family endowments.
While the Federal Election Commission's Web site listed a $2,000 contribution on Dec. 31, 2003, by Teresa Heinz Kerry to the "John Kerry For President Inc." cause, it also lists a $5,000 contribution on June 3, 2003, to "Bush-Cheney '04 Inc." by the H.J. Heinz Co. Political Action Committee -- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Sadly, even O'Reilly was still trying to use this line on a caller the other night. Poor pubbies need to make stuff up, I guess.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Poor pubbies need to make stuff up, I guess.
So, would you say that she's got about the same financial relationship with H.J. Heinz as Cheny has with Halliburton?
Just checking is all...
Maybe remove your own plank first?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Poor touchy Gbaji. 
You make a good point though. Lying about Heinz-Kerry is but a speck of dust in the scheme of the greater pubbies lies.. heh
Edited, Mon Aug 2 20:37:27 2004 by Jophiel
You make a good point though. Lying about Heinz-Kerry is but a speck of dust in the scheme of the greater pubbies lies.. heh
Edited, Mon Aug 2 20:37:27 2004 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
As far as I know, Bush has not moved one factory out
of this country because he is not the owner of a
single factory. That cannot be said about Kerry and
his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry.
of this country because he is not the owner of a
single factory. That cannot be said about Kerry and
his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry.
John Kerry has not moved one factory out of this country because he is not the owner of a single factory.
Teresa Heinz-Kerry has not moved one factory out of this country because she is not the owner of a single factory. She only inherited the Heinz family trust, and controls only the charitable organization.
Jophiel wrote:
Poor touchy Gbaji.
You make a good point though. Lying about Heinz-Kerry is but a speck of dust in the scheme of the greater pubbies lies.. heh
You make a good point though. Lying about Heinz-Kerry is but a speck of dust in the scheme of the greater pubbies lies.. heh
Heh, yeah. But that's not mentioning the "connection" between the Bush family and the Sauds via the fact that some members of the Bush family had some connection to some company (can't remember the name atm and don't feel like looking it up) that had investments from the Saudi's, but not during any time that any member of the Bush family was actually involved with it to any degree (that one's in Moore's film).
And the even more dubious connection to the oil pipeling in Afghanistan that again had *nothing* to do with Bush, but by coincidence can kinda sorta be tied to him if you forget certain details like who was president when the deal was proposed, when it was nixed, and the total lack of any connection between Bush as governor of Texas and a business deal that only coincidentally involved a company that was from texas (but which the texas state government had no involvement in). That one's also in Moore's film.
The just vague argument that "Iraq has oil... Bush's family has some business in oil... therefore there must be some sort of big oil conspiracy going on...".
I'm reasonably sure that the Republicans would absolutely *love* if joe sixpack made decisions based on fact and informed knowledge rather the innuendo and rhetoric. About 90% of the current Dem platform would literally disapear overnight.
But let's not confuse the issue with who's BSing more then the other guy... ;)
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
actually outsourcing started with Clinton (a liberal)
I'm a flaming liberal and I can admit that.
holy s**t I never knew this O_O
http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/world.htm look at how they draw bush lol
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
Quote:
actually outsourcing started with Clinton (a liberal)
I'm a flaming liberal and I can admit that.
But to be completely fair, there just isn't a whole lot that the federal government can do to *stop* outsourcing. It's not like Clinton (or any other president) one day made a policy change that made businesses outsource. Businesses outsource because it's cheaper. It's about the bottom line, and the only way to stop that is to make it more expensive to outsource then the difference in operating expeneses abroad. The only way to do that is to impose super high tarrifs on goods produced outside the country (which will only affect goods sold in the country btw, so wont be very effective), or impose extremely high taxes on businesses that outsource (or some other kind of punative system). I don't think even the Dems want to go that route. It's waaaay too damaging to our economy.
The other thing to realize about outsourcing is that it's not necessarily a case of American's "losing jobs". It's more like job growth has outstripped the ability of the US workers to fill. As corportations go multi-national, it makes *zero* sense to keep all the operations domestic. In many cases, the outsourcing is actually the creation of new jobs in other countries to follow along with expansion into markets in those countries. You're left with the option of building everything in the US (where it's more expensive), then shipping the products around the globe (more expense), and then pricing yourself out of those markets you're trying to get into. In that case, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to build your products nearer to the consumers, and to hire people locally to build them.
Job growth has followed population growth in the US just fine. We only see an "increase" in outsourcing because we're seeing a huge increase in foreign markets for goods. It's really not the alarming thing that some people make it out to be.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Let's see outsource a manufacturing job where it is cheaper to make widgets. Pay employees in a third world country literally peanuts to perform the labor, then import the widgets back to America because we have free trade status with the 3rd world nation or Favored Nation Status. Oh yeah outsourcing doesn't hurt Americans, the corporations are making many times more in profits selling the widgets back to the people they laid off. Hmmmm makes sense to me. Not! This is one issue with some current corporations that pisses me off. The other is outsourcing the IT industry and don't blow smoke that it's not happening or is limited in scope because the truth is that the outsourcing is taking place and there are over qualified people still looking for work after being laid off for over 2 years. These over qualified people are even being told by contracting agencies that they will not be submitted for lower paying positions even if they ask because with in 6 months these people accepting lower wages will be looking to move to higher paying jobs. Hell Starbucks and McDonalds won't even higher them, for the same reason.
So outsourcing doesn't hurt the American economy, it's going where the jobs are. Riiiiiiight.
So outsourcing doesn't hurt the American economy, it's going where the jobs are. Riiiiiiight.
Again though Stok. What exactly would you have your government do to stop it? Put up artificial trade barriers to prevent this? Ok. How do you stop non-outsourcing companies from doing business? Make it illegal for a US company to hire foreigners? That's just silly.
Outsourcing is only a problem to the extent that some industries and skills have priced themselves out of the global market. If someone in Singapore can do you job for 1/10th the cost, even when calculating the extra expense to ship materials there and the finished goods back, then maybe the problem is at our end and not theirs? Perhaps we need to focus on building skillsets and jobs that can't easily be done by any guy anywhere in the world with 20 hours of training? If you can be replaced that easily, then maybe your skills weren't worthy of what you were being paid?
How exactly does a goverment stop this anyway? Ultimately, there is absolutely nothing to prevent a corporation from simply moving it's base overseas entirely to avoid any kind of punative efforts you apply. Congratulations! Not only did you not save any American jobs, but you just cost us the tax revenue as well...
A global economy means that goods and services are going to be valued globally. No one nation can be an island in this. In the short term, it does mean a bit more pain for people at the steep end of the curve. Developed nations tend to have higher standards of living and more expensive costs of living, thus demanding higher wages. We can't possibly compete with someone in a developing nation. But a funny thing happens with economics. Everything does tend to level out. As more folks in India acquire the skills and training to do "high tech" jobs, their cost of living will rise as well. A middle ground will be reached, and balance will arise. Um. There isn't a whole lot we can do to stop this process. Just have to work though it.
Yeah. That doesn't help the guy who lost his job. However, despite the rhetoric, the job market has grown. Yes. Even in IT. It's not "smoke". The salaries are just more realistic. I'm sorry, but making 150k a year because you know how to do what anyone with a weeks training course can do is a bit over the top. The IT industry is seeing the backlash from that, but it'll fade (and already is). Markets may fluctuate, but the do tend toward balance. A skill will be worth it's actual worth. In the case of IT skills, they were overinflated for several years as the demand for them grew. Today, employers realize that joe averge IT guy simply isn't that skilled, and salaries have dropped. Um. I have yet to see any engineer level IT jobs get oursourced at any significant rate. We spend 6 months to a year just trying to fill a single mid/high skilled IT slot where I work. If folks are "overqualified", it's purely on paper. If you are actually competant at IT, you can get a job right now. Trust me. We can't find people qualified to work. The market is saturated with people who took a Microskills course and think they know IT. There's a remarkable shortage of highly qualified and skilled people in that field right now. Always has been, it just got downed out in all the guys who's only contribution was being able to run a web server who lost their cushy 6 figure jobs in 2000 and 2001.
The rates of outsourcing are not high enough to put a dent in actual job growth. It's a "problem" that has been very much overexagerated.
Outsourcing is only a problem to the extent that some industries and skills have priced themselves out of the global market. If someone in Singapore can do you job for 1/10th the cost, even when calculating the extra expense to ship materials there and the finished goods back, then maybe the problem is at our end and not theirs? Perhaps we need to focus on building skillsets and jobs that can't easily be done by any guy anywhere in the world with 20 hours of training? If you can be replaced that easily, then maybe your skills weren't worthy of what you were being paid?
How exactly does a goverment stop this anyway? Ultimately, there is absolutely nothing to prevent a corporation from simply moving it's base overseas entirely to avoid any kind of punative efforts you apply. Congratulations! Not only did you not save any American jobs, but you just cost us the tax revenue as well...
A global economy means that goods and services are going to be valued globally. No one nation can be an island in this. In the short term, it does mean a bit more pain for people at the steep end of the curve. Developed nations tend to have higher standards of living and more expensive costs of living, thus demanding higher wages. We can't possibly compete with someone in a developing nation. But a funny thing happens with economics. Everything does tend to level out. As more folks in India acquire the skills and training to do "high tech" jobs, their cost of living will rise as well. A middle ground will be reached, and balance will arise. Um. There isn't a whole lot we can do to stop this process. Just have to work though it.
Yeah. That doesn't help the guy who lost his job. However, despite the rhetoric, the job market has grown. Yes. Even in IT. It's not "smoke". The salaries are just more realistic. I'm sorry, but making 150k a year because you know how to do what anyone with a weeks training course can do is a bit over the top. The IT industry is seeing the backlash from that, but it'll fade (and already is). Markets may fluctuate, but the do tend toward balance. A skill will be worth it's actual worth. In the case of IT skills, they were overinflated for several years as the demand for them grew. Today, employers realize that joe averge IT guy simply isn't that skilled, and salaries have dropped. Um. I have yet to see any engineer level IT jobs get oursourced at any significant rate. We spend 6 months to a year just trying to fill a single mid/high skilled IT slot where I work. If folks are "overqualified", it's purely on paper. If you are actually competant at IT, you can get a job right now. Trust me. We can't find people qualified to work. The market is saturated with people who took a Microskills course and think they know IT. There's a remarkable shortage of highly qualified and skilled people in that field right now. Always has been, it just got downed out in all the guys who's only contribution was being able to run a web server who lost their cushy 6 figure jobs in 2000 and 2001.
The rates of outsourcing are not high enough to put a dent in actual job growth. It's a "problem" that has been very much overexagerated.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
But let's not confuse the issue with who's BSing more then the other guy... ;)
I'm merely pointing out the fact that the glurge email in the OP, beyond being completely false, is still being repeated as gospel by those with a large audience who should know better, simply to capitalize off the fact that "Joe Sixpack" doesn't know better. You can complain about Democrats doing whatever, but that hardly excuses O'Reilly and kin.
Edited, Mon Aug 2 23:31:14 2004 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Outsourcing is capitalism in action and functioning properly. Stop worrying about it, find a new profession, and get on with your life.
Totem
Totem
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
But let's not confuse the issue with who's BSing more then the other guy... ;)
I'm merely pointing out the fact that the glurge email in the OP, beyond being completely false, is still being repeated as gospel by those with a large audience who should know better, simply to capitalize off the fact that "Joe Sixpack" doesn't know better. You can complain about Democrats doing whatever, but that hardly excuses O'Reilly and kin.
Sure. I don't excuse O'Reilly at all. I'm just saying that it's a bit hypocritical to point the "finger of falsity" at this bit of rhetoric, when you've been spouting the Dem equivalent for the past 2 years.
Um. I'm not saying "you" as in you yourself Joph. But "you" as in the numbers of folks (who I'll not name since they know who they are), who take great pleasure in finding all the silly little BS bits just like this one pointed at the other side. And then gasp in astonishment when someone comes up with one pointed the other way...
It's all BS. But I will argue that the Dems have tossed a hell of a lot more BS in the last couple years then the Reps have. Maybe that makes up for the BS the Reps tossed at Clinton? Whatever. I've never liked that sort of argument, regardless of which side is using it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Stok wrote:
Let's see outsource a manufacturing job where it is cheaper to make widgets. Pay employees in a third world country literally peanuts to perform the labor, then import the widgets back to America because we have free trade status with the 3rd world nation or Favored Nation Status. Oh yeah outsourcing doesn't hurt Americans, the corporations are making many times more in profits selling the widgets back to the people they laid off. Hmmmm makes sense to me. Not! This is one issue with some current corporations that pisses me off. The other is outsourcing the IT industry and don't blow smoke that it's not happening or is limited in scope because the truth is that the outsourcing is taking place and there are over qualified people still looking for work after being laid off for over 2 years. These over qualified people are even being told by contracting agencies that they will not be submitted for lower paying positions even if they ask because with in 6 months these people accepting lower wages will be looking to move to higher paying jobs. Hell Starbucks and McDonalds won't even higher them, for the same reason.
So outsourcing doesn't hurt the American economy, it's going where the jobs are. Riiiiiiight.
So outsourcing doesn't hurt the American economy, it's going where the jobs are. Riiiiiiight.
I work in the IT industry, and all of the people that ARE actually qualified get jobs, and keep them easily.
The people who don't are the ones who got a MS cert or a Cisco cert, which mean jack ****. Colleges are pumping them out like there's no tomorrow.
Believe it or not, there are lot of people in the IT industry in foreign places that are many times more qualified then the mass produced people we have here.
So, would you say that she's got about the same financial relationship with H.J. Heinz as Cheny has with Halliburton?
Well, considering Cheney is still drawing $1m+ a year from Haliburton and has refused to state that he won't return to working for them when he's no longer VP, I'd have to say no, not even close to the same financial relationship.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
But I will argue that the Dems have tossed a hell of a lot more BS in the last couple years then the Reps have.
Ahahahahah.
HAhahahahahah
Ha
Ha. Wait.
I'm ok nophhhhhtt.. no I'm not hahahahahahahaha.
Yeah, both parties are equally corrupt, there's no diffrence, yadda yadda yadda.
Bush is still gone in November. Get your whiney ***** excuses ready now, you're almost out of time to prepare them.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
You and Gbaji have jobs good for you. For each job that opening in IT there are on average 300 resumes being submitted. Of those 300 resumes managers only see about 10% of that 10% only 10 get in for the interview. There are many skilled IT professionals out there that have the experience and knowledge behind them that are still not getting the positions. Numerous factors apply to this here are a couple:
1. Age - quite a few of these people are over the age of 35. Not many companies wanting to hire people over that age.
2. Compensation - A lot of people who used to make 80k plus after working for a company for 15 years where not some boot camp wanna be's. These where established people who developed a lifestyle after years of work. Companies are not offering acceptable compensation for these people. And the compensation that is being offered is so low that companies won't hire the experience for fear the employee will leave in less than a year for a higher paying position once they do get back into the work force.
3. Qualifications - Many of these workers are so "over" qualified that you have hiring managers that are afraid to higher anyone with more experience than them for fear of their jobs.
4. Moving Expenses and Sign On bonuses - Many companies are not offering these perks to get people to move to where the jobs are because it is an employer's market. There have been several people offered jobs out of the region but they can't accept them because they can't afford to move or maintain two households after a year or more of draining assets.
5. People like you - Who think that those that where laid off are not qualified or have some personality defect that got them laid off. This is not true. When you lay off thousands of people in an industry to compensate for the influx of under qualified boot campers then good people are going to be let go and are going to be caught up in the myth of Laid off people are worthless to begin with.
6. Changing professions or starting your own business - With so people laid off starting your own business or changing professions is easy to say but hard to do. Why? Because with the glut off people now unemployed, you are not only competing in your field but now you are trying to enter into a new industry at the ground floor, being over qualified for entry level positions with education and maturity (yes maturity), wanting more money and no experience in your new field.
Starting your own business is not as easy as it sounds, trust me I know. You have to have a certain mind set and desire to get out there and face the risks and not everyone is willing to accept the risks associated with starting your own business.
Now we understand the economics and the reason for the out sourcing it all makes good business sense. What the issue at hand is that their is an abundance of over qualified people being overlooked for positions because of misconceptions, that one by one look minor, until you pile them all together.
Since opening my shop I have been approached for several positions back in the IT field because of my skill set. I have turned 3 positions down due to my desire to maintain and build my own business. Now that JT has been open for awhile I'm considering short term contracts to keep my skill sets active. The gripes I have are not about me, but about the people that I know and don't know that are going through the issues listed above.
1. Age - quite a few of these people are over the age of 35. Not many companies wanting to hire people over that age.
2. Compensation - A lot of people who used to make 80k plus after working for a company for 15 years where not some boot camp wanna be's. These where established people who developed a lifestyle after years of work. Companies are not offering acceptable compensation for these people. And the compensation that is being offered is so low that companies won't hire the experience for fear the employee will leave in less than a year for a higher paying position once they do get back into the work force.
3. Qualifications - Many of these workers are so "over" qualified that you have hiring managers that are afraid to higher anyone with more experience than them for fear of their jobs.
4. Moving Expenses and Sign On bonuses - Many companies are not offering these perks to get people to move to where the jobs are because it is an employer's market. There have been several people offered jobs out of the region but they can't accept them because they can't afford to move or maintain two households after a year or more of draining assets.
5. People like you - Who think that those that where laid off are not qualified or have some personality defect that got them laid off. This is not true. When you lay off thousands of people in an industry to compensate for the influx of under qualified boot campers then good people are going to be let go and are going to be caught up in the myth of Laid off people are worthless to begin with.
6. Changing professions or starting your own business - With so people laid off starting your own business or changing professions is easy to say but hard to do. Why? Because with the glut off people now unemployed, you are not only competing in your field but now you are trying to enter into a new industry at the ground floor, being over qualified for entry level positions with education and maturity (yes maturity), wanting more money and no experience in your new field.
Starting your own business is not as easy as it sounds, trust me I know. You have to have a certain mind set and desire to get out there and face the risks and not everyone is willing to accept the risks associated with starting your own business.
Now we understand the economics and the reason for the out sourcing it all makes good business sense. What the issue at hand is that their is an abundance of over qualified people being overlooked for positions because of misconceptions, that one by one look minor, until you pile them all together.
Since opening my shop I have been approached for several positions back in the IT field because of my skill set. I have turned 3 positions down due to my desire to maintain and build my own business. Now that JT has been open for awhile I'm considering short term contracts to keep my skill sets active. The gripes I have are not about me, but about the people that I know and don't know that are going through the issues listed above.
Recent Visitors: 276
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (276)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Just Something That I hope People Will Read ane Think About
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC