Weekends. Leave on Friday afternoon and come back on Sunday night. I’ve even done that.
Allow me to burst your clueless worldview bubble with some reality that you, being the inexperienced snot nosed Ayn Rand worshiping brat that you are, are unaware of:
When you tell your prospective employer that you HAVE a job and they actually think you’re worth the time, they make accommodations for you.
Yes, I know, it’s hard to believe. Fantastic, huh? It’s the real world, dude. Don’t be afraid of it. The sun won’t hurt you… much. I hope.
Out of touch? If you mean, “over the horizon from reality, separated by tens of thousands of miles of oceans and deserts and mountains, with no access to any communications devices down to and including messages in bottles,” then I guess “out of touch” expresses the idea.
Your definition of “wholesale condemnation” is separated from reality by tens of thousands of miles of oceans. It takes “reductio ad absurdum” to whole new levels. How ironic that one of your minions had to use that word after unconsciously recognizing it in your posts.
So let me get this straight. I’m working as a manager. Le Jerkoff is working (his job entails wearing a funny hat and asking if I’d like to Supersize that). He wants a better job. But he expects me to give up my weekends, to accomodate his schedule? In what universe does the job candidate’s whims take precedence over the guy doing the hiring?
I’m pretty accomodating - if a prospective candidate is working, I have no problem coming in early, staying late whatever to meet. On one occasion I have done a weekend interview (I was the one being interviewed), but there were very specific reasons for that (and the reasons didn’t involve scheduling conflics). But as a general rule? 99.9999% of interviews are happening during the week.
No wonder Le Jerkoff has no real-world experience - he’s never left his mother’s basement long enough to actually have a job.
Self made trillionaire don’t have to leave their mothers basement. When you want to hire them you have to come to his basement to interview him on a Saturday night at 8:30pm. And bring the corn chips and Mountain Dew…
-XT
I read on an online message board that you have minions. I am interested in the position, having spent several years in industry sucking up to authority figures and using their allocated power to punish those who dare oppose.
I am available to talk via the phone or video conferince (e.g. Skype) depending on finding an available time in your schedule.
I look forward to hearing from you, and discussion how my experience and skills could be put to good use as your minion.
There are a couple of requirements. First off, you have to provide your own monocular or binocular face mask. Secondly, must be open to experimentation (see the infamous Fart Gun), and possibly travel (see anti-grav spray). Thirdly, you need to have the ability to, if bent in half and shaken give off a glow (color optional, though green is very nice) as an axillary lighting source for up to 10 minutes.
This is not an exhaustive list, just a few of the fine points.
First thing you need to do is learn his definition of “wholesale condemnation”. And how to run with your tail between your legs when you get shown to be an idiot. Tomndebb is practically a guru at doing that.
Forgive me if this line of questioning has already come up. The thread is long and I’m not sure if I’ve read all of it.
If tariffs and protectionism are such positives, why stop at the US border? Why not enact tariffs between each state? Surely it would be a boon to employment if each state had to set up auto factories, PC assembly plants, refineries, and other sites to make toys, chemicals, mineral mining, appliances, cabnetry, electric motors, skis, shoes, disposable diapers, spices, frozen pizzas, light switches, pallets, paper, salt, Geiger counters, calculators, books, fishing poles, bicycles, lab tests, windows, and various other products not made in your state.
(I know the interstate commerce clause currently prevents states from enacting this, but the federal government could, and since this is such a positive for everyone I’m sure 3/4 of the states would approve of a change to the constitution to allow tactics between states.)
For that matter, why not enact this between cities?
I don’t need a passport to move to another state or town, for one. I pay taxes to the same Federal Government either way.
For your argument to NOT be reductio ad absurdum you would have to argue (and this is just for starters) that the people of, say, India and the people of the U.S. pay taxes to the same Government, which would have to be a one-world Government. Which would itself be orders of magnitude worse than what we’ve got now.
What do taxes have to do with anything? It’s irrelevant who pays taxes to whom. You said tariffs create jobs. So the more tariffs, the better. If we put tariffs among the states, then each state would have to make everything themselves, thus creating jobs. Right? Who said anything about taxes?
You are absolutely, positively wrong about that. Among about a million reasons why you’re wrong - those taxes provide the infrastructure that is necessary for a market to exist. You send jobs overseas that’s income American citizens have lost and taxes that won’t be paid here, thus roads that won’t be as well maintained, schools that won’t be as well funded, and so on.
Irrelevant? Only because it’s inconvenient to your reductio ad absurdum argument.
Reductio ad absurdum, doubled down!
If one state ganks another for jobs I can simply move there without a passport and without immigration restrictions or paying fees.
Now please tell us what makes you think that travel restrictions are irrelevant. And while you’re at it tell us why jobs should be internationally mobile but workers shouldn’t be.
I don’t think this qualifies as an absurd reduction (well maybe the cities). But some states, if independent, would rank high on a list of world economies. And at one point they were independent.
One element of your argument is that requiring each nation to have an industry each product they consume, thereby pushing each country closer to full employment (and higher wages). I don’t see how taxes change that.
For example, if California put up tariffs and didn’t import cars from anywhere, they’d quickly fire up the NUMMI plant again and crank out cars. Two obvious changes would be that the few thousand NUMMI former employees would be back to work ( which would benefit the employment situation in CA), and californians would have far fewer cars to choose from. But I don’t see what federal taxes has to do with this.
