http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/26/working-families-everything-scheme-tanya-gold
QuoteWhy does this feel so dodgy? I called Harrison's PR and asked her what will happen if there are no jobs. What then? "Emma believes there are jobs," she replied. "There are hidden jobs." Oh yes, those hidden jobs, buried under trees and lying at the end of rainbows. All the unemployed need is the imagination to see the invisible, and maybe a magic shovel and a friendly elf to hug them on the way to Mordor. So a slab of government policy is being handed to a woman who is in denial about the scale and cause of joblessness. The statistics are nowhere in the Working Families Everywhere material. There are 2.49 million people unemployed today in the UK.
I admit, I've rarely been in a position to employ people in the past, but I cannot see any reason why an employer who was looking to fill a vacancy would not advertise it, that there are jobs that are so special and difficult to acquire that they can only be found through A4E...
Don't you know that hidden jobs are going to be a major component of the re-make of Goonies?
In the remake a gang of misfit kids go on a wild adventure hoping to discover hidden jobs buried by pirate One-Eyed Willie. They hope by finding these long lost jobs that their parents might be able to save their beloved Goon Docks from being foreclosed on by rich bankers.
:lulz:
Wow. :lulz:
Quote from: PopeTom on August 28, 2011, 11:15:45 PM
Don't you know that hidden jobs are going to be a major component of the re-make of Goonies?
In the remake a gang of misfit kids go on a wild adventure hoping to discover hidden jobs buried by pirate One-Eyed Willie. They hope by finding these long lost jobs that their parents might be able to save their beloved Goon Docks from being foreclosed on by rich bankers.
I take it Cyndi Lauper won't be doing the theme song for the remake.
Oh, YAYYYYY, they're trialling it here - the city that until recently had about 80 job seekers for each job in one area. Everybody knows it's the Polish who steal the jobs at night, tie them to rocks and throw them into the river before sending photos back for their families to laugh at.
"Hidden jobs" are important to know about if you are seeking a job, but on the macro scale it's meaningless.
There's "vacancies", and then there's "thin spots". If you can get your foot in the door, and make contact with someone before they have even decided to create a job and fill it, you have an advantage when they do decide to hire someone.
On the macro scale, she's saying "People just aren't looking hard enough, if they look harder, then there will be more jobs.".
Which translates to "If you believe, clap your hands! Don't let the economy die!"
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 29, 2011, 01:40:21 AM
Quote from: PopeTom on August 28, 2011, 11:15:45 PM
Don't you know that hidden jobs are going to be a major component of the re-make of Goonies?
In the remake a gang of misfit kids go on a wild adventure hoping to discover hidden jobs buried by pirate One-Eyed Willie. They hope by finding these long lost jobs that their parents might be able to save their beloved Goon Docks from being foreclosed on by rich bankers.
I take it Cyndi Lauper won't be doing the theme song for the remake.
No she won't. The quirkiest female musician they could find to do the theme was Avril Lavigne.
I have heard the term "hidden jobs" to mean you go to a business that isn't hiring and tell them what you can do for them, impressing them so much that they create a new position so they can hire you to fill it. Or something like that.
That's all those millions of unemployed people have to do.
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on August 30, 2011, 12:52:28 AM
I have heard the term "hidden jobs" to mean you go to a business that isn't hiring and tell them what you can do for them, impressing them so much that they create a new position so they can hire you to fill it. Or something like that.
That's all those millions of unemployed people have to do.
Yes. And the local Goodwill has everything they need to be an 80's power dresser.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 30, 2011, 01:09:28 AM
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on August 30, 2011, 12:52:28 AM
I have heard the term "hidden jobs" to mean you go to a business that isn't hiring and tell them what you can do for them, impressing them so much that they create a new position so they can hire you to fill it. Or something like that.
That's all those millions of unemployed people have to do.
Yes. And the local Goodwill has everything they need to be an 80's power dresser.
No other fashion is necessary.
In my experience, "hidden jobs" are those that, while technically open, have already been filled by someone picked before the advertisement, and therefore not really open. IOW, a waste of time.
Cain is right. Even very selective hiring of positions requires good advertising, often very good advertising, because the pool of good candidates is even smaller. Then you just raise the requirements.
The days where you can just walk up to a counter and say, "I'm looking for work, can I interview for a position?" are long gone. Maybe that's what she means by "hidden", as in, absent.
All the above speculations sounds good to me, but I'd bet money that we see that old festering corpse called,
"Why do those darn waitresses get Minimum Wage AND tips!!!! It's like paying them twice!"
OR, how about,
"We should allow hiring of teenagers and those working the first 90 days at under the minimum wage! It'll allow businesses to 'create jobs'!"
I think the latter more likely, considering the "hidden jobs" rhetoric.
They are called 'internships'
I'm working one right now. Six months, first month totally unpaid, the remaining five at half minimum wage. I work 9-5, 5 days a week, and have actually produced more content for the people I'm working for than others in the company who are getting paid a living wage.
Others are in a worse position than me; doing the same job, but completely unpaid for 3-6 months.
Why would a company hire someone when they can just get the same calibre of candidate in to work for less than the minimum wage, or completely free, for the glorious honour of experience and a reference?
I love you, free market.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on August 30, 2011, 05:02:44 AMThe days where you can just walk up to a counter and say, "I'm looking for work, can I interview for a position?" are long gone.
Somewhat ironically, this is precisely what I used to do in order to get jobs. And it worked like a charm, right up to the end of 2007.
The maths in the UK is simple. We have, going by the figures, 600,000 jobs going, and 2.79 million unemployed. Some poor fuckers are going to be going without. Probably those in the north, since most jobs are around London, and probably either the 18-24 age range or those nearing 60.
The irony is, I remember learning in history how we moralized joblessness during the Victorian era. Fucking awfully, that's how. Eventually, so many voters were lost to the newly emerging Labour Party that the ruling Liberals oversaw a massive overhaul of benefits, leading to national state pensions in the UK and a raft of other legislation to update the hopeless and antiquated "Poor Law" system.
Of course, even that late in the game, 1909, the majority report of the commission looking into the Poor Laws stated that "the origins of poverty were moral factors". Ah, but we've come on such a long way in 102 years!
Last figures I heard were 20% of economically active people between 16 and 24 are unemployed- in the FT on the 18th.
Quote from: Financial TimesBut the most disturbing figures — again — concern youth unemployment. One in five (20.2 per cent) of economically active 16 to 24 year olds are unemployed. As usual the government pointed out that this number includes students who are looking for work. Chris Grayling, the UK employment minister, said the real number was "much lower".
We're not sure what "much lower" officially means but once you strip out the students, the youth unemployment rate is still 18.8 per cent, up 0.5 per cent from the three months to March.
Yeah, that's the figure I've heard as well.
It's been there since about December 2008, also, give or take a few better and worse months.
Quote from: Telarus on August 30, 2011, 07:03:31 AM
All the above speculations sounds good to me, but I'd bet money that we see that old festering corpse called,
"Why do those darn waitresses get Minimum Wage AND tips!!!! It's like paying them twice!"
OR, how about,
"We should allow hiring of teenagers and those working the first 90 days at under the minimum wage! It'll allow businesses to 'create jobs'!"
I think the latter more likely, considering the "hidden jobs" rhetoric.
Where are you, the Promised Land? Waitresses get a reduced wage with tips counted in so it all adds up to minimum wage.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 30, 2011, 03:41:42 PM
Quote from: Telarus on August 30, 2011, 07:03:31 AM
All the above speculations sounds good to me, but I'd bet money that we see that old festering corpse called,
"Why do those darn waitresses get Minimum Wage AND tips!!!! It's like paying them twice!"
OR, how about,
"We should allow hiring of teenagers and those working the first 90 days at under the minimum wage! It'll allow businesses to 'create jobs'!"
I think the latter more likely, considering the "hidden jobs" rhetoric.
Where are you, the Promised Land? Waitresses get a reduced wage with tips counted in so it all adds up to minimum wage.
Around here servers get around $2.50 to $3.00 an hour plus tips.
Sounds about right.
A person would make more money scrubbing toilets at McDonalds.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 30, 2011, 03:48:25 PM
Sounds about right.
A person would make more money scrubbing toilets at McDonalds.
Depends on where they work and how good they are. A good server in the right restaurant can knock down some serious money every night.
Hell, even in my bar in Colorado my top server averaged $100.00 every day plus her salary.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on August 30, 2011, 03:41:42 PM
Quote from: Telarus on August 30, 2011, 07:03:31 AM
All the above speculations sounds good to me, but I'd bet money that we see that old festering corpse called,
"Why do those darn waitresses get Minimum Wage AND tips!!!! It's like paying them twice!"
OR, how about,
"We should allow hiring of teenagers and those working the first 90 days at under the minimum wage! It'll allow businesses to 'create jobs'!"
I think the latter more likely, considering the "hidden jobs" rhetoric.
Where are you, the Promised Land? Waitresses get a reduced wage with tips counted in so it all adds up to minimum wage.
Yeah, he's in Oregon where waitstaff make minimum wage plus tips. It's not easy to get a waiting job here; you can bring home $300-400 in tips on a Friday or Saturday if you work at a decent restaurant. Bartending is even better, because the convention is to tip a dollar a drink.
CA is the same way...you can still make a living wage here as a server. I don't recommend it, but there's a reason why it's the Hollywood fall-back position for those seeking fame and fortune out here.
Quote from: Cain on August 30, 2011, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on August 30, 2011, 05:02:44 AMThe days where you can just walk up to a counter and say, "I'm looking for work, can I interview for a position?" are long gone.
Somewhat ironically, this is precisely what I used to do in order to get jobs. And it worked like a charm, right up to the end of 2007.
The maths in the UK is simple. We have, going by the figures, 600,000 jobs going, and 2.79 million unemployed. Some poor fuckers are going to be going without. Probably those in the north, since most jobs are around London, and probably either the 18-24 age range or those nearing 60.
The irony is, I remember learning in history how we moralized joblessness during the Victorian era. Fucking awfully, that's how. Eventually, so many voters were lost to the newly emerging Labour Party that the ruling Liberals oversaw a massive overhaul of benefits, leading to national state pensions in the UK and a raft of other legislation to update the hopeless and antiquated "Poor Law" system.
Of course, even that late in the game, 1909, the majority report of the commission looking into the Poor Laws stated that "the origins of poverty were moral factors". Ah, but we've come on such a long way in 102 years!
Yep, the rich are greedy, amoral fucks.
I know that's not the real root of the problem, but it's my automatic kneejerk response to "poverty is due to immorality"
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/173e4e64.jpg)
Quote from: Cain on August 30, 2011, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on August 30, 2011, 05:02:44 AMThe days where you can just walk up to a counter and say, "I'm looking for work, can I interview for a position?" are long gone.
Somewhat ironically, this is precisely what I used to do in order to get jobs. And it worked like a charm, right up to the end of 2007.
The maths in the UK is simple. We have, going by the figures, 600,000 jobs going, and 2.79 million unemployed. Some poor fuckers are going to be going without. Probably those in the north, since most jobs are around London, and probably either the 18-24 age range or those nearing 60.
The irony is, I remember learning in history how we moralized joblessness during the Victorian era. Fucking awfully, that's how. Eventually, so many voters were lost to the newly emerging Labour Party that the ruling Liberals oversaw a massive overhaul of benefits, leading to national state pensions in the UK and a raft of other legislation to update the hopeless and antiquated "Poor Law" system.
Of course, even that late in the game, 1909, the majority report of the commission looking into the Poor Laws stated that "the origins of poverty were moral factors". Ah, but we've come on such a long way in 102 years!
The poor used to be unfortunates, i.e. those laden with misfortune, and they were to be pitied and aided, not scorned. Now everyone is at fault for the misfortune that befalls them, except those with lots of money. What a change.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on September 04, 2011, 06:34:05 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 30, 2011, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on August 30, 2011, 05:02:44 AMThe days where you can just walk up to a counter and say, "I'm looking for work, can I interview for a position?" are long gone.
Somewhat ironically, this is precisely what I used to do in order to get jobs. And it worked like a charm, right up to the end of 2007.
The maths in the UK is simple. We have, going by the figures, 600,000 jobs going, and 2.79 million unemployed. Some poor fuckers are going to be going without. Probably those in the north, since most jobs are around London, and probably either the 18-24 age range or those nearing 60.
The irony is, I remember learning in history how we moralized joblessness during the Victorian era. Fucking awfully, that's how. Eventually, so many voters were lost to the newly emerging Labour Party that the ruling Liberals oversaw a massive overhaul of benefits, leading to national state pensions in the UK and a raft of other legislation to update the hopeless and antiquated "Poor Law" system.
Of course, even that late in the game, 1909, the majority report of the commission looking into the Poor Laws stated that "the origins of poverty were moral factors". Ah, but we've come on such a long way in 102 years!
The poor used to be unfortunates, i.e. those laden with misfortune, and they were to be pitied and aided, not scorned. Now everyone is at fault for the misfortune that befalls them, except those with lots of money. What a change.
(Overheard near a homeless shelter) "They like living like that."
(Ovenheard near a neglected and crumbling school in the hood) "You try to give them something nice and they don't take care of it."
Was told this by a teacher in thord grade: "If you took all the money in the world and divided it evenly between everybody, things would go right back to the way they are because the rich save their money and the poor waste theirs."
Psychologists call this the "just-world theory," which seems to explain all sorts of blaming the victim.
I'm not sure what the antidote is, but I think it likely consists of applied Horrorology.
Quote from: Net on September 04, 2011, 09:28:12 PM
Psychologists call this the "just-world theory," which seems to explain all sorts of blaming the victim.
Yeah, I think it's related to Calvinism too. Teh Elect and all that shit.
QuoteI'm not sure what the antidote is, but I think it likely consists of applied Horrorology.
Might be fun to apply it whether it ends up working or not. :p