I don't get the jobless.

[Scanner]

This a semi-political thread. Before I start, I just like everyone to know I sit pretty much center but lean a little left (I guess - to hard righter, I am probably a Krugman, to a hard lefter, I may seem like Rush Limbaugh here).

Anyway, I heard Obama speaking today and he was going on, as usual, about creating jobs. As if the feckless and the great unwashed are wandering around with nothing to do.

I realize we all sell our labor on the market to a certain extent but as a small businessperson, I just can't connect with the mindset, at all, that the government is supposed to somehow "create jobs." To me, a job can only be created when there is something to be done, or something needs made, that someone else will pay for. If they can't pay for it, well, then the job doesn't get done.

I don't know. . .I guess if you are unemployed, it may be kind of comforting to hear BO saying he is trying to create jobs and I guess it's better than waiting for a handout or continuing to receive one. . .but I just don't get it. As a small business person, I get no paid vacation, no healthcare, no FMLA AND. . .AND I pay double taxes on Medicare and SSI. I guess I can't ever be fired but I can go out of business. I do work per diem part time so I know the value in a honest's day work but at the same time, I am not guaranteed hours and all that. I even see that sense of entitlement from my co-workers who work full-time - "I have a family to support. . .therefore. . .I deserve this and that."

I really am trying to connect. . .my wife has always said that I should try to identify with having to go in 48-50 weeks per year and answer to someone else. . .I think she is right sometimes but it's times like these I don't get the gainfully employed mindset (vs. the entrepreneur/venture capitalist mindset, I guess).

Help me to understand how a regular person working, but then unemployed, thinks.

[tifnglen]

It is all about personality I guess. You would rather work for yourself, others would rather punch a clock. I believe some people dont want to put the work in to be their own boss. Some people that work for others do not have a sense of entitlement and work very hard at there jobs.

[MonkeyMama]

Honestly, I have never understood the mindset either. & i am EMPLOYED!

Don't even get me started. I think because I work for a small business and I have so many small business clients, I don't know. I don't get it. I think the average employee thinks the other side is all roses, and they haven't a clue. Giant corporations are a different animal - one I'd prefer to avoid. But sometimes people expect the same thing from small employers. It's just not realistic.

I also think it's a cultural attitude. It's an "I deserve it culture." I've spent my life working a little harder and going after what I needed/wanted while most people I came across sat and complain that no one was handing it to them. More examples than I can count. As such, I don't identify with the average person's working experience. I expect to get what I put in - and it seems to work. That's how I Was raised.

I've always had amazing bosses and I put family/work balance as a priority. I don't see what's great about being self-employed, in comparison. I've always paid for my own health insurance (it's better/cheaper - sad to say). I throw that in because you don't know how many people would never work for my boss because health insurance is not free (it rarely is with SMALL employers). It's like, HELLO. I have the most flexible schedule I can imagine, amazing retirement benefits, and the most awesome boss, plus a pretty decent paycheck. I don't have to have every little thing handed to me. I know I could work for the state and make half as much and get health insurance. No, I don't see the draw.

I've been called both a bleeding heart liberal and a Rush loving republican too many times. I am proud to say I am neither of those. Blech. I am just moderate as they come.

[Scanner]

Well. . .I only gave my political orientation because I know it can seem dichotomous. For instance, I have no problem nationalizing our banks.

They proved themselves incompetent. Nationalize them. I don't care. Ya think I really care about some ideological prattle about Socialism like the Hard Right is whining about? Banks are too important to fail. I absolutely 100% depend on them for my business. I don't know why we privatize gains and socialize losses and call that capitalism.

I'd walk in and kick them all out on the street with my hard rubber boot and replace them with politicians. I seize them and every last asset and make them work customer service. So. . .for that, I am a Leftist, I guess. (or a Fascist, LOL)

Yet. . .when I see all the people protesting in Europe this week, I don't get it. Except. . .EXCEPT. . .I can see how America DID sell them "toxic waste" and they SHOULD feel frauded to a certain extent. For that, I do think we owe them an apology for selling something that was "Triple AAA rated" and really it should have been rated a B- asset or something

But all this "job creation" and why that's a goal. . .I don't get it. ANd beleive it or not, I am all for gov't spending sometimes. . .maybe not an Iraq war but fixing some bridges in a state of disrepair. . .yeah, I'll borrow for that and put some people to work. But putting police officers on the street so they can arrest deadbeat dads and put them in jail where they are housed at $40,000/year cost to the taxpayor? That's "job creation?"

And thanks for realizing how hard this country is on the self-employed; I wasn't asking for that. The thing is the self-employed rarely complain about it. . .maybe we should some more. You know, there are times I wanted to expand with labor but my taxation rate probably discouraged me. I'd rather pay a consumption tax on gasoline than double income tax if they need to offset it with something.

I run a business; I realize the money has to come from somewhere.

Again, the funny thing is. . .on a Conservative forum among my peers (they are Rush Limbaugh nuts). . .I was trying to explain how earning a profit wasn't on trial. . .with the bank execs. it's about being pigs. Here I am argueing their side here.

[Scanner]

Some people that work for others do not have a sense of entitlement and work very hard at there jobs.

TIFNGLEN:

Thanks for trying to answer and don't take me wrong. . .I am not going at you. I am just trying to understand the mindset.

I don't even know if "entitleistic" is the right phrase. I remember at one seminar, one speaker calling it the "Factory Worker Mindset." Kinda like you said. . ."I work hard. I am willing to work hard. That ethic will lead to a good life, or at least an adequate life." Yes. . .but working hard. . .that's just a given. . .kinda a platitude.

They say the Platitude Test is when you say something and I can reply, "Well, I would hope so!!!"

"I work hard."

"Well, I would hope so!"

= Platitude

To me, it's about how valuable you are and it's something that the gainfully employed don't seem to understand. You are supposed to work hard. I guess some of the mindset is maybe a remnant of the 50's, where job security was a reality. Maybe that is kind of expected. Yet. . .some employers lament that workers aren't loyal either. . .they'll move on at the slightest chance of more money, better hours, etc.

I guess the street runs both ways.

I also guess there is greater influence in numbers. . .I know I didn't get any attention in 2004 when my business was in the slumps. Everyone was doing well. . .now that most are doing bad. . .well, just stop the economy. . .we got to help these people "get jobs."

[GREENBACK]

They proved themselves incompetent. Nationalize them. I don't care. Ya think I really care about some ideological prattle about Socialism like the Hard Right is whining about? Banks are too important to fail. I absolutely 100% depend on them for my business. I don't know why we privatize gains and socialize losses and call that capitalism.

I understand how you feel about bank nationalization but I think it's an emotional response. Yes, the idiots in charge of the banks made bad or greedy decisions. This does not mean we should just give up on placing some of the smartest financial people in the world in charge of our banks. Maybe we need better oversight of the system but not pure gov't control. I don't say this because of any political leaning. Politicians are not bankers. They are nowhere near as financially capable as bankers, plus they are influenced by public opinion and are always counting voters. I think this is a bad formula for someone to run a banking system.

Would Barney Frank make a good CEO of Citibank? I think not. Yet he spews all kinds of non-sense about what banks did or should have done. A few years ago he was one of those preaching about home ownership for all. You will certainly not get great professional bankers If the gov't puts a system in place that limits salaries and tells them how to run their individual financial systems.

Again, I understand how you feel but I want the best at the top of this incredibly complicated system and the gov't isn't the best at this and that's proven worldwide.

[simpletron]

when you go shopping for an expensive item, you probably compare all the charactistics of numerous brands and see which one is the best deal for your purpose. well, I do the same thing when it came to jobs and benefits. benefits like paid holidays, health care, retirement,... are all a form of compensation like salary. I going to try and get the best deal for my work, in whatever form I can get, whether that is more salary and less benefits or less salary and more benefits. also if most companies offer some benefit, and yours doesn't, wouldn't you look down upon that?(assuming all else is equal)

I don't see how the government is going to provide anywhere close to the number of the jobs that they are promising. I really wish that the government would under promise and over deliver. but overpromising sounds better until it's pointed out that you didn't deliver. or in this case never disproven because the ecomony will heal itself and the jobs will be created eventually.

To me, a job can only be created when there is something to be done, or something needs made, that someone else will pay for.

the government is the original buyer, which creates X jobs. because there are now X more buyers, they create Y more jobs. and so on and so.

[Scanner]

I don't think bank nationalization is an emotional response at all (well, maybe a little).

Look, they make this more complicated than it is.

You ask the question - Are they too big to fail? Get a consensus. If the answer is yes and the majority of economists raise their hands, then you nationalize them. Temporarily own them, then sell it off in bits and pieces to the private sector at a modest profit to the taxpayors (5-10% interest). Sell a thousand accounts to this small regional bank. . .thousand accounts that small regional bank. . .make sure they are well capitalized, of course. If the answer is no, they aren't too big to fail, then let them fail. Hell, we did it to railroads, we break up monopolies all the time, we regulate electric companies (well, except we deregulated them and there were rolling blackouts - gee I depend on my electricity too for my business - see a pattern here?) . .what's the big deal? It's some "ideological reason" why such as "Well dem bankers. . .daze a really smart and dem dere politicians are just stewpeed?"

Ahhhhhhh. . .fiddlesticks. Why all the idol worship of wall street bankers? Because they use fancy/schmancy talk of derivatives and securitization? Ahhh. . .phooey. It's not so hard. I could do it. Pay me 40 million/year. Hand out some bonuses. I could do what they are doing. Swear to God - pay me 40 million/year and I could be a kick-ass banker.

This is one time I don't think it pays to be "moderate." BO has to either poop or get off the pot.

Seize them or let them fail and pay out the FDIC insurance (which I am under at BoA).

PS: Greenback,

I don't mean to be irrate with you; it's just that I go through the same thing with the Ultra-Conservatives on my other forum. One actually said that they were smarter by breeding or genetics or whatever and therefore deserve the money they get.

The funny thing was I said 4 weeks ago that it's that type of thinking that leads to Torches and Pitchfork activity. Gee. . .look at Europe this week. . .looks like torches and pitchforks to me.

I think America has gotten so Conservative Philosophical that they have forgotten themselves - okay, they may have a few IQ points on me but not 40 billion dollars more. . .

[disneysteve]

It is all about personality I guess. You would rather work for yourself, others would rather punch a clock. I believe some people dont want to put the work in to be their own boss. Some people that work for others do not have a sense of entitlement and work very hard at there jobs.

I agree. My field is a perfect example of this. I'm a physician. Years ago, the standard routine was to graduate med school, join a doctor already in practice. Work for him for a couple of years and then "buy in" and become a partner, a part-owner of the practice. Either that or you went out on your own and opened your own private practice. The concept of a "physician employee" was relatively rare.

Today, a significant percentage of doctors are employees. They have no ownership interest in the practices for which they work. I've been in practice for 16 years and have been an employee my whole career and will probably remain an employee for the rest of my career.

What changed? A number of things. Some are societal and lifestyle changes. Some are changes within the field, particularly with insurance company reimbursement methods. Years ago, when a doctor opened his own practice and put in long hours, he made a ton of money. He was rewarded for his effort. Today, that isn't how it works. Thanks to government and private insurance changes, doctors do more and more work for less and less pay, and have to deal with a ton of administrative hassles in the process. So the average young doctor, like myself, is saying why put up with all of that if I can choose instead to do my job, get my check and go home to my family?

Someone has to own the practice, of course. I'm aware of at least a couple of medical practices that are owned by non-physicians. The owner is a business person, maybe some guy with an MBA in healthcare administration. He buys the practice and hires a couple of doctors and nurse practitioners to run the show. Everybody's happy. The docs and NPs get to practice medicine and don't have to worry about all the administrative stuff. Plus, their income is secure since they are contracted employees. The administrator deals with the business end of things and makes a good living doing so.

Does that mean anyone in that scenario has a sense of entitlement? I don't think so.

I was unemployed back in 2000. I had been unhappy in the practice I was with so I quit. I did not have a job lined up, nor did I make more than a feeble attempt to find another job. Ultimately, through word of mouth, a job found me and I've been toiling away there for 9 years now. We've never discussed partnership and I have no desire to do so. I'm perfectly happy the way things are.

[maat55]

[QUOTE=Scanner;215884]Well. . .I only gave my political orientation because I know it can seem dichotomous. For instance, I have no problem nationalizing our banks.

They proved themselves incompetent. Nationalize them. I don't care. Ya think I really care about some ideological prattle about Socialism like the Hard Right is whining about? Banks are too important to fail. I absolutely 100% depend on them for my business. I don't know why we privatize gains and socialize losses and call that capitalism.

You are over generalizing. Most banks are doing just fine. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, led to the current large bank problems. Here is an interesting article that gives a good overview of what happened.

The Big Takeover : Rolling Stone


In reallity, most medium to small banks do safe business. They are cautiuos not to give bad loans, make risky investments or over leverage. The mega banks that used bad judgement, need to fail. Capitalism with reasonable regulation will always be the fairest most productive system around.

On topic, everyone should consider themselves self-employed. Like you, I'm self-employed and have to provide all my own benefits(practically none). People should not look to government or their bosses to provide their prosperity.

[snafu]

I thought the government job creation program was to build/repair/maintain roads, bridges, sewer/water lines, dikes etc. that are not privately owned but done for the good of the population. Isn't that what taxes are supposed to pay for? Municipalities can't afford these things as people who are unemployed are unable to pay taxes.

We keep reading about bridge infustructure that is crumbling...is it true?

[Scanner]

Maat,

Yes, I'm sorry - just nationalize the ones who failed, not the ones doing fine. Chop them up and feed them to the smaller fish.

[maat55]

Maat,

Yes, I'm sorry - just nationalize the ones who failed, not the ones doing fine. Chop them up and feed them to the smaller fish.

I agree.

[blankcheck]

I thought the government job creation program was to build/repair/maintain roads, bridges, sewer/water lines, dikes etc. that are not privately owned but done for the good of the population. Isn't that what taxes are supposed to pay for? Municipalities can't afford these things as people who are unemployed are unable to pay taxes.

We keep reading about bridge infrastructure that is crumbling...is it true?

Yes...in theory...

There ARE companies that are 100% capable of doing these things, though. If they are not jumping at the opportunity, then I don't see a problem with the gov't stepping in.

See, this is the part that I thinks is NOT political. Well, it is, but it's not based on any philosophy; it's who you know. Contracts are handed out for one project or another every day. The point here is, instead of selling them to the highest bidder (or the closest crony), it goes to the most available group of random unemployed people. As long as the job gets done properly, I don't have an issue.

[blankcheck]

So the average young doctor, like myself, is saying why put up with all of that if I can choose instead to do my job, get my check and go home to my family?

Everybody's happy. The docs and NPs get to practice medicine and don't have to worry about all the administrative stuff. Plus, their income is secure since they are contracted employees. The administrator deals with the business end of things and makes a good living doing so.

Does that mean anyone in that scenario has a sense of entitlement? I don't think so.

That's such an important issue for all physicians now.

I am an employee (mainly because our health education system leaves me no choice until my program is done), and I will likely spend most of my career being an employee. I love my job, I have no problem working under a system, I like regular hours, and I spend time with my wife.

I hate extra administrative work, I get cranky with everyone around me when I think policy overrides common sense, and I start to care less when non-patient paperwork piles up.

Being an employee is a better choice for me because it is better for my personal health.

If I open my own private practice, I'd probably tell myself:
"I guess I can't ever be fired"

To which my friends would reply:
"Well, I would hope so!"