[LMB] Betan population control
candppeacock at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 9 19:23:54 BST 2019
Sounds like when I was looking for a job... plus I was in my late 40's at the time. They would rather have an underqualified employee who is cheaper to hire than have experienced but trainable hiree! Sheesh!Phyllis
On Saturday, June 8, 2019, 08:33:39 PM MDT, Eric Oppen <ravenclaweric at gmail.com> wrote:
People in metro areas also routinely underestimate how difficult it can be
to leave depressed rural areas. I wanted very much to relocate, but I
didn't have the money, didn't know where to go, didn't know what to apply
for, and after a few years, found that I had "Damaged Goods" permanently
stamped on my forehead like the mark of Cain.
People say "Pound the pavement and you'll get a job!" The problem is, jobs
are very tight around here---and after a hundred or so failed attempts, I
think even Pollyanna would be discouraged (and I have never been mistaken
for her.) And people will not tell me what is wrong! If I knew what was
wrong, I could at least try to change it, but all I get is "we found
someone we liked better." I'm hard-working, diligent, on time every day if
at all possible, don't goof off, don't steal, don't backtalk my
employers...and I can't get a job to save my life!
People say "Well, I'd like to hire you but you're over-qualified." Look,
geniuses, I know my own qualifications. When I need a job, I need a job,
not a bunch of hypocritical babble about how this job isn't "good enough"
for me! I'll be the judge of that, thank you very much! And, yes, if I
get a better offer I might leave. So WHAT? I THOUGHT I was applying for a
job, not proposing marriage or offering to swear lifetime fealty!
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 2:59 PM Howard Brazee <howard at brazee.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Joel Polowin <jpolowin at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The validity of that argument depends very much on the truth of the
> > premise "you *can* change these things". It is often not true at
> > all... or at least the person making that argument doesn't grasp that it
> > may be extremely difficult / expensive / otherwise beyond the ability
> > of the other person to accomplish. It may be technically feasible,
> > but effectively impossible in practise.
> We often discount the personality and/or psychological characteristics
> that make someone unable to change things. We recognize extremes, as
> when someone’s problems get diagnosed with a label. But way too often,
> when someone’s disability is not extreme, we just call it weakness (but not
> weak enough to not put them down).
> When someone’s IQ is 71 and when his IQ is 69 is not significant—except
> for public opinion which condemns the first as being stupid, and feeling
> sorry for the 2nd for being retarded.
> When someone doesn’t quite have the “gumption” we have, we condemn their
> weakness. Or their willingness to work, or to be nice.
> But any program to make society better needs to recognize that we have
> wide spectra of abilities and results.
> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to ravenclaweric at gmail.com
> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to candppeacock at yahoo.com
Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
More information about the Lois-Bujold