Slashdot Mirror

These are generally the same people who are A-OK with NSA surveillance because it's about catchin' terrrist evil-doers and if you ain't got nuthin' to hide you ain't got nuthin' ta fear.

Thats actually not true at all (democrats actually approve of the NSA spying more than republicans), but at least you were able to continue the fine slashdot tradition of baseless, unsubstantiated strawmen.

Wisconsin and Illinois did this with state taxes...

Illinois was then voted worst place to live by it's residents (1 out of 4 said this)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/168...

Wisconsin ended middle of the pack I think around 40-50% saying it is the best place to live (may be off on the numbers)

Wisconsin saw job growth and lower taxes, Illinois saw jobs leave, higher taxes, pension scandals etc...

Oh god. Not this again. What makes you think the replacements will be any better? This whole "vote for change because change is good" is such bullshit. If you are going to vote at least do it intelligently. It's voting blindly without thought that has gotten us into this situation in the first place.

No, the situation we are in is the result of a House and Senate with a 90%+ re-election rate despite a 13% approval rating.

The message sent by this is that congressmen can do whatever they like, as they're going to get re-elected no matter how much they work against the public's interests.. It also makes bribery (via gifts, campaign contributions, and lucrative jobs upon leaving office) quite affordable.

Pro Life is not about life, it's about male dominance

What is the evidence for that? In reality, more women identify as pro-life than pro-choice. See section "Gender agreement" in
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118...

Pro Life is not about life, because it's OK to physically attack and occasionally kill people who work at abortion clinics. Casualties of war!

This is an outright lie on your part. Abortionist assassination is widely condemned among pro-lifers. And have a sense of scale: there have been 8 activist-caused abortion worker deaths over 40 years in the US. This in a country where 14100 people are murdered per year, which means that 8 people are killed every 5 hours.

"In the U.S., the uninsured rate dipped to 15.6% in the first quarter of 2014, a 1.5-percentage-point decline from the fourth quarter of 2013. The uninsured rate is now at the lowest level recorded since late 2008." Yippie we are almost back to 2008!

There's some reasons anonymous cowards don't put their name... they're usually trolls or lying sacks of shit. In the case of this article, it's both.... and all the other trolls come out to play.

Republicans and teabaggers have waged a 5 year war against a program (the ACA) that is fundamentally conservative, having been written by a conservative think tank, and already implemented in one state as a conservative program. THE only reason they're against it now is because of Obama. It shows that on the street the people who are against Obamacare think that the ACA is much better (because they've fallen for all the outright lies by conservatives) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and http://pollingmatters.gallup.c...

Republicans have deluded people into believing their bullshit, and now when the program is actually living up to what was expected, the anonymous cowards who are so deluded into believing their own bullshith they can't understand why their lies and misbegotten fantasies aren't matching up with reality. Look on this thread. Al there are are a bunch of whiny little bitches who can't accept that the program is working. Why do all these people HATE their fellow countrymen so much? Have we bred so many sociopaths that this type of behavior is now considered normal?

When the hell did complete stupidity become something to strive for?

/. i've been a reader here for ten years now (or so). You have a small faction of radical conservatives/anarchists/fascists who routinely derail discussions with their political bullshit, demean the people around them, and routinely try to censor posts through moderation abuse. I expect more of you than to have bullshit stories based on some fucking delusional dumbass unwillingness to live in reality, and hatred for their fellow humans... especially ones so blatant as this. Are you news for nerds, or some radical fascist conservative propaganda rag?

My take on this:
1. The initial drop in usage seems to be mostly from needing to set up alternative channels - IE the black market took time to become established.
2. The long term drop might be due to increased costs, much like how increasing taxes on cigarettes results in lower usage.
3. Cirrhosis rates, because they depend upon the abuse of alcohol, might not be indicative, since increased prices will affect heavy drinkers more than light drinkers.
4. While prohibition resulted in a long term 40% drop, we've managed over a 50% drop with tobacco. without prohibition, soley by taxes and education.
5. As Portugal has shown, legalization can have many positive benefits.

Doing something newsworthy won't change much. The two-party system is ingrained. Both parties suck (Congress has an approval rating of 13%, up from 9% earlier in 2013: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166...).

Both parties are willing to change their rules to prevent uprisings in their organizations. And the two parties control media exposure, specifically debates, the last independent/3rd party candidate that was invited to a Presidential Debate was Ross Perot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

The two parties are doing their best to destroy themselves (a solution I have figured they would do for a quite a while), but their control over the election system is almost absolute. States work to keep third parties from getting ballot space.

New rule: If a candidate is going to be on the Presidential ballot in 10 or more states, he/she should be allowed to participate in the debates. This would help, the country needs new ideas outside of the norm (which is mostly fueled by ethical standings such as access to abortion - the two parties are one and the same, supporting big government, big military/wars).

While I ponder why the parent got modded down, here are some citations to support those claims...

Universal background checks
"Public Option" healthcare
Minimum wage increase

Admittedly, I was just "guesstimating" the numbers above from vague memory, but as the links here show, I'm right in the ballpark on all of them.

It would be nice to see a lucid argument, rather than just getting down-modded reflexively.

The reason it gives people confidence is because it is the FEDERAL Depositors Insurance Corporation.

Is that why people pay so much more to send letters by FEDERAL Express rather than trusting the US Postal service to deliver important papers on time?

You say the bitcoin exchanges could set up the same kind of system, but why should anyone trust something set up by them? What, exactly, makes this insurance company any more reliable or trustworthy than the exchanges themselves?

Maybe because they are NOT run by the federal government?

I guess you haven't noticed how the federal government has sided with the private banks over and over again in recent years, huh? Now you think people are supposed to suddenly trust them to be on their side?

In fact, people are right to be skeptical about promises by the FDIC. We've already seen bank deposits being confiscated in the EU, and in fact the FDIC has contemplated plans to do something similar American depositors if they deem it "necessary". You might want to check out this PDF from the FDIC's website. Keep in mind that a depositor to a failed bank is considered an unsecured creditor in common law.

Because the population of the country is going up, nearly every election has more voters than previous elections. But if you look at the percentage of the population voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections), it's been around 55% since 1920, and in fact the percent of the population voting in the last two elections (over 57% both times) was higher than any election since 1968. The two Bush Jr elections were 51% and 55%.

What's also striking is that elections before 1900 had around 80% voter participation, then it dropped to below 50% (1920, 1924), then has been roughly level since then.

So (1) people aren't voting less now than in previous elections - if anything, voter participation is higher than it's been in decades. And (2) what happened in 1900 that changed voting so dramatically?

As for it being a bad thing if everyone votes, the US is a Democracy based on the legitimacy of the elections representing the will of all of the people. If enough people stop voting, the elections, and thus the country, lose legitimacy. That's why most people think that it's important to encourage voting, by making it easy to register to vote, by having enough polling stations for people to vote, etc., and they tend to regard moves to prevent voting as un-American.

And as for the relative number of (self-identified) Democrats and Republicans, the numbers are well known (e.g. http://www.gallup.com/poll/159...), with Democrats consistently outnumbering Republicans. The only time that Gallup has ever polled Republicans leading Democrats was in 1991, when Bush Sr's popularity was boosted shortly after the Persian Gulf War.

So how does a minoritory part retain power? By manipulating the game. For example, Republicans' gerrymandering managed to give them control of the House despite their getting over a million fewer votes than the Democrats in House elections.

It's an easy way to get higher poll numbers for an extreme position when there is no intermediate position to echo actual peoples' viewpoints.

OK, then, please enunciate a nuanced position on evolution that would cause someone to choose the extreme position of "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" over "humans and other living things have evolved over time". There's certainly none I can think of.

Not to mention, compared to other polls I've seen that *do* offer more nuanced options, this poll actually shows a *lower* number for the number who reject evolution (other polls show 45% or more). If anything this poll is biased towards showing people *favoring* evolution, not rejecting it.

For instance, look at Gallup's polling on the subject over 30+ years. They offer 3 options...

- Humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced life forms, but God guides the process.

- Humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced life forms, but God played no part.

- God created humans pretty much as they now exist at some point within the past 10,000 years or so.

Yet with these more nuanced options, the creationist position has consistently averaged around 45% going back to 1982, 12 points higher than the Pew poll which you assert forces people into the more extreme position. Kind of blows a hole in your hypothesis, I'd say.

In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

Another 35% of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance.

Only 15% of Americans say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

Basically 81% of Americans are superstitious about God's role in man's creation.

No it doesn't. First off, they don't vote as often as they should. Second, the tea party isn't a particularly young group, so at least half of the dynamic in Washington cannot be laid at the feet of young astrologists. Third, just my opinion, but while astrology isn't science, the republican party is even further from science. The philosophy there seems to be change the world to fit political ideology, not vice versa. Taxes must be cut because we took a pledge saying taxes must be cut. We're going to crucify scientists saying climate change is happening because we know it isn't because our donors told us it isn't.

In conclusion, jokes need to have at least a kernel of truth to them in order to be funny.

But Cleatus and Maud represent almost half of the US population. And if they need Cleatus and Maud's support on this one issue, then they'll have to cave on other stuff as well. The USA needs STEM graduates, or all our high tech businesses will be run by foreigners eventually. Americans will have the jobs flipping burgers for .... no, sorry. The people that can still afford to eat out don't eat beef.

The only way out is to ensure that Cleatus and Maud Jr. get a real education and although they still love their parents, they are drooling morons. Its for the good of the country. Do your patriotic duty and let your kids get educated.

That being said, I'm sure you can find some crazy person claiming to be a christian who believes in the young earth.

A 2012 Gallup poll showed that 46% of Americans agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so". That's a lot of crazy.

It's based on conversations with people that run polls at state fairs, etc.

They run into lots of people that are apolitical, and don't necessary identify with anyone.

Remember, the broad positions of the republican party aren't necessarily what gets the republicans into the headlines.

Your reply is at least as problematic is whatever your issue is with what I wrote. You don't describe what "mainstream" is, and you don't specify what issues you think are GOP issues that are contentious. But if I read between the lines and guess, even your claim is false.

For instance, republicans are lambasted by democrats for being anti-abortion. If you take at face value that republicans are anti-abortion, then it's a simple matter of asking, "ok, is that position against the mainstream" ?

Well, you can decide what the mainstream is, but on that particular issue, here is what one poll found:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157...

The liberal position is often thought to be "abortion anytime, anywhere, any reason, all paid for by others"

There is very little support for that position according to gallup.

The republican position is _advertised_ as being "anyone who ever aborts for any reason should go to jail", but of course that's not the actual position. The republican position can best be described as "there should be some limits on abortion".

And that is the statement overwhelmingly the favorite on the gallup poll I mentioned.

Nearly half of all Americans believe that humans were placed on earth in their current form, magically by the hand of God Himself, with no evolutionary changes or modifications every occurring. And the number is rising.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/218...

Do you want to know what brings about the biblical apocalypse? Ignorance of the natural world in which we live. Buckle your seatbelts, because the ignorant are starting to drive this bus we call civilization, and the last stop is not utopia.

Please don't say this. According to Gallup, 46% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form than believe vs 47% who believe either "humans evolved, with God guiding" (32%) or "humans evolved, with God playing no part in the process" (15%). That's a terrifyingly slim margin for something that is strongly supported by actual science.

This is why this is so scary. If kids grow up reading textbooks full of bullshit, I won't be surprised to see such large swathes of the population wallowing in pre-enlightenment ignorance and superstition.

The long term trend is decline in religion in the United States.

News reports like this one are mere anecdotes that don't represent the complete picture.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155690/confidence-organized-religion-low-point.aspx

Your thesis is based on an invalid assumption.

You go with the majority rule because you live in a democracy. You teach kids biology because the majority decided to teach the kids biology. That includes evolution, because evolution is part of biology. That does not include creationism, because creationism and intelligent design are by their own axioms not biology-based models of the universe.

Please don't say this. According to Gallup, 46% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form than believe vs 47% who believe either "humans evolved, with God guiding" (32%) or "humans evolved, with God playing no part in the process" (15%). That's a terrifyingly slim margin for something that is strongly supported by actual science.

I don't really believe we can or should tax our way out of the problem. Taxes can do many things but they are not the be all and end all solution to systemic problems. At some point is it not the case that adding more sumps is not the real answer to the boat taking on water.

The thing is, corporations are government chartered. They recieve limited liability in exchange for meeting certain regulations, without which, they would have trouble existing and operating as they do today.

Corperate structures account for far more of the economy than the government. Simply shuttling money up through them isn't the answer, you need to fix the corperate structures to not require as much central redistribution.

...

The most obvious fix for corporate structures is simply to require them to pay their workers more: raise the minimum wage. This doesn't require any new mechanisms, is already widely supported by the public*, and will improve the distribution of wealth to most Americans as the floor is raised (a rising minimum wage raises most everyone's wages). Even Wal-mart is in favor of it.

*71% of adults, even a majority of Republicans support it: http://www.gallup.com/poll/160913/back-raising-minimum-wage.aspx

But hey, at least Win8 beat Congress!

Obama is the most admired man of 2013, followed by Bush. Ya, no shit! Hillary Clinton is the top admired woman as well.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166646/obama-clinton-continue-reign-admired-man-woman.aspx

**FACEPALM**

WE ARE A NATION OF FUCKING MORONS!!!

No, it's not. Don't be stupid. There's no grand conspiracy out to get you. The TSA exists because after 9/11 people demanded that the government do something to make us safer. And so the politicians created this security theater, because it's what the voters wanted.

And they still do want it, as the TSA gets excellent approval ratings. They don't know or care that it's just theater, they just want to feel safe.

It's as simple as that. The people want to feel safe, so an organization was created to help them feel safe, even if it doesn't actually make them safe. And contrary to the ravings of the conspiracy theorists, this IS a democracy. The people get what they want, for better or worse.

No.

May 2003 Gallop 79%

Here is a timeline which shows how high it was and how high it stayed: http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/uayr5i28vkcki2wjl04pxa.gif

So, are you claiming that by wanting to reduce the size of government, reduce its power, and spending, the Tea Party is "opressors"? That doesn't make any sense. Besides...

Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics

Conservative Black Leaders at Press Conference

No, because you don't have those numbers (all Republicans). The Tea Party purports to be driven by economic issues. Nearly 60% of its members have no affiliation with the Christian Right - even if they wouldn't necessarily kick them out of bed. If that's the worst that Pew (the organization that astroturfed "campaign finance reform") can come up with, well, color me unimpressed.

For comparison, 41% is within spitting distance of the the 38% overall (not just liberal) Democratic support for OWS in Nov 2011(Gallup. If you have a lot of Republicans, there are going to be a fair number of Christians. If you have a lot of Democrats, you're going to have a fair number of outright socialists. Neither group runs their party.

http://thequeue.gallup.com/2012/03/americans-on-individual-mandate-and.html
Monday, March 26, 2012-- 20% of americans think the individual mandate is constitutional (and only 37% of democrats), while 72% think it is unconstitutional. Without the individual mandate, the thing falls to pieces. Numbers and polls can be tricky, but I dont think theres anything misleading or "spin-y" about the term "individual mandate".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164078/americans-wary-not-familiar-health-law.aspx
Using the term "Affordable Care Act", 49% of americans disapprove, and 41% approve.
The majority also indicate that both in regard to their own families and the US at large, they believe (and have believed) that it will make things worse.

Worst of all from that poll,
Americans who say they are very or somewhat familiar with the law are more likely to disapprove (55%) than approve of it (42%). The picture is much more muddled among those who are not too or not at all familiar with the law: 36% approve, 39% disapprove, and 21% aren't sure.

Im not really sure how this meshes with "60% of conservatives changing their tune". Im actually not sure how anyone could be called conservative who approved of expanding the federal government into the healthcare sector, now that I think on it.

more people don't know enough about it, or are ideologically incapable of agreeing with ANYTHING that has Obama's name on it.

Doesnt really jive with what Gallup says, but if you want to go with DailyKos over Gallup I cant stop you. I would just point out that only one of those has anything resembling a non-partisan, non-biased record, and it aint DailyKos.

http://thequeue.gallup.com/2012/03/americans-on-individual-mandate-and.html
Monday, March 26, 2012-- 20% of americans think the individual mandate is constitutional (and only 37% of democrats), while 72% think it is unconstitutional. Without the individual mandate, the thing falls to pieces. Numbers and polls can be tricky, but I dont think theres anything misleading or "spin-y" about the term "individual mandate".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164078/americans-wary-not-familiar-health-law.aspx
Using the term "Affordable Care Act", 49% of americans disapprove, and 41% approve.
The majority also indicate that both in regard to their own families and the US at large, they believe (and have believed) that it will make things worse.

Worst of all from that poll,
Americans who say they are very or somewhat familiar with the law are more likely to disapprove (55%) than approve of it (42%). The picture is much more muddled among those who are not too or not at all familiar with the law: 36% approve, 39% disapprove, and 21% aren't sure.

Im not really sure how this meshes with "60% of conservatives changing their tune". Im actually not sure how anyone could be called conservative who approved of expanding the federal government into the healthcare sector, now that I think on it.

more people don't know enough about it, or are ideologically incapable of agreeing with ANYTHING that has Obama's name on it.

Doesnt really jive with what Gallup says, but if you want to go with DailyKos over Gallup I cant stop you. I would just point out that only one of those has anything resembling a non-partisan, non-biased record, and it aint DailyKos.

People don't take drastic action from what they see in the news, they take action when they see it affect them directly and it impedes their ability to see a future for themselves. E.g. The Egypt situation

Maybe not from a single report... or a few isolated incidents. But given a steady drip feed of "the other side is the DEVIL" a propaganda machine disguised as a news network can absolutely cause people to take drastic action. Even worse, it can cause a severe disconnect between reality and your own delusions.

For example, Congress currently has an 11% approval rating and hasn't been above 40% in nearly a decade. During the last election, their approval rating was a staggering 14%, yet we saw a 90% incumbent victory rate.

This is dangerous. This is very very dangerous. We openly acknowledge that those in charge have been fucking it up royal. But the media circus has convinced everyone that "my guy isn't the problem... it's completely on the other side of the aisle." Add in a splash of gerrymandering, and we've got the makings of our very own banana republic.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163964/congress-approval-rating-remains-near-historical-lows.aspx

Ah yes. Personal anecdotes, such reliable scientific evidence. However, actual polls on the subject (which, granted, aren't terribly scientific either, but are about the best thing available) show most (roughly 70-80%) generally do not trust the federal government to do the right thing most of the time. And that's not updated for the NSA leaks that came out this year. That's not the only source that shows that, either: most polls show in that same percentage. The US people really do not trust their government, and haven't really for decades.

Don't confuse your little corner of the internet with the real world. In the real world, you're a tempest in a teacup, son.

Right [1], back [2], at ya [3], son.

[1] The 2012 Harris Poll Annual Public Summary Report (PDF)
[2] Banking Stinks Like Cigarettes and Politics: Survey Shows Contempt for Industry
[3] Banking Sector Is Slowly Replacing Big Oil As The Most Hated Industry

...

The Harris poll asks consumers for their opinions on six key attributes of the 60 ‘most visible’ corporations in the United States. Rating companies’ social responsibility, emotional appeal, products and services, workplace environment, financial performance and vision and leadership, the Harris RQ survey seeks to get a snapshot of corporate America’s reputation among consumers.... Banking and financial services scored terribly.

...

But the banking sector has screamed up the charts, and not counting the always-hated federal government, it was No. 2 with a bullet as of Gallup's most recent poll, taken way back in August 2012. Fifty-three percent of Americans surveyed had a negative view of banks in that poll, up from just 18 percent in 2007, before the crisis. The percentage of people with a positive view of banking has plunged to 25 percent from 50 percent in 2007.

A lot has happened in the past few month (well a lot has gotten out about what has been happening.)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

I didn't say it wasn't OK to commit suicide. I asked whether people could see why Yahoo might not want, from a business perspective, to be seen hosting a site that says it was.

Right or wrong, even a formal sort of euthanasia process for people with terminal illnesses has a bare majority of support if you describe it as "assisting the patient to commit suicide", let alone pushing the opinion that someone who is in decent health for their age should, without consulting anyone, commit suicide. Which is what the site was saying.

Even without the skin-color-related bullshit in your post, it's still wrong.

Here's a Gallup poll on whether people approve of the NSA spying:

There are significant partisan differences in views of the government's program to obtain call logs and Internet communication. Democrats are more likely to approve, by 49% to 40%. Independents (34% vs. 56%) and Republicans (32% to 63%) are much more likely to disapprove than approve.

The vast majority of gun owners I know are somewhat left of center.

(emphasis added)

I suggest you might have a bit of sample bias? Gallup polls show that Republicans are far more likely to own guns than Democrats. Now, not all Republicans are of the fire-breathing, cloud of denial variety, and half of all gun owners are Democrats or self-declared Independents, but I think your experience is potentially biased by where you live.

(And not to match anecdote to anecdote, but I live in the South, where the stereotype above is very true. YMMV.)

Well, Congress as a whole can't lose 20 or 30 percentage points: Its current approval rating is at somewhere around 10%. According to the available polling data, Americans think this is the worst Congress in at least 40 years.

Another interesting trend from Gallup on this: If you ask Americans whether their Congressman is doing a good job, 46% say yes (also lowest number since the 1970's). If you ask Americans who know the name of the Congressman if that Congressman is doing a good job, 62% say yes. Let's just say there's a civics education problem in America.

Well, if you'll put on your cyncial hat, the in-utero treatment you wish for already exists:
plannedparenthood.com

In America, about 90% of diagnosed DS fetuses are aborted. That is an interesting percentage, since polls indicate that more that 20% of Americans think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances. At least half of those people are apparently hypocrites, willing to make an exception for their own convenience.

Citations:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Abortion_rates

Those two statistics are totally unrealated as most DS fetuses come from parents with a genetic predisposition to DS and not the general population. So, you are extrapolating the behavior of small population to the whole population. That would be an invalid application of statistics and lead to false conclusions.

With regards to a child with a disability, it's a lot like schroedinger's cat, you don't know what you will do until you are faced with the situation (or open the box, so to speak). You will also find that many of these couples that terminate their pregnancy also get themselves sterilized to prevent future pregnancies.

So, like rape and incest, using down syndrome and abortion as a generalization for the population as a whole is a statistically invalid application.

Well, if you'll put on your cyncial hat, the in-utero treatment you wish for already exists:
plannedparenthood.com

In America, about 90% of diagnosed DS fetuses are aborted. That is an interesting percentage, since polls indicate that more that 20% of Americans think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances. At least half of those people are apparently hypocrites, willing to make an exception for their own convenience.

Citations:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Abortion_rates

ask your employers and coworkers how you can improve.

I doubt they'd admit that they'd want me to be a worse programmer, so as not to draw attention to their own laziness/incompetence and (statistically) lack of engagement at work.

A software engineering job is between 25% and 50% programming / programming ability. First, there are design and specifications to meet client requirements. If you want any but the lowest-paying programming jobs you need to be a part of that specification process. Same goes with milestone setting, scheduling, and assignment of developer resources. Yes, various parts of management will do a lot of that, but they cannot do that in a vacuum -- guidance from technical jobs is needed to keep things realistic. Finally, as part of designing, planning, implementing, and documenting, you'll need to communicate with peers so that they can understand and make use or your work, and work with management to understand the need and importance of each part.

For the past six years I've worked at a company that does yearly peer reviews, which I've found quite helpful. In none of those reviews has someone stated that I need to program better or more skillfully. Yet in all of those reviews I've gotten constructive feedback -- on how to improve in the *other* skills that a more senior software engineer will need.

I hope you are able to find the stable job you seek. While I can't claim to understand the details, a small change in attitude toward supporting skills may be what is needed to get you closer to your goal.

He's probably one of those ones that deserve top tier pay. So whenever he gets a job offer for 3% more salary, he jumps ship.

I do deserve top-tier pay — after 20 years in the industry, I'd better, otherwise I'd be a real idiot. But no, I don't jump ship if I get another offer — I'm loyal. That's probably one reason my job searches are so angst-ridden — I don't look for a job until I'm actually unemployed.

A few years ago, I worked for a company that, after 4 years, had to shut down. They wanted to continue with a vastly reduced staff; I became part of that staff, even though it was a major pay cut. Over the next year, my pay kept getting cut more and more, and my hours got reduced more and more. Finally, I had no choice but to look for another job. But I put up with this for an entire year before finally "jumping ship".

Therefore, I think your criticism is unwarranted.

Outside of the large external factors (the dot-com bubble bursting, the outsourcing phenomenon, the guest-worker phenomenon, the "perfect fit" phenomenon, and the fact that 70% of employees are not actively engaged at work), I think my real problem is the one described in "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand. I'm Howard Roark. His solution was to persevere until things got better. I don't think I have the strength to do that.

Reread your post. You've claimed to be shitty at managing your money and too crappy at your job to have steady employment.

I'm very good at my job, unless that "job" involves being a good ol' boy and the boss' drinking buddy, in which case, I suck.
And it's not that I'm shitty at managing my money. It's that unemployment is very expensive.

ask your employers and coworkers how you can improve.

I doubt they'd admit that they'd want me to be a worse programmer, so as not to draw attention to their own laziness/incompetence and (statistically) lack of engagement at work.

Obviously your not VERY good at what you do - your obviously a flunky since you can't hold a job with a BS CS since that is one of the most desired skill sets in demand today. I have a BS CS and have never been unemployed since I graduated in 1983. Get a job work hard, go the extra mile, give 110%, study, study, study, and you'll never be out of work again.

As if. My career went down the drain after the dot-com bubble burst. That was followed by the outsourcing phenomenon, the guest-worker phenomenon, and now the "perfect fit" phenomenon. A BS in CS is not desired in the United States these days — not even close.

My best guess as to the real reason my career is such a disaster — aside from the four reasons in the previous paragraph — is that I actually work, and 70% of American employees are not actively engaged at work. When people like that meet someone like me, their only thought is to destroy my reputation by any means necessary, so as to distract from their own laziness and incompetence. It doesn't help that I have Asperger's.

Besides, I'm not going to take crap from a top-poster that doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're". You are clearly not what you claim to be.

A Gallup poll in May 2013 put support for gay marriage at 53% of Americans, and opposition at 45%.
A Pew poll also in May 2013 puts it at 52% support and 42% opposed.
A Post-ABC News poll in March 2013 puts it at 58% support and only 36% opposition.
USA Today in July 2013 puts it at 55% support 40% opposed.

Furthermore, long term polling trends show that acceptance of gay marriage has been rising at a rather steady 2.4% per year. For comparison, long term polling showed acceptance of interracial rose at just 1% per year. Acceptance of gay marriage is rising nearly two and a half times as fast as interracial marriage was accepted. Gay marriage is overwhelmingly seen as a civil rights issue by those under 35, with opposition primarily residing among senior citizens. Gay marriage proponents are literally burrying the core opposition as more and more of them are simply dying of old age.

The battles will drag on for a while, but the war is effectively over.

Gay marriage will be officially recognized nation wide in juts a few years, and any lingering gay marriage opponents will rapidly be dismissed as just as bigoted and just as irrelevant as the lingering interracial marriage opponents. I hope you enjoy Klan meetings. Pretty soon that's going to be the only place anyone is going to sympathetically listen to your persecution complex whinging.

-

The reason further gun control has such trouble passing is that a majority of the people in our Republic don't _wan't_ it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

For commercial software, there's the additional problem that 70% of employees are not actively engaged in their work.

In other words, we're pretty much fucked.

Amen. You are. We are. In worse and more somber way than you and I may even be willing to envisage, according to this Gallup poll

. Obviously, the institution that Americans trust the most, and by far, is the military. How many years are the USA away from a military coup ?