Officials Say "Capes For the Unemployed" Plan Not Super

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Officials Say "Capes For the Unemployed" Plan Not Super

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday April 20, 2011 @04:17AM from the best-and-worst-laid-plans dept.

After what must have been an epic marketing meeting, a Florida unemployment agency decided to give 6,000 red capes to the jobless as part of its "Cape-A-Bility Challenge" public relations campaign. The capes cost $14,000 (not a bad price for 6k capes actually) and featured a cartoon character named "Dr. Evil Unemployment." As one might imagine, officials are calling for an investigation to be launched. It's a good thing there are an abundance of caped do-gooders without jobs in the area who should be able to help.

392 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Only.... by Jaysyn · 2011-04-20 04:19 · Score: 3, Informative

Only in Florida. I can say that cause I live in the crazy-ass state.

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
1. Re:Only.... by elrous0 · 2011-04-20 06:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Crazy as that state is, there had to be at least *one* sane person in the room when that was pitched. Surely to god, there had to be one person there who saw the disaster coming. My question is "What kind of environment was so toxic that he wouldn't or couldn't speak up and challenge such an obviously FUCKING INSANE idea?" How beaten down and scared do you have to be before you let something like that slide by without comment? How crazy does a boss have to be before his subordinates are so tired that no one even bothers to say "I think this might be a bad idea."?
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
2. Re:Only.... by Runaway1956 · 2011-04-20 06:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You seem to be making an assumption here. I have actually been the only sane person in a room - and, when I walked out, that left no sane people. Now, when you get a group of nutcases together, without any oversight at all - shit just happens. Take a look at both the Republican convention, and the Democratic convention. Go on - tell me that any of that crap makes sense to a sane person. I mean, ANY sane person - male, female, gay, bi, old, young, healthy, decrepit - even a sane retard would barf on anything that comes out of either of those conventions.
  So, yes, I can easily imagine a bunch of crazies buying capes for the unemployed just as soon as the last sane person has walked out of the room.
  What I'm really wondering is, how many of the unemployed actually wore the capes to fill out an application, or to an interview? And, how many of them got the job? Most likely, those capes were used for wiping rags, unless some Suzy Homemaker type used them to make something for her kids.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
3. Re:Only.... by Synn · 2011-04-20 06:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sometimes people don't want to hear things or don't put a lot of value on underling opinions.
  Was in a meeting when a client wanted a website called "Busted Moms" for a financial thing and just couldn't get the porn reference. The site got designed, published and everything, THEN taken down after all the work got done.
  http://www.adrants.com/2009/03/sears-appeals-to-techie-moms-with-new.php
4. Re:Only.... by Xeranar · 2011-04-20 07:05 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Last time I checked politics make perfect sense if you're willing to take the time and think about it. The democratic party tends to support the social safety net and generally promote the welfare of the poorer classes. The Republican party tends to support the business community. What we have now is the "tea party" who tend to the bigoted and loosest of cannons influencing one party and in a country that is aging and seems "center-right" (though arguably is center-left by population) we're going to get these ludicrous ideas. Wasting money on this to make the unemployed seem less desirable is just cruel and disturbing. The demonization of the poor, non-white, and liberal is disturbing. On top of it all the constant false dichotomy between the two parties to avoid controversy is so pathetic and irritating. Make a stand, have an opinion, stop trying to play the centerist scheme since the center in our politics is rarely a real place.
5. Re:Only.... by sycodon · 2011-04-20 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  "Wasting money on this to make the unemployed seem less desirable is just cruel and disturbing."
  This and other wasteful spending is what motivates the Tea Party, not bigotry, as ignorant fools from the Left would have you believe.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
6. Re:Only.... by dicobalt · 2011-04-20 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  I live in Florida too. These people are nuts.
7. Re:Only.... by Darinbob · 2011-04-20 07:34 · Score: 2
  
  You don't tug on Superman's cape
  You don't spit in to the wind
  You don't pull the mask of the old Lone Ranger
  And you don't mess around with your boss and his crazy ideas
8. Re:Only.... by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, tea party members actually believe Muslims are trying to institute sharia law in the US and regularly harass them. They also denied a black man from being in the party. Sure, not all of them are racists, but it draws enough of them to be worrisome.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
9. Re:Only.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  Did anyone point out the reference to the client beforehand? What was their reaction after being pointed out this reference?
10. Re:Only.... by Thud457 · 2011-04-20 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  yup.
  They elected Rick Scott.
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
11. Re:Only.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, but when tea party members who are polled say that we should cut foreign aid and welfare first to balance our budget it's hard not to stereotype them as old ignorant bigoted fools.
12. Re:Only.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  I wasn't aware that there was any "official" tea party, much less that "they" could deny me a place in it.
  Anyway, I voted for a black man in the '08 presidential elections - that must be why I don't get the official party memos. "They" must have kicked me out.
13. Re:Only.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  So you're the *one* they keep talking about!
14. Re:Only.... by hairyfeet · 2011-04-20 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  Oh Lord, and I thought I'd seen stupid when I had a client ask my opinion on the "new dynamic sales persons outfits" which looked like the Joker had thrown up! Hell they may have just named it MILFs for all the porn jokes they were gonna get!
  As for why this shit happens, I've usually found it is either someone who is sleeping with the boss that comes up with a "brilliant" idea, or in the case of the Joker pukes outfits it was a middle manager female that had already played the race card once and they were giving her enough rope to hang herself with.
  Needless to say after the Joker pukes outfits (they were like a puke purple and lime horror, no way you could take seriously with someone wearing this thing, they looked like a clown) they were able to fire her and when she tried playing the racism card again all it took was one showing of the joker pukes outfits with a bill on how much she spent on the things to get her charge dismissed.
  So I have to wonder if someone higher up wants to fire this moron but for one reason or another can't so they are giving him the rope and letting him do the job for them. With politics and relatives and other office bullshit I've seen it is often easier to let the stupid walk in front of a bus and write off the money they waste than try to fire them before they step off the curb. Is it wasteful and dumb? Yes but sometimes it is the only way to cut loose someone with connections or problems without having to deal with more expensive wrongful termination lawsuits later.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
15. Re:Only.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  anyone that would wear it might just think they could fly.
16. Re:Only.... by ZombieBite · 2011-04-20 09:11 · Score: 2
  
  That's Mom I'd Like to Finance, right?
17. Re:Only.... by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  What the parties support is unrelated to what they do, and both of those are unrelated to what happens at a convention. A mass orgy would make more sense than the idiocy that is a convention.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
18. Re:Only.... by khallow · 2011-04-20 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  What we have now is the "tea party" who tend to the bigoted and loosest of cannons influencing one party and in a country that is aging and seems "center-right" (though arguably is center-left by population) we're going to get these ludicrous ideas.
  So fiscal sanity is now only backed by "bigoted and the loosest of cannons?" Sounds like the major parties are in padded room territory when the sanest people in them are still pretty crazy.
  
  The demonization of the poor, non-white, and liberal is disturbing.
  No more disturbing than the demonization of anyone who would attempt to bring US spending and tax collecting into balance.
  
  Make a stand, have an opinion, stop trying to play the centerist scheme since the center in our politics is rarely a real place.
  As long as that "stand" means that US spending goes down by a factor of two or more and all tax revenue, including tax revenue, matches spending. We shoot the people I don't like. And I pick up $10 billion a year in recognition for coming up with all these awesome ideas.
19. Re:Only.... by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 09:35 · Score: 2
  
  My ideals line up well with libertarianism. Ever work in a large corporation? The best managers are the ones that tell you what to do, then work really hard to make sure no one else prevents you from doing your job. It's actually a lot of work in a large organization for a manager to intercept idle distractions, clear red tape, and otherwise allow those who do real work to get that done. The government should be a good manager. The government should lay down the basic framework to allow you to do the right thing, encourage you to do the right thing, then get the hell out of your way (and make sure no one else gets in your way) so you can do it.
  
  I want a small, nimble government that empowers the people without burdening them. The Libertarians said that's what they were about.
  
  Then, I went to those cult meetings. They were all Republicans who wanted the government to empower corporations, rather than people. The party platform had been pro-choice as long as I remember looking at that (which lines up with letting people make decisions for themselves and their family) but 100% of the other people in the room with me at a Libertarian Party meeting were pro-life. And so were the candidates in the area.
  
  What's all that have to do with the subject? Sometimes what the party says it is (not a bunch of racist hicks just out to start the new KKK party) is directly at odds with what one would see if they actually attended a meeting. Perhaps not everywhere. But at least in Alaska, one of the places the Teabaggers got a start, they are considered loons. Unfortunately, in Alaska, they are in good company, so that's why they are so strong there.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
20. Re:Only.... by sycodon · 2011-04-20 10:11 · Score: 2
  
  "Dude" There is no "Tea Party".
  There are people who loosely organize gatherings under the label of "Tea Party" but there is no organization that can deny anyone from being in the "party". If anything it's analogous to calling yorself a Progressive.
  As for Shraia law, there are groups who's stated goal is to institute Sharai in the U.S. They are small fringe groups to be sure, but they exist.
  Your view of the people who label themselves as Tea Partiers is derived from incoherent news achors and Democrat party mouth pieces. You may want to actually look into the ideas these people have. You might find yourself agreeing with them if you truely have an open mind.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
21. Re:Only.... by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  No true Scotsman fallacy. I can have an open mind and disagree with them. Small government? I don't really agree with that because we will end up with robber barons again, though the budget needs to be slashed significantly. States rights? Sure. The feds get involved in too much shit the states could handle by themselves. Im not so cool with the sort of types they attract, i.e. racists, religious nuts, etc., even if there is no "true" party or more often than not they are reasonable. You can watch videos on youtube of tea party people harassing Muslims and appealing to god as a reason to do something. Whenever someone does that its usually horse shit.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
22. Re:Only.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  So you are OK with all the trash the Democrats attract? You cool with the Black Panthers and their racist rhetoric? What about Obama's pastor and his anti-American rants in church? Have you actually listened to the Union rallies and the garbage they spew?
  What is horse shit is is ignort assholes like you who get their information from MSNBC.
23. Re:Only.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 11:35 · Score: 0
  
  ...The democratic party tends to support the social safety net and generally promote the welfare of the poorer classes. The Republican party tends to support the business community...
  
  I think this is a really short sighted version of democrats and republican parties in the united states. The parties aren't really far apart on any of these issues except when viewed through a partisan lens.
  Both parties support nearly the same social safety nets although democrats are more liberal about it (e.g, toss lots of money to lots of programs in a hope the people who need it get some and hope not too much gets wasted in bureaucracy), vs republicans are more interested in making sure only the ones who deserve it get it (e.g., use block grants to states and make the barrier high enough that those who shouldn't get it can't even if they need it aka the illegal immigrant issue). FWIW. I don't think either party does much for the welfare of the poorer classes (other than the democrats who pander to them, but aim most of their policies to the lower-middle class with the bulk of voters).
  On the business community side, it depends on what business you are in (and if you are really cynical, how much you contribute) as to which party is watching your back. For example, I don't think the Republicans are doing much for GOOG, movie studios, BigPharma, GE, or GoldmanSachs, etc.... The USA, that basically means big-business wins and small businesses lose regardless which side of the ailse you are looking from. Democrats tend to like big business because they often present a more stable tax base and are easier to regulate and tend to be more union friendly. Republicans tend to like big business because they tend to generate more stable jobs and generate more growth per unit of tax investment (e.g., lower taxes/regulations). Of course that is a generalization, as each business has different attributes that may lean them one way or another.
  I don't think I have to make a point on the military industrial complex or foreign wars or guantanamo bay or the patriot act. I think it would be fair to say that both parties have shown their stripes on these issues and they are pretty much the same.
  
  On top of it all the constant false dichotomy between the two parties to avoid controversy is so pathetic and irritating.
  I think you would agree that it is a false dichotomy between the democrats and republicans, but I think it's only because you might think there is a difference (there is not) and that is why it is a false dichotomy between the parties. It is only the issues that people need to take a stand on. Parties are for sheple...
24. Re:Only.... by rtb61 · 2011-04-20 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Neither crazy or sane, this kind of crap only comes from 'for sale for college degrees' and nepotism. Seems like a national accreditation and testing system should be required for college degrees coming out of the US.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
25. Re:Only.... by toadlife · 2011-04-20 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  As for Shraia law, there are groups who's stated goal is to institute Sharai in the U.S. They are small fringe groups to be sure, but they exist.
  There is a much, much larger group of Christians in this nation who want the Christian version of this, yet for some reason I don't the tea partiers frothing at the mouth over them.
  
  Your view of the people who label themselves as Tea Partiers is derived from incoherent news achors and Democrat party mouth pieces. You may want to actually look into the ideas these people have. You might find yourself agreeing with them if you truely have an open mind.
  I personally know several. They are all 50+ years old, white, middle to upper middle class and racist. I don't agree with any of their ideas, because their ideas are stupid and will set our country back 100 years.
  
  --
  I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
26. Re:Only.... by sycodon · 2011-04-20 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps it's because the "Christian version of this" doesn't involve beating your wife, pedophilia, honor killings, etc.
  I personally know several Progressive Democrats. To a one they are ignorant about fiscal matters and they usually bitch and moan about any number of minorities. Guess that makes them bigoted also. Which, by your definition makes the entire Democratic party fiscally ignorant and bigoted.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
27. Re:Only.... by flyingsquid · 2011-04-20 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I thought their original plan was better. They were going to take unemployed people and subject them to high doses of gamma rays.
28. Re:Only.... by RockDoctor · 2011-04-20 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  Only in Florida.
  Let me guess ... the capes were made (for 13 cents apiece) by a company owned by one of the Bush family?
  Sorry, my wife is just watching a random episode of that Scorcese gangster TV series for the first time and is having a job differentiating between the gangsters, the politicians, and the throat-cutting hit-men. I find that weirdly amusing.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
29. Re:Only.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  The Black Panthers and Obama's pastor are fringe elements of the Democratic party, if they're part of it at all. The nutjobs labeled as Tea Partiers include the politicians and neo-cons entertainers who routinely speak at their rallies.
  I'd rather get my information from MSNBC and NPR than from lying assholes like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. I can tell from your comments that they are clearly your sources of information.
30. Re:Only.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  I'm betting the capes were made in China.
31. Re:Only.... by Ol+Olsoc · 2011-04-21 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  You mustn't spend much time in these rooms. Groupthink rules, and you can protest all you want - it doesn't sink through. The idea is put forth, say providing banjos for every fish, and then everyone starts thinking about the process. Dissension is bad, so very bad, and the person who gives some serious thought about what might be bad about the idea is labeled as a pessimist, not helping the group, and indeed, if they can't help out, what are they doing there anyhow.
  Me: But fish can't even play banjos!
  The Group: Of course they can't - no one provided them with the banjos!.
  Me: But they don't have fingers!
  Someone in the group: Hmm, that's actually a good thing, we'll be showing how sensitive we are to those with handicaps.
  Boss: Sounds like we're we're go to provide these worthy fish with their banjos. Oh, and Ol', I need to talk with you in my office right after we this meeting.
  Isn't just the boss, it's most everyone.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
32. Re:Only.... by KingBenny · 2011-04-22 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  beat me there, i thought unemployment offices here were primus when it comes to senseless actions but this beats everything i've seen by at least half a lightyear ... round here it would be called a 'ludieke actie' , meaning it gathers a lot of attention in the media but in the end it always turns out to be pointless and forgotten quickly (quickly forgotten ? ... meh, im sure the gremmar makes sense ...)
  
  --
  Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
33. Re:Only.... by wondafucka · 2011-04-28 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Crazy as that state is, there had to be at least *one* sane person in the room when that was pitched. Surely to god, there had to be one person there who saw the disaster coming. My question is "What kind of environment was so toxic that he wouldn't or couldn't speak up and challenge such an obviously FUCKING INSANE idea?" How beaten down and scared do you have to be before you let something like that slide by without comment? How crazy does a boss have to be before his subordinates are so tired that no one even bothers to say "I think this might be a bad idea."?
  Actually, this is a great idea. The problem is on the people who receive the capes and say "I am not willing to change my worldview and become a hero instead of a victim". You can't serious your way out of unemployment or depression. You can make light of a bad situation. Most people who find various stabs at humor insensitive generally don't understand the nature of humor.
  On the other hand, I probably wouldn't have greenlighted this because I know that most people are cowards.
  
  --
  postmodernsideshow.com
Don't like it by geek · 2011-04-20 04:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm not opposed to the price tag. I think that's reasonable if spent on something motivational. What they did however, was in my opinion, demeaning to the unemployed. It's akin to your boss walking around the office and passing out candy bars for effort. Treating adults like little children is ridiculous. Lift them up, don't hold them down. The last thing these people needed while down on their luck and possibly in dire straits was for some jackass marketing person dressing them up like super heroes and playing fucking games with their self esteem. The people who thought this up should be fired in my opinion.
1. Re:Don't like it by j00r0m4nc3r · 2011-04-20 04:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The people who thought this up should be fired in my opinion.
  
  Well that will help the unemployment problem for sure.
2. Re:Don't like it by residieu · 2011-04-20 04:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The people who thought this up should be fired in my opinion.
  Do they get one of the capes?
3. Re:Don't like it by dkleinsc · 2011-04-20 04:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'd be opposed to it for another totally obvious reason: The cape manufacturer probably is either a committee member's brother-in-law, or bribed the committee to spend public money on their company's stupid product.
  Although I guess the cape could help the unemployed stay warm and dry when they're thrown out onto the street.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
4. Re:Don't like it by ChasmCoder · 2011-04-20 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  I agree completely. This "attempt" at boosting confidence could easily be seen as a completely demeaning act.
  
  I also agree the individuals responsible ought to be fired and made to wear the device of their own invention.
5. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Give their jobs of the people who thought this up *to* the people who are unemployed.
6. Re:Don't like it by ChasmCoder · 2011-04-20 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Here Here!
7. Re:Don't like it by kevinNCSU · 2011-04-20 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  It's akin to your boss walking around the office and passing out candy bars for effort. Treating adults like little children is ridiculous.
  Speak for yourself, if you know of a company where the bosses go around giving out Mountain Dew and candy bars sign me the fuck up ;)
8. Re:Don't like it by Thud457 · 2011-04-20 04:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Edna Mode does not approve of this hair-brained government idea.
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
9. Re:Don't like it by jank1887 · 2011-04-20 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  > passing out candy bars for effort
  you meant ice cream sandwiches, right?
10. Re:Don't like it by elfprince13 · 2011-04-20 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Mod this man +15
11. Re:Don't like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Have you even tried to get a job lately? Its not easy regardless of your education level. Its particularly hard for us younger people.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
12. Re:Don't like it by dietdew7 · 2011-04-20 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  I like candy. Though rather than gold stars, I prefer banana stickers.
13. Re:Don't like it by MiniMike · 2011-04-20 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Do they get one of the capes?
  Either that or a well deserved sign.
14. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  > Lift them up, don't hold them down.
  Wait...they didn't tell them they could use them to fly?
15. Re:Don't like it by Joce640k · 2011-04-20 04:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You think it's easier for older people?
  
  --
  No sig today...
16. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  At least you have a well reasoned basis for disliking this idea that is based completely on verifiable facts and not at all on unfounded speculation.
17. Re:Don't like it by Joce640k · 2011-04-20 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Nah. If that was true they'd have cost $200,000 ... plus free lunches for everybody involved.
  
  --
  No sig today...
18. Re:Don't like it by MBGMorden · 2011-04-20 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. I didn't think "motivational" at all when I read this start. Sounded more like a badge of shame. Were they out of giant red A's to sew on their clothes?
  In any event, yeah, the people responsible for this should be visiting the unemployment line themselves.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
19. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  On the other hand, I'm not sure it would be so bad if employers provided regular snacks and a nap-time.
20. Re:Don't like it by wiedzmin · 2011-04-20 05:05 · Score: 2
  
  I think the Slashdot repost is missing the point in the article:
  
  It's calling on its inspector general to expand an investigation launched into Workforce Central Florida last month. WFTV prompted that investigation when it reported the agency spent $250,000 tax dollars on staff cars.
  Now there's the overspending for you. Unless you call this motivation for their own staff, in which case never mind.
  
  --
  Bow before me, for I am root.
21. Re:Don't like it by MBGMorden · 2011-04-20 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  ... plus free lunches for everybody involved.
  Not all government agencies work that way. I work in government myself, and if a vendor or contractor that is displaying a product offers to provide lunch we're specifically instructed to refuse. We can go to lunch with them, but are required to pick up our own tab. The reasoning is simple: we want to avoid any possible accusations that purchasing decisions were based on "wining and dining".
  As a matter of fact, I'd say that the free lunches thing is probably way more prevalent in the private sector, where it might be frowned upon (by outsiders), but isn't actually illegal. When you're spending public money if one contractor loses a bid they can sue you if they think you had non-objective reasons for going with someone else.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
22. Re:Don't like it by DrgnDancer · 2011-04-20 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on your definition of "older". It's always hardest at either end of the spectrum. Young people just entering the market have little or no marketable experience, and unless they're graduates from a high prestigious school they aren't likely to be first picks. Older people in their 50-60s are often considered problematical by younger managers who don't see them as marketable up to date candidates (fair or not). "Older" people like me (and probably, but necessarily, you) in their late 20's to early to mid 40's have statistically the easiest time. We've got appreciable, marketable experience that we can point at, but aren't perceived as "old" yet by hiring mangers.
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
23. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  How about getting a job and earning money so you can take care of yourself?
  I believe the US is down to 4 job seekers for every opening from the recession high of 6 or 7, so clearly something is being done.
  In the meantime, you can go take remedial kindergarten math, since you apparently can't count.
24. Re:Don't like it by DrgnDancer · 2011-04-20 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking I could go for them passing out candy bars. Maybe not gold stars or pats on the head, but I like chocolate. Always assuming this does not impact my salary.
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
25. Re:Don't like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Between the ages of 30 and 50 it is much, much easier. In fact this age bracket has more experience, similar education, and I am competing for positions with them. Who wins? Them. Today you can't get many jobs without experience, and with more college grads then ever I am forced to compete with more people than older folks will until maybe they hit 50.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
26. Re:Don't like it by MBGMorden · 2011-04-20 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, the birthday celebrations are enough. Take a small office with 30-40 people in it, and if you celebrate everyone's birthday there's a birthday at least a couple times per month. Cue the cake and ice cream. And the folks I work with have a habit of buying a whole box (or two) of donuts in the morning just to get one, then leaving it on the counter with a "Take one" sign on them.
  When I started here I gained 18 lbs within the first 2 years. I've taken off 12 of those gained pounds again, but it gets difficult to avoid temptation with all the sweets around :).
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
27. Re:Don't like it by jellomizer · 2011-04-20 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Are the capes made in Florida? Either way I much rather see government funds going to infrastructure upgrades and fixes. If you need to take unemployment and you are able to work should be working at least part time. You out of work with a PHD. You are strong enough to hold a shovel. 4 hours out of the 5 day week you should be digging ditches to drop fiber cable, super conductive power-grid etc... The rest of the time you should be free to look for new jobs and take interviews, and other stuff. We can cut our budget while expanding our infrastructure, keeping the unemployed out of a complete shame spiral and make sure they are out and productive members of society. When they do get a job again they will be used to working so it isn't a shock again to be back at work. Unemployment and welfare are a good thing but if you keep the people busy and active it is all the better and if they can work to improve society why not?
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
28. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:12 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  If he's fired, does he get a cape?
29. Re:Don't like it by Mr.+Slippery · 2011-04-20 05:12 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  When they are ready to act like adults by getting jobs, we'll treat them like adults.
  When you are ready to act like an adult by acknowledging that most unemployment is a result of deliberate public policies meant to keep wages low and profits high, and not of some immaturity on the part of the unemployed, we'll treat you like an adult. Until then, go away, the big people are talking now.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
30. Re:Don't like it by briansct · 2011-04-20 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I worked at Target for a while and they actually did walk around and give us candy for doing a good job. And they wondered why there is a 100% turnover rate in retail. Yup I agree with you Geek! hard to say that this was a good idea. I can't believe what employers do to employees. I've been told that I should be happy to even have a job by a low level manager no raises, no fair treatment, just a pay check, and be happy you get one! WRONG! just plain wrong!
  
  --
  What's the point of Mod points over a long weekend?
31. Re:Don't like it by thoughtlover · 2011-04-20 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Treating adults like little children is ridiculous.
  Unfortunately, this has been happening for too long. Too many adults, as defined by the law, are still called 'kids'. Case in point, the politicians who oppose the wars we're fighting where they ask for Congress to 'get our kids out of harm's way and bring them home'. I often get lumped into that phraseology when I'm hanging out with some of my 30-somethings and a person in their 50s (or older) mentions something like, "You kids must be having so much fun... we didn't have that when I was a kid."
  
  Seriously, wtf? I'm over forty, have worked at my university for over 12 years now, and still get that shit. It has nothing to do with the way I look, because I'm not dressing like some emo teenager. But the perception of my parents' generation seems to be that my generation hasn't fully 'grown up' or taken upon some awesome unknown responsibility that we're just supposed to divine out of thin air. Truthfully, many in my generation still (seemingly) don't care about politics. Yet they also don't realize that active participation in the democratic process is essential to crafting a society they'd rather live in versus the one that is dominated by antiquated ideals that don't match their philosophy or lifestyle.
  
  --
  No sig for you! Come back one year!
32. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Are the capes made in Florida?
  Probably were made in China. If they were made in Florida, they'd have cost at least 3x as much.
33. Re:Don't like it by ShavedOrangutan · 2011-04-20 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  I think that's reasonable if spent on something motivational.
  It should have had a picture of a bum with a 40oz. That would motivate me. Whether to look for a job or drink, I'm not sure which.
  
  --
  Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
34. Re:Don't like it by mr1911 · 2011-04-20 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  The people who thought this up should be fired in my opinion.
  Don't forget to make them wear a cape.
  
  --
  This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
  Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
35. Re:Don't like it by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-04-20 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's akin to your boss walking around the office and passing out candy bars for effort. Treating adults like little children is ridiculous..
  But, I like candy bars. You're saying we're not getting any? I'm gonna tell my mommy on you! You're a bad bad man!
  
  --
  I8-D
36. Re:Don't like it by JackieBrown · 2011-04-20 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  It is illegal in a lot of the private sector as well. There are a lot of regulations on lunches and gifts at least in the DME industry.
37. Re:Don't like it by darkwing_bmf · 2011-04-20 05:31 · Score: 2
  
  Eventually the old people will die off or be shipped to retirement homes. Then it will be your turn to call 30 somethings kids.
38. Re:Don't like it by darkpixel2k · 2011-04-20 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Have you even tried to get a job lately? Its not easy regardless of your education level. Its particularly hard for us younger people.
  You know what works every time? "Pay me under the table and I'll work for minimum wage."
  
  Let's face it--if I have to chose between unemployment and feeding my family, I'll chose to cut out the government every single time.
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
39. Re:Don't like it by NevarMore · 2011-04-20 05:33 · Score: 2
  
  Because when you're on unemployment your full time job is looking for another full time job. Being unemployed, in prison, or on welfare does not make you a slave of the state.
40. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Motivational? How about getting a job and earning money so you can take care of yourself? What more motivation does one need? I'd like to know if this came after giving everyone gold stars and whether it commenced with nap time.
  STFU, Randroid. There are currently roughly 5 unemployed people for every job opening - what exactly are the other 4 supposed to do in your fantasy world?
41. Re:Don't like it by hoggoth · 2011-04-20 05:38 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Watch as UnemployedMan steps into this phone booth, dons his bright red cape and emerges as... UnemployableMan!
  
  --
  - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
42. Re:Don't like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Minimum wage is 10 percent less than it used to be due to inflation. The deflationary environment of the US lately hasn't changed that percentage much. Furthermore, being paid under the table is illegal, working for that wage doesn't give you enough to retire, and also doesn't give you social security benefits nor good medical care. Im not a big fan of social security, but its pretty much what a late 20's person with a good education and decent (not the best but well above average) performance in college has to look forward to in this shit-hole country.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
43. Re:Don't like it by hedwards · 2011-04-20 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious how this isn't a demeaning act. It sounds very much like a scarlett letter. There's a surprising number of people out ther that assume that the unemployed are picking up a huge check and are able to afford to sit around doing nothing for long periods of time. I don't know about Florida, but around here the checks are a pittance at best, my brother got laid off a while back and the check is barely enough to cover rent, definitely not also pay for food and health insurance.
  I remember applying myself, and the "adjudicator" was very clearly in bed with the employer, was willing to take the fraudulent claims of my former employer as the gospel, but required me to prove that they were requiring me to work off the clock. On top of the general bullying and revision to questions when he didn't like the answer.
  Around here that sort of behavior is endemic to the system.
44. Re:Don't like it by v1 · 2011-04-20 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  And I wonder how wearing said cape to your job interview goes...?
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
45. Re:Don't like it by hedwards · 2011-04-20 05:47 · Score: 2
  
  So, my brother who just got laid off by his employer due to downsizing and has been working his butt off to find a new job, is being childish? Because clearly the money that he's getting which barely pays for health coverage and has a huge number of strings attached is conducive to his finding gainful employment which would allow him to get of government assistance.
  News flash, before I went back to school I was making a lot more than minimum wage and I could barely afford to pay my bills. Let alone the small fraction of my wages that I would have gotten from unemployment.
46. Re:Don't like it by kelemvor4 · 2011-04-20 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds to me like you need to chill out. You're likely about the same age as that 50 year old's children and so in his eyes are a kid. As for congress, have you seen them? Nearly every member is ancient; we're just about all kids to them.
47. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:49 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  Here Here!
  There, there you functionally illiterate fuck-ass.
  Hint: it's "hear, hear!"
48. Re:Don't like it by Seumas · 2011-04-20 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  What does that have to do with anything? Getting a job is hard, so you need motivation to get a job? How is wanting to be employed not motivation in itself? I don't care if you're employed or not. Have your own motivation, like being able to pay your rent and bills and feed yourself? If you need some sort of goofy motivation, then get out of the way and let the next guy take your spot as I'm sure there are plenty of people out there for whom a paying job is its own motivation and don't want trivial grade school bullshit thrown at them. What's next, capes and gold stars to "motivate" you to get unemployment benefits?
49. Re:Don't like it by Xyrus · 2011-04-20 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Capes are like, really big. They should have used something less obvious. Like a long time ago there was this guy who made some people wear these yellow stars. I heard it did wonders for reducing the unemployment population.
  
  --
  ~X~
50. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Treating adults like little children is ridiculous. Lift them up, don't hold them down. The last thing these people needed while down on their luck and possibly in dire straits was for some jackass marketing person dressing them up like super heroes and playing fucking games with their self esteem.
  
  No fooling.
  
  Speaking as someone who was layed-off two and a quarter years ago (and now without Unemployment Benefits), I can tell you that if someone from the government wanted to give me a stupid cape, I'd likely spit in their face.
  
  Here's the real kicker: When someone falls off the end of their UI benefits (the so-called "99-ers"), they are no longer counted in the statistics of "unemployed". So, just by waiting until people are completely without help, the gummint can claim "Unemployment is DOWN".
  
  Now, isn't THAT nice?
51. Re:Don't like it by rwa2 · 2011-04-20 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Some people I know simply take unemployment, and work a bunch of odd jobs to supplement that income. The unemployment income is pretty livable, and as long as they don't make over a certain threshold it's not actually even illegal.
  Some people I know are also walking away from their mortgages, even though they make enough money to pay them. But they need to sell their homes for non-financial reasons, and there's simply no other way to do it that makes financial sense... their property lost half its value since the housing bubble burst, and they can afford to live with a crap credit rating until they can repair it over the next couple decades :-P
  The system is crap to begin with... you don't really have to cut out the government to screw everyone over ;-)
52. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Motivational? How about getting a job and earning money so you can take care of yourself? What more motivation does one need? I'd like to know if this came after giving everyone gold stars and whether it commenced with nap time.
  FUCK OFF AND THEN DIE
  
  SERIOUSLY. FUCK OFF AND THEN DIE
  
  LET ME SAY IT LOUDER: FUCK OFF MOTHERFUCKER
53. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  Motivational? How about getting a job and earning money so you can take care of yourself? What more motivation does one need? I'd like to know if this came after giving everyone gold stars and whether it commenced with nap time.
  IN CASE YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND: FUCK OFF
54. Re:Don't like it by spun · 2011-04-20 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Now, I'm always one of the first to go gunning for Randroids, but I think you may have gotten it wrong here. I believe what Seumass was trying to say is "Getting a job and earning some money so you can take care of yourself" is FAR more motivating than getting a cape. He was trying to point out how utterly condescending the whole thing is, not saying that unemployed people should just go get a job and stop being unemployed. Lack of motivation isn't the problem, as you say, having one job for every five seekers is the problem.
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
55. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  Motivational? How about getting a job and earning money so you can take care of yourself? What more motivation does one need? I'd like to know if this came after giving everyone gold stars and whether it commenced with nap time.
  STFU, Randroid. There are currently roughly 5 unemployed people for every job opening - what exactly are the other 4 supposed to do in your fantasy world?
  Pick themselves up by their bootstraps, DUH
56. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  You think it's easier for older people?
  A-freakin'-MEN!
  
  It's MUCH easier for younger people; especially in "tech" jobs. Always has been, and now it's simply ridiculous.
57. Re:Don't like it by Seumas · 2011-04-20 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds like even more motivation to get a job, to me.
  Seriously, are you suggesting to me that when jobs are scarce and you are desperate for money to pay bills, you need more motivation than you would otherwise need when jobs are abundant? That is fucking absurd. What else do you need external motivation for? Washing your own car? Taking your own suit to the dry cleaners?
  I absolutely don't want to be unemployed, but if I were, I wouldn't need a cape and gold stars or any other sort of motivation to try and take advantage of services offered to me to help me locate a matching job. I would go to the employment office and utilize their services, because I want to be employed. Being employed is all the motivation I need.
  The people marking my above comment as "troll" seriously concern me. I didn't realize that our society now viewed being employed as an obligation. As a FAVOR that you are doing for SOMEONE ELSE. That the potential for finding work and making money isn't reward enough for trying to find a job and that they need some sort of grade-school type reward from the government to make use of public services to help them hunt for (scarce and therefore even more valuable) jobs. To pay their bills and take care of themselves.
58. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  Go back to Mexico.
59. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Where? Where?!
60. Re:Don't like it by Kate6 · 2011-04-20 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I'd absolutely love it if an employer made free candy bars available. I've had an employer buy the entire (about 15 employee) company free Subway on Fridays when the company was doing well enough, just to keep up morale... Which was awesome. I tend to think the unemployed would appreciate free candy bars too, or any kind of free food really. The problem with capes is that they're useless, not that they're patronizing. You can't eat them, you can't pay the bills with them, you can't wear them to a job interview, you can't print extra copies of your resume with them, you can't use them as transportation to a job interview... Any of which would have been better things to spend the money on.
61. Re:Don't like it by mini+me · 2011-04-20 06:00 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Today you can't get many jobs without experience
  If the job is something you love, how can you not have experience? It seems to me that you'd be already doing it as your hobby and therefore have tons of experience. If the job is not something you love, why would an employer choose you over someone who does love the job?
62. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Have you even tried to get a job lately? Its not easy regardless of your education level. Its particularly hard for us younger people.
  You know what works every time? "Pay me under the table and I'll work for minimum wage." Let's face it--if I have to chose between unemployment and feeding my family, I'll chose to cut out the government every single time.
  Yeah, that works. NOT!
  
  You might be able to get a consulting gig that way, or even a "real" job with a company that has 1 to 5 employees; but as soon as the company is large enough to have "an accountant" (which is pretty fucking small!), you can simply FORGET that idea, fucktard.
63. Re:Don't like it by Belial6 · 2011-04-20 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that is the end game. I think it is to have the entire population believe that they are and always will be helpless children. Consider that the age of legal adulthood has skyrocketed in recent history. Consider things like the drinking age. The current push to raise the driving age. The fact that a woman who graduates high school and gets a job at 18, gets married to her the man she has been dating for years, and gets pregnant at 19 is counted in the "Teen Pregnancy" statistics. Now people will claim "She is a teen. She is nineTEEN." That may be true, but if you are going to count adults in the "Teen Pregnancy" statistics, the statistic is pointless. The fact is that "Teen" is used as a term for post pubecent "kids". So, they are counting adults as childhood pregnancies. Most people now consider 18, 19, 20 year olds as "kids".
64. Re:Don't like it by Samantha+Wright · 2011-04-20 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft had free soda vending machines for a while. These were discontinued when the profit hike from XP started to fade, but apparently the sheer amount of soda involved was a notorious donor of extra body mass, so they weren't exactly missed.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
65. Re:Don't like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 06:03 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What the hell are you talking about? Its harder to get a job today because companies are sitting on their cash rather than reinvesting it in themselves or other ventures. US corporations are sitting on about 10 trillion dollars worth of cash that can be spent. Meanwhile CEO's are getting record breaking bonuses. They effectively are using the tax incentives to get richer rather than to create more jobs as was intended. Futhermore, who says Im not motivated to get a job? Im as or more motivated than anyone in throughout 1960's to today, Im educated in the top 8 percent of US citizens since I have a MS in Applied Mathematics, and I have 4 years work experience in IT and scientific research. Why shouldn't I be able to get a job after applying to over 100? Its just that it was WAY EASIER TO GET A GOOD PAYING JOB IN THE 1960's WITH LESS EXPERIENCE that old farts think the younger generation is so lazy.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
66. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  How about getting a job and earning money so you can take care of yourself?
  I believe the US is down to 4 job seekers for every opening from the recession high of 6 or 7, so clearly something is being done.
  In the meantime, you can go take remedial kindergarten math, since you apparently can't count.
  Yeah, I can tell you what is "being done": The people who are falling off the end of their unemployment benefits are simply "giving up" and going on Food Stamps and Welfare. So, not only do they no longer count as being "unemployed" (a statistic that ONLY counts people who are actually still receiving benefits), but are likely not being counted as "job seekers", because they technically AREN'T.
  
  I know that I, as an unemployed embedded developer with over THIRTY YEARS' of employment in that field, am pretty disgusted at having to face the prospect of "Would you like fries with that?"
67. Re:Don't like it by Chris+Mattern · 2011-04-20 06:05 · Score: 2
  
  What would YOU do for a Klondike Bar?
68. Re:Don't like it by Seumas · 2011-04-20 06:05 · Score: 2
  
  When they are ready to act like adults by getting jobs, we'll treat them like adults.
  When you are ready to act like an adult by acknowledging that most unemployment is a result of deliberate public policies meant to keep wages low and profits high, and not of some immaturity on the part of the unemployed, we'll treat you like an adult. Until then, go away, the big people are talking now.
  The potential of getting a job should be all the motivation necessary to utilize services that help you find jobs. Jobs are not plentiful and unemployment agencies do a terrible job at matching you up with positions for your experience and they can certainly be demoralizing places for demoralizing experiences. However, that doesn't change the fact that a potential job should be all you need to encourage you to try and get a job. If that's not enough, then any sort of gold star behavior rewarding treatment isn't going to help you, either.
  In this incident, I think that the intention was absolutely to replicate that same first-grade mentality of your teacher rewarding you for doing something you should do or your parents rewarding you for using the toilet or brushing your teeth. Of course, any reasonably intelligent person sees the action as demeaning. As if, again, they're children that need to be coddled and encouraged to do the things that are basic to their very own well-being and continued survival and self-sufficiency.
69. Re:Don't like it by oldmac31310 · 2011-04-20 06:07 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  it is actually 'harebrained'. Really.
  
  --
  http://www.acetonestudio.com
70. Re:Don't like it by Martin+Blank · 2011-04-20 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  I work for a contractor to a government entity functioning essentially as government staff. I have to adhere to both ethics policies, relying on the stricter of the two if there is overlap or conflict. This means that vendors can take me to lunch and can pay for it, but to a maximum of $5. One can barely get a fast food meal for $5. Since I work for a contractor, I am myself technically a vendor representative, and I cannot pay more than $5 for government employees' lunches. They, however, can buy me lunch.
  However, they can pay for lunch if we are already a customer, there is no sales pitch going on, and the meeting is primarily about business. This allows a vendor to cater a lunch if they're providing training, reviewing roadmaps, or holding user group meetings, though they are encouraged to keep the cost relatively low, and so we often end up with $3 Subway sandwiches and generic chips.
  There are a number of other requirements just around lunch, let alone all the other possible times when a gift could be exchanged or perceived to be exchanged. I avoid it just by paying my own way all the time and letting everyone else do the same.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
71. Re:Don't like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Because in spite of my love for applied mathematics, one which I have devoted over ten years of my life to with well above average performance, I have yet to find a job doing that after over 6 months of searching.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
72. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  Sure it will. It'll open up a job for someone in marketing who isn't a jackass.
73. Re:Don't like it by RussellSHarris · 2011-04-20 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, as if any employer would ever consider hiring a person whom they knew to be unemployed. Oh, wait...
  Now if they wanted to keep wearing the cape after they got the job, there might be a slight problem.
74. Re:Don't like it by Seumas · 2011-04-20 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  As silly as some motivational attempts by employers can be, it's still a different thing than a government agency providing a service that benefits you in improving your life at the cost of the tax payer that is in your own best interest coddling you like a toddler. We used to have free soda and snacks in the vending machines on the Netscape campus in the late 90s. That wasn't coddling. It wasn't treating me like a child. It was something our employer provided to us, because they valued our service and it was an additional small form of compensation, in a way. It was a nice gesture of appreciation.
  That is very different than a government agency using the same sort of "rewarding behavior" action to encourage me to do the very basic things which benefit me directly, like they were clapping for baby to go pee pee in the potty all by himself. When an employer does it (usually, I understand how frustrating your incident could be), it's with a different mentality. Even if it feels silly, it doesn't feel demeaning.
  I think, in this case, it was intended as motivational (not their job), but because it is so insultingly juvenile, it seems demeaning to anyone with a head on their shoulders. Whether they're on the outside or if they're the actual people using the services. Hell, even children recognize this. There were plenty of times when I was a child (and you probably experienced these, too) where I was aware of how adults (usually in the role of a teacher or other school authority) treating me like an infant and it was wholly infuriating.
75. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be opposed to it for another totally obvious reason: The cape manufacturer probably is either a committee member's brother-in-law, or bribed the committee to spend public money on their company's stupid product.
  Boy, that's no shit!
  
  I'd LOVE to know if this actually went out for bid.
76. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Really?! Have you ever been unemployed? A while back, my entire division was eliminated without any warning, and I was laid off. Found a job right away, a short-term contract. Found out right after I started that I was pregnant. So, when the contract ended, and they didn't have enough work to keep me on, I was unemployed again, this time with a slight disadvantage. After following your belly into a few interviews, you recognize "the look" immediately. Took me a month and a half to find my current job, and have to trust them to let me resume it after my (unpaid) maternity leave as they said they would, since as a new employee, I'm not protected by FMLA. Bottom line? People don't typically choose to become or stay unemployed. Generally we work our a$$es off to stop being unemployed. And I think the capes are a bit insulting, and a huge waste of money.
77. Re:Don't like it by elrous0 · 2011-04-20 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  So, you're saying my proposed "You're a Winner!"-hats-for-the-homeless plan might be a *bad idea*?!?!? Obviously, you're just a victim of negative thinking.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
78. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  I would have suggested a nicely embroidered 'J' on the front of their shirts.
79. Re:Don't like it by GameboyRMH · 2011-04-20 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Hobby experience? You think an HR drone is going to buy that? The guy's not trying to get a job as a comedian.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
80. Re:Don't like it by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-20 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the only jobs "in applied mathematics" are research jobs, so unless you have a PhD, that's what you want to get next.
  Otherwise, your applied mathematics is a springboard and you'll need to specialise in some highly numerate skill. There are lots of such jobs, from the obvious teacher/tutor to advisor (lots of commercial and research places need an expert mathematician) to actuary to financial analyst to statistician to *cringe* accountant. But few of these jobs will be attainable unless you go for some specialist training - unless you've been to an Ivy League/Oxbridge, in which case you'll get a job even if you're ignorant of the general field (because it's assumed you'll catch on very quickly, though it's not always true).
  No?
81. Re:Don't like it by Thud457 · 2011-04-20 06:20 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It'll open up a job for someone in marketing who isn't a jackass .
  That umpossible.
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
82. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Do you really mean to say that you've been working so many hours per week trying to find a job in applied mathematics that there's literally no time left for you to make minimum wage working a few hours part-time at McDonalds?
  Damn, that's dedication.
83. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  You out of work with a PHD. You are strong enough to hold a shovel. 4 hours out of the 5 day week you should be digging ditches to drop fiber cable, super conductive power-grid etc... The rest of the time you should be free to look for new jobs and take interviews, and other stuff. We can cut our budget while expanding our infrastructure, keeping the unemployed out of a complete shame spiral and make sure they are out and productive members of society. When they do get a job again they will be used to working so it isn't a shock again to be back at work. Unemployment and welfare are a good thing but if you keep the people busy and active it is all the better and if they can work to improve society why not?
  Spoken like a True Republican: Broad pronouncements made while sipping Cognac from a crystal snifter that your butler brought you whilst you sit by the fire in your manse, that sound like fiscal responsibility, but made with zero regard for the impact on individuals.
  
  And what is amazing is that, I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't be willing to pick up that shovel yourself.
  
  And what about those who AREN'T strong enough or young enough to hold shovels?
  
  And what about when all the jobs HOLDING SHOVELS are filled up?
  
  Then what, Mr. Smarty-Pants Capitalist?
  
  In short, FUCK OFF AND DIE! UNTIL YOU'RE THERE YOURSELF, JUST FUCK THE FUCKING HELL OFF!
  
  Get it?
84. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  There, There!
85. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Quit playing on the internet and go get a job.
  Oooooh. Snappy comeback! Did it take you a long time to think that one up, fucktard?
  
  What exactly do you think I've been DOING for over TWO YEARS?
  
  Do you REALLY think I ENJOYED cashing in my 401k (thus burning my future) JUST to keep the FUCKING LIGHTS ON?
  
  As other posters have pointed out: FIVE applicants for EVERY job. EVERY job.
  
  Now what, you fucking snot-nosed bastard?
86. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  And I wonder how wearing said cape to your job interview goes...?
  Exactly.
  
  ...And the former Youths In Asia. (Just extending your sig)
87. Re:Don't like it by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-20 06:27 · Score: 2
  
  Have your own motivation, like being able to pay your rent and bills and feed yourself?
  Escape from total destruction, otherwise subtitled Arbeit macht frei, is the worst possible motivation for work. Also, work done out of desperation never sets you free.
  The only truly productive motivation for work is enjoyment of the work on offer. There are sufficient resources in the Western world to keep everyone fed and sheltered. Work only needs to be done out of enjoyment, becoming a synonym for productive leisure. The initiation of force by hoarders against people who want access to available resources stops this.
  Not enough jobs? Technology is serving its purpose. Cut the working week to four days.
88. Re:Don't like it by hoggoth · 2011-04-20 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Or if they walked into the interview wearing the cape.
  
  --
  - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
89. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  1. you would be amazed what candy bars actually do for productivity
  2. there is really not that great a divide between managing adults and children - attention is still currency....
  3. cost is miniscule & they don't have to wear them also hey presto a blanket ;) next up will be why are they not taxed on the extra $2 of 'clothing benefit' received
90. Re:Don't like it by snspdaarf · 2011-04-20 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's akin to your boss walking around the office and passing out candy bars for effort. .
  I got a plastic water glass with "Thanks!" written on it. At least I could have eaten the candy bar.
  
  But, I agree with your remarks.
  
  --
  Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
91. Re:Don't like it by tjb · 2011-04-20 06:33 · Score: 2
  
  Here's the real kicker: When someone falls off the end of their UI benefits (the so-called "99-ers"), they are no longer counted in the statistics of "unemployed".
  That is not even remotely true. Why do people believe this lie?
  Educate your dumb ass here.
92. Re:Don't like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Believe me, Ive been trying all of them. I get out competed in almost every one because a specialist already exists that was taught that discipline in school. Ive decided to go for a PhD now anyway, so my experience was based on when I was considering my MS terminal. I actually was really surprised how hard it was to find a job considering I have a good GPA and I have been published twice in computer vision research at reasonable conferences with another paper in progress and a journal paper expected after I finish out my research assistantship. At my new school for the PhD I wasn't even offered a TA position which was totally unexpected since I actually am enrolled in doctoral classes right now and, once again, I have a good gpa. Right now I have more of a problem then before since part time jobs that are not at a university in my discipline are even rarer. I have one "maybe" position as a programmer for a biostatistician but that is no guarantee since she already offered it to someone who apparently has a 50-50 chance of accepting.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
93. Re:Don't like it by Dragonslicer · 2011-04-20 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  I think you skipped over a sentence:
  
  I much rather see government funds going to infrastructure upgrades and fixes.
  I doubt that many Republicans support the idea of the government spending money to keep people employed by improving infrastructure.
94. Re:Don't like it by penguin_dance · 2011-04-20 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Definitely harder. I worked some 8 years at a contract worker before getting brought on board full time where I am no. (Most of these contract jobs were extended periods...6 months to 2 years, and several times I had supervisors who wanted to bring me on-board, but didn't have the final say.) I finally got my current job because 3 supervisors who wanted me hired when my contract time was almost up. (They have a limit of 1 year for temp workers which can be expanded 6 more months...after that they either have to let you go or hire you.) I am certainly well-qualified.
  As I understand, a lot of the problem is insurance rates. A company that has an older workforce, pays higher premiums. Then you start to realize why older workers with more experience are targeted for early retirement. Otherwise it makes no sense to hire fresh-outs (college graduates) with almost no experience when you've got experienced workers looking for work who you won't have to hand-hold. But after you get in your 40s, unless you're moving up the management ladder, it gets harder to find full-time, permanent work with benefits.
  That being said, if someone tried to get me to wear some damn red came and pose with a cartoon character at the employment office, I probably would have lost it.
  You want to know why people want to slash government spending to the bone--there's an example!
  
  --
  If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
95. Re:Don't like it by darkpixel2k · 2011-04-20 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  You might be able to get a consulting gig that way, or even a "real" job with a company that has 1 to 5 employees; but as soon as the company is large enough to have "an accountant" (which is pretty fucking small!), you can simply FORGET that idea, fucktard.
  Hostile much?
  
  'Small Businesses' employ over 50% of the US workforce. It's easy.
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
96. Re:Don't like it by goose-incarnated · 2011-04-20 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently you only need 23 people and then you stand a good chance of the number of celebrations being half the number of people :-)
  
  (Yes, its wrong, but its funny anyway ... too tired now to come up with whatever equation describes the number of b/days vs people once you go over 23)
  
  --
  I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
97. Re:Don't like it by RussellSHarris · 2011-04-20 06:44 · Score: 2
  
  So... I'm confused. Assuming you're actually an interviewer, are you disqualifying them from getting the job because they actually need a job, or are you disqualifying them because they were following the rules?
98. Re:Don't like it by Duradin · 2011-04-20 06:49 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "And what is amazing is that, I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't be willing to pick up that shovel yourself."
  Them picking up a shovel would destroy job opportunity. If they pick up a shovel it'd be silly to hire more "people" to do it for them, now wouldn't it? It's not laziness, its a strong desire to stimulate the economy.
99. Re:Don't like it by biryokumaru · 2011-04-20 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  That probably not true. Social Security will likely be exhausted by 2037, in a large part due to the retirement of the baby boomer generation. The only thing you have to look forward to in your old age is a long wait in the bread lines.
  
  --
  When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
100. Re:Don't like it by HikingStick · 2011-04-20 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I've attended a lot of seminars where the giveaway items were "silly" or "kids' toys": miniature Slinkys, mini Play Doh containers, plastic dinosaurs, yo-yos, even pinwheels. Such items are typically used to remind attendees of some key concept in the presentation. I'm guessing that was all that was intended here. Sure, it may not have been the best choice, but there's no need to crucify the idea's originator(s) in the media. Lesson learned. Move on.
  
  --
  I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
101. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Because as long as they're receiving unemployment, they have to pretend to be looking for a job (they have to put in 1 job application every 4 weeks). If they stop pretending that they're actually looking for a job, they're no longer counted as unemployed.
102. Re:Don't like it by thesandtiger · 2011-04-20 06:57 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Why haven't you been working with professors at your university? Why haven't you done internships with people working in the areas you want to work?
  You can't possibly tell me that in 10 years of study, with "well above average performance" you haven't found a single person who was looking for, or willing to take, a student/intern. Well, you can tell me that, but I won't believe it.
  If a person has even an iota of initiative and drive, they will not leave university without at least 2 years worth of internships under their belt and quite a few contacts with people who can help them in their chosen field. ESPECIALLY if it's something within academia.
  
  --
  Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
103. Re:Don't like it by Runaway1956 · 2011-04-20 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Pal, I hate to break it to you - but we don't live in a stable world. When I left high school, there were jobs everywhere. I could pick and choose, and I did so. I worked a year in construction, then joined the Navy. Guess what? The world had changed. The steel mills were all shut down, and jobs were hard to find back home. So - I moved to a different region, where the steel industry's woes didn't impact the common man. Again, I went into construction. Then, I went truck driving, then back to construction, all the time working on education. Then, the world did a little bit of shifting again. Suddenly, construction workers were in high demand - and the better workers were paid some really good wages. I made big bucks for a few years. Then - Bush was elected and the twin towers came down. Major shift in economics. I was able to fall back on trucking, but I couldn't buy a job in construction anymore. Those jobs available in construction were all taken by cheap labor from south of the border, and a lot of employers wouldn't even give an American an application to fill out.
  Today, I'm 55. Yes, today. Happy birthday, old geezer. No one wants me. I managed to get a job five years ago, which I've held onto. Obviously from my previous paragraph, I've not held any other job this long. There were always greener pastures, somewhere. Not any more. Jobs are scarce, no one wants to hire an old goat, and I'm kinda stuck where I'm at. It isn't the best job in the world, but it pays my bills.
  Things may get better, but you can expect them to get worse first. Then again, they may get worse, before they get even worse.
  Need a job, and can't find one? Reach deep in your soul, and see if you can't find a little bit of nationalism. Then, start writing all the corrupt bastards in Washington who made Nafta, Cafta, and all the rest of the globalization crap happen. They, and the corporations, are busy selling everything that we need to the Chinese, or anyone else who can bid high enough.
  Again, the world is not a stable place. Things change. Now get off your ass, and try to make those changes benefit you and your offspring. Stop whining.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
104. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  Edna Mode does not approve of this hair-brained government idea.
  Yeah, your cape can get stuck in a rovolving door.
  That can really be bad if you're trying to stop armed bank robbers.
105. Re:Don't like it by StikyPad · 2011-04-20 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  Im educated in the top 8 percent of US citizens since I have a MS in Applied Mathematics, and I have 4 years work experience in IT and scientific research. Why shouldn't I be able to get a job after applying to over 100?
  Because you're overqualified and you'd either cost more than a fresh, young graduate, or else you'd shortly move on to greener pastures.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
106. Re:Don't like it by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-20 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  I get out competed in almost every one because a specialist already exists that was taught that discipline in school.
  That's the thing with mathematics (speaking also as a mathematics graduate) - in the commercial world, you can only use it as a springboard to specialise. "I have a good mathematics degree" is not interesting per se unless you've been to a particularly prestigious university - and then it doesn't matter which degree you got. But it's very useful if you want to take your next highly numerate step, not just because you're more likely to get a training/learning position but because you already have the mathematical maturity to endure the challenge.
  
  my experience was based on when I was considering my MS terminal.
  (Translating from US to UK language) if that means you hadn't actually graduated yet, you'd be very unlikely to find anything interesting. Unless the market is in the jobseeker's favour, it's a long way between having something and saying you're likely to be about to have something.
  
  I have a good GPA and I have been published twice in computer vision research at reasonable conferences
  Again, I'm not sure it's relevant except for the springboard. If you want a good commercial research position you need a PhD (or experience), and if you're doing something more hands-on then having been published academically is less likely to be relevant.
  
  At my new school for the PhD I wasn't even offered a TA position which was totally unexpected since I actually am enrolled in doctoral classes right now and, once again, I have a good gpa.
  Is it that the subjects in demand are more aligned with other people's qualifications? Is it simply policy to rarely offer TA positions to new entrants? I'd much prefer to offer a teaching job to someone who is known within the community he/she'll be teaching - maybe you need to spend a few months proving yourself. Good grades aren't necessarily indicators of teaching aptitude, and starting out on a first PhD programme necessarily means you're suddenly around people who are similarly skilled - but with as much or more experience in the institution and academic environment.
  
  Right now I have more of a problem then before since part time jobs that are not at a university in my discipline are even rarer.
  A family friend who recently completed an PhD in EE spent some free hours taking a job giving tours of an old cinema or something - and, frankly, his English is not very clear! But it was something obscure enough that he wasn't exactly facing much competition, and it simply required general competence. He's done fine academically and has been running around at conferences and eased nicely into a commercial research position - what mattered was the quality of his research, not the part time stuff he messed around with.
107. Re:Don't like it by mini+me · 2011-04-20 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, I do. A hobby is a business is a job. There is no difference. If you market yourself in such a way that an HR drone can tell the difference, you might want to rethink your presentation.
108. Re:Don't like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Thats also the least productive job many PhD's could do short of not doing anything. Its like making a heavyweight boxer sell ice cream in the stands rather than fight. Why not have them designing these things?
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
109. Re:Don't like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Ive been a research assistant for two years. The problem stems from changing schools for a PhD program and not being given any opportunities yet. When I entertained the idea of stopping at a MS I tried to find work for 6 months. Nothing happened with that.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
110. Re:Don't like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Im a fresh young graduate. The overqualified thing is true. I never get calls back on jobs that only require a BS.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
111. Re:Don't like it by StikyPad · 2011-04-20 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, there's no good reason we haven't shifted to a much more sensible 10x4 work week back in the middle of the last century. Why should we have two day weekends when we could have three day weekends with only a minor scheduling change? Think of all the billions of dollars of gasoline we could save. It seems like there's either a concerted effort to keep people busy, or else it's a matter of keeping up appearances where no company wants to be seen making less than a 100% effort to the fullest extent allowed by law. "Look at those lazy bastards over at XYZ, Inc. They're only open 4 days a week!"
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
112. Re:Don't like it by Korin43 · 2011-04-20 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Furthermore, being paid under the table is illegal, working for that wage doesn't give you enough to retire, and also doesn't give you social security benefits nor good medical care.
  Yeah because having no job is better than having a job that doesn't give you benefits and enough money to retire!
113. Re:Don't like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Ive applied to some financial analyst type positions as well as actuarial. I didn't get any call backs and when I did a follow up call they never got back to me OR I couldn't find a number to call OR it was specifically requested that I don't do follow up calls. The TA position I think I was not offered because one of my letters of recommendation came in later than the priority date. They also mentioned positions typically go to those that pass the preliminary exams. The thing is, the prelims are easy. Its only on applied linear algebra and applied analysis, both of which I basically learned my first year here (Ive been here three total) and I clearly have them on my transcript. One problem with that is the PhD program is not as strong because of the easier preliminary exams, but I plan to make up for that with performance and curriculum. Im thinking computational mathematics/statistics. Thanks for the tips. I hope next month when I graduate I will get some offers. I applied to some internships so I will update my CV at that point.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
114. Re:Don't like it by jellomizer · 2011-04-20 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  That is why I only propose Part Time work. Not full time. Full time will prevent you from looking for your normal level job. How many people truly work full time looking for a job? Not many. They will do 2/3 hours of searching a day. As it doesn't take that long to go threw and apply for all your options.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
115. Re:Don't like it by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-20 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  a concerted effort to keep people busy
  The alternative would be to give people time to think.
  Better instead to teach workers that they should be proud to be exploited, and that those who do not accept exploitation are just workshy spongers - regardless of whether those in employment are really engaged in productive, constructive work.
  I've found that the more I've been paid, the less good I've actually done for society. And the most useful work I've been engaged in has always been unpaid. The people who preach about the laziness of the unemployed are usually doing less than nothing.
116. Re:Don't like it by jellomizer · 2011-04-20 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  If the PhD is out of work. And they are not being productive then they should have something to do. I am not saying that the PhD should be shovling but they should be doing a job even if is "Below Them" Most likely a PhD will not be digging ditches. However they may be handling accounting or managing or just being a computer operator. The point is if you are out of work you should be willing to do whatever job that you can do.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
117. Re:Don't like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  If the work doesn't pay off their massive student loans to get there then they actually have worse problems working than not. You can at least make a reasonable case for bankruptcy or delay of payment if you have no job and collect welfare.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
118. Re:Don't like it by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-20 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ive applied to some financial analyst type positions as well as actuarial.
  I was thinking of becoming an actuary in the past. In the UK an actuary will have passed a specific set of exams administered by the professional body and my assumption at the time was that the obvious prerequisite an employer would be looking for (except in an employee's market) would be someone who has passed at least some of these exams. The lower level exams aren't impossible to do via self-study, either - certainly not beyond the good mathematics graduate.
  Otherwise anyone completely new would come in via a graduate training programme which, in the current environment, would be a highly challenging option unless you've entered some scheme through your university while still studying.
119. Re:Don't like it by jellomizer · 2011-04-20 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I get it, you are an Elitist, who thinks the messy jobs in life are just for the people who made fun of you in middle school. You think you should be given a golden spoon even if you are complete wast of carbon. Also you need to work on your Abstract reasoning ability, it is quite low. As the Holding Shovels is a metaphor for doing jobs that may not be in your area of interests. Not everyone will be digging but they will be doing jobs that are available the closely matches what they are best for, it is called good Human Resource Management. But there will be people who do not have an ideal match and could be doing a job that is well underneath them.
  This is real life, a world where you do what you got to do to survive. A true republican would much rather have these people starve to death or find any job to survive. I am just stating that the benedictory of government pay should do work for improving the community. As these improvements are key for a stronger economy in the future. Giving them Part Time... Not Full time but Part Time work doesn't seem like an unreasonable request if you are getting say 2/3 of your original salary.
  To answer the questions...
  Yes I would be willing to take the shovel myself, and I have done so in the past.
  For those who are not strong enough to hold shovels would probably either already be on disability or be giving an other job.
  There is a lot of room for infrastructure that we need. The reason why is isn't being touched because it is difficult to get funding for. So we use the funding allocated to unemployment and we use it to offset the cost of these infrastructures.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
120. Re:Don't like it by jellomizer · 2011-04-20 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  If they are unemployed and getting unemployment how is that helping them pay off their loan. They are still unemployed and you can make sure their status stays that way so they can if they feel like waist the rest of their savings to try to go bankrupt against the school who has quite strict rules for repayment. Were death doesn't absolve you of your debt.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
121. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Because as long as they're receiving unemployment, they have to pretend to be looking for a job (they have to put in 1 job application every 4 weeks). If they stop pretending that they're actually looking for a job, they're no longer counted as unemployed.
  Actually, in Indiana, where I live, you have to put in THREE applications EVERY WEEK. And, although I certainly put in some applications for positions I thought I really wasn't qualified for, I really DID scour listings every week to actually FIND A JOB that I WAS qualified for.
  
  So, don't think that everyone simply PRETENDS to find work.
122. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  You might be able to get a consulting gig that way, or even a "real" job with a company that has 1 to 5 employees; but as soon as the company is large enough to have "an accountant" (which is pretty fucking small!), you can simply FORGET that idea, fucktard.
  Hostile much? 'Small Businesses' employ over 50% of the US workforce. It's easy.
  Out of touch with reality much?
  
  "Small Business" is defined as less than 50 employees.
  
  Try again.
123. Re:Don't like it by toadlife · 2011-04-20 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  The definition of 'small business' has been molested to include business with billions in revenue, so I would take that statistic with a grain of salt.
  
  --
  I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
124. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Spoken like a true elitist Democrat.
  
  Sorry, I'm a Libertarian. Which are, by and large, made up of Republicans that have gotten sick and tired of the Republican State-ist BULLSHIT.
  
  Even during good economic times, there are many people that could easily get a job, but instead stay on welfare because it is easier.
  And your point being?
  
  Many people have no reason to get off welfare, so they don't.
  Not any more. Since the Clinton-era "reforms", every state has "Welfare-to-Work" REQUIREMENTS, that keep that from being the case. I am not currently receiving any public assistance except Food Stamps, and even THOSE have a "Work Requirement" of at least 80 hours per month after the first 90 days.
  
  Now what?
  
  Who says that every single person applying has to do the exact same thing? Some people could do clerical/desk work. Get off your high horse and don't injure yourself on the way down.
  When that particular horse ends up carrying YOU, you will see that it is easy to make pronouncements; but sometimes, even pronouncements must give way to facts. (paraphrased with apologies to Mr. Spock)
125. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I get it, you are an Elitist, who thinks the messy jobs in life are just for the people who made fun of you in middle school.
  
  No, I am a trained and experienced professional, who expects only to be given due consideration in applying for jobs in his customary field of expertise.
  
  Now what?
  
  Not everyone will be digging but they will be doing jobs that are available the closely matches what they are best for, it is called good Human Resource Management.
  I am well aware of the fact that the job description was a metaphor; so was my answer.
  
  However, my "ability" lies in embedded development.
  
  Now what?
  
  I am just stating that the benedictory of government pay should do work for improving the community.
  You act as if the people who drew Unemployment didn't have to WORK FIRST to be eligible for those benefits.
  
  I worked for nearly 20 years between the last time I drew Unemployment, and my most recent time doing so.
  
  Now what?
  
  For those who are not strong enough to hold shovels would probably either already be on disability or be giving an other job.
  The approval process for SSDI ("disability") takes an average of THREE YEARS, and nearly HALF are denied anyway. Unemployment lasts around TWO years.
  
  Now what?
126. Re:Don't like it by jdgeorge · 2011-04-20 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  Most people now consider 18, 19, 20 year olds as "kids".
  Age of majority has been 21 in many countries for centuries. Your impression that there is a "new" effort to deprive people younger than 21 years of historical rights is not founded in fact.
127. Re:Don't like it by pugugly · 2011-04-20 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  I hate to say it, but I don't think the problem was it being demeaning.
  It brought an easily ignored problem and rubbed people noses in it where they couldn't be comfortable ignoring it. Now of course, 'to protect the dignity of the unemployed' people want to be able to ignore it some more.
  Pug
  
  --
  An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
128. Re:Don't like it by Qzukk · 2011-04-20 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't realize that our society now viewed being employed as an obligation. As a FAVOR that you are doing for SOMEONE ELSE. That the potential for finding work and making money isn't reward enough for trying to find a job and that they need some sort of grade-school type reward from the government to make use of public services to help them hunt for (scarce and therefore even more valuable) jobs. To pay their bills and take care of themselves.
  Your comment came across strongly as "get a job you lazy bum" not "motivate yourself you lazy bum". A lot of people react strongly to the first version, especially in an economic downturn when the protestant punishment ethic ("bad things happen only to bad people") starts to break down as an explanation for the situation.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
129. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder if this was the same agency that walked out and called loudly for attendees of the "appropriate behavior in the workplace, remedial class" to please come with him. One man was apparently compelled to be attending that "seminar."
130. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  i would work for candybars :(
  no worse than bosses giving out canned hams at christmas time. i was actually an intern at the time. so, everyone gave me their canned hams and i ate like a poor college student king the next semester :)
131. Re:Don't like it by hoggoth · 2011-04-20 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  What?
  A) I'm not an interviewer, I'm a random guy on Slashdot posting his opinion.
  2) What rules are you talking about?
  III) I'm disqualifying some idiot that walks into an interview wearing a red cape.
  
  --
  - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
132. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  > Well that will help the unemployment problem for sure.
  That'd worsen the metric (raw count of unemployed people, or percentage of workforce), but would actually increase productivity-to-red-tape ratio. By cutting the red tape.
  In any case, please remember the `unemployment' metric is jus one aspect of `productivity'. some people (not necessarily this cape inventor) are counterproductive (produce net loss to the organization and/or country); firing them -- or at least moving to a different position -- causes net increase in productivity. Even if a bare metric (`unemployment rate') worsens.
133. Re:Don't like it by Gilmoure · 2011-04-20 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  We get mushroom stickers at my job. At least they're honest about things.
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
134. Re:Don't like it by shermo · 2011-04-20 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  I know 2 people in my maths/science classes who were hired by an actuarial firm with just a BSc, and no postgrad qualifications. It may have had something to do with my father being a partner, and me saying 'these guys are awesome, you should hire them'.
  The older I get the more I realise the saying 'it's not what you know it's who you know' is completely true. Unfortunately it's an area where the typical Slashdotian often lacks.
  
  --
  Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
135. Re:Don't like it by jellomizer · 2011-04-20 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  No, I am a trained and experienced professional, who expects only to be given due consideration in applying for jobs in his customary field of expertise.
  Now what?
  How does that preclude you from being an elitist? My argument has NOTHING to do about applying for jobs. Just what you should PART of the time if you have no job and you are getting government pay? Also I am not a Republican, or a Tea Partier. I am a trained and experienced and educated professional as well. I may be getting paid less then you... Perhaps more I am by no means Rich. I am a political moderate. I have been out of work before and I know how it feels, that is why I proposed that idea.
  However, my "ability" lies in embedded development.
  Now what?
  Well if there are jobs for embedded development that could use you skills... Otherwise you just GASP have to do something else, Perhaps Data Entry. And that is until you could find yourself a full time job in the area that you specialize in. Note this is only Part Time work so you have half of your day to find a full time job. If there isn't demand for an embedded developer then you will need a new trade. Life sucks, but sorry. But really today you will need to find a new job to do what you need. And hence why I said this should be PART TIME WORK. So you have time free to look for a job that better suits your need. But if you are unemployed at the time and taking government money you should be contributing to the general community.
  You act as if the people who drew Unemployment didn't have to WORK FIRST to be eligible for those benefits.
  I worked for nearly 20 years between the last time I drew Unemployment, and my most recent time doing so.
  Now what?
  What about it? Unemployment isn't Social Security. It isn't that you build up credit so you can retire. Or give you a stop working for so long free card. It is designed paid by taxes from the community. Who in general doesn't want you to mess up the economy by starving, getting evicted or going bankrupt. The fact that my method has a string attached were you help with Government Infrastructure Projects while you are working on finding a new job.
  The approval process for SSDI ("disability") takes an average of THREE YEARS, and nearly HALF are denied anyway. Unemployment lasts around TWO years.
  Now what?
  You mean the second part of my sentence. "or be given an other job"?
  This isn't punishment for being out of work. It is supposed to be keeping people productive active and helping build a better future. The problem we have with unemployment is that in a long period of a recession there is a period where people begin to get use to not working. Right now if someone chooses to be underemployed they will loose their benefits and work full time where they will not find a job back at their level. Sure they will doing underemployed work, But PART TIME and keeping their benefits up so they can get full employment again.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
136. Re:Don't like it by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  The people like you willing to lie are the reason the honest people like me have trouble. Oh, it's not a lie, it's "marketing."
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
137. Re:Don't like it by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  SS, over 75 years, will have less than a 2% shortfall. So, since the government has been borrowing from SS for years, they can swap to lending SS some funds until the receipts exceed the payments again, or they can make a 2% change now (more income or less payments or combination thereof) and never have that problem. A problem 25+ years from now isn't a big problem. The issue is someone needs to make a 2% change now to fix it, or commit to lending the SS program money for 50 years, just as for the last 50 the general fund has borrowed from SS.
  
  "Exhausted" doesn't mean diddly. It's an extrapolation stating that if there are no changes to the program at all for the next 25+ years, there will come a time when the reserves are empty and the payments exceed the receipts. Well, if you want a little hint, SS hasn't gone 25 years ever without a change. So there's a 100% chance that there will be a change of some kind in the next 25 years. So the projection is provably wrong. Not that it isn't valuable to do such projections, because they let us know that for a 2% change now, we can fix every problem with SS running out of money. But to use it as a predictor of what *will* happen, as opposed to what *would* happen is ignorance.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
138. Re:Don't like it by 517714 · 2011-04-20 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Here's why: Jump to 2:00 for those without eidetic memory.
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
139. Re:Don't like it by Gilmoure · 2011-04-20 10:24 · Score: 2
  
  Not to mention, goes off to war, or runs for local or state government. Sure, we'll trust you with human lives, public funds, etc. but no, we won't let you have a beer at the end of the day.
  I was two months shy when they raised the drinking age in Fla (yeah, I grew up in that screwed up state) and totally sucked that, after joining the military, I was entrusted with the means to blow up a city (gotta' love SAC) but not with a beer.
  'Course, a few years later, I got transferred to a base set in a dry county in North Carolina. WTF?
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
140. Re:Don't like it by Oligonicella · 2011-04-20 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  "I doubt..."
  
  Why? Actually improving infra is good.
141. Re:Don't like it by Dragonslicer · 2011-04-20 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say that I think it's a bad idea, only that I don't think it would be supported by many Republicans. I will leave the connection between the two as an exercise for the reader.
142. Re:Don't like it by PraiseBob · 2011-04-20 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  That leaves people without enough income to support their family, and without the free time to schedule interviews. It takes time to look for work, and time to study their potential employer and maintain relevant job skills.
  
  Resorting to a part time job is generally considered the worst possible outcome for someone seeking work. Do you really expect people to perform well at a job interview after digging ditches for half the day? I have worked for the corp of engineers, specifically digging ditches with a shovel, and I can assure you that nobody is in the mood for an interview after that kind of work.
  
  If you want somebody to work to earn their unemployment benefits (which their previous paychecks have ALREADY paid into I might add), then it is no longer unemployment, it is their new job.
143. Re:Don't like it by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  "Thinking" positions only get 3-4 hours a day from an employee, regardless of the length of day. Labor positions get a percent of the workday such that extending the hours increases productivity. Supervisors, in general, produce nothing.
  
  So a more productive answer would be to move to 3x12 for labor, with a 4-day weekend for them. And 6x3 for "thinking" positions, for a one day weekend. Then run two back-to-back shifts for labor (a mon-wed crew and a thu-sat crew) and get a 6-day week from the crews combined. Split supervisors to 6x6 or so with a morning and afternoon shift.
  
  But then, there'd be a revolution. Salaried people who "think" (almost anyone in IT that doesn't code all day, for example) will make the same for less than half the work. While the regular schedule of others will be trashed. I don't think anyone would like it or go for it, but I think something like that is the answer to the question of productivity. Jobs are often like schools. They are more worried about your attendance than your work, and more worried about the quantity of work than the quality.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
144. Re:Don't like it by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Now what?
  Now no one listens to you because you are being a complete prick to everyone. In fact, everyone instantly believes the opposite of what you say because you are being a fuckwad (see greater internet fuckwad theory). If you want to know why you are having trouble with finding a job, maybe you should start with your inability to read a simple forum post like this without crossing over into "by golly George, that feller is batshit insane" territory.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
145. Re:Don't like it by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-20 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  It may have had something to do with my father being a partner, and me saying 'these guys are awesome, you should hire them'.
  Yes. Even at the "unskilled" (I hate that word, so I'm using it as it's commonly used rather than implying anything from it) level, taking stats of people in the UK looking for work at government job centres, around half end up finding something from friends/family.
  It sort of goes:
  family
  friends
  reputation
  experience
  qualifications
  And that fucker Clegg, having got his foot in the door through his father's connections, is now talking about creating a fairer society... by discouraging families from helping their offspring in this way. Yeah, sorry buddy, but as long as the family unit exists, parents and other relations will help the younger members of the family like this. And old schoolfriends will give each other jobs. Any social species will support its own group and any species at all will promote its own genes.
  The best you can do is strengthen groupings which have other priorities and criteria for cooperation - such as unions or professional bodies. In some fields this works fairly well: no matter how rich and important a doctor you are, you don't get to offer your son a job as a trainee doctor straight out of high school. In most others, not so well.
146. Re:Don't like it by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Can't happen. Why? "Overqualified."
  
  No one will hire someone they think is just trying to get a temp job until they get the one they really want. I'm going through that right now. I'm overqualified for all jobs I've looked at under a specific number, and underqualified for all those above. I can't get hired anywhere for anything related to my field. Part of my issue is that I moved here, and the mix of skills and background is not what people have around here, so I have more of some things and less of others in my history so they either focus on the deficiencies and consider me underqualified or focus on the excesses and consider me overqualified. I'm sure that someone out there will look past that. I've been trying different cover letters to try to explain away why I don't have a "normal" mix of skills. But so far, especially since nearly all jobs run through recruiters here who neither read nor pass on cover letters, I've been unable to be considered anything other than underqualified or overqualified. It doesn't matter how low I'm willing to go in my field. If I wanted a job tomorrow, I'd have to switch fields.
  
  Thankfully, I'm employed at the moment and just wanting to get away from a floundering company to a better overall work environment, so I'm not one of the desperate unemployed. But if I were, I'd be royally screwed.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
147. Re:Don't like it by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Interviewers do disqualify people because they are unemployed. If they were worth being employed, someone else would have already done it, right?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
148. Re:Don't like it by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  How are things in fantasy land?
  Is the unicorn being nice to you? It matches the SS trust fund balance.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
149. Re:Don't like it by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  You don't know any accountants do you?
  They have no problem with this kind of thing. It cuts costs and everybody has been getting away with it for decades.
  They will insist you get away with it.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
150. Re:Don't like it by mini+me · 2011-04-20 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't suggest lying. I did, however, suggest making your hobby sound awesome. Demonstrate how your hobby is applicable to real business processes. Remember, the only difference between a hobby and a job is who is paying for the time. A hobby is a job. If a HR person automatically discounts it, you have not explained it properly. That is where better marketing comes in.
151. Re:Don't like it by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  When I worked as a consultant in the Electric Utility industry is was common for us to take decision makers to 'business dinners' with their spouses.
  $250+ per person was a common tab.
  We added a 15% expense handling charge and billed them for it as well as the time we had spent eating. We were bribing them with their own employers money and everybody knew it. They could have never gotten away with expensing a $1500 dinner tab but nobody batted an eye when we did.
  It was the same all around the country and it didn't matter if the utility was for profit or public. We called them 'working dinners' to avoid the gift issue. SOP
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
152. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 11:48 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft had free soda vending machines for a while. These were discontinued when the profit hike from XP started to fade, but apparently the sheer amount of soda involved was a notorious donor of extra body mass, so they weren't exactly missed.
  
  Microsoft had free soda vending machines for a while. These were discontinued when the profit hike from XP started to fade, but apparently the sheer amount of soda involved was a notorious donor of extra body mass, so they weren't exactly missed.
  
  Microsoft had free soda vending machines for a while. These were discontinued when the profit hike from XP started to fade, but apparently the sheer amount of soda involved was a notorious donor of extra body mass, so they weren't exactly missed.
  
  Microsoft had free soda vending machines for a while. These were discontinued when the profit hike from XP started to fade, but apparently the sheer amount of soda involved was a notorious donor of extra body mass, so they weren't exactly missed.
  Ummm... we STILL have free soda in every building.
  Hold on... let me go check.
  [walks to the kitchen]
  Yep, still there.
  Stop talking out your ass.
153. Re:Don't like it by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  The reason you continue to hustle even if the current hustle isn't even keeping up with expenses isn't only that something is better then nothing.
  It is because opportunity rarely knocks loudly. If you are on your toes and hustling you will hear the opportunity and maybe land it. If you are feeling beaten and sorry for yourself by the time you hear the knock the opportunity has moved on.
  No it's not easy. Maintaining a good mental state is the hardest thing.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
154. Re:Don't like it by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  I think you have a small definition for "many."
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
155. Re:Don't like it by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Lie on your resume the other way.
  They can't even fire you if they find out you are better qualified then you claimed (unless you make specific claims not to have done things).
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
156. Re:Don't like it by shermo · 2011-04-20 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yes that sounds about right.
  It is a rational decision process though. The person you know might not have the best resume or even be the best person for the job, but you know what you're getting when you hire them. Would you rather take a gamble on someone who sounds great, but who might turn out to be a complete weirdo, or do you take someone who's only 'good' but you know what you're getting? It's a risk vs expected return tradeoff. When the potential disbenefit of hiring someone is massive, most people would minimize risk and take the known option, even if it's not the best.
  
  --
  Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
157. Re:Don't like it by lexsird · 2011-04-20 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  Barbarous is the only way I can describe the philosophy of greed which has permeated our culture. It's neither intelligent or progressive except in all the wrong ways. Know this, in this society, you are merely a few steps from the bottom and should you fall victim to circumstances, you will find yourself there pronto. It doesn't matter who you are, you are disposable.
  This is a shit for brains kind of thinking by a society. We piss away human resources in this country at a constant rate. It's ironic, but you would think that industry would want active social programs for education, medical needs and housing. This would certainly help industry if they didn't have to worry about these so much, that by contributing a fair tax, they are insured a healthy workforce, that is far better than any of the rest of the world's.
  But no, in this element of greed, we need government to stop them from exploiting people, all the way down to children; wasting their bodies, minds and lives and throw them away if they get sick, tired or too old. But sadly greed has infiltrated our government and it looks the other way, letting the forces of greed have their way unless an outrage threatens their jobs.
  We have elegant propaganda tools to keep the ravaged population soothed, at home licking their wounds each night so they can be tossed out into the jungle again the next day and perhaps if they are lucky, they get a "weekend".
  Once upon a time, we had God in our society, and the morals from such kept perhaps the greed from running wild. But today, people don't believe in God, or if they do, they aren't afraid of him or Hell, so they do whatever they want and there is no angel on their shoulders prompting them to do the better thing. You can't have a functioning society of corruption; it will fall down under its own weight as it breaks down inside, part by part, until it lurches to a halt and collapses in a junk pile of a heap.
  This whole "left" versus "right", blue state versus red state, is just one big elegant red herring. Let's have the lemmings argue, they will blame each other for how we screw them. Face it, you too are a victim of greed. You have bought into "the American Dream" which is a farce. You will do what they want, and like it and think that this is as good as it gets. You are a number, a product and little more than livestock. You will work all your life if you want a roof over your head and food in your gut. You will never build anything that is yours that they can 't take away from you should they chose to. You will build what they say, do what they want and live how they dictate.
  If you think I am wrong? Think about it really hard and boil it all down. Look at the big picture. When you see it, it defies the imagination. The mind recoils in horror at the prospects of everything in your world being such a big damn lie, fashioned for us all, the consumer, so we will move along like ants in an anthill. Until you free your mind of this, you will just fumble around in the dark like everyone else. You will take a few swings in the air, in the dark, clueless as the rest, bumping into each other in the confusion, contributing infinitely to the problem instead of solving anything.
  Let me encapsulate this if I can; We have to stop looking at those who are not "succeeding" according to our standards as vermin and realize they are a sign of the sickness that is in the system. If you have parts falling off your car, you don't just blame the parts as being faulty, and drive off leaving them in the road. You scoop them up and take them to the garage and repair the car. Then you don't have parts falling off it. It's also better to have the part fall off the car at a Stop sign instead of tooling down the road at 70mph. Ultimately, it's better that parts NEVER fall off the car, but metaphorically that doesn't work for us because we don't take care of our metaphorical car very well, if at all.
  Again, trying thinking of people as valuable human resources that need cultivated.
  
  --
  Take the Red Pill.
158. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  Blame the anti-inflation crowd for the current predicament.
  The only way we can have more money for more people entering the workpool is to print more money. Printing more money makes folks sitting on money put it into companies to try to make it more valuable (create growth). In the current tight-credit and anti-inflationary environment not enough folks are investing in growth. However, if you look at the forces creating this enviroment, you can see why certain folks don't want to change. Inflation is only tolerable to those that have just started working or still generating income. The BBoomer just got out of a market crash and at the cusp of retirement don't want to retire in an inflationary market (politically). Then there's the national debt. Nobody want to see the value of their T-bills investment inflated away and if they do, the market for future debt would be pretty grim (as a recent SP-rating agency is warning along with China which holds a bunch of T-bills).
  This is the economic hangover from the '90s. We grew much faster than historical trends which sadly seems to indicate a future painful regression to the norm which everyone seem to be girding themselves for right now (hoarding money and commodities).
  If you have THIRTY YEARS' of employment, you are on the tail-end of BBoomers or the front end of the post-BBommers who will be living through the 70's like economy again (of course the BBoomers boomed through the '50s and girded for the 70's and somehow made it out the other side). Ever wonder what it felt like to be nearing retirement in the '70s? Don't want to make light of your situation, but I'm sure that you aren't the first person disgusted at the prospect of under-employment near the tail end of their career...
  Hopefully you've saved a few bucks and can hold out until the next economic turnaround where you will be receiving investment income rather than regular income. If not, well, you should realize that many folks these days have multiple careers in their lifetime and that is really the norm over history (regardless of the popular fiction that most people heard growing up). If you can, maybe ask your parents if they had 1 "paycheck" job or career throughout their lives. If the are still with us and can remember, I'll bet the answer is no, that they had several jobs or careers and they had to start over one or more times.
159. Re:Don't like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  I never said any of that, at least not in this post, but I concur that working hard can pay off. The problem in this country is that too many people don't work hard their whole lives and it still pays off for them. Typically these people aren't billionaires, but they still make the average Joe look poor.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
160. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 12:20 · Score: 0
  
  What? What?
161. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 13:32 · Score: 0
  
  In the butt.
162. Re:Don't like it by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently your argument is "The United States Government is planning on defaulting on its loans (but only to those it made to itself, so no one else need worry, we promise)."
  
  A little hint. If the USA shows "weakness" by defaulting on T-bills, even if only those held by the SSA, that will be seen as a prelude in defaulting on others so no one would buy them. And with our level of debt/deficit, everyone agreeing to not buy T-bills will collapse the US economy. So yes, the "trust fund balance" is quite secure.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
163. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  It's akin to your boss walking around the office and passing out candy bars for effort.
  
  wait, what's wrong with that!?
164. Re:Don't like it by MBGMorden · 2011-04-20 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  As I said, I'm sure it happens, but it isn't universal. I am a decision maker on our projects, and though the vendors offer, I don't accept.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
165. Re:Don't like it by MBGMorden · 2011-04-20 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  If the job is something you love, how can you not have experience? It seems to me that you'd be already doing it as your hobby and therefore have tons of experience.
  
  I don't think you understand the way the system works. "Experience" is shorthand for "Professional Experience", and is measured in years that you've been employed in the area. Anything you've honed via personal interest is simply a "skill" and is not considered "experience", no matter how much you loved it or how much effort you put in.
  This is what I was thankful that I did a work-study program with the IT department at my college. Wasn't doing anything fancy, and it was part-time, but immediately after graduation I was still able to claim 4-years experience in the industry.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
166. Re:Don't like it by feepness · 2011-04-20 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  Being unemployed, in prison, or on welfare does not make you a slave of the state.
  Absolutely. That privilege is reserved for the employed.
167. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 18:27 · Score: 0
  
  I'd settle for "One Free BJ" cards. Hell of a moral boost, and it'd be cheaper for The Company, too!
168. Re:Don't like it by SharpFang · 2011-04-20 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe that's why... these things really don't mix.
  In most countries they do entrust 18yo with a beer but not with means to blow up a city. No laws per se, you just need to gain experience with less responsible tasks first.
  But the US seems to have made a choice there, too young to drink and nuke, so let's let them nuke, but not drink.
  
  --
  45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
169. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  You don't know any accountants do you?
  They have no problem with this kind of thing. It cuts costs and everybody has been getting away with it for decades.
  They will insist you get away with it.
  Actually, I do.
  
  Apparently, unlike you, the ones I know care about keeping their CPA licenses.
170. Re:Don't like it by macs4all · 2011-04-20 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  If you have THIRTY YEARS' of employment
  Actually, I have 30 years of embedded development experience. By the time I had settled into that career, I had already "reinvented" myself at least twice.
  
  Hopefully you've saved a few bucks and can hold out until the next economic turnaround where you will be receiving investment income rather than regular income.
  Never had investments or much savings. "Finance" has never been my strong suit, LOL!
  
  Currently burning through my pittance of a 401k, which I had to cash-in to keep the wolves away. I figure I have about another 3-4 months before I REALLY have to say "Do you want fries with that?"
  
  The only thing that is saving me is that my house is PAID FOR; so, I can hunker-down in "low-power" mode and last MUCH longer than my friends with $1200+/month mortgages. I'd be "dead" in a second if I had that kind of albatross around my neck...
  
  UNfortunately, the same thing that is helping me to survive (my ZERO house-payment), is the very-same-thing which is currently fucking me over, career-wise. I have had some pretty frickin' nice job offers; but it takes a HELLUVA big salary to overcome the "flywheel" of living essentially for only the cost of food and utilities. It's kind of like living with your parents; but without Mom's cooking, LOL!
  
  The problem is, with the absolute NON-"loyalty" exhibited by nearly every single company, I am, quite frankly, kind of loathe to pack up and move halfway across the U.S., just for a contract position; or even for a "permanent" position (are there any of those anymore?), working for a company that might really, honestly "strand me" in some equally-stupid place to be an embedded developer as is Indiana... But, THIS time with an $800 monthly apartment rental, and , and, and. BAM! Instant homelessness! No thank you VERY much...
  
  My situation is typical in my age group (I'll be 55 in May, DAMMIT!). In fact, I read an article here on slashdot about a year ago that said (paraphrasing) that one of the biggest reasons why younger people advance more quickly in their career-paths, is because they are much less likely to have deep "roots" where they are living, and thus it is much less "expensive", "security-wise", for them to simply uproot and move across the country on a whim.
  
  Unfortunately, during what would have been those "salad days" for me, career-wise (for example: Not to brag; but with the connections I had at the time, I most assuredly could have gotten hired at Apple in R&D in the late 70s), I sort of got "stuck" here in Indianapolis taking care of my sick parent. By the time she passed away, I was already in my mid-40s; but had carved out a nice comfortable career working in R&D for over 12 years for a local motor-control OEM. And, in all modesty, I was doing great, and doing a great job. In fact, my last product design was a finalist (actually, 2nd place) in a 2009 Design News national product design contest.
  
  Then, I got a new boss... And HE wanted his buddy to do what I was doing. POOF! Goodbye career!
  
  And yes, there really IS that little embedded development here in Indy. So, I have tried to re-invent myself yet again as a web developer; but I HATE web development with a purple passion; and thus, I just can't seem to get motivated to get good enough to make other than dribs and drabs of money at it. Yes, I know that's my fault; but I find HTML to be mind-numbingly stupid. Yes, I know: More stupid than flipping burgers? Well, almost. I would like to do iOS development; but fear that the "gold rush" is past its peak, and the lead time before you make ANY money (if you make any at all!) is too long for me to "wait out"...
  
  So, here I sit; broken-hearted.
  
  you should realize that many folks these days have multiple careers in their lifetime and that is really the norm over history
  Preachin' to the choir, man: During other hiatuses (hiatii?) in my "embedde
171. Re:Don't like it by Stone2065 · 2011-04-20 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  And don't forget, for those of us looking for a job, how many times do I need to hear "no thanks" before I get to the point of just saying "fuck it", and getting onto the "I'll take ANYTHING for a job" bandwagon. I got tired of filling out apps, with no responses, then filling them out online, with no responses, then doing the "post your resume' to Monster.com" bullshit... and they wonder why people are going nuts...
  
  --
  Stone
172. Re:Don't like it by Stone2065 · 2011-04-20 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  And if you're curious... I'd shovel shit for $10USD an hour, if they could guarantee me 40 hours a week right now...
  
  --
  Stone
173. Re:Don't like it by Lotana · 2011-04-20 23:44 · Score: 1
  
  Again, the world is not a stable place. Things change. Now get off your ass, and try to make those changes benefit you and your offspring. Stop whining.
  Amen!
174. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  What is it exactly that makes collecting unemployment so much better than working a part-time job at, let's say, McDonalds, while you're looking for a job that you're "qualified for"?
  I mean, other than the part where working part-time actually requires you to, you know, work part-time in a job you're overqualified for, and unemployment only requires you to spend an hour or so per week filling out applications.
175. Re:Don't like it by Wamoc · 2011-04-21 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  I was pointing out not to be so quick to place labels and insult others. I have been in the position of out of work before (during this economy even). My pronouncements weren't ignoring facts, they were actually taking facts into account. During good economies I have seen many highly educated people on welfare when they could have easily gotten jobs. Welfare should not just be free money like many Democrats think.
  Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with any political party and I think they are all full of crap.
176. Re:Don't like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  A) Obviously. But supposing you were. 2) The rules that say "if you're unemployed you must wear a red cape".
177. Re:Don't like it by hoggoth · 2011-04-21 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well then clearly the candidate has identified himself as someone who blindly follows orders no matters how ridiculous. Whether I hire him or not depends on whether that is a desired trait for this position.
  
  --
  - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
178. Re:Don't like it by HornWumpus · 2011-04-25 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  That's why they insist they not be officially informed of it. In fact they prefer not to know about 'the cash' at all.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
179. Re:Don't like it by Beliskner · 2011-04-27 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  I've worked for one of the biggest IT companies in the USA, they actually call you "resource" from Microsoft Project, and they strip mine you like companies strip mine for minerals, it's the only way companies know how to operate. Everyone has their own agenda in a company, for many it's just pure greed and wanting to screw people over. Playground bullies have to end up somewhere, for all the bullies to be unemployed the unemployment rate would be around 25% so it isn't - you have to deal with those bullies at work, but usually at least they don't physically attack you but I've seen instances where they have and women have been raped at work but the managers covered it up.
  
  --
  A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
180. Re:Don't like it by Beliskner · 2011-04-27 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  It's well known the heroes and the noble people from school enter the fire service and military and doctors, passive introverted people join electronics and computing, people that say the right stuff in public end up in politics, leaving scum to enter the private sector and manage us introverted people that do electronics and computing
  
  --
  A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
181. Re:Don't like it by wondafucka · 2011-04-28 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Treating adults like little children is ridiculous.
  Treating adults like everything has to be serious all of the time and that they have to eschew a sense of spontaneity and wonder is ridiculous. I'm not really sure why you feel the need to draw the line.
  The unemployed did need games for their self esteem. It's really sad that you and others find this demeaning. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what joy life can bring you and the nature of humor. I think that jarring someone's self image at a time when they need to rethink everything is brilliant.
  On the other hand, I would imagine that most people's reaction wouldn't understand it and would mentally show up with pitchforks and torches; so I wouldn't have given the green light either. But that's only because that would be a waste of good capes.
  
  --
  postmodernsideshow.com
DR evil blow up the office If I don't get 1million by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 04:21 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs&feature=related
Missed opportunity by ZaMoose · 2011-04-20 04:22 · Score: 2

Let’s face it, they missed out on a real opportunity to establish the Green Jobs Lantern Corps.
Did the recipients have to pay cape-ital gains taxes?

--
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
1. Re:Missed opportunity by geek · 2011-04-20 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  No offense meant to the OP but posts like this are exactly why this whole thing was a bad idea. It's taken human being who are down on their luck and made them objects of ridicule.
2. Re:Missed opportunity by dr_dank · 2011-04-20 04:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm surprised they went public with this. Usually, these things are cloaked in secrecy.
  
  --
  Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
3. Re:Missed opportunity by ChasmCoder · 2011-04-20 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it turned ridicule away from the individuals receiving the capes, to those who thought up the idea in the first place.
4. Re:Missed opportunity by CarlDenny · 2011-04-20 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  This sort of thing shawl not be allowed to stand!
5. Re:Missed opportunity by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  yeah, it really flies in the face of common decency.
6. Re:Missed opportunity by Seumas · 2011-04-20 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Not likely. Shining the light on this idiocy and seeing that their fellow citizens don't see them in the same condescending juvenile light that the government does is probably the one thing reassuring them that they're sane and rational adults and that the rest of us recognizing them as adults in a bind using a public service rather than children needing shepherding.
7. Re:Missed opportunity by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  No offense meant to the OP but posts like this are exactly why this whole thing was a bad idea. It's taken human being who are down on their luck and made them objects of ridicule.
  Down on their luck? Well, they don't need to be doing this. They could just quit their jobs, you know.
  Heck, they might even get a free cape to go with that.
Targets For Ridicule by crow_t_robot · 2011-04-20 04:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

a Florida unemployment agency decided to give 6,000 red capes to the jobless
To simplify the task of acquiring targets to point and laugh at? This is as brilliant as having children at school that can't afford lunch stand in a line to get lunch tickets/vouchers so the other kids know who the poor ones are to ridicule.
1. Re:Targets For Ridicule by StikyPad · 2011-04-20 04:33 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  This is as brilliant as having children at school that can't afford lunch stand in a line to get lunch tickets/vouchers so the other kids know who the poor ones are to ridicule.
  Right, because without explicitly pointing them out, the poor kids might simply be mistaken for very young hipsters.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
2. Re:Targets For Ridicule by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  I don't agree. To find this shameful implies that it's the fault of the unemployed that they don't have jobs. I personally believe that unemployment in America is a problem that goes far beyond an unwillingness to work. This is an awareness campaign, not a branding of undesirables. In fact, I bet the investigation is an effort to hide unfair terminations and the use of offshore sweatshop labor.
3. Re:Targets For Ridicule by DNS-and-BIND · 2011-04-20 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  Does that actually happen? Maybe 50 years ago it was considered shameful, but that's back when homosexuality was considered shameful, too. Today, there is no stigma attached to receiving government money...in fact the children who have to pay for lunch would be looked on as suckers by the majority.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
4. Re:Targets For Ridicule by jank1887 · 2011-04-20 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, many schools have some other method of giving out lunches to avoid pointing out lunch program kids. In my kids' elementary school, each person has an account and punches in a code at the register. kids don't have to handle money (or have it stolen) if they don't want to, parents can send in a check periodically to top off accounts, and kids on the school lunch program do the same thing as everyone else to get their lunch. If I lined all the kids up and asked you to pick out the ones on the school lunch program, you'd probably miss 2/3 of them.
5. Re:Targets For Ridicule by geekoid · 2011-04-20 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it does. Many people are reluctant collect money from a system they paid into. On top of that most people dont even know the number of things they can do at unemployment besides unemployment checks.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
6. Re:Targets For Ridicule by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  The smell is about the same, isn't it?
7. Re:Targets For Ridicule by MBGMorden · 2011-04-20 05:18 · Score: 2
  
  That's not exactly a new idea. I'm 29 and even when I was in middle and high school we used a "lunch card" system. EVERYONE used a lunch card with 10 strips on it (so 2 weeks worth of lunches) to get their lunch (there was a machine that shaved a strip off each time the lunch cashier checked you out). You would visit a desk in the lunchroom in the mornings before school started to get your cards. Just tell them your name. If they checked the chart and you were full price, it was $10 for 2 weeks. If you were at "reduced" price it was $4 for 2 weeks. If your name was free they simply issued you your card without charging on the same interval. I typically was on the "reduced" price lunches (semi-poor :)) until my last 2 years of high school when my dad's salary finally topped the bracket and pushed me into full price.
  Overall it was a good system, and heck even for the kids eating at "full price", and even 16-18 years ago, $10 for 2 weeks worth of meals wasn't a bad deal at all.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
8. Re:Targets For Ridicule by MBGMorden · 2011-04-20 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  At this point, in an economic downturn, sure, there are a LOT of people on unemployment who would happily work (and many who WERE working until they were laid off). That is a development within the last few years though. For a long time unemployment generally was where a lot of lazy people went to get a check for a while. Its hard to shake that stigma that's built up.
  It's much like disability. I know at least 10 people on disability. Only one of them actually needs it (he was severely injured to the point of having trouble walking in a car accident), and I have no issue with the people who need it getting that assistance. Most of the rest just wanted to get out of having to work. One guy I knew at first tried to claim he was seeing dead people talking to him to claim that he wasn't mentally capable of working. Once that failed he did finally get it for claiming that he was too overweight to work. Others just want the extra free money. One of the people I know on disability for a "back injury" still works 3-4 days a week off the books in LANDSCAPING (where any true back injury would prevent him from working) just so that he can pull in both the disability check and an under the table paycheck.
  As with all things, the people gaming the system truly taint it in the eyes of the public. I don't think MOST people would be against some level of social welfare for those that truly need it, but it's hard to not develop a negative taste for it given how different reality plays out compared to theory.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
9. Re:Targets For Ridicule by StikyPad · 2011-04-20 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  If I lined all the kids up and asked you to pick out the ones on the school lunch program, you'd probably miss 2/3 of them.
  Sounds like there's more kids on the school lunch program than there should be. Not that I think it's a big deal.. in fact, they should just include it in the budget and stop charging for school lunch altogether, except then the brown bagging parents would throw a fit about how they shouldn't have to pay for a program they don't use (nevermind the fact that their childless neighbors are doing just that through their own property taxes).
  But I digress. The kids already know who the other poor kids are, and who the rich kids are, and if they don't, they'll figure it out soon enough.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
10. Re:Targets For Ridicule by hedwards · 2011-04-20 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't matter if the unemployed feel that way, the whole unemployment system is set up to shame and humiliate people. It's about one step up from panhandling. The amount of actual assistance provided is negligible, without a significant amount of savings to start with you're not going to be living on it for more than a few weeks.
  Plus, when has it ever mattered to bullies whether the justification for ridicule was reasonable? Being viewed as less capable by those round definitely is detrimental to the sort of networking that it takes to get a new job in modern America.
11. Re:Targets For Ridicule by MoriT · 2011-04-20 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, half the children in America qualify for free or reduced-price lunches, and 25% of them are living in poverty. We don't have nearly as many programs supporting children, or providing health care to women of childbearing age, as we do retirees. It shows.
  
  It wouldn't quite be cheaper to simply provide free lunches to all children than it is to have the administrative overhead of verifying eligibility, but only barely.
12. Re:Targets For Ridicule by Seumas · 2011-04-20 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe poor kids in the lunch line would feel better about themselves if they had a pretty red cape to wear?
13. Re:Targets For Ridicule by nexttech · 2011-04-20 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  I remember that. Actually at my school it wasn't a separate line it was a glowing orange ticket that was different from the tickets for the regular meals.
14. Re:Targets For Ridicule by StikyPad · 2011-04-20 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Just another reason we should lower the voting age to 13 or 14. If we're going to try them as adults in our courts, it only makes sense that they should have some input into the system. Most teenagers would probably take the vote more seriously than many adults to boot.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
15. Re:Targets For Ridicule by Alef · 2011-04-20 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Even if others already know it, it's still stigmatizing to put them in a special line.
  (One could quite easily invoke Godwin's law here...)
16. Re:Targets For Ridicule by gknoy · 2011-04-20 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  We can't do that, what if they voted to lower the age at which they can have sex, drink, or smoke!?
  In seriousness, while I'm sure some teens would take it seriously, I imagine a large number of others would put on their troll hats.
Wait a minute... by LordStormes · 2011-04-20 04:23 · Score: 1

I will so quit my job if I can get some free tights.
I like this from a motivational standpoint, as long as they aren't also encouraging laid-off accountants to become crime-fighting vigilantes. If nothing else, it will keep them dry when they're living under an overpass when the recruiting company doesn't find them a job.
At least Slashdot did it right by mangu · 2011-04-20 04:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Putting a story about the unemployed on "Idle"...
1. Re:At least Slashdot did it right by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not idle. I'm playing video games, watching movies and reading slashdot. I'm way too busy to be employed.
I know who is behind this... by KarrdeSW · 2011-04-20 04:26 · Score: 1

It was obviously Lando Calrissian.

6,000 Capes for $14,000! This campaign is operational!
1. Re:I know who is behind this... by Qzukk · 2011-04-20 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  It was obviously Lando Calrissian.
  At least it wasn't Darth Vader.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
TF2 by Verunks · 2011-04-20 04:27 · Score: 1

I guess they just played too much team fortress 2
The next bubble by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 04:28 · Score: 0

The next bubble to pop is the government bubble.
wow, stupid idea! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 04:36 · Score: 0

What a waste of time and money.
Some people just don't get it...
It seemed like a good idea when they were stoned by xednieht · 2011-04-20 04:38 · Score: 1

4/20 must come early in FL

--

Hope is the currency of fools
Great idea by RussellSHarris · 2011-04-20 04:38 · Score: 1, Interesting

Only if they're required by law to wear them to qualify to receive their unemployment benefits.
1. Re:Great idea by RobotRunAmok · 2011-04-20 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Why is that?
2. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  So we see them and remember that our tax money is helping real people that live among us, not faceless welfare queens on the other side of town.
3. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly - the faceless welfare queens wouldn't be faceless any more.
Even worse? by ShavedOrangutan · 2011-04-20 04:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

I wonder if the capes were made in China.

--
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
1. Re:Even worse? by Rob+the+Bold · 2011-04-20 05:45 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder if the capes were made in China.
  Probably. It's been years since I've seen a cape factory in this country.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
2. Re:Even worse? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  For 2+ dollars a pop you bet they are.
3. Re:Even worse? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  $2.34 a cape. What do you think?
4. Re:Even worse? by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  How many cape factories have you seen in this or any other country?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
5. Re:Even worse? by aiht · 2011-04-20 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if the capes were made in China.
  Probably. It's been years since I've seen a cape factory in this country.
  Oh? What on Earth do you think they do at Cape Canaveral then, huh?
Re:It seemed like a good idea when they were stone by denyingbelial · 2011-04-20 04:43 · Score: 1

Well, 4:20 comes by twice a day.
Better than their last idea by daremonai · 2011-04-20 04:43 · Score: 4, Informative

This is not as bad as Workforce Central Florida's previous idea: Careereoki.
I wish desperately I could say I was making this up, but I am not.
1. Re:Better than their last idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 20:33 · Score: 0
  
  Must...not...click...link! Phew! Now, back to work.
$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by sseaman · 2011-04-20 04:45 · Score: 2

I guess that didn't create any American jobs.
1. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 04:49 · Score: 2
  
  Neither do US corporations who are sitting on 10 trillion dollars of cash they will not spend on jobs.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
2. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by IQGQNAU · 2011-04-20 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Import and distribution jobs are every bit as American as textile manufacturing jobs. I can tell you what won't create any jobs, spending another $14,000 on an "investigation". The unemployed would have a better chance at getting jobs with another 6,000 capes.
3. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Americano · 2011-04-20 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Are we upset at this because having cash reserves is never a good thing for the health of your company?
4. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 05:34 · Score: 2
  
  We are upset at this because CEO's and other board members are getting record breaking bonuses, corporations are getting major tax cuts, the wealthy has continued to have major tax cuts on capital gains and income, and all of it is sold as "Trickle down economics" which is supposed to create jobs for us peons in America. Its obvious it doesn't work in our present situation. If CEO's would take 2 million instead of 8 million as a bonus they could create 120 jobs. You can't blame a person for wanting to better their situation, but you can blame the government for being full of incompetent tools who don't try to curb this problem. America is on its way out because of greedy politicians who coddle the wealthy and throw bread and circuses for the masses of undereducated citizens. They would be better off investing in science and technology projects which create jobs as well as funding the people's education rather than cutting out their revenue from the wealthy and giving whats left to the masses of poor while racking up major debts that make our dollar collapse. Our purchasing power today is the reason gas prices are so high today, and thats because the dollar is weakening, and thats because corporations are artificially deflating their stock prices while sitting on masses of cash on the order of 10 trillion while over 10 percent of the population can't find a job or gave up and defaulted to social security.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
5. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by erroneus · 2011-04-20 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, yes. These companies exist in the form and size they do largely because "the people" (AKA the government who supposedly represent the people) have given them breaks, opportunities and incentives to put people to work and to help improve the economy by spreading their wealth around. That is pretty much the very REASON they get breaks, bonuses and incentives by the government.
6. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by geekoid · 2011-04-20 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  'trickle down' never worked. Companies run as lean as they can, regardless of cash reserves.
  " government for being full of incompetent tools who don't try to curb this problem."
  The government is not full of incompetent tools. the US government is more efficient and productive them almost every corporation.
  Look at the numbers.
  What the hell is the government supposed to do about wealth on hand? How a companies chooses to pay t's CEOs?
  As far as taxes go, tax people not entities. When a CEO gets a a bonus, tax it at 75%
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
7. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  I have no problem with not taxing corporations and taxing rich people more. The government is supposed to not give tax incentives to hire people if they don't work. Its obvious its just a line of bullshit fed to us so that the rich get richer.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
8. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Americano · 2011-04-20 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  First, is that "10 trillion" number even remotely accurate? The only recent info I can find suggests somewhere on the order of ~1.2 trillion in cash reserves, suggesting that "10 trillion" is overstating the case by an order of magnitude.
  Second, do you really think that these companies keep their cash reserves in the form of gold coins sitting around in a giant vault doing nothing? Of course not - they're invested back into the market, where they provide capital for other companies to finance growth, research & development, capacity expansion, and yes, even hiring.
9. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Americano · 2011-04-20 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  1) Creating one 50,000 per year job requires a lot more money than 50,000. Rule of thumb is that 2x yearly salary gives you a better estimate of how much an employee's position costs a company.
  2) Cash reserves don't take the form of briefcases full of 20 dollar bills. That money is invested back into the market where it is loaned to other companies which use that capital to expand, grow their capacity, perform research and development and yes, even hire.
  3) Official unemployment numbers place the unemployment rate at ~8.5%, and falling, if slowly. There is always a lag in hiring during a recovery as companies bring their idle capacity back online before they begin hiring. Forcing companies to spend down their cash reserves when there is no demand for the increased capacity that the spending would give them is simply going to cause more problems. Creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs, just because "you've got some money, you better spend it right now," is ultimately a self-defeating proposition and will only serve to slow any recovery.
10. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  They are not invested back into the market, its being paid out to CEO's and other board members, thats the point. In fact there would be way more cash reserves if CEO's and board members were not getting record bonuses. However, I do think my number was wrong. I heard it on the news the other day but I cannot find a reference so it must have been some kind of fuzzy number. I stand corrected, its only 1.6 trillion dollars, enough to create 32000 well paid jobs or almost 50000 mediocre ones.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
11. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  1) You are right. Im merely trying to make a point that jobs can be created if CEO's and board members would stop being greedy.
  2) These cash reserves are literally cash reserves. They are not currently being reinvested into anything. Also, my number was wrong. I heard it on the news so I think it was a fuzzy number. Its actually 1.6 trillion.
  3) The unemployment rate always fails to take into account those that have given up their job search. The problem isn't that the companies should spend all their money, its that they aren't spending any of it. There are worthwhile projects that can be funded, and could create jobs, but its not being done because they all are waiting for the smoke to clear off of this economic problem which will never happen because they are causing it to continue.
  I have absolutely no faith that our country will pull out of this recession for a couple decades. The dollar is weakening across the globe, we have record deficits and debt, and no politician is doing a damn thing about it because they are too busy coddling the wealthy class (i.e. themselves included), letting them get richer at everyone else's expense.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
12. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Martin+Blank · 2011-04-20 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of the nation's richest people should be looking to Andrew Carnegie for some inspiration. While he certainly had some dark spots during his life, the fact that he ultimately gave away virtually his entire fortune (and believed that any rich person who actually dies rich is a failure) provides a very honorable path to follow, which most of them are not. (For that matter, a lot of steel and oil barons of the time also did not, but that doesn't reduce the value of the idea.)
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
13. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  I always thought that was the point of capitalism. Allocate resources to the most efficient people while they are alive. Unfortunately it doesn't work out that way.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
14. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  Neither do US corporations who are sitting on 10 trillion dollars of cash they will not spend on jobs.
  Interestingly, I work for one of those corporations, sort of. By which I mean that they "sort of" won't spend on jobs and the company is pretty highly leveraged. My particular group (800ish employees, ~120 engineers) has asked to increase headcount and been denied. I'd be a little up in arms about it, if it weren't for the fact that we have ~30 open engineer positions already and haven't been able to fill them for a year or two now. Asking for more heads was a little silly under the circumstances. The hiring managers and interviewers are complaining that they are seeing a lot of very iffy applicants, for what that's worth.
  But maybe you meant we just need to hire more janitors?
15. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  No idiot, stop blaming the rich, its because the American government gives into the lobbyists and foreign government lobbyists. Put a tax on Chinese imports and stop giving tax breaks that encourage moving jobs overseas. Stop regulating everything to death while your at it. All we are seeing are the result of years of outsourcing. Stop playing the socialist game that Slashdot seems to love.
16. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  I always thought that was the point of capitalism.
  What, steal all you can when able, then when your mortality is knocking at your door, try to buy your way out of hell? From where I sit, that's how most of the philanthropy seemed to go...
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
17. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  The number is overstated. It's in the 1-2 trillion dollar range. And putting money in a bank is more productive than buying gold or "investing" by buying stock. Stock purchase doesn't fund growth, R&D, expansion, or anything else (except in the rare case of IPOs and such). It just helps inflate the stock prices so people think there's a recovery on. If they sold all their stock and tossed it in a bank (so that the bank could make loans against it), then it would actually go to the things you state. But because of the low returns of that, often "cash" reserves are invested in things of varying liquidity.
  
  If they paid out that trillion dollars in the form of a one-time dividend, then that would be more than $3000 to each person (obviously more to the rich and none to most people) and then that money would actually be in the economy doing things. But invested in the stock market? That's not doing anything. In US T-bills? Not doing anything. In corporate bonds? Maybe. In the bank? Probably. In the hands of investors? Definitely.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
18. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  I don't believe in hell. Basically you want to allocate the resources to those who use them the best. Capitalism accomplishes this but also has its drawbacks, as does any system including anarchy, socialism and communism. Chronic welfare people that never look for a job obviously should not have control of millions of dollars because they won't use it efficiently and instead probably blow it on stupid crap. The system we have today is not even capitalism because it stifles competition and innovation with stupid laws and gives unfair advantage to the rich. We aren't even free for that matter. The government wont even let you produce certain things and consume them, i.e. alcohol, weed, cocaine, etc.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
19. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  Most Americans believe in hell. Whether you do or don't is irrelevant to my statement, unless you have multiple billions of dollars.
  
  Capitalism has some issues because it relies on a "free market" to be self-regulating. However, it's in the best interests of the corporations to end the free market. So those with the most to gain and the greatest resources have the greatest incentive to break the system. So Capitalism can never be stable. The invisible hand requires a very visible hand to keep the invisible hand in the right place. No one ever agrees on how the visible hand needs to be managed.
  
  Chronic welfare people that never look for a job obviously should not have control of millions of dollars because they won't use it efficiently and instead probably blow it on stupid crap.
  Stupid crap still moves the economy. And even if less efficiently than managed the way you think it should, welfare is almost always cheaper than not (because if you don't support them, the crime rates climb and insurance costs and incarceration costs will climb).
  
  The system we have today is not even capitalism because it stifles competition and innovation with stupid laws and gives unfair advantage to the rich. We aren't even free for that matter. The government wont even let you produce certain things and consume them, i.e. alcohol, weed, cocaine, etc.
  Whether cocaine is legal is irrelevant to whether we are capitalistic. There are two forms of capitalism, the one we are discussing (free market capitalism) and the "fake" kind. The definition of capitalism is where the means of production are owned (and controlled) by non-government. However, that one is mostly worthless because some people claim that things like environmental regulations or property taxes means that the government controls all production, such that the US is essentially already a communist country.
  
  But the free market capitalism requires the government intervene. That doesn't make it less capitalistic. That's a requirement for capitalism.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
20. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 21:30 · Score: 0
  
  The system we have today is not even capitalism because it [..] gives unfair advantage to the rich.
  Ummm....
21. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by Beliskner · 2011-04-27 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  The number is overstated. It's in the 1-2 trillion dollar range. And putting money in a bank is more productive than buying gold or "investing" by buying stock. Stock purchase doesn't fund growth, R&D, expansion, or anything else (except in the rare case of IPOs and such). It just helps inflate the stock prices so people think there's a recovery on. If they sold all their stock and tossed it in a bank (so that the bank could make loans against it), then it would actually go to the things you state.
  You're making some great posts such that if you were a woman I'd marry you, but you have made a slight error here. A corporation can print stock (like the US government printing dollars) people buy/sell this stock and if the stock goes up in value (lots of people buy it), this then allows the company to sell more stock, giving the company cash which they use to invest, and so on and so on. By buying a stock you are in effect voting for a company to print more stock, the company gets its hands on your cash indirectly via the stock exchange rather than directly from a bank. And via the stock exchange the investors choose which companies to give their cash to.
  
  --
  A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
22. Re:$14,000 for 6,000 capes? by AK+Marc · 2011-04-27 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  I had stated "IPOs and such." The "and such" includes non-initial public offerings. Since many people incorrectly refer to all public offerings as IPOs, I just simplified the definition with a nebulous "and such." If the stock isn't offered to "people" (but instead just a person, such as stock options) there is no paperwork but they still issue stock. All public offerings (where they sell it on the open market) are handled substantially similar to IPOs, aside from the rampant speculation. But yes, you are correct that a company who is issuing stock does benefit from an inflated price.
  ,br>However, most companies do not, as a practical matter, offer stock. Why not? Because they can't invent it. A piece of stock is a set percentage of ownership. Say a piece of stock is worth 1% of a company. Once they offer 100 certificates, they can't offer any more. They could buy some back, but not ever issue another one. And most older companies have issued all they wish to offer (or all they can offer).
  
  For "young" companies, like Google, they haven't issued all the stock they could. They could print more and sell it at market prices. But for companies that were old 20 years ago (AT&T, IBM, Ford) they don't have stock to issue. But ones like Ford are special cases because they still have a large ownership by family who sell off stock like public offerings.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Over Reaction by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 04:45 · Score: 1

Creative concepts sometimes flop. ANY business plan can fail and waste dollars. $14K is pretty small potatoes in the big picture - but I wonder how much the investigation will cost. I don't see any indication of wrong doing here. Poor talent perhaps, but at least they are trying something to help.
Marketing is like that. You do 5 ideas that all suck to varying degrees and fail, then the 6th goes into the stratosphere. And those are not always brilliant either. Some of the most successful campaigns ever are just as stupid as this. Come on, this is the land of Two and a Half Men and AXE Wash-Your-Balls ads. Its hardly a scandal underestimating people.
This is just officials making hay, and a dumb-ass press unable to discern anything real to report. No doubt there are many times more than $14K being wasted under 'official' purview.
1. Re:Over Reaction by hedwards · 2011-04-20 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  The issue is that an idea like this is so incredibly stupid that the person having it should have just kept it to themselves.
2. Re:Over Reaction by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Send me 14k and I will be a happy man.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
3. Re:Over Reaction by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  I have $27k sitting in a bank account making ~1% interest. If you could guarantee me a better ROI, I'd consider it.
  Being an employee isn't just doing stuff and getting paid. The pay is an investment. The stuff you do is the return. If that return isn't greater than the investment, you get laid off.
4. Re:Over Reaction by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  I can build you a hell of a nice grow room for $27k. It will cost about $1000/month in electricity and net about a pound of trimmed buds a week (3-4 month start up time). Even in CA in October that's 3k$US/month net. Much more if you are still fortunate enough to live where weed is illegal.
It's just a marketing by geekoid · 2011-04-20 04:49 · Score: 1

campaign. In fact it look like a pretty inexpensive one that is working.
Unemployment agency have a shit ton of services, but they have a hard time getting people to come in and use them. In most state they don't just deal with getting people monetary assistance.
They can help write resumes, fax information, have a computer to check email, interview help, proper attire help. They may ahve JR dept. from varies local companies come in and give talks on what they are looking for.
You don't even need to be getting financial assistance to use them. For some reason not a lot of people come in and use those services.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:It's just a marketing by jittles · 2011-04-20 05:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Did you RTFA? They are already under investigation for using $250,000 of government money to provide "company cars" to employees and had to repay over $3M to the Federal government after they were found to have mismanaged federal unemployment funds. Something tells me this isn't just a marketing campaign. They were doing someone a favor.
2. Re:It's just a marketing by jcoy42 · 2011-04-20 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  For some reason not a lot of people come in and use those services.
  Maybe because they try to dress you up like an idiot and ask you to play super hero. Not very professional. They really don't sound like the sort of people that will help me get a job.
  To be honest, I don't see how these idiots managed to get a job in the first place.
  Would you hire a person who showed up for an interview wearing a bright red cape?
  
  --
  Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
3. Re:It's just a marketing by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Its actually funny how stupid social workers actually are. By social workers I also include private unemployment agencies. They actually think this motivational crap does something, when really it makes people look like morons and also makes the more intelligent people feel like children.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
4. Re:It's just a marketing by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe if they would actually provide a service worth a damn people would use their service. I don't want to go to a unemployment agency to be treated like a child and dressed up like a retard. I want to get a damn job. They would be better off on spending 14,000 on scholarships to a community college.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
5. Re:It's just a marketing by geekoid · 2011-04-20 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  really? some cape manufacturer down on his luck? I mean, sure you can't move a cape like you could before the Incredibles came out, but that's a bit much.
  I'm not going to address their other problems, but as a marketing campaign, this was cheap and effective.
  Yes, I RTFA.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
6. Re:It's just a marketing by geekoid · 2011-04-20 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Most social workers I know are very educated, dedicated and smart. Of course, I only know Public social workers, not private ones.
  The person behaving stupid here are the people who have missed the point, like you.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
7. Re:It's just a marketing by geekoid · 2011-04-20 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  No they wouldn't. That wouldn't even be 1 scholarship. However from a marketing perspective this was cheap.
  "I want to get a damn job."
  of course, as does everyone else;however so many people don't use the services an outreach program is needed. In most states, you don't even need to be unemployed to use some of the services.
  No one is dressing you up or treating you like a child.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
8. Re:It's just a marketing by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Treating adults like kindergartners is a definite sign of intelligence. I said nothing about their dedication. For all I know they all are the most dedicated people ever to attempt ridiculous things and the most dedicated to true stupidity.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
9. Re:It's just a marketing by RussellSHarris · 2011-04-20 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Would you hire a person who showed up for an interview wearing a bright red cape?
  No, actually, I'd disqualify every single applicant who was applying for the job because they didn't already have one.
I understand their concern by senorpoco · 2011-04-20 04:51 · Score: 1

When I heard this story I considered getting myself fired just to be eligible for a free cape.
1. Re:I understand their concern by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  Me, too. Then I remembered even without the bulk discount my job means I can afford a $10 cape if I want one.
2. Re:I understand their concern by _0xd0ad · 2011-04-20 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  If you got fired you aren't eligible for unemployment benefits.
3. Re:I understand their concern by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  That's right, senorpoco.. if *you* got fired, you aren't eligible for unemployment. Now get back to work before we have to chain you in the basement again!
The price isn't that bad of an idea but... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 04:57 · Score: 0

Well... I get the picture that they wanted to dress up the unemployed in capes. To be honest, in the 21st century US, walking around with a superhero cape on is not the best way to find a new job...
I Do like it by buybuydandavis · 2011-04-20 05:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

You're opposed to it because you perceive it to be demeaning.
I perceive it to be fun, and a little empowering. It doesn't lift you up with someone else's happy talk, it gives you a few moments of thinking of yourself as someone with power, instead of someone powerlessly dependent on the will of would be employers. And it let's you take yourself, and your problems, a little less seriously.
I've been unemployed and gone to Workforce centers. Depressing places. Given the chance, I would have taken a cape. If it was generally encouraged, I might have worn it in their offices. It would have set a more positive tone for the place, and a feeling of camaraderie.
I think it's fun. Personally, I find the usual motivational happy talk dishonest, condescending, and demeaning. People are empowered and motivated in different ways.
1. Re:I Do like it by DarkOx · 2011-04-20 05:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Maybe but its not Government's job to make you feel empowered. The Government should not be in the business of self esteem you precious little snowflake.
  Someones tax dollars however few went to buy what are basically tchotchkes for the unemployed and not even good ones like a paper weight or something most recipients could make use of. Its simply irresponsible. If that tax (read other peoples hard earned money) money was going to be allocated to the unemployed it should been something useful like a card with some interview tips on it in their mailbox, or at the very worst an extra few dollars on their unemployment checks.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
2. Re:I Do like it by hedwards · 2011-04-20 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Trust me it's meant to be demeaning, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. The unemployment system is set up to get people off it as quickly as possible, regardless of whether or not the individual is gainfully employed. Bullying is a standard tactic that they use as is humiliation where possible.
  It might not be like that where you're from, but around here that's standard practice because obviously if it wasn't degrading nobody would ever find a job.
3. Re:I Do like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Or spent on scholarships to a community college. Dressing up like a retard never helps people get jobs except at the circus.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
4. Re:I Do like it by buybuydandavis · 2011-04-20 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe but its not Government's job to make you feel empowered. The Government should not be in the business of self esteem you precious little snowflake.
  The post I was responding to stipulated agreement on spending money on motivation. My comments on whether the capes were demeaning or motivational were given in that context.
5. Re:I Do like it by CFBMoo1 · 2011-04-20 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  "or at the very worst an extra few dollars on their unemployment checks." Well depending on how this turns out those capes might be worth money down the road if collectors get interested.
  
  --
  ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
6. Re:I Do like it by MoriT · 2011-04-20 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's the governments job to make sure I actually am empowered, in that I am able to have agency over my own life. I would much prefer if they set about making sure I am not stuck in a terrible economy because some people think it's awesome to introduce contractionary fiscal policy mid-downturn. The government should be dealing with the business cycle, not offering me interview tips or capes. Though at least they spent money on the capes; at this point any government spending is good.
7. Re:I Do like it by buybuydandavis · 2011-04-20 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Do you think people effectively interview when they're feeling degraded? Effectively search for a job?
  Would you never get a job if getting unemployment benefits wasn't humiliating?
  I'm in Washington State. The people at the workforce sites I've been to have generally been helpful, or have at least tried to be helpful.
  Where are you from? I've lived in NYC and Philadelphia, and generally found more of the kind of hostile attitude you describe in workers, towards both customers and bosses. "How can I hang on to my job while doing as little as possible, and pissing off the boss and customers as much as possible?" A fairly prevalent attitude, particularly among government workers. Not as prevalent out here.
  If you want to judge a town, go to a supermarket and ask a clerk "where are the pickles?" First time I did that here, the guy told me where the pickels were, then walked me across the store to the location he described, and viola, he was correct. I nearly fainted in shock at the polite, courteous, and efficient service.
8. Re:I Do like it by bradk500 · 2011-04-20 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sorry, did you actually say "not even good ones like a paper weight"? I'm 36 and have never once used or needed a paper weight in my life, but I do find capes are terrific for making grand entrances and exits!
9. Re:I Do like it by DarkOx · 2011-04-20 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Government spending would be good(stimulative) for the economy if the government actually had say a positive cash balance. When governments at the state and local level are debt ridden it might still be ok if they were borrowing the money from people and other entities with positive net worths.
  When government is selling bonds to same financial entities its making loans to at a lower interest rate then bonds it financing them with and the rest of the money is coming from a quasi-independent institution with the power to create liquidity by fiat its called a SHAM. Commodity prices are soaring, and the markets are up but you notice how job growth is not following, we are headed for another crisis on this time it will be worse, financially and who knows how much more costly socially.
  This last time we completely abdicated the rule of law. The government and small elite group of financiers pick winners and losers at their whims, now.
  Do a little research into how the Chrysler deal got done for instance. Its likely the Obama administration pressured applet court judges not hear appeals in the bankruptcy case, and possibly the Supreme Court to vacate. Its a FACT they pressured the bond holders to drop the suit, its a FACT Obama lied to the public when he went on TV and said the "speculators" were refusing to take less then 100% of the lean when they had given his Car Tzar and offer to take sixty cents on the dollar six weeks prior. Its a FACT a shell company was setup to buy the assets of Chrysler Corp so that the original company go through bankruptcy as a liquidation rather than a reorganization so as to limit what senior debt holders could recover. This is an obvious FRAUD and under normal circumstances bankruptcy courts don't allow that. Chrysler management admitted on the stand that material the deal was in fact a reorganization. Its likely but probably can't be proven that the Administration used its influence over the bond holders who had themselves taken tarp payments, to break rank with the other bond holders and facilitate the conspiracy to deprive them of their investment. Its a FACT the Fiat did not buy any portion of Chrysler in they were given their entire 20pct stake for free, in exchange for given the appearance of purchasing it, so the media would have a good story. All in all it was a give away to the administrations UAW cronies.
  This is not the kind of "rule of law and respect for personal property" that makes people want to invest and grow the economy. I am not about to offer someone a mortgage when if they happen to be less than successfully they can not pay me, and keep the assets because I forgot to bribe^H^H^H^H^H contribute to the campaign fund of some politico.
  This is one of the biggest reasons you don't see real economic growth in much of the third world, they lack the security of the rule of law. That's way I think its kinda funny to here Obama argue that Congress can't afford to politicize raising the debt ceiling now. He has already undermine the Full Faith and Credit, himself.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
10. Re:I Do like it by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Before Obama it was Bush. Really we should be angry at the senators and representatives.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
11. Re:I Do like it by AK+Marc · 2011-04-20 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe but its not Government's job to make you feel empowered.
  Is it their job to pay unemployment? Is it their job to help you get off unemployment as fast as possible?
  
  Your statement is intellectually consistent if and only if you also believe unemployment insurance is not the government's job. If it is the government's job, then it's also their job to get people off unemployment as soon as possible. If empowering people costs $100 and reduces unemployment payouts by $110, then yes, it's the government's job to empower people.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
12. Re:I Do like it by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  OK. Capes are for the gay unemployed. Paperweights for straights.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Wow by WonderingAround · 2011-04-20 05:08 · Score: 1

So realistically are we going to see lots more homeless people in capes? Because that's a world I want to live in.

--
It's like the mind going AWOL, it's there somewhere
1. Re:Wow by pyrr · 2011-04-20 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  I support this idea. In fact, if red capes were required attire for panhandlers...man, that'd be too awesome for words.
2. Re:Wow by geekoid · 2011-04-20 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  I would wear a red cape is it mean panhandlers would leave me the fuck alone.
  Even better, they can only bother people who wear red capes.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
3. Re:Wow by WonderingAround · 2011-04-20 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  The more I think about this the more it makes me want to go to get my hands on a cape. Also if Florida's filled with the caped homeless, the elderly, gators, and disney characters...what else is there?
  
  --
  It's like the mind going AWOL, it's there somewhere
A sign of the times by IQGQNAU · 2011-04-20 05:12 · Score: 1

The officials are calling for an investigation of what? They having trouble understanding why the unemployment agency folks are grasping at straws? If that's the case then the folks that need to get investigated and fired are the "officials".
Mom's gonna be pissed by papasui · 2011-04-20 05:12 · Score: 1

She spent all that time sewing me a cape to go with my superman outfit and those dicks in Florida are just giving them out.
Can you identify the person who robbed you? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:13 · Score: 0

"No Officer, He had the hood of his cape hiding his face and and evil laugh that went, MWAH-hah-hah-hah!"
And people wonder by magarity · 2011-04-20 05:15 · Score: 1

... why conservatives think government agencies aren't efficient.

"The campaign which reportedly cost $73,000 includes thousands of red capes"
"Workforce Central Florida spent $250,000 tax dollars on staff cars"

Florida taxpayers' money hard at work creating jobs.
1. Re:And people wonder by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-22 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  Technically, it was federal money. Workforce Central Florida is a regional (not state) entity, with limited oversight from AWI (the state employment agency).
  And most of the people commenting on this are missing the point. They seem to be saying that the plan was:
  1) Pass out capes!
  2) ???
  3) Unemployment solved! Yay!
  When the actual plan was:
  1) Pass out capes!
  2) Cape campaign advertises services to job seekers.
  3) People use those services, and maybe some find jobs.
  It was just a dumb ad campaign, to let job seekers know about their services. As ad campaigns go, this one isn't particularly expensive, given the size of the audience it's trying to reach. No, I think this is getting headlines because, in right-wing circles, the unemployed aren't superheros. They're parasites who are unemployed only because they're too lazy to go out and get a job.
You know what would be fun... by IANAAC · 2011-04-20 05:19 · Score: 1

and motivating?
Actually getting one of the case workers to take a look at your resume/CV and telling you: "Hey! According to what's on file with us, you potentially match X jobs. Let me see if I can forward your resume to some of these places and see what happens", instead of handing out a cape and shoving them off on their merry way, possibly with a list of McDonalds to go to.
Hell, we have the tech available to automate the process, even.
Instead, we have a (probably) too huge agency that shuffles paper and people and feels good about it.
*disclaimer*
I haven't gone through an unemployment agency in decades and am only imagining that that's how things work these days.
Exactly, mod parent up, not down by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:21 · Score: 0

Slashdotters are actually defending this sort of waste of taxpayer money, unbelievable.
Well, what else is there? by cdrguru · 2011-04-20 05:27 · Score: 0

Sometime people in the US have to realize that the economy has changed. It contracted rather sharply which was really an adjustment that was coming for some time now. The US doesn't need as many low-skill people employed as before and even needs a bit fewer high-skill people as well.
There are a couple of things we can do. We could try to unionize a lot more places and guarantee everyone a cushy union job doing something completely unnecessary. Sort of like having two teams, one digging holes and the other filling them in. Of course, this would have to be government-supported. Your tax dollars at work.
We could just skip the make-work jobs and give everyone not working a fake job that pays $25,000 a year from the government.
We could encourage the unemployed to move somewhere else because the jobs aren't coming back. Unfortunately, there are very few places that need more workers of any skill level right now.
The idea that somehow we are going to find 8 million new jobs for people is laughable. They aren't there and there isn't anything the government can do to make them magically appear. So the unemployed are mostly going to stay that way and we have to figure out what to do with them. Just having them permanently collecting unemployment benefits doesn't make sense.
1. Re:Well, what else is there? by Antisyzygy · 2011-04-20 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Whats happening is that companies are sitting on 10 trillion dollars of money partially because of incentives to employ people, but they aren't spending a damn dime. CEO's and other board members are getting record breaking bonuses, corporations are getting major tax cuts, the wealthy has continued to have major tax cuts on capital gains and income, and all of it is sold as "Trickle down economics" which is supposed to create jobs for us peons in America. Its obvious it doesn't work in our present situation. If CEO's would take 2 million instead of 8 million as a bonus they could create 120 jobs. You can't blame a person for wanting to better their situation, but you can blame the government for being full of incompetent tools who don't try to curb this problem. America is on its way out because of greedy politicians who coddle the wealthy and throw bread and circuses for the masses of undereducated citizens. They would be better off investing in science and technology projects which create jobs as well as funding the people's education rather than cutting out their revenue from the wealthy and giving whats left to the masses of poor while racking up major debts that make our dollar collapse. Our purchasing power today is the reason gas prices are so high today, and thats because the dollar is weakening, and thats because corporations are artificially deflating their stock prices while sitting on masses of cash on the order of 10 trillion while over 10 percent of the population can't find a job or gave up and defaulted to social security. Frankly, the real problem isn't that some worthwhile project couldn't be funded and used to create jobs, its that all of the money is tied up in the hands of the wealthiest 10 percent of the people.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
2. Re:Well, what else is there? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  True, think about this though: Slashdot is bread and circuses for the nerd-types. I might make that my sig if I ever get around to it.
Special ed teacher in charge? by pyrr · 2011-04-20 05:29 · Score: 1

Seriously, this is so ridiculous it seems like something a kindergarten SPED teacher dealing with profoundly mentally disabled children might dream-up. I mean, "Cape-a-bility"? Really? That's like something straight out of an SNL sketch.
Treating the unemployed like tards just doesn't seem like it would help the situation at all. If anything, it'd probably just make them feel worse.
Ulterior motives by pyrr · 2011-04-20 05:33 · Score: 1

Next up, the field trip to a big ranch with many bulls roaming around, where the unemployed can run around and play matador with their lovely red capes! That might thin the ranks on the unemployment rolls a bit.
and debit cards for food stamp users? by Shivetya · 2011-04-20 05:34 · Score: 1

I agree, the capes and the idea of making kids stand in a special line are bad. However the debit cards in lieu of food stamps is pushing it in my book. There should be some things people taking from the government where a little "prodding" to get off would be worth while. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your point of view, some do things which show it off all too well; think section 8 housing I have volunteered to clean up afterward.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
1. Re:and debit cards for food stamp users? by Martin+Blank · 2011-04-20 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  The debit cards were introduced to reduce fraud, not to make people feel better, though it probably does have that side-effect. It doesn't eliminate fraud, but it does a decent job knocking it down. Conventional food stamps are easily sold (and sometimes reported as stolen so freely replaced if it doesn't happen too often), whereas most recipients aren't going to give up their debit cards (and stolen cards are deactivated). This doesn't mean that they can't buy stuff for other people off of them and sell them for cash at other-than-parity rates, but it's a lot more effort.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Let's not "Jump to Conclusions"! by erroneus · 2011-04-20 05:40 · Score: 1

As least not until I have gotten my "Jump to Conclusions" mat out. Then we can decide if this idea was make by "cape-able" people.
Use or Lose it Budget? by realsilly · 2011-04-20 05:41 · Score: 1

The situation may have come down to the Use it or Lose it Budget practices of the govt. In many instances, Govt. funds are handed out to the various agencies and if at the end of the fiscal year you don't use you're allotted budget, the following happens. 1.) That department must return all unspent funds back to a general govt. pool and 2.) The next fiscal year your budget is cut to more closely reflect your department's spending.
So basically, it was waste it now or we won't be able to get funding when we need it later.
At least this is what I'm speculating was how this board of 44 people decided.

--
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
1. Re:Use or Lose it Budget? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  It's even worse this year for federal agencies. While we were operating under continuing resolutions, the federal agencies could not cut any new contracts, because the trickle of money would only fund them through a certain date, and would not give them enough to fully allocate the funds for a contract. Now that they have a budget, they have to make sure they can spend the full amount - in the 5 months remaining.
2. Re:Use or Lose it Budget? by GameboyRMH · 2011-04-20 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  True, except for the part about intentionally wasting money (that doesn't help). Government agencies do try to do as much spending for the upcoming year as possible with leftover money at the end of a year, because if you don't use it you lose it. Also it's standard practice to use "I want a pony" tactics when setting the budget because they're going to want to trim your budget regardless of what it is.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
This will be as effective as "WIN" buttons! by walterbyrd · 2011-04-20 05:55 · Score: 2

In the 1970s, Gerald Ford attempted to fix the US inflation problem by handing out "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) buttons.
Yeah, that'll do it.
they're not a government agency by Radical+Moderate · 2011-04-20 06:00 · Score: 1

..although they did get stimulus money, along with half the country.

--
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Wrong program name... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:03 · Score: 0

should have been Cape-A-Billy.
Ahem...NOT a government agency, folks by Radical+Moderate · 2011-04-20 06:08 · Score: 2

Workforce Central Florida appears to be a private, possibly "non-profit" (hard to tell from their website) agency that contracts with the state to provide unemployment services. You know, the Republican wet dream of privatizing government functions. Working out real well, isn't it? The Agency for Workforce Innovation, which IS a government agency, are the ones putting the kibosh on this ass-hattery.

--
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
1. Re:Ahem...NOT a government agency, folks by ScentCone · 2011-04-20 06:45 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  You're missing the point. The conservative preference for letting private agencies compete to provide such services is such because that way idiotic contractors like this bunch can get thrown out, and the contracting agency can choose from others that will compete to show they're more serious about how they put taxpayers' money to work. If this had been a government agency, the people in it couldn't be fired, and would have little to no incentive for doing a better job. They wouldn't be competing with people in another agency to provide the same services in a better way or for less money.
  
  These guys aren't any different than a road construction company that the state pays for a job, but who get busted doing it badly and are ripe for replacement. Nice of you to give it your all, though.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
2. Re:Ahem...NOT a government agency, folks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  I'd like to challenge that premise that private contractors will A) always do a better/cheaper job than "government workers" or B) be actually "thrown out" for doing a bad job. Let;s look at the basics, shall we?
  1) *Any* private/for-profit company has as its one and only mission to generate profits. Even presuming that a private contractor would be at least as efficient and effective as public workers (a very debatable point, addressed below), then that profit they receive *must* come from citizens/taxpayers. So, as citizens/taxpayers, we get to pay more than we should for an equivalent service, so Yet Another Mega-Corp can line their CEO's pockets. Great for them, sucks for us.
  2) In my admittedly anecdotal and limited experience, whenever a public utility (water, garbage service, etc.) is privatized, costs go up and the service is never better. Are there exceptions? Sure, but on balance I fail to see how farming out public services to the same ass-hats who brought us the financial meltdown fails the sanity test.
3. Re:Ahem...NOT a government agency, folks by makomk · 2011-04-20 09:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The conservative preference for letting private agencies compete to provide such services is such because that way idiotic contractors like this bunch can get thrown out, and the contracting agency can choose from others that will compete to show they're more serious about how they put taxpayers' money to work. If this had been a government agency, the people in it couldn't be fired, and would have little to no incentive for doing a better job.
  Except that in practice, that doesn't happen - governments are consistently really bad at choosing competent private contractors, signing sensible contracts with them, holding them to account when they screw up, and kicking them out to replace them with a more competent contractor when it turns out the original couldn't run a piss-up in a brewery. Conservative governments are if anything slightly worse at this. Meanwhile, actual government employees are often far more competent.
4. Re:Ahem...NOT a government agency, folks by Radical+Moderate · 2011-04-20 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  "If this had been a government agency, the people in it couldn't be fired"
  
  Tell that to Shirley Sherrod. I work for a government agency. Trust me, firing people isn't that hard, especially if they're not represented by the union. And most people with spending authority aren't.
  
  I don't have a problem with contracting out capital-intensive projects like road construction. Paper-pushing, on the other hand, is something government does quite well, no reason to add a middle man.
  
  --
  Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
5. Re:Ahem...NOT a government agency, folks by HornWumpus · 2011-04-20 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with everything you wrote except the last sentence.
  Why do you think a government that is so bad at everything you list would be good at hiring and promoting competent employees? It has not been my experience. They have exactly the same problems dealing with employees as they do with subs.
  At least the subs aren't guaranteed lifers like the employees.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
6,000 capes? by oldmac31310 · 2011-04-20 06:10 · Score: 1

So there are only 6,000 unemployed people in Florida? Not much of an unemployment problem if you ask me!

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
No Capes!!! by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-04-20 06:11 · Score: 1

No capes.
Faster than ... by PPH · 2011-04-20 06:14 · Score: 1

.... a speeding bullet. Stronger than a locomotive. Able to leap over (off?) tall buildings.
Whoa, sorry dude. Hell of a mess there (Note to self: Be careful about what you suggest to mentally challenged people next time).

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Even Superman... by DarthVain · 2011-04-20 06:26 · Score: 1

had a job a The Daily Planet!
All the price tags add up by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-04-20 06:30 · Score: 1

I'm not opposed to the price tag.
And that's why we're eleventy trillion dollars in debt, kids.
They just didn't want to risk losing their jobs... by mmell · 2011-04-20 06:33 · Score: 3, Funny

...someone might make them wear some idiotic cape!
Simply Horrible by 3vi1 · 2011-04-20 06:35 · Score: 1

Other upcoming PR campaign programs for Floridians:
- Big Scarlet Letters for Unwed Teen Mothers
- Glitter Number Tattoos for Jews
- Key-fobs for the Homeless
I'm just so glad Texas isn't the only ridiculous state.
That's not what people wonder about. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:47 · Score: 1

magarity quoth: And people wonder why conservatives think government agencies aren't efficient.
Dude, nobody wonders that.
We wonder why teabaggers and neo-conservatives think the answer to government agency inefficiencies is to abolish oversight and hand total unregulated control to the very same hereditary aristocracy who are currently running inefficient government agencies.
Who gets the "privatized" service contracts? The same old crooks and scumbags as ever. Only without bothersome regulations and oversight!
Nobody thinks the teabaggers don't have something to complain about. We think their complaints, and proposed solutions, are incoherent and useless, but more and more people are coming to respect the willingness of the teabaggers to get out on the street and protest, instead of sitting in Mom's basement eating ho-hos like slashdot libertarians.
I like the idea by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 06:55 · Score: 0

But they should have stated a voluntary campaign and maybe something not quite as flashy and have people buy the items. Something like a solidarity band.
Really? by Darkfire79 · 2011-04-20 07:00 · Score: 0

I keep looking for the Onion logo
Duh duh-duh-duh! by numbski · 2011-04-20 07:05 · Score: 1

Captain Obvious! To the rescue!

--
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
1. Re:Duh duh-duh-duh! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  I believe you mean Cape-tain Obvious.
Joke gone bad? by Anil · 2011-04-20 08:09 · Score: 1

I wonder if this was someone's April Fools joke idea that somehow made it through the bureaucracy and got implemented.
Giant A on clothes by tepples · 2011-04-20 08:31 · Score: 1

Were they out of giant red A's to sew on their clothes?
Yeah, that's why they've switched to yellow A's.
And yet.. by cryptogryphon · 2011-04-20 09:00 · Score: 1

..not one is up on eBay. Not one. They must really like the capes, or they're so dumb they don't have the tiniest flare of entrepreneurial spirit.
1. Re:And yet.. by gknoy · 2011-04-20 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Or, they're using it as added insulation/shade.
Now what does that remind you of? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 09:02 · Score: 0

Ah yes, its April 20th
Happy Birthday Adolph
it's a bird! it's a plane! It's... by Thud457 · 2011-04-20 09:02 · Score: 1

Possibly unemployedman?
As God as my witness, I though turkeys could fly!

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
As strange as it sounds by publiclurker · 2011-04-20 09:42 · Score: 1

A lot of companies have policies against hiring the unemployed, especially if they have been unemployed for any length of time. The idea is that there must be something wrong for this person for them to have been let go. The fact that entire divisions and even businesses have been shut down are too much for these people to comprehend.
1. Re:As strange as it sounds by RussellSHarris · 2011-04-21 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  So what? Let them try to hire, then. Virtually everyone who applies is going to be unemployed. Very few people who have a job are going to be out looking for a different one in a job market like this. The business will have to adapt, or they'll never fill the position.
I got a cheap mirror by publiclurker · 2011-04-20 09:48 · Score: 1

in a sleeve that said I responsible for their success. The edges weren't finished and I actually cut myself on the dang thing.
I don't see anything wrong with it. by mosb1000 · 2011-04-20 10:14 · Score: 1

It's not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of helping people find jobs, but is it really that bad of an idea? Any publicity campaign designed to combat unemployment would have been equally absurd given the real difficulties people face when trying to find a job after a period of unemployment. But you may not have noticed because it would have been boring and easy to overlook. I can assure you that people who are unemployed find all this garbage to be annoying and pointless and degrading. It doesn't matter if it's a cape or a brochure with tips on how to find a job, it's all the same nonsense.
1. Re:I don't see anything wrong with it. by Nefarious+Wheel · 2011-04-20 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, indeed. I wonder if they deliver them personally? If this happened in Australia we would probably think this was so daft* someone had to be having us on**.
  Of course, there'd probably be a friendly punch in the mouth on delivery too. Fine excuse for a dust-up***
  For those counterantipodeans among you:
  *Daft. As in crazy as a loon.
  **Having us on = pulling our legs.
  ***Dust-up = brawl. Insurance does not cover damage to furniture, chins, or strange red unemployment capes thought up by someone who works in the public sector and otherwise spends far, far too much time in the basement reading comic books.
  
  --
  Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Florida does need some superheroes by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 10:46 · Score: 0

Since Florida's governor seems to be Lex Luthor, It's not very surprising that people thought this plan was a good idea. However, I'm fairly certain that this isn't how superheroes are created.
Capes are Dangerous!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 12:18 · Score: 0

Did the lessons of The Incredibles fall on deaf ears? How many people were injured or killed wearing these capes?
Good way to destroy jobs by tomhudson · 2011-04-20 12:44 · Score: 1

So, you want to take 2 people who are out of work, and give them part-time jobs that they are less than optimally suited for.
You have just destroyed a full-time job that someone else would be optimal for.
And ... those first two people are not going to be as efficient over the long term, since for them it's hopefully a temporary situation. BUT, you're getting lower production, higher error rates, etc. So, to compensate, you have to subsidize those jobs, often by a lot.
Other businesses will have no choice but to do the same if they want to remain cost-competitive with the subsidized labour.
Then you have whole sectors that have such a mis-match of people vs jobs, and such a dependence on subsidies, that you've wrecked your economy.
Rinse, lather, repeat, and you can destroy every job in the country, as more people get replaced with subsidized part-timers.
Now if you think this is just speculation, it's not. A lot of the "job retraining" programs are this sort of stupidity. Here, the government has been putting unemployed welfare recipients through job retraining consisting of, among other things, an 8-month course in how to be a web monkey.
They then go to work for a local employer for 3 months, and it doesn't cost the employer a penny, except for the coffee they drink. Of course, they're not exactly productive, but they're free, so any productivity is a bonus.
Then, after the 3 months, they don't get a job offer, and a month later, in comes the next batch of free workers.
This is despite the government being so anxious to justify the program that they're willing to pay up to 75% of a new hire's salary. But even 25% is more than free ... and the quality of people is low enough that the average kid at her mom's kitchen table can do just as good, if not better. After all, the young woman working at the kitchen table is doing it because she has a passion for it, not to get off welfare ...
And of course, this ignores the long-term trend of secretaries and receptionists and clerks being given responsibility for many of the web sites out there. The tools to do it have been available for years. Small businesses with 5 to 50 employees have that option now - web sites are part of career training for secretaries and administrative assistants. And there's always someone who already knows someone's daughter working at mom's kitchen table who just loves doing that sort of thing.
In the meantime, the first batch of free web monkeys can't find jobs, so they think "Well, I'll just freelance making web sites." After a month, desperate to get anything to show off, they start offering to do them for free, or as close to it as possible, because they need something to start with.
Go look at sites like kijiji - you'll see thousands of them.
Now considering that our local area lost 6,000 permanent IT jobs last year, and who knows how many this year so far (we're on track to lose another 250,000 jobs this year), this is not a solution. But thanks to 15 years of these policies, directed at the IT field, wages are down across the board. 50% in the last 5 years alone. Why? because with so much flotsam entering the system year after year, companies simply moved all the good jobs elsewhere, where they didn't have to go through 100 crappy applicants to find one who can do the job. Even "free" workers are too expensive when they continually waste your time and resources.
A 4-day, 32-hour workweek makes sense. Not only would it save resources, but it would drastically lower unemployment.
tomhudson answer 4 questions as asked by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 12:55 · Score: 0

tomhudson, answer 4 simple questions I asked you here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2088808&cid=35885152
Answer them, as asked, in reply to that thread url above... (Yes or No will do for questions #'d 1,3, & 4)
Question #2 is to just list point by point, what you have "issues with" about HOSTS files...
(Simple. This is fair.)
However, if you continue to run from answering those 4 questions, evading them like a total coward? Well - again, U lose to me (APK), clearly, by default... & 'U Got P L A Y E D' too easily!
APK
P.S.=> Answering the WORLD'S DUMBEST QUESTION tomhudson asked of myself (there are no dumb questions? Well, not when you see this one from tomhudson, especially after the answer, because I'll let tom speak, for me instead, lol - this gets better, read on):
---

"what is it about me personally that is so important to you that you have to cyber-stalk me?" - by tomhudson (43916) on Wednesday April 20, @06:01PM (#35885728) Homepage
---
Me? You are once again, "the pot calling the kettle black":
ANSWER: (I'll even let YOU talk FOR ME, lol)
---

"Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme". by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal
QUOTED VERBATIM FROM 1 YEAR AGO HERE -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544
---
Then once more currently this week? tomhudson telling others to do the SAME, more, this week too:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086424&cid=35841122
and, once more, yet again, here this week:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086920&cid=35840680
There's your answer, & only part of it... you have ac stalked & trolled me, admitting to it even, along with your sock puppets gmhowell & others here FOR OVER A YEAR NOW... and you have the NERVE to ask that?
---
The rest is your literally libeling myself, and also surreptitiously stalking & trolling my posts on HOSTS files, which you won't even face questions on in the topmost url link above! Give us a break... quit the "evasive maneuvers" already, lol!
... apk
Yet another off-topic post by my stalker. Oh well by tomhudson · 2011-04-20 13:17 · Score: 1

The only stalking being done is by you. You're up to what - 200 posts in the last week, all about me? You keep on avoiding the real issue - what is it about me personally that is so important to you that you have to cyber-stalk me? Obviously, I've been on your mind since I first replied to you forum spam about your stupid hosts file a year ago and said that it's not only ineffective, but a waste of time in today's environment. But that doesn't explain it.
You're obviously angry that I had the nerve to suggest that people should do to you what you do to them - post anonymously when replying to you, because otherwise you stalk them. And now you're mad that some of them do it? You know what? You had it coming. It's your own fault, nothing more, nothing less. But that's not it either. It;s just a pretext.
You continue to try to divert attention away from the real question - why are you so obsessed with me? I know why, and it has nothing to do with the hosts file issue. But why don't you give your version of why getting my attention is so important to you that you looked for any pretext to follow me around and do everything you can to get my attention when I had forgotten you even existed?
This is the obvious question, and one you've refused to answer over and over. I mean really, answer why you came barging into my journal out of the blue, for no reason at all, crap-flooding, calling me a b*tch and a c*unt and an ugly cyclops because I temporarily lost the sight in one eye? That's not normal ...
Anyone who had read my journals in December and January knew that I certainly had neither the time nor the energy to waste following around a nobody like you, never mind that you don't even have an account, so it's not like I could do what you do - just look at my profile and see my recent posts, which is how you stalk me in the various discussion threads.
And you certainly did read those journal entries - otherwise you wouldn't have known about how I temporarily went blind in one eye and still continued to work. And you also knew the crazy hours I was putting in.
So you knew I had neither the time, nor the inclination, to bother looking for any of your posts. You were last year's trash, long gone to the recycling center, forgotten.
So why not answer the question .... what is it that's different? You've had run-ins with others, and you didn't go anywhere near as close to totally losing it like you've done here. Is it because I fight back? No, that can't be it - at least not all of it, because so do others, and after a day or two, it dies off.
Is it because my points really struck home a year ago? No, you've demonstrated that you're quite capable of being selective in your "facts", so that's not it either.
is it because I told people a year ago that they should do to you what you do to them? No, that doesn't hold water either. After all, a whole year has gone by, and this being slashdot, I'm sure that there have been plenty of anonymous replies to your spam posts. So that's not it either.
No, it's definitely something else ... ;-p
You still have a chance to put your spin on events before others put the pieces together. They will, you know - they're not dummies.
Investigationism by Tablizer · 2011-04-20 14:07 · Score: 1

To be investigated by the Dept. of WTF

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:They just didn't want to risk losing their jobs by williamhb · 2011-04-20 14:11 · Score: 1

...someone might make them wear some idiotic cape!
I have a nasty feeling it's going to be the next lay-off craze. "I turned up to work, and my password wouldn't work and someone had left this ridiculous cape on my desk...".
tom U answer UR question inside, answer mine by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-20 14:25 · Score: 0

tomhudson, answer 4 simple questions I asked you here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2088808&cid=35885152
Answer them, as asked, in reply to that thread url above...
(Yes or No will do for questions #'d 1,3, & 4 - just answer there, in 1 nice post!)
Question #2 is to just list point by point, what you have "issues with" about HOSTS files...
* YOU ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION YOURSELF BELOW, PER MY SUBJECT-LINE ABOVE, BY THE WAY & it's hilariously droll & ironic.
However, if you continue to run from answering those 4 questions, evading them like a total coward?
Well - again, U lose to me (APK), clearly, by default... & 'U Got P L A Y E D' too easily!
APK
P.S.=> Answering the WORLD'S DUMBEST QUESTION tomhudson asked of myself (there are no dumb questions? Well, not when you see this one from tomhudson, especially after the answer, because I'll let tom speak, for me instead, lol - this gets better, read on):
---

"what is it about me personally that is so important to you that you have to cyber-stalk me?" - by tomhudson (43916) on Wednesday April 20, @06:01PM (#35885728) Homepage
---
Me? You are once again, "the pot calling the kettle black":
ANSWER: (I'll even let YOU talk FOR ME, lol)
---

"Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme". by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal
QUOTED VERBATIM FROM 1 YEAR AGO HERE -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544
---
Then once more currently this week? tomhudson telling others to do the SAME, more, this week too:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086424&cid=35841122
and, once more, yet again, here this week:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086920&cid=35840680
There's your answer, & only part of it... you have ac stalked & trolled me, admitting to it even, along with your sock puppets gmhowell & others here FOR OVER A YEAR NOW... and you have the NERVE to ask that?
---
The rest is your literally libeling myself, and also surreptitiously stalking & trolling my posts on HOSTS files, which you won't even face questions on in the topmost url link above!
Give us a break, won't you, "CoUnT-StaLKuLa"... quit the "evasive maneuvers" already, lol!
... apk
Capes are Dangerous! by Tehrasha · 2011-04-20 14:29 · Score: 2

Did the lessons of The Incredibles fall on deaf ears? How many people might have been injured or killed wearing those capes?!
Nuts by kubernet3s · 2011-04-21 02:25 · Score: 1

Okay, this is driving me nuts: in TFA's comment thread, the first poster is talking about "PT cruisers wrapped in headless people" about "two years ago." What the hell is he talking about? It sounds so insane as to be almost poignant
tom running away from 4 easy questions != good by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-21 03:06 · Score: 0

Just answer them and be done with it tom. You've answered far more difficult questions from others tom, so I don't see what the problem is here. He's not asking you to prove string theory after all, but, tom, your long winded pages long replies reactions only serve to show your guilt at orchestrating a year long stalking and trolling of this person alongside your admitted troll pals like gmhowell and others and even yourself saying you "white hat trolled" him. Trolling is trolling. Yes, I read the exchanges involved. gmhowell and others admitted to being trolls and stalking others to do so, and you did also. You're obviously the ring leader from the quotes show of your own words so running away is only making you look worse.
Cannot find Unemployment Cape on eBay by mture · 2011-04-21 05:03 · Score: 1

Am I the only person here who wants one of those unemployment capes?!

I couldn't find a single one for sale on eBay. [sad face]