Mozilla is the finest web browser, commercial, non-commercial or otherwise, that I have ever used, even at version 0.9.9
The Javascript console alone is worth the minimal effort required to install it. Add the other features (tabs, cookies, custom Javascript) and it just puts Mozilla way ahead.
I wonder how many current writers and filmmakers there are today who owe at least part of their ability to entertain to Gygax and D&D? I guess we'll never know; I'd bet many wouldn't admit it.
You know, there's a tremendously funny joke here about the quality of recent Hollywood writing... ahh, skip it. Everyone's thought the same thing already.
But in Runequest, there's always the chance that that nasty, grimy little broo can take down your kick-ass Rune Lord
Sounds like Civilization I and the highly amusing image of a pike-wielding phalanx wading into the crashing surf to engage a battleship... and winning.
The point is there should be no such concept as "permission denied" for an administrator. Either they are administrators or they are not. The very notion that there is some process/account/structure that must bestow permission to an administrator, even if it is their own account, redefines the role of administrator to something else.
The details are really irrelevant. The point is that the administrator should have permission to do anything, without any redundant "grant permission to myself" process involved. Anything less is in itself a security problem because there exists the possibility that the administrator can be "locked out" of a system.
If I "chmod 000" a file, then theoretically even root should not have the ability to delete it, right? It's world-non-readable/world-non-writable. Yet, root can rm -f the file with no problem, error messages, warnings, dialog boxes, requests for permission, meetings, resolutions, upgrades or "Are you sure?" questions. Why?
BECAUSE THEY ARE ROOT AND DO NOT REQUIRE PERMISSION.
Fine. Then don't call it an "administrator" account. Call it the "Person who is sort of in charge of the machine, but we'll decide if we think they know what they are doing" account.
You go right ahead and get full rights and break it for no reason.
Break a Windows install? That happens by itself. It certainly doesn't need an administrator account.
As for Linux, I've typed a wrong command or two as root before. It happens. But not having 100% control of a system is a security hole that a cruise ship could be driven through sideways.
But root can redefine it so it can be deleted, right? That's a nice feature. Doesn't change the point.
There are things that are not only not permitted by an administrator on an NT machine, but also CANNOT BE CHANGED by the administrator on an NT machine.
that we've obsoleted all our programming languages (and all programs developed with them, since they likely won't compile anymore), we'll obsolete all the existing programs too by making sure they won't work with the new file system.
How long, exactly, have you been a programmer professionally?
Just under eight years.
If so, then you are probably disillusioned by the corporate world (and rightly so). Once corporations weed out these do-nothing managers that are straight out of Dilbert, the work place will become a much more employee-friendly place.
That would be encouraging. What bothers me is that there seems to be a "so what?" or "quit yer gripin" response whenever someone complains they've been treated unfairly at work. This is important to people: it's how they eat and keep a roof over their heads, and the way most people are casually fired anymore you'd think companies were just changing their brand of cranberry juice.
Hmmm...I would say the Bureau of Labor Statistics are about as an authoritative source on this subject as there is. I'm quite sure they're more authoritative than your anecdoctal evidence.
Still don't buy it. Employment statistics which show that 97 out of 100 people are employed are just a little hard to believe during a recession. Sorry, but it just won't fly.
We've been hearing about layoffs in the tens of thousands and bankruptcy filings for over a year now. Where are all these people working? Wal-Mart? If so, how are they making their house payments?
Those employment statistics also fail to take a number of different categories into account, such as underemployed, people who quit looking, people who start their own businesses, people who aren't taking unemployment, etc.
Perhaps they are, but they're still employed. Sometimes you'll have to weather a storm anywhere you can get to.
After being screwed out of one career-track job after another? Just buckle down and pick up that mop! Sunny days are almost here! Maybe after 10 years of washing dishes they can get back to your high-paying, highly-qualified desk just so they can get fired again for some random reason, or non-reason. Sounds great.
A lot of people who were never laid off are underemployed simply because no one will give them a chance to prove themselves. You do what you have to in order to make ends meet.
...and in the meantime just let people in the workplace do whatever they want. They can take the very foundation of your life: your career, something YOU'VE WORKED YOUR ENTIRE LIFE TO ACHIEVE and tear it to pieces before your very eyes with no accountability, no reason, and no recourse.
Instead of getting angry and bitter, why not ask yourself why you didn't get those jobs?
What makes you think I didn't? Just because I'm pointing out some of the unfairness in the "workplace?" I've had my share of these jobs.
The company was obviously hiring, or else they wouldn't have interviews.
Oh, please. That's better than expecting "loyalty from a company." Companies routinely interview with absolutely NO intention of hiring anyone. There are job listings that have been advertised UNCHANGED for YEARS at some of these companies.
They hired somebody...why not you?
I really don't know, and the hiring managers probably don't know either. My guess is that some buzzword didn't show up in the right place on the resume. It's a wonder they hire anyone.
An entertainment company released two movies last summer. Both had eight figure opening weekends, approximately two weeks apart. During those two weeks, they fired 8000 people. But that's ok, right? There's always Dice.com, right?
Yes, that is ok.
Simply amazing. The corporation can do no wrong.
But anyone expecting loyalty from an corporation is hopelessly naive.
I guess. It's a tragic, crying shame, though, and it wasn't always this way.
Unless you're physically or mentally disabled, or live in the Arctic, there's little excuse to not be employed after 10 months of full time job hunting.
I'll give you a reason: what if you're too old? That's right. Once you pass a certain age, you can't be a programmer any more. What do you do then?
Maybe you'll need to switch industries.
Yes, of course. Flush all your experience and knowledge (gained at great expense and with great effort) down the sewer and start over at entry level wages with no seniority and no knowledge after wasting (that's right, WASTING) 10 years working towards a career. Sounds great.
But people outside of the tech sector have had to do that for years. We're not above economics.
Oh, it's economics now.
Does the employer have an obligation to keep everyone they ever hired on the payroll?
No, but they have an obligation not to arbitrarily lay people off for no apparent reason other than they just felt like it. Unless the company is facing imminent bankruptcy, firing thousands of people and likely destroying their careers isn't fair.
If the employee is a good employee, he will find another company that can (ab)use him for profits.
Not necessarily. Future employers have a built-in excuse not to hire them: they were fired from their last job.
That's exactly right. As a side effect of extracting revenue, however, they propel our economy.
How's that? If all they do is bank revenue and fire people, how exactly do they "propel" the economy? Oh, well, sometimes they hire people, but most of the time it's far FAR more difficult to get hired than it is for some manager to say "sorry, you're laid off, get out."
And my only responsiblity to my employer is to cash my paycheck. My only purpose at work is to make money. My employer's motivation for keeping me around is that I make him more money than he pays me.
national unemployment is around 8% for high school dropouts, and 3% for college grads (over 25 years old).
I don't buy it for a second. Not one second. If they're employed at all, they are probably underemployed.
I have interviewed at probably four dozen companies, give or take, and I have only been asked about my degree once with the laughing question "why did you major in THAT?" Of course, there was no degree on the hiring manager's wall, and we were negotiating a salary that was a third of his.
He was also absent at my upper division finals, which would have turned what little hair he had left white. I was one of four people in a class of 80 to finish the exam. Employers could care less.
Doesn't really seem like comapnies are "firing people at random."
Apparently you missed the earlier example about a $40M/month company that laid off 4000 people right before the holidays for "strategic" reasons. Sounds random to me. I don't want to hear "well, we couldn't afford to keep them" either.
An entertainment company released two movies last summer. Both had eight figure opening weekends, approximately two weeks apart. During those two weeks, they fired 8000 people. But that's ok, right? There's always Dice.com, right?
Oh, and the motivation of profits is what keeps them from firing at random.
Must be why company stock jumps on every announcement of layoffs. People, GOOD people with years of seniority and up for promotions are FIRED with no reason or notice. I've seen people across the hall who were gainfully employed and working hard at 11:00AM and in the parking lot unemployed at 11:07AM the same day.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-company, but I've seen some pretty rotten things happen to some very good people during my "career," and there just isn't any excuse for it, unemployment statistics or no.
BTW, the median wage for programmers is around $60,000.
$40,000 after taxes. $28,000 after rent (or house payment, HA! right...) $23,000 after food $19,000 after car/gas/repairs $15,000 after utilities $6,000 after getting fired in month 8 -$9,000 after being unemployed for 10 months
Median wage at next job: $38,000
Rent, food, car, utilities don't change. Start over. Fired again after 11 months.
Median wage at next job: $31,000
Rent increases... Start over.
Year, after year, after year, after year...
House? Marraige? Kids? Impossible to afford.
You should definitely be able to save some money and have DR plans in place when making that. Most Americans live at and slightly above their means, and so take it on the chin when things turn around unexpectedly. That's not necessarily the employer's fault, however.
Some live below their means. Some do a good job, save money, do everything right, and "take it on the chin" (more like run into a granite wall) when "things turn around unexpectedly"
"You lost your job?" "Well, dear, things turned around unexpectedly"
So, I wonder if the mortgage company will understand if the house payment "turns around unexpectedly?" Somehow I doubt it. Of course, it isn't the homeowner's fault, but they'll still throw him and his financed furniture into the street.
It's not the employer's fault either. Of course not! I mean, their only purpose is to make money, right? They have no responsibility. There is no exchange here. They have no obligation except to extract revenue from the economy as efficiently and as quickly as possible, right? Does that sound about right?
People have a way of being dismissive of the observations of others that don't correspond with their own. "Well, *I* know someone who has $11,000 a day in expenses, and can't find a job and they're doing just fine." That's nice.
Good people are being fired constantly. That's the "issue."
When people lose their jobs, constantly, they do not have an opportunity to buy a home, raise a family, support a community, economy, etc. There is no sense of permanence, value or security when people can be laid off at any time, for any or no reason.
When employers bitch about their %#*&@$#)(@*# quarterly sales figures, they only need to look as far as the list of recent layoffs. Those people are the ones that would be buying their products if they didn't have to spend all their free time looking for work, or working a third job because the first two don't pay a living wage (when they aren't griping that the employee isn't devoting their entire waking attention to them)
Same as the copyright debate: the transaction is all tilted in favor of the employer/company/rights holder/whatever. They want it both ways, and they are not seeing (or never learned, probably because of their flagrant lack of overall competence) the fact that economies are exchanges: an agreement that if people are employed, they will purchase products. When people are unemployed, underemployed, or facing imminent layoffs on a continuing basis, then the whole system breaks:
1) Companies can't sell their goods. 2) More employees are laid off. 3) Government collects less taxes. 4) Capital markets can't find suitable investments. Returns are reduced. 5) Shareholders value is reduced. Dividends are reduced or canceled. 6) Vendors can't get paid. 7) Finance companies and banks can't collect their payments. 8) Housing market declines. 9) Durable goods market declines. 10) More employees get laid off.
someone else footing the bill for your retirement is naive
Unless you run your own business, someone else is always "footing the bill," thus the original problem.
You should be taking care of your own business.
An ironic statement.
Think IRAs and 401k
IRA: Max $2000/year contribution allowed. Insufficient. 401K: Only sponsored by an employer. Thus the original problem.
SEP-IRAs and Roth IRAs are probably better, but IANAFA (I am not a financial advisor)
Being unemployed for eight months out of every twelve because some random person thinks an employee isn't enough of a "team player" is the real problem.
Why would their credit be destroyed, retirement destroyed, etc? That would be poor financial planing on that particular person. I've known people in this situation, who have high rent, new car, etc and are doing fine, even though they havn't found work just yet.
That's nice. Nobody is getting this? I'm amazed. It's no wonder that people aren't grokking the problem with the job market.
If someone has enough saved to support a $1200/month apartment, $350/month car, utilties, gas, food, taxes, clothes and entertainment for months and months with no income, then good for them.
Take away their income for a year. I don't care how well they planned, they are going to be in trouble financially. The basic (and I do mean basic) cost of living is at least $1500 a month. Even with $10,000 in savings (which is the exception, not the rule), they're done in just under seven months.
At about the five month mark, when it becomes apparent that it ain't happening, bills start getting missed in favor of food and light. That's when the credit goes bye-bye.
This doesn't take a PhD in mathematics.
...and it happens to people who are among the most employable there are: college educated, highly knowledgeable, well experienced and technical people with spectacular resumes. There are thousands of them, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THEM, AND THEY ARE UNEMPLOYABLE.
UNEMPLOYABLE.
This doesn't show that large companies are just as risky as startups though.
Sure they are. What's to prevent a "large company" from just firing someone at random? What?
"But, but I was doing a good job!" "So what? Get out."
Planning for retirement should always been on people's minds
Sure, provided some company somewhere can provide its developers with the same stability as the management, HR coffee-mug crowd and front desk people.
Being laid off every six months makes it impossible to plan for anything, much less retirement. Besides, before retirement, there's weddings, honeymoons, kids, mortgages, college funds, etc. THEN you start talking about retirement. I'm always amused at mortgage companies actually expecting people to sign a 30-year mortgage in the present employment climate with a straight face.
But of course, about the time the average employee is four payments into their mortgage for a roof over the heads of their wife, two kids and a third on the way, some manager has been hard at work for months turning the office politics wheel to garner support to get them fired because in some other random person's opinion, they aren't a "team player" or they are "reevaluating the corporate strategic initiatives from the viewpoint of the new efficiency objectives." This cannot be avoided. Once the wheels start turning, there is nothing an employee can say or do to keep from losing their job. Period. They can do everything right and be everyone's best friend for the whole time they work there, and be gone in five minutes with no reason or recourse.
Three weeks later, they and their family are living on savings (if there is any), all potential employers are irrationally skeptical because only inept, unqualified or difficult employees are ever laid off (right? employees are always wrong and employers are always right), and they're left wondering why they spent all those years developing their skills and knowledge (and earning a college degree) since potential employers all seem to value their experience and education at somewhere around zero.
Slashdot Mirror
forked Windows is bad for consumers
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98SE
Windows ME
Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows CE
There is no such domain as news.com.com
www.news.com is not an active site
Is CNet not propogating their DNS records or something? com.com appears to be a travel agency.
not really going anywhere with it
*cough*
Realizing it is early, I'll only say this:
Mozilla is the finest web browser, commercial, non-commercial or otherwise, that I have ever used, even at version 0.9.9
The Javascript console alone is worth the minimal effort required to install it. Add the other features (tabs, cookies, custom Javascript) and it just puts Mozilla way ahead.
Figures.. here is the real DNS information:
; DiG 9.2.0rc3 news.com.com
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; HEADER opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 46230
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;news.com.com. IN A
Can someone please explain why zdnet and news, etc. are all on a non-existent domain?
; > DiG 9.2.0rc3 > news.com.com
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER
I don't get it. com.com seems to be some kind of travel agency. Any ideas?
(Sorry for the offtopic question)
I wonder how many current writers and filmmakers there are today who owe at least part of their ability to entertain to Gygax and D&D? I guess we'll never know; I'd bet many wouldn't admit it.
You know, there's a tremendously funny joke here about the quality of recent Hollywood writing... ahh, skip it. Everyone's thought the same thing already.
But in Runequest, there's always the chance that that nasty, grimy little broo can take down your kick-ass Rune Lord
Sounds like Civilization I and the highly amusing image of a pike-wielding phalanx wading into the crashing surf to engage a battleship... and winning.
The point is there should be no such concept as "permission denied" for an administrator. Either they are administrators or they are not. The very notion that there is some process/account/structure that must bestow permission to an administrator, even if it is their own account, redefines the role of administrator to something else.
The details are really irrelevant. The point is that the administrator should have permission to do anything, without any redundant "grant permission to myself" process involved. Anything less is in itself a security problem because there exists the possibility that the administrator can be "locked out" of a system.
If I "chmod 000" a file, then theoretically even root should not have the ability to delete it, right? It's world-non-readable/world-non-writable. Yet, root can rm -f the file with no problem, error messages, warnings, dialog boxes, requests for permission, meetings, resolutions, upgrades or "Are you sure?" questions. Why?
BECAUSE THEY ARE ROOT AND DO NOT REQUIRE PERMISSION.
but obviously MS and many others disagree
Fine. Then don't call it an "administrator" account. Call it the "Person who is sort of in charge of the machine, but we'll decide if we think they know what they are doing" account.
You go right ahead and get full rights and break it for no reason.
Break a Windows install? That happens by itself. It certainly doesn't need an administrator account.
As for Linux, I've typed a wrong command or two as root before. It happens. But not having 100% control of a system is a security hole that a cruise ship could be driven through sideways.
But root can redefine it so it can be deleted, right? That's a nice feature. Doesn't change the point.
There are things that are not only not permitted by an administrator on an NT machine, but also CANNOT BE CHANGED by the administrator on an NT machine.
Therefore, they are not administrators. Period.
For every "denied" message you get as an admin, chances are you can give yourself access to do this.
An administrator (sysadmin, root, whatever) should never be denied access to anything ever, no way, no how, zip, zilch, nada.
Without full access to the machine, and every resource on it, it is impossible to properly administrate it.
"Permission Denied" shouldn't even exist for the administrator account.
The "administrator" on a Windows box gets "permission denied" messages all the time.
Kinda makes the whole concept of "administrator" rather academic.
that we've obsoleted all our programming languages (and all programs developed with them, since they likely won't compile anymore), we'll obsolete all the existing programs too by making sure they won't work with the new file system.
Sounds great.
Manga is for all ages.
True. A lot of anime is based on manga. Shouldn't the audience be about the same?
Or CG
Well, the first movie is the characters powering up. The fight doesn't come until the second movie.
We name our systems after the characters in our games. Of course, we only have four machines, so we've got a lot of names left. ^^
How long, exactly, have you been a programmer professionally?
Just under eight years.
If so, then you are probably disillusioned by the corporate world (and rightly so). Once corporations weed out these do-nothing managers that are straight out of Dilbert, the work place will become a much more employee-friendly place.
That would be encouraging. What bothers me is that there seems to be a "so what?" or "quit yer gripin" response whenever someone complains they've been treated unfairly at work.
This is important to people: it's how they eat and keep a roof over their heads, and the way most people are casually fired anymore you'd think companies were just changing their brand of cranberry juice.
Hmmm...I would say the Bureau of Labor Statistics are about as an authoritative source on this subject as there is. I'm quite sure they're more authoritative than your anecdoctal evidence.
Still don't buy it. Employment statistics which show that 97 out of 100 people are employed are just a little hard to believe during a recession. Sorry, but it just won't fly.
We've been hearing about layoffs in the tens of thousands and bankruptcy filings for over a year now. Where are all these people working? Wal-Mart? If so, how are they making their house payments?
Those employment statistics also fail to take a number of different categories into account, such as underemployed, people who quit looking, people who start their own businesses, people who aren't taking unemployment, etc.
Perhaps they are, but they're still employed. Sometimes you'll have to weather a storm anywhere you can get to.
After being screwed out of one career-track job after another? Just buckle down and pick up that mop! Sunny days are almost here! Maybe after 10 years of washing dishes they can get back to your high-paying, highly-qualified desk just so they can get fired again for some random reason, or non-reason. Sounds great.
A lot of people who were never laid off are underemployed simply because no one will give them a chance to prove themselves. You do what you have to in order to make ends meet.
...and in the meantime just let people in the workplace do whatever they want. They can take the very foundation of your life: your career, something YOU'VE WORKED YOUR ENTIRE LIFE TO ACHIEVE and tear it to pieces before your very eyes with no accountability, no reason, and no recourse.
Instead of getting angry and bitter, why not ask yourself why you didn't get those jobs?
What makes you think I didn't? Just because I'm pointing out some of the unfairness in the "workplace?" I've had my share of these jobs.
The company was obviously hiring, or else they wouldn't have interviews.
Oh, please. That's better than expecting "loyalty from a company." Companies routinely interview with absolutely NO intention of hiring anyone. There are job listings that have been advertised UNCHANGED for YEARS at some of these companies.
They hired somebody...why not you?
I really don't know, and the hiring managers probably don't know either. My guess is that some buzzword didn't show up in the right place on the resume. It's a wonder they hire anyone.
An entertainment company released two movies last summer. Both had eight figure opening weekends, approximately two weeks apart. During those two weeks, they fired 8000 people. But that's ok, right? There's always Dice.com, right?
Yes, that is ok.
Simply amazing. The corporation can do no wrong.
But anyone expecting loyalty from an corporation is hopelessly naive.
I guess. It's a tragic, crying shame, though, and it wasn't always this way.
Unless you're physically or mentally disabled, or live in the Arctic, there's little excuse to not be employed after 10 months of full time job hunting.
I'll give you a reason: what if you're too old?
That's right. Once you pass a certain age, you can't be a programmer any more. What do you do then?
Maybe you'll need to switch industries.
Yes, of course. Flush all your experience and knowledge (gained at great expense and with great effort) down the sewer and start over at entry level wages with no seniority and no knowledge after wasting (that's right, WASTING) 10 years working towards a career. Sounds great.
But people outside of the tech sector have had to do that for years. We're not above economics.
Oh, it's economics now.
Does the employer have an obligation to keep everyone they ever hired on the payroll?
No, but they have an obligation not to arbitrarily lay people off for no apparent reason other than they just felt like it. Unless the company is facing imminent bankruptcy, firing thousands of people and likely destroying their careers isn't fair.
If the employee is a good employee, he will find another company that can (ab)use him for profits.
Not necessarily. Future employers have a built-in excuse not to hire them: they were fired from their last job.
That's exactly right. As a side effect of extracting revenue, however, they propel our economy.
How's that? If all they do is bank revenue and fire people, how exactly do they "propel" the economy? Oh, well, sometimes they hire people, but most of the time it's far FAR more difficult to get hired than it is for some manager to say "sorry, you're laid off, get out."
And my only responsiblity to my employer is to cash my paycheck. My only purpose at work is to make money. My employer's motivation for keeping me around is that I make him more money than he pays me.
Sounds adversarial. Not very productive.
Throwing money like mad into a 401(k) while you are employed will make retirement that much more comfortable.
;)
Provided you don't have to pull money out of that 401K to eat while you're unemployed (after paying a nice fat penalty, of course).
savvy employees
hmmmm... doesn't sound like a "team player"...
national unemployment is around 8% for high school dropouts, and 3% for college grads (over 25 years old).
I don't buy it for a second. Not one second. If they're employed at all, they are probably underemployed.
I have interviewed at probably four dozen companies, give or take, and I have only been asked about my degree once with the laughing question "why did you major in THAT?" Of course, there was no degree on the hiring manager's wall, and we were negotiating a salary that was a third of his.
He was also absent at my upper division finals, which would have turned what little hair he had left white. I was one of four people in a class of 80 to finish the exam. Employers could care less.
Doesn't really seem like comapnies are "firing people at random."
Apparently you missed the earlier example about a $40M/month company that laid off 4000 people right before the holidays for "strategic" reasons. Sounds random to me. I don't want to hear "well, we couldn't afford to keep them" either.
An entertainment company released two movies last summer. Both had eight figure opening weekends, approximately two weeks apart. During those two weeks, they fired 8000 people. But that's ok, right? There's always Dice.com, right?
Oh, and the motivation of profits is what keeps them from firing at random.
Must be why company stock jumps on every announcement of layoffs. People, GOOD people with years of seniority and up for promotions are FIRED with no reason or notice. I've seen people across the hall who were gainfully employed and working hard at 11:00AM and in the parking lot unemployed at 11:07AM the same day.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-company, but I've seen some pretty rotten things happen to some very good people during my "career," and there just isn't any excuse for it, unemployment statistics or no.
BTW, the median wage for programmers is around $60,000.
$40,000 after taxes.
$28,000 after rent (or house payment, HA! right...)
$23,000 after food
$19,000 after car/gas/repairs
$15,000 after utilities
$6,000 after getting fired in month 8
-$9,000 after being unemployed for 10 months
Median wage at next job: $38,000
Rent, food, car, utilities don't change. Start over. Fired again after 11 months.
Median wage at next job: $31,000
Rent increases... Start over.
Year, after year, after year, after year...
House? Marraige? Kids? Impossible to afford.
You should definitely be able to save some money and have DR plans in place when making that. Most Americans live at and slightly above their means, and so take it on the chin when things turn around unexpectedly. That's not necessarily the employer's fault, however.
Some live below their means. Some do a good job, save money, do everything right, and "take it on the chin" (more like run into a granite wall) when "things turn around unexpectedly"
"You lost your job?"
"Well, dear, things turned around unexpectedly"
So, I wonder if the mortgage company will understand if the house payment "turns around unexpectedly?" Somehow I doubt it. Of course, it isn't the homeowner's fault, but they'll still throw him and his financed furniture into the street.
It's not the employer's fault either. Of course not! I mean, their only purpose is to make money, right? They have no responsibility. There is no exchange here. They have no obligation except to extract revenue from the economy as efficiently and as quickly as possible, right? Does that sound about right?
Yes. That's nice.
People have a way of being dismissive of the observations of others that don't correspond with their own. "Well, *I* know someone who has $11,000 a day in expenses, and can't find a job and they're doing just fine." That's nice.
Good people are being fired constantly. That's the "issue."
When people lose their jobs, constantly, they do not have an opportunity to buy a home, raise a family, support a community, economy, etc.
There is no sense of permanence, value or security when people can be laid off at any time, for any or no reason.
When employers bitch about their %#*&@$#)(@*# quarterly sales figures, they only need to look as far as the list of recent layoffs. Those people are the ones that would be buying their products if they didn't have to spend all their free time looking for work, or working a third job because the first two don't pay a living wage (when they aren't griping that the employee isn't devoting their entire waking attention to them)
Same as the copyright debate: the transaction is all tilted in favor of the employer/company/rights holder/whatever. They want it both ways, and they are not seeing (or never learned, probably because of their flagrant lack of overall competence) the fact that economies are exchanges: an agreement that if people are employed, they will purchase products. When people are unemployed, underemployed, or facing imminent layoffs on a continuing basis, then the whole system breaks:
1) Companies can't sell their goods.
2) More employees are laid off.
3) Government collects less taxes.
4) Capital markets can't find suitable investments. Returns are reduced.
5) Shareholders value is reduced. Dividends are reduced or canceled.
6) Vendors can't get paid.
7) Finance companies and banks can't collect their payments.
8) Housing market declines.
9) Durable goods market declines.
10) More employees get laid off.
and so on..
someone else footing the bill for your retirement is naive
Unless you run your own business, someone else is always "footing the bill," thus the original problem.
You should be taking care of your own business.
An ironic statement.
Think IRAs and 401k
IRA: Max $2000/year contribution allowed. Insufficient.
401K: Only sponsored by an employer. Thus the original problem.
SEP-IRAs and Roth IRAs are probably better, but IANAFA (I am not a financial advisor)
Being unemployed for eight months out of every twelve because some random person thinks an employee isn't enough of a "team player" is the real problem.
Why would their credit be destroyed, retirement destroyed, etc? That would be poor financial planing on that particular person. I've known people in this situation, who have high rent, new car, etc and are doing fine, even though they havn't found work just yet.
That's nice. Nobody is getting this? I'm amazed. It's no wonder that people aren't grokking the problem with the job market.
If someone has enough saved to support a $1200/month apartment, $350/month car, utilties, gas, food, taxes, clothes and entertainment for months and months with no income, then good for them.
Take away their income for a year. I don't care how well they planned, they are going to be in trouble financially. The basic (and I do mean basic) cost of living is at least $1500 a month. Even with $10,000 in savings (which is the exception, not the rule), they're done in just under seven months.
At about the five month mark, when it becomes apparent that it ain't happening, bills start getting missed in favor of food and light. That's when the credit goes bye-bye.
This doesn't take a PhD in mathematics.
...and it happens to people who are among the most employable there are: college educated, highly knowledgeable, well experienced and technical people with spectacular resumes. There are thousands of them, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THEM, AND THEY ARE UNEMPLOYABLE.
UNEMPLOYABLE.
This doesn't show that large companies are just as risky as startups though.
Sure they are. What's to prevent a "large company" from just firing someone at random? What?
"But, but I was doing a good job!"
"So what? Get out."
Happens all the time.
Planning for retirement should always been on people's minds
Sure, provided some company somewhere can provide its developers with the same stability as the management, HR coffee-mug crowd and front desk people.
Being laid off every six months makes it impossible to plan for anything, much less retirement. Besides, before retirement, there's weddings, honeymoons, kids, mortgages, college funds, etc. THEN you start talking about retirement. I'm always amused at mortgage companies actually expecting people to sign a 30-year mortgage in the present employment climate with a straight face.
But of course, about the time the average employee is four payments into their mortgage for a roof over the heads of their wife, two kids and a third on the way, some manager has been hard at work for months turning the office politics wheel to garner support to get them fired because in some other random person's opinion, they aren't a "team player" or they are "reevaluating the corporate strategic initiatives from the viewpoint of the new efficiency objectives." This cannot be avoided. Once the wheels start turning, there is nothing an employee can say or do to keep from losing their job. Period. They can do everything right and be everyone's best friend for the whole time they work there, and be gone in five minutes with no reason or recourse.
Three weeks later, they and their family are living on savings (if there is any), all potential employers are irrationally skeptical because only inept, unqualified or difficult employees are ever laid off (right? employees are always wrong and employers are always right), and they're left wondering why they spent all those years developing their skills and knowledge (and earning a college degree) since potential employers all seem to value their experience and education at somewhere around zero.