OddTod Laid Low by the Law 276
nickynicky9doors writes "The International Herald Tribune has a NYT article on the recent woes of Tod Rosenberg who started 'Laid Off: A Day in the Life'. Mr. Rosenberg started www.oddtodd.com to tell the tale of a laid off guy who spends days watching TV and eating chips. Oddtod became so successful Mr. Rosenberg reaped cash donations and national TV exposure. Unfortunately it also brought the attention of the Department of Labor who have explained the catch of having to be actively looking for work while collecting unemployment benefits. Another dot com bust."
Victim of his own success (Score:4, Funny)
I may run into the same problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been (mostly) unemployed in NYC for almost 8 months now. I've spent much of that time on a new web project:
http://subintsoc.net [subintsoc.net]
If someone actually buys the t-shirt we've got for sale on the site, the Dept. of Labor could come after me for making money while collecting unemployment benefits. Then again, technically, it's not a dot-com...it's a dot-net. So maybe Microsoft will come after me instead...
If you visit, try the new do-it-yourself Terror Warning Generator! [subintsoc.net]
And remember, Cogito Ergo Rebello...
I am not a bum. (Score:2)
Second, as an NYC resident, I pay some of the highest taxes in the nation -- city and state taxes as well as federal. My taxes went into the government's coffers when I worked full time. Now I'm just getting some of that money back.
And I have looked for work. Tonight in fact I spent a couple hours cataloging my job search (I have an interview w/ the Labor Dept. tomorrow, and rest assured they'll cut off my benefits if I don't prove to them that I've been looking for work.)
Now, to all who call ME a shirker, stop reading
Geez, people, relax. Lose the wage slave mentality.
Stop assuming the worst of the unemployed (Score:2)
I did nothing of the sort. Of course I didn't claim benefits during the weeks when I was doing freelance work, dummkopf!
Anyway, the Dept. of Labor says my paperwork is A-OK, so I've got 13 more weeks of unemployment checks coming!
Eat your fully employed heart out.
Look, I hate to break it to you, but we are in a RECESSION. Despite your Reaganomic assumptions, those who are not working (or not working full time) are not just lazy. I've looked for work, and sometimes found it. But it's a very tough job market. Count your blessings if you have a job.
Looking for job on TV? (Score:5, Funny)
"Will work for 15 minutes of fame"
Re:Looking for job on TV? (Score:4, Informative)
www.slackers.net [slackers.net]
www.slackers.com [slackers.com]
slackers.org couldn't even be bothered to respond. :-)
Perhaps a gift... (Score:2, Funny)
Is that his voice? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is that his voice?--No.. (Score:2)
http://www.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=reali
What a loser. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What a loser. (Score:2, Funny)
So, not only did he have a pretend job, but it could look like he wasn't even good at it.
I hope the cartoons work out, as he's found something he's good at.
wow! (Score:4, Funny)
That's about 4x as much as I make as an employed college student. Somebody sign me up for unemployment!
$10/hr (Score:2)
considerably above minimum wage.
Do we have the right guy? (Score:3, Funny)
I didn't know CowboyNeal's first name was 'Todd'....
The same argument (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The same argument (Score:2)
Damn good idea IMHO, I've always wondered what the hell people were doing in a casino when they're so 'poor' that they need government assistance of any kind...
Re:Lottery (Score:2)
See, the U.S.A. taxes citizens based on citizenship, and tax-residence ("IRS: are you a resident?" "Yes" "PAY TAX!"; "INS: are you a resident?" "Er, ..." remembers what he told the IRS... "yes." "DEPORTED! for visa violation -- next!"). So an American citizen collecting lottery winning in Canada, even if a tax-resident of Canada, or a dual citizen must pay U.S. tax on them (but can deduct lottery losses against them).
It gets worse.
Because Canada does not tax lottery winnings, there is no offsetting foreign tax credit available on your Canadian taxes. There are some rare tax situations where earnings are taxed in both countries as different things, and thus no foreign tax credit relief is available: you get taxed twice Over the years, harmonization of the Canadian and U.S. tax codes has reduced the number of such situations, but there still are some nasty surprises.
Re:Lottery (Score:2)
Re:Lottery (Score:2)
Maybe... (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe he should try that?
Re:Maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maybe... (Score:2)
Simple Solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Simple Solution (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:2)
Doesn't that mean we should expect more free wifebeater t-shirts for the stars of Cops? Wouldn't it be great to see a Polo logo or a Nike Swoosh on the next drunken, pantless, 3-toothed hick?
Who does he think he is? (Score:5, Funny)
There, I beat him fair and square.
Re:Who does he think he is? (Score:2)
There, I beat him fair and square.
My flatmate beats you up, not only does he do nothing and doesn't do a show about doing nothing but he doesn't even post on slashdot about doing nothing, he just sit in front of the TV for a good deal of the day. He doesn't even do his own shopping, thanks to a broken leg. NOW, try to beat that up (humm, maybe if you have a friend in coma, or dead).
Wow... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:2, Insightful)
The department of labor is correct. They didn't penalize him for the 9k in tips. They busted him for not actively looking for a job, and while we don't know every minute of Todd's life, it sounds as if they may have been correct.
Unemployment is supposed to be a crutch, not a wheelchair. If it wasn't enough to pay the rent, and he couldn't find something that did, he should move into a smaller or cheaper apartment. If he has to take a less than desirable job while he looks for one more suiting his skills, then suck it up and do it. I had to. There is no constitutional right to an easy life.
Everybody around here is very conservative in their outlook on finanances until they get laid off. Then it's all about what they can get while they hang out waiting for their old job to come strolling by.
If bums on the street entertained me.... (Score:2)
this is advertising in it's best form - he's got talent and shows it in a form that makes people WANT to see it. I sincerly hope he gets hired... and I hope that dollar I sent him (hey that's a buck and 62 cents Canadian!) bought him another cup of java.
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
Except, those people have no right to the money they receive. They didn't put any in. This guy is just making a withdrawl from an account he's been depositing money into for who knows how long. And, he only gets to withdraw a certain % of what he put in. It's not a hand-out.
I have no problem with unemployment. It's the able bodied welfare recepients that have never worked a day in their life that piss me off. I say give them their free food, pay for their child care, their rent, their cable TV, whatever - but damnit, make them do something (anything) for it. Have them pick up garbage or mow taxpayer's lawns for free if you can't find something better for them to do.
Leave It To The Government ... (Score:4, Funny)
I can't see what the government can really do. (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking at some unemployment requirements, most of them require you to be making "contacts looking for work". If his web site has had a million visitors, well I think I could argue that he's made a million potential work contacts. I suspect if times weren't so bad in his chosen field, he probably would have had dozens of job offers by now.
After all, isn't looking for a job simply marketing? I think he's done a pretty good job at marketing, although I'm not sure what type of picture he's portrayed of himself...
Answering emails all day could also count. Perhaps he was answering emails to prove to people he could be useful. Perhaps each email is a job contact.
I could go on all day. Someone could really have fun with this....
Re:I can't see what the government can really do. (Score:4, Funny)
To be eligible for unemployment, one must actively seek work. Pretty simple. Just noting on a webpage that gets a lot of hits that you are out of work doesn't count, or else just posting a resume on Monster would get you max benefits. The last thing you want to do after you get caught is fight it out in court. Not only will you have zero chance of winning, you'll likely just annoy the gov't into seeking recovery of previous payments and even charging you with fraud. The real moral of this story is that if you are leeching off unemployment and aren't even using some of the tried and true dodges to pretend you are seeking work, then don't draw attention to yourself. I mean, if you can't even be bothered to give cash to a buddy with a business and have him then write you a check for the same amount as payment for a "consulting job" so that you can use the check as proof of seeking gainful employment, why should anyone care? That's just disrespectful.
Re:Moron (Score:2)
Exactly. When it comes down to it, UI (or EI -- Employment Insurance -- as it's called here in Canada) is a form of insurance run by the government. You pay into it from every paycheck, insuring yourself against a potential job loss. If you lose your job, you still have to jump through many hoops until you actually see any money, but that's the same with *any* insurance company.
In contrast, welfare or any other form of social assistance is a redistribution of wealth. Everyone contributes a portion of their income via taxes so that those that can't work for some reason or other don't starve.
Re:Moron (Score:2)
No fscking kidding. If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. No clue how the original post got +4 Funny. Must be a lot of clueless moderators out today.
Re:I can't see what the government can really do. (Score:2)
So, for example, in California, there are different requirements for what constitutes "actively looking for work" depending on your situation. Union members have to go through the procedures that their unions have to find them work. Workers laid off from temp jobs have to contact the temp agency and accept placements from them. When you get actual 'award letter' from California, it tells you exactly what you have to do to be "actively seeking".
I've also had experience with Georgia, which has different rules. There, people get told to make a list of employers they contact, and must go in person to fill out applications a certain number of times a week, etc. Recipients have to register with the state job search facility, stuff like that. Full details in this PDF [state.ga.us] of the Georgia "Rights and Responsibilities" pamphlet.
From the Georgia pamphlet, it looks like there are Federal regulations that require random claim audits to check on the veracity of details. It seems like some states use different methods to comply with that. When I filed in California, I specifically asked, "Do I need to keep a record of my job search, with employer names?" and the claims agent said, "No, not unless we tell you to do so." Sure enough, on the California Claim form, there's a part that says if a box has been checked on the form, you need to provide employer contact information. I document scrupulously anyway, in case I'm ever accused of UI fraud. I can show how many resumes I sent out, to whom, responses, follow-up calls, along with other things I did to find a job.
Amount of money also varies widely and doesn't corrolate to the cost of living. Until this January, California's top UI benefit was 230.00 a week -- one of the 2-3 lowest in the country, despite having one of the highest costs of living. Of course, one cannot simply move to another state to get better benefits; changing address just results in an "interstate claim". You get the amount of money you'd have gotten in the old state, with mega increased delays and hassles because it's processed through two states.
Give back the money (Score:4, Flamebait)
You too can be a drain on society! Join one of our groups listed below. Be as funny as possible while you're at it and no one will think poorly of you.
1. Rich people who file for bankruptcy
2. Able people who file for unemployment
3. Healthy people who abuse insurance claims
4. Smart people who don't apply themselves
Seriously, unemployment benefits are a lifesaver for many people who don't have the ability or the opportunity to quickly find new work. Don't be surprised if one day it gets as screwed up as medical and car insurance by people screwing the system. YOU ultimately pay for it.
Re:Give back the money (Score:2, Flamebait)
You have a problem with this?
Newsflash: Even if a company is very interested in you, it's not at all uncommon for the interview and hiring process to take nearly a month. This isn't 1999 anymore; companies can take their time and do second interviews, interview multiple candidates, etc. If you try to be even mildly selective in where you work (for example, I want a company with reasonable long-term prospects), and it can stretch to a lot longer.
Besides, living off of unemployment isn't exactly easy. Unemployment only supplements my meger savings -- it only covers 2/3 of my rent, and I have a lot of other bills and car payments to boot.
So fuck you.
Re:Give back the money (Score:2)
For the most part, even if you have a degree, you will have difficulty in finding work (though marginally better than those without paperwork or specialized skills)... We had several MAJOR companies declare bankrupcy in the last 6 months, if not die outright... What does that mean? In a job market where no less than 2 years ago was booming, you now have several dozen overqualified people applying for the same job...
On top of that, most of the things we've come to expect from the booming economy are going to suffer... From real estate through car sales, which in turn will result in a burgeoning population of "working homeless" (if you haven't been paying attention, there's several million people who *have* jobs, but cannot afford a simple home due to taking care of relatives, kids, etc, who live out of their cars, or if they're lucky enough, out of a friend's garage)...
Everyone ultimately pays for it indirectly, but don't pretend things are as bad as they are due to a few folks who're too lazy to work, a whole lot more people exist who probably work more than you, for far less pay than you would ever expect... Work a bartending or telemarketing job sometime, your official wage will be FAR below minimum wage, and your entire well being will largely depend on tips or commissions... Hardly anything I would call lazy...
Now if one was to blame anyone, how about the boatloads of IT experts who ultimately swamped the job markets, buying into an unstable employment situation, and spend every day online whining about how it's so hard to find work? What, you thought people were going to go ga ga over being able to order dog food online, when they could just drive to the local supermarket in 5 minutes and buy a can without paying shipping and credit card bills? Flip some burgers kiddies, learn what real work is...
Re:Give back the money (Score:2)
This happened in Rome too ... (Score:5, Funny)
Leave it to the Government. (Score:2, Insightful)
But i have been orderd to repay my unemployment bennifits of 2,020. When i was actively searching for work. So im in the process of appealing that.
But leave it the government to give you a helping hand and then knock you ass back down. When you decide to try and help your self.
Re:Leave it to the Government. (Score:2)
A year later and back on my feet with a real job, the unemployment thugs came after me and sent me a nasty letter asking where the money was. I ignored it and they doubled the amount I owe them, plus a hefty penalty. They basically demanded all the money back, even the money I accepted when I was properly unemployed. I "stole" $1200 and right now I owe the gov't nearly $4000.
I'd like to know what any one of those smarmy workers at the labour board would do in the same situation. They're the biggest welfare cases of them all. Social workers are gov't subsidized workers, their salary is paid completely by the tax-payer. If that's not welfare I don't know what is. Shuffle some paper, reject an applicant, collect their cheque.
in otherwords, folks . . . (Score:2)
But this guy is more important than the rest of us, so . .
The disgraceful behavior by the government here isn't demanding the stolen money back, or the penalties for not responding to proper inquiries ab out the theft, but that there was no criminal prosecution . .
hawk
Unemployment bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unemployment bullshit (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, the gvnt SHOULD solve all of your problems (Score:3, Insightful)
And now they won't get you a suitable job? The cads! When will it stop? When will the promise, nay, the guarantee of low-cost (actually, NO cost) cradle-to-grave care be realized???
Re:Yes, the gvnt SHOULD solve all of your problems (Score:2)
Re:Yes, the gvnt SHOULD solve all of your problems (Score:2)
All your taxes pay for is the cushy salaries for the unfireable government employees who misadministrate the insane rules.
Re:Unemployment bullshit (Score:2)
IMHO they should take a slightly longer view and let people collect some welfare while working, to ease the transition. The first few months are the hardest, putting out for a lot of expenses and doing it while working 50hours (with travel time).
There isn't a lot of incentive for people to try if they think they'll make the same ammount and have to work for it. If people could collect welfare fully the first month, half the next, and a quarter the next, they'd be ahead a bit. Enough that they could perhaps make themselves more employable.
IMHO we should have more programs geared towards getting people a decent job so they don't end up back on welfare, instead of just paying the minimum per month and making it easy to sit on for life.
I've never collected unemployment (never been laid off from a salaried job) but I've heard it's hell to collect. You'd think they'd make it fairly easy, after all you did have a job, it's not like it's a complete handout.
But it's much easier to blame "crack mothers" for the welfare state rather than making changes which would get rid of it.
Re:Unemployment bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now, I live in a fairly poor neighborhood. (I wanted to own my own home instead of throw away a large part of my income on rent -- but I didn't have the money for anything in a better part of town.) I work full-time and do alright (not quite as well as the message poster I'm replying to, but I'm also in the midwest, where cost of living is less) -- but I can barely get by. My wife is not working right now, and we have a kid on the way. After we got married, I started getting endless collection agency letters for her past unpaid debts (mostly medical expenses, as she had a number of medical problems in the past and no health insurance).
We can't qualify for any assistance whatsoever, so if it wasn't for the generousity of her parents (bought us all of the furniture for the baby's room and most of her clothes to start out with), I don't know what we'd do.
Meanwhile, the neighbor who moved in next door is living with her husband, getting "section 8" subsidized rent and welfare (and claiming she's not living with him, so she can be sure to qualify for everything). Neither of them ever seem to go to work, yet they bought a new car last week (giving them 3 cars, total) and always have plenty of groceries.
Their 3 kids living with them always seem to have plenty of new designer clothes and shoes, too.
Every morning when I go to work and I see that, I'm reminded what my tax dollars are paying for.
Re:Unemployment bullshit (Score:2)
I'm comming to the conclusion, that any idiot can't make it in America deserves to starve. This is the easiest country in the world to make a buck, and it would be even easier for normal folk if there wern't so many leaches.
Re:Unemployment bullshit (Score:2)
Don't feel bad about taking unemployemnt - you paid for it. It's the welfare queens with the seven bastard crack babies that are draining the system, and making life dificult for the working class.
I do consulting programming - one of my clients was tired of all the feel-good aditudes in the office and had me make the payroll system show on the pay-stub how much more money everbody would be making if it wasen't for all the taxes he had to pay. The reaction was rather interesting - most people don't even know that they pay more in taxes than the get in take-home pay.
Mcdonald's (Score:2)
Re:Mcdonald's (Score:2)
CA unemployment myths vs realities: my own story (Score:5, Insightful)
Reality: If you filed after Jan 6th, 2002, the California state employment maximum is 330.00 a week, for up to 26 weeks. You can't file again for a year, and you have to have worked a substantial amount during the benefit year to be able to get more. That's 8580.00 to last a year, before taxes. Yes, it's taxable. That's well below the national "poverty line".
Myth 2: Well, still, it's enough to live on, you lucky fuck.
Reality: Maybe where you live, but not everywhere. In most major cities in the US, it's not enough for basic living expenses. Move to the country? Well, there aren't any jobs there, either, and less infrastructure. Oh, and if you have any other expenses, you're pretty much screwed. For example, I pay 100.00 a week in child support (a very modest sum), so I have to live on 230.00 a week. If I had a car payment, student loans, or other debts, I'd be toast. As it is, my lease locks me into over 1500.00 a month in rent. Hey, you do the math -- it's pretty grim.
Myth 3: You're better off getting a job at Wal-mart or something.
Reality: A "good" basic job might pay the same as the unemployment, but it'll also eat 40 hours a week of job-hunting time -- and management at that McJob isn't going to let you go on interviews every other day, either. Even if the McJob might pay a little more, it may hinder your ability to get Work In Your Field, which is a net loss in the long term.
Myth: People on unemployment are lazy anyway.
Reality: A lot of people treat job hunting as a full time job in and of itself, spending hours a day sending out resumes, querying employers, researching, etc. Do they sometimes get depressed and do nothing? Sure -- and that's perfectly normal for such a demoralizing, life-changing event.
Myth: You're supposed to take any job you can get.
Reality: In California, at least, there is no expectation that you will "take any job". The state expects you to look for work in your field, and to accept a reasonable offer of work, or explain to their satisfaction why you didn't. A job offer asking you to move 2000 miles is not reasonable, but one with a 20 percent cut in pay may be.
I could go on and on here, but the bottom line is, it's not a day in the park. I'm one of those people trying to do the best I can to get a job, while working to improve my chances -- which can be tough. For example, I had to get special permission from the State to take college credit classes -- they had to be things that would help me gain job skills, and I couldn't take the classes during any time that would prevent me from working or looking for work. I ended up taking internet-based community college courses that required no deadlines or class meetings.
People have asked me, "So, that Odd Todd thing, is that how it is?" and I've told them that it's a lot like that, yeah. I get up and I feel crappy that I can't find a job. Like many of my unemployed friends, I don't go out the way I used to because it costs money. There's a lot of inertia involved -- but it's not about laziness and it's not about "scamming the system." It's just about unfortunate economic realities, folks.
Re:CA unemployment myths vs realities: my own stor (Score:2, Insightful)
Compared to UK, you are lucky (Score:2, Informative)
Compared to around £50 (c.$75) a week in the UK [dss.gov.uk] (with higher cost of living in London than in most US cities), this sounds great.
Quit moaning.
Re:Compared to UK, you are lucky (Score:2)
You say that, but in Virginia at least, you can't draw more unemployment than you've paid into the system. In the UK, even if you haven't contributed a penny in taxes, the taxpayer foots the bill for your dole - forever. There should be a law like this in the UK, or at least a maximum time that you can draw unemployment for before you get cut off. The system as it is is far too open to abuse - which is why the welfare state alone costs over 1/3 of the tax paid.
Re:CA unemployment myths vs realities: my own stor (Score:5, Interesting)
Myth 6: The benefits system has any kind of internal consistency.
Reality:
I was pretty young and naieve then, you can tell. The trouble was that I didn't understand that the system is set up to support binary states: In work. Out of work. Nothing in the middle, no gray areas. You practically have to lie through your teeth (with the state's tacit collusion) to get enough to live on, and at some point when you get a job that pays a living wage, you're expected to stop lying.
Trouble is, once you get used to the idea that pretty much everybody in the benefits system is involved in a huge scam (and that the benefits office colludes out of compassion), it begs the question: at what point exactly does it become wrong to lie, when at $1 a week less, it was OK?
Re:CA unemployment myths vs realities: my own stor (Score:2, Interesting)
Welfare Social Worker: Okay, so you're filing for aid because you are unemployed and denied compensation, so you have no income and no assets.
Me: Yes.
Social Worker: Under Welfare rules, you're an "ABOD", an able-bodied worker. So you're ineligible for aid.
Me: But I'm not getting Unemployment because I was fired for being disabled. Disabled people can't get unemployment.
Social Worker: Are you disabled, or can you work?
Me: I can work, but I'm covered under the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Social Worker: Then no benefits for you! *bam*
Cut to State Unemployment office
Unemployment caseworker: So you were fired because you were disabled.
Me: Right.
Caseworker: Well, if you were fired for being disabled, then that would count as an unfair firing, so you'd be elible for benefits....
Me: *dazed hungry look* Yes?
Caseworker: But if it *was* unfair, then you must really be disabled. If you are, you don't qualify for Unemployment Compensation.
Me: And if I weren't disabled?
Caseworker: Then you were fired fairly. Either way, NO benefits for you!
Me: Ummmmm.....
Caseworker: Have you tried the welfare office?
Back at the Welfare office...
Welfare Social Worker: Good news! You don't qualify for most aid, but we CAN give you food stamps.
Me: Well, that'll help. Now if only I can find a way to pay my rent before I get evicted...
Welfare Social Worker: Oh no! If someone gives you money to pay rent or utilities, that will affect your food stamps. You have to report any money over 25.00, and we'll deduct that from the food stamps.
Me:So, I qualify only if I promise not to pay the rent or utilities?
Welfare Social Worker: Exactly! Have a nice day!
Completely fucked. *laugh*
Re:CA unemployment myths vs realities: my own stor (Score:2, Insightful)
basically my point... Live somewhere where the cost of living is sane. No-place in california is sane.... Hell where in california can you live on waterfront property for less than $700.00 a month?.. they wont rent you a campsite for that. my suggestion is to pack up and get the hell out of that state. your chances of a better life rise dramatically when you start driving east.
Re:CA unemployment myths vs realities: my own stor (Score:3, Funny)
I see this working...
Welfare Social Worker: So you got laid off in California and you moved here to collect benifits?
Me:Yes, A poster on slashdot told me it was cheaper to rent here.
Welfare Social Worker: You know you have to live and work in THIS state for X months before you can collect benifits from our state?
Me:You mean that poster didn't think seriously about it before he said it?
Welfare Social Worker: Exactly! Have a nice day!
Re:CA unemployment myths vs realities: my own stor (Score:3, Insightful)
In fairness, though, unemployment is meant to keep you afloat from week to week while you look for a job. It's not not meant to be a long-term anti-poverty program (those exist but unemployment isn't one) and it's misleading to talk about as a year's pay.
Not to disparage you or anyone who is out of work -- some of my friends are going though the same thing and it breaks my heart to watch. I wish I could be more positive, but I think the reality is that the days of high-paying web development and admin jobs for high school dropouts and liberal arts majors are over, and they're never coming back.
AMEN, BROTHER (Score:2)
I've battled the blues almost every day of this depressing time. It didn't help that my city (New York) was ATTACKED and virtually shut down during the month of September. Also, my grandfather died right after I was laid off, my wife and I had to move to a lower-rent apartment, I injured myself during the move, and one of our pets contracted a life-threatening illness. Of course I have nothing to complain about compared to the people I know who lost someone in the World Trade Center. But this whole city has been a really rough place for the last several months.
Working on Subintsoc.net [subintsoc.net] and other non-paying web projects (such as MiamiStories.com [miamistories.com]) during times that I couldn't get paying work has really helped preserve my morale and sanity, as well as honing my skills and adding to my resume.
It sucks not to be able to do what you're good at, and what you used to get paid well for. Sometimes doing it for free, and hopefully providing some entertainment to the world in the bargain, is a good way to go.
Re:CA unemployment myths vs realities: my own stor (Score:2)
Stop your bellyaching (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop waiting for the government to solve your problems for you.
Whoa (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe he got dumped by his wife. Maybe she cheated on him and then got a nice settlement. Maybe it's a she, and these conditions are reversed. Or maybe they never got married. You can't know what the truth is simply from the fact that the poster pays child support - but yet you rush to judgment about his (her) lifestyle choices.
Lots of people shirk their child-support responsibilities (and not just the "deadbeat dads" the media like to talk about). Here's someone who is trying to be responsible!
Re:Stop your bellyaching (Score:2)
He's not. He's only asking for his money back - money he put into the system fair and square. If the government hadn't taken that money out of his paycheck for years for exactly this purpose, I would have no sympathy for him. But, since he's only getting the money back that he already paid in, I'm on his side. At least it's not coming out of MY paycheck, as it would be if he were on welfare.
As for your baby comment, well, someone else already responded to that just like I would have. You don't know the details of that and the divorce may have been his wife's doing.
Re:CA unemployment myths vs realities: my own stor (Score:4, Informative)
What's more, almost no Wal-Mart or K-Mart or any other retail store is going to give you a full-time job. You'll be stuck at 25 hours a week, maximum, because if they let you work any more they'd have to pay you benefits--and they'd rather have twice as many half-time workers and not pay the benefits.
Re:CA unemployment myths vs realities: my own stor (Score:2)
Re:CA unemployment myths vs realities: my own stor (Score:2)
Yes, let us not forget Bernard Shifman. [petemoss.com]
Re:CA unemployment myths vs realities: my own stor (Score:2)
Because when his unemployment runs out, he'll be making $0/week? Also, I don't know the structure of benefits under unemployment, would working at Wal-Mart give him better health care, etc?
If I were him this would be my strategy (Score:2)
Oh, the new donations!!!
Perfect example of the late dotcom economy? (Score:4, Funny)
Step 1: Register domain name.
Step 2: ??????????
Step 3: Profit!
Sigh... (Score:2, Insightful)
I actually *agree* the labor deptartment on this one. I mean, the purpose of unemployment benefits is to cushion the edge of being laid off and give you a little something until you get back on your feet. If you aren't looking for work, you're cheating the system and the community -- what's to stop everybody from freeloading? Hence, the rule seems a sort of necessity. He should have expect the man to come down on him from the time his website became popular - I mean, don't they always?
Just my $.02
Bums (Score:2)
"Odd Todd" Rosenberg does out-of-work programmers a big f*cking favor just when they most needed it.
So stop eating those chips and send Todd the money you save. And while you're down at the post-office, stop off at Starbucks and get a real job so you can afford to send the poor guy more because, for cryin' out loud -- he deserves it.
It's FICTION, folks. (Score:3)
Besides, setting up a website that generates lots of traffic in order to promote oneself is in my opinion an EXCELLENT way to seek employment.
Hopeless (Score:3)
This guy was supposed to have been head of business development at a dot com but you'd never know it from looking at his Web site [oddtodd.com]. His sad sack sense of humour may have gotten him some sympathy and attention but I doubt if an employer would hand him responsibility based on what they see at his site.
If he's in business development you'd expect him at least to use the success of the site to promote his skills to a potential employer. There's not even a resumé. He actually has some ads at the bottom of the home page and buried behind a link called Odd Todd Officials, but even when you find them they're so poorly done you're not sure what you're looking at.
From the point of view of getting a job, his site is worse than useless. Let's see how his goofy outlook holds up after another few months of eating potatochips.
It's Interesting To Note... (Score:2)
What does that mean? He probably was a good director of business, who was screwed because his superiors were idiots. He's actually demonstrated real good business sense here and a company would probably do well to hire him to run their dot.com.
About not spending all of your time on the site (Score:3, Insightful)
The article said "unemployed people are supposed to be actively looking for work, not spending all of their time answering e-mail, drawing cartoons and getting interviewed on television about being unemployed."
Well, what does Todd say on a page behind a like entitled "Gimme a JOB" [oddtodd.com]? "you'd have to really pay me alot to take me off schedule on producing cartoons for this site."
Sounds to me like they have a case.
Cheers,
Philip
When is the MPAA and RIAA gonna go after him? (Score:2)
although, on a similar note... Does Spongebob Squarepants fall under the MPAA balloon? or would Nickelodeon just go to his house and fill it with that green-substance they keep pouring on people?
Who is complaining about meager benefits? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am wondering if they are the same people who, a year and a half ago, were all buying copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and constantly posting to slashdot that government has no business taxing the wealthy (and therefore deserving) to help out the poor (who should just get up and start their own businesses).
The reason I wonder is that there seem to be fewer Randroids, "you don't work... you don't eat" people, people who complain and whine that underemployed people complain and whine. And there are more people talking about inadequate unemployment benefits, and how the government should help people pay their rent and food while they go to school to improve their job skills.
I know that it could be a coincidence, but I keep wondering if they are the same people.
Re:Who is complaining about meager benefits? (Score:2)
AMEN AMEN AMEN. Thank you. (Score:2)
You have hit the nail on the head - Bay Area types who think owning a 3-series BMW and having their own apartment in the Marina District constitute the lowest acceptable standard of living. $1500 a month? You can move to Milpitas for $750 a month and still be in driving distance to all the same jobs.
I am wondering if they are the same people who, a year and a half ago, were all buying copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and constantly posting to slashdot that government has no business taxing the wealthy (and therefore deserving) to help out the poor (who should just get up and start their own businesses)
Amen. This site gets so pompus and smug about its so-called agenda, its very amusing. You can boil it down to one theme:ME ME ME ME ME. Whatever is best for ME ME ME ME ME right now is what constitutes the /. agenda.
Re:AMEN AMEN AMEN. Thank you. (Score:2, Insightful)
This site gets so pompus and smug about its so-called agenda, its very amusing. You can boil it down to one theme:ME ME ME ME
So, technologically capable young people are elitist oligarchy when they complain about taxes, and undeserving hypocritical scum when they stand in need.
I only hope all of us can aspire to your notions of equality.
Re:AMEN AMEN AMEN. Thank you. (Score:2)
Re-read his post. It's not like he wants that expensive apartment now; He said he is locked into a lease at that price. I suppose he could break it, but then the landlord would levy a big fat fine and sick collections on him.
A friend of mine was making $12 an hour and bought a new car with $300/month payments. His wife had to have emergency surgery a month before his health benefits kicked in at his new job, and they took a $12k hit. They couldn't afford to pay it so they looked to the state for help. Their response? "Sell the car." Sure, that would be nice, except he still owed $16k, the car was now worth $14k, so if he sold it he would have to find a $2k loan to pay the difference (good luck with $12k of debt against him) AND would have no way of getting to work.
This guy is in a similar situation. He signed the lease for the apartment when he could afford it. Now he can't, but he can't break the lease, either. At least in his case, the government is helping somewhat. My friend couldn't get a fscking dime and the hospital was threatening to tack on thousands more in fees and destroy his credit.
He ended up getting his parents to cosign on a large credit card and dumped the balance onto it. He was barely able to make the payments, but it was either that or tell the hospital to fsck off and kiss his credit goodbye. Sold the car a year later when the payments caught up with depreciation and got $500 back to buy a beater with. Still took him 5 years to pay the credit card off.
Nope... (Score:2)
You asked.
Us vs We (Score:2)
------------------
It depends who you're talkin' to/to whom you are talking and how colloquial the situation is. Us linguists call 'we' the 'subjective case' or 'nominative case' and 'us' the 'objective case' or 'accusative case'. The modern colloquial tendency in nearly all varieties of English is to use the objective case everywhere *except* in unadorned position immediately before the verb (Us linguists call
Jim
--
James L. Fidelholtz e-mail: jfidel@siu.buap.mx
Posgrado en Ciencias del Lenguaje tel.: +(52-2)229-5500 x5705
Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades fax: +(01-2) 229-5681
Benemrita Universidad Autnoma de Puebla, MXICO
Re:Who is complaining about meager benefits? (Score:2)
If he uses is brain he's home free ... (Score:2)
Nowhere does it say that one must spend all waking hours looking for work, so he can simply say it's his hobby, and that he did it in additon to looking for work as required. Anything he put on the site stating he was goofing off can be chaulked up to the concept of fiction and poetic liscence (or does the DOL think there really is a guy named Charlie Brown who keeps falling on his back when Lucy pulls the football away?
This ones a no brainer
Dont they document... (Score:2)
WA State Law (Score:2)
The first time, everyone had to apply in person for the first week. While waiting for the office to open, I stood outside and talked to some people who had collected unemployment a lot before. They talked about cheating the system; they copied business names from a phone book to make them their contacts. Due to widespread scamming of that system, the agency gave up for a while and just said that you had to be looking.
My last time of unemployment was in summer 2000. The system had changed again. You had to list your three contacts every week on a form that - in theory - could be audited. I wasn't. Three contacts a week didn't exactly take long. If Tod was as worried about his situation as he said he was, I'd be surprised if he didn't try calling a recruiter or two a week. Do that and all of a sudden you're legal.
on a side note (Score:2)
It just pisses me off that I am being encouraged by the government not to work, or even work less hours.
bah.
Looking for a job (Score:4, Funny)
I would know.
You send 3 million resume's out to the world no one calls.
As a goof I listed as experience:
God/Emporer Of Networing
One company called and wanted to know what that entailed...
"You know, setting upsacrifices, virgin burning, the usual."
I don't blame this guy for blowing off a little steam.
California $230 per week (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:California $230 per week (Score:2)
Supposedly they're going to make the higher amount retroactive to 9/11/01 for "workers displaced by the WTC disaster".
This guy has a *great* attitude - not (Score:2)
You'd have to really pay him a lot to make him do something that would stop him from working on his precious site? Cripes, he's really putting across the right attitude to potential employers! 'If you aren't going to give me $40k a year, go away and let me get on with my site!'
Frankly, this guy's attitude stinks.
Re:the peanut gallery cometh... (Score:2)
If you smear the ink with the right wording you can get past the idiots in Human Resources and get in front of someone that has a clue and knows that CS degrees are worthless to begin with... you need to be born a programmer you cant learn it.
read up on how to make killer resumes, and NEVER EVER send a resume to a human resource department.. social engineer your way to the person in charge of the department you want to hire in to. get THAT person your resume.