Comment Re:50 years later... (Score 1) 207
How about this one?
How about this one?
You don't consider it serious that you're essentially indentured servants of corporations and that they can easily circumvent due process and force you into settling on their terms?
O... kay...
Yeah, there's a lot of lamenting, but face it, it's tantamount to complaining that the Beef Wellington isn't exactly medium on point where everyone around you is starving to death.
Compared to the problems you face, we're actually, I hate to say it, pretty well off.
You are aware that the replacement rate of young people is not up to what it used to be, yes? For every 5 people you fire, you can only hire 4 new ones.
In a red state, the money would just be embezzled and then some semblance of the project is realized, preferably in a way that nobody can or would ever use, so nobody notices it's unusable.
You have to drive them horizontally. Not vertically.
Of course you're breaking ground if you slam a high speed train right into it. Jeesh.
We are talking about an IT person getting fired for being "too old". The athlete is something that was compared to.
What makes you think that someone who is considered "too old" at 35 for an IT job would get some other job?
Do I really have to explain how analogies work?
It's less that, it's more that I can't just tell me to fuck off and leave. That works in an abusive relationship, but what can you do if you notice you share a body with an asshole?
It's harder to exploit older people, that's true.
They have already heard all the bullshit and empty promises and just don't fall for them anymore.
And even if you fire most 35 year olds, there is always a need for someone to train the next generation of layoffs.
But like with coaches and trainers, you need far fewer than you need players.
You think?
Tell me one good reason why I would not put such a clause in a burger flipper job contract to ensure my burger flipper will think twice before bailing from the horrible boss I am, knowing he will never flip a burger again if he does, and he already has a non-compete from his time at Target.
There are only so many no-skill jobs in a town, and once you're barred from all of them by ridiculous non-compete clauses, you have to stay with that last one that gang-pressed you into indentured service, because you have no way out anymore.
What exactly is sensible about that? You're punishing someone for creating a successful business by disallowing him to compete with the company that was stupid enough to buy it from him.
The idea of the EU, and one of the few ideas hatched by politicians that actually worked out 100% perfectly, was to intertwine and mix the economies of European countries so deeply that it would be economic suicide for anyone to go to war with a neighbor.
Germany and France have been at war, on and off, since the partition of the Frankish Empire into an eastern and western part, somewhere in the 9th century. Those (almost) 80 years of peace between these two countries that we had for the past (almost) 80 years are unprecedented in recorded history.
That "dirt cheap medical care" is paid for by about 5-10% of your income.
That's quite a bit of money, but I still think I'm somehow better off losing money in that deal because making a net profit on this would mean my body is really fucked up.
That's pretty much the point, they can NOT get a "regular job" because, like everyone else, they get fired when they're 35.
Did you even read the original story? Or do you just browse comments based on the comment's content without bothering with the story that's being commented on?
Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.