Latest List of Layoffs Over Last 4 Months:

1. Twitch: 35% of workforce
2. Hasbro: 20% of workforce
3. Spotify: 17% of workforce
4. Levi's: 15% of workforce
5. Zerox: 15% of workforce
6. Qualtrics: 14% of workforce
7. Wayfair: 13% of workforce
8. Tesla: 10% of workforce
9. Duolingo: 10% of workforce
10. Washington Post: 10% of workforce
11. Snapchat: 10% of workforce
12. eBay: 9% of workforce
13. PayPal: 9% of workforce
14. Business Insider: 8% of workforce
15. Charles Schwab: 6% of workforce
16. Macy's: 4% of workforce
17. Blackrock: 3% of workforce
18. Citigroup: 20,000 employees
19. UPS: 12,000 employees
20. Cisco: "Thousands" of employees

In 2024, we have already seen 74,000 tech layoffs alone with well over 200,000 across all industries.

Last month, the US added a whopping 691,000 part-time jobs while LOSING 6,000 full-time jobs.

Is the labor market finally starting to soften?

1) in the 50’s, the time period MAGA wants to return to, colleges were often free with higher admission standards. Do you advocate free college for anyone qualified?

2) there’s a shock

3) that goes for abortions too, if you really want it you’ll find a way, but the “ways” left are all dangerous.

4) you said he was successful despite the fact that he left high school to support his family before…but ok, now he graduated public high school, and is the smartest man you know. Telling.
My mother graduated Rice university Suma Cum Laude then returned for a masters in English. Dad graduated in the top 1% of his class from Stanford with a chemistry major, then started a highly successful international high tech insulation company making insulation for nuclear power plants in the 70’s. (Your dad may have worked for my dad. Is his name Frank F?)

5) Neither could have succeeded as they did if they had to pay today’s rates for college, or if each had hundreds of thousands in debt to pay back. Both scored 1590 on their SAT. Neither got scholarships or loans (Rice was free, dad’s parents and part time jobs paid for Stanford). Neither “fucked around”.

6) Colleges charge more because people will pay it, because a degree is an absolute necessity to be successful in the business world (unless you inherit tens of millions). If you drop the amount people can borrow for school, they’ll just accept intellectually poorer students (like you) that CAN pay. Supply and demand….that doesn’t mean you discount your in high demand product because your preferred customer can’t afford it so long as someone can. Duh.

As a child I played with matches up in the attic of our house. The matches were book matches from a funeral home my father worked for as a part time job when he was off duty as a cop. The cover of the matches had a black glossy finish.

Dad found the matches while cleaning out the attic. Dad called my name from upstairs and I headed that way.

His first question to me was, "Were you playing with matches up here?"

His second question was, "Are you lying?"

His third question was, "Are you lying?"

His last question was, "I'm only going to ask you one more time. If you lie to me I'm taking you down to city hall and lock you up. Were you playing with matches up here?"

He grabbed my hand and turned it palm up. He pulled out the pack of matches and picked up some floor sweepings then sprinkled it on the black glossy cover. And DAMN! wouldn't you know it. There stood a perfectly proud little fingerprint. It matched the one on my hand. (I guess. I never brought a lawyer.)

Out to the car we went. I was on my way to jail which gave me about five minutes to rethink my answer. The closer we got, the bigger my fears grew. He made the last turn onto the street for city hall.

I cracked! "I did it. I was playing with the matches." I confessed.

My answer was my Get Out of Jail Free card.

Many years later I brought up that day with my dad. He confessed that he had no idea what he was going to do if I didn't crack.

My only reply to him was, "You bastard!" We both laughed together.

I'm OK. I got my own issues and still unemployed (maybe get a part-time job tomorrow?).

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

The only remotely effective interview I remember was when I was seeeking a student, part-time job. The boss asked a few questions, then told me "you'lll be workng with Michael, here he is, fix something", and we commenced to debug some problem he was having. Sadly, last time I got a job without actually knowing someone ahead of time.

Makes me wonder, what is a typical interview question for a school principal, or a plumber, or a Walmart greeeter ....

Using that 'logic', does it not make MORE sense then to start by killing all non-mentally ill violent people, because they pose the same threat to others and the same obstacles to success in life (or even more, since medical records are private but criminal records are not) but have NO chance of being 'cured' since they aren't 'sick', while the mentally ill might just need the right dose of medication to be cured?

How might you possibly know the potential rewards of a 'cured' psychotic? Once cured, they have the same opportunities as anyone else with the same skill sets.

And to address something that I tried to ignore from your earlier post, what's your problem with the custodial field? It's a great job with fairly good pay for good honest work, often on a flexible schedule with good benefits. The best job I ever had was as a janitor at a doctors office, I made around $25-$30 an hour (which, where I live, is over double the average pay rate) for a part time job I could do any time between 9pm and 6am, but usually took only 2 hours (4 when I took over a second office). Not only that, it's a necessary position in any business with over 5 people. I don't agree at all with your insinuation that the lives of people with that job are "mediocre" and they are really better off dead, and instead I just find it insulting in the extreme.

I thought the video made a good point, but rather different from the one I assumed it was going for before watching.

As I was finishing up my senior year of High School after 4 years of taking crap for being a nerd etc., a friend/acquaintance of mine was starting her freshman year. She got picked on also, probably worse than I had had it. She made it through 1 semester before dropping out. Then she got a part time job for a half-year, took night classes at the local community college, and got her GED.

At the time, I thought she was making a terrible decision by not sticking it out and trying to get through High School the usual way -- 4 years of hell. But then, the next year she ended up at the same University where I was, both as Uni-freshmen, and she handled the much more mature University environment just fine.

It ended up completely turning the tables for me, to the point that I thought that her path of dropping out -> GED -> Uni was actually objectively superior to my suffering through the more traditional path.

So, that's what I thought "don't stay in school" was going to refer to.


But the actual message is good as well. The best classes that I had in Middle and High School were more practical things. But oddly enough, the best examples of that for me were my math classes. I had the same teacher for Geometry, Algebra 2, Pre-Calc, and Calculus (AP, so equivalent to Calc 1 at a University). He stressed the real-life applications of advanced mathematics by doing lots of word problems, and only teaching topics that he could point to concrete, real-world applications for. And by letting us use calculators for everything as long as we could explain WHY specific operations were needed to answer the questions.


...So, long-winded response boiled down:
I like the message. More practical stuff in school is better. And feel free to drop out -- especially if doing so is just a shortcut to further education at a University, Vo-Tech, or whatever.

Comparing by industry and level of education is not sufficient to really see what is going on, unfortunately. Two people could work in the same industry, in completely different jobs. Two people could have bachelor's degrees, in completely different fields. As it happens these are two of the major contributors to the gap. I've seen it both in my life, and in this study, from just a few years ago. It concludes that the gap is between 5 and 7% for equivalent employees. That means people with similar credentials performing similar jobs. Here is the study http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Here are the reasons for the discrepancies, as they see them, in no particular order:
- More men than women tend to get educations in fields that pay more (ie. engineering vs teaching).
- More women work at part time jobs, which tend to have lower wages.
- More women tend to take parental leave.
- Women tend to place more value in the non-monetary dimension of a job than men (benefits, location, etc).

Sure, people shouldn't be punished for their gender. On the surface everyone would obviously agree with that statement I believe. If you dig a bit deeper though it's not so clear. Imagine it from the side of the employer. You have two candidates for a job, one that is statistically more likely to leave work for one or more extended periods. Each time that happens, it will cost you X$ to fill the void left. Divide that cost over the average term of employment, and you have a pretty strong case for a wage gap. Now, imagine that the decision was made for the company to ignore this cost, and simply swallow it. Assuming that they don't just increase their payroll budget to float it, we'll see wages for other people, completely unrelated to the issue cut so as to make room for it. Is that injustice more to your taste? It's worth mentioning that it would provide a clear quantifiable justification for hiring men over women.

Hey @enoch,

> dude,
> i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

Sure, not a problem. It's a complex issue, and requires the time to consider and understand the details.

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither.
> IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

Uh-oh, I hope this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.. That is, "since we cannot have a free market lets go for full-blown socialism because it is supposedly better than fascism." It's a false choice and not one I think any true humanitarian would be willing to entertain.

> "should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market? police?
> firefighters? roads?"

In short, yes. Aversion to socialism is based on reality, in contrast to what you're saying. Socialism is failure. Central planning inevitably fails. Central planners do not have the required knowledge to plan an economy. You need economic calculation and economic calculation is impossible to achieve in a socialist "economy."

> "to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your
> arguments you disagree. ok..we both have that right."

Are you trying to conflate "socialized healthcare" with health? Let's not confuse the facts with personal attacks. You seem to be saying, "if you are against socialism you are against health." That makes no sense. None.
I might as well say, "If you are against free markets you are against health."

> "my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized
> society. in my opinion health care is one of them."

In no way did I ever say that I am against healthcare. So what are you talking about?

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither."

You cannot have a free market without liberty any more than you can have liberty without liberty. This is obvious, so?

> "IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

So, if we had a free market, you wouldn't be "against" a free market? Hmm.

> "the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is
> mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged
> into one giant behemoth (plutocracy)."

That's fine, but this is not a matter of "feeling" but a matter of economic reality and empirical evidence and deductive truth.

> "i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism""

Perhaps some economic education will clarify things. Understanding economic calculation, for example, might be a good place to start.

> "i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you."

You're wrong. For one thing, while I do work at a significant fee for my primary clients, I do a significant amount of pro bono work, as a choice, and because I, like you, believe that health care is a human right. And that's a key point you need to understand. You seem to believe that, if the state doesn't take care of people, then no one will, and so we need to steal money from people in the form of taxes, under the auspices of "helping the poor," when in fact, the bureaucrats ensure that only a portion (if any) of those taxes actually arrive with their intended recipients while those who would willingly help those people themselves are deprived of the resources to do so, by depleting their income with said taxes. It's an unnecessary middleman, and faulty logic. The fact that people have, do, and will continue to care about people is the fundamental fact the needs to be understood. As a "man of faith," I would hope that you have enough faith in other people that they would care about and for others (even without being coerced by the government to do so, by force).

Furthermore, we have to apply the free market in toto, not half-assed. You can't have a Keynesian corporatists and an over-regulated system and expect that people will be be able to afford healthcare. The fact is that in a free market, the number of people who cannot afford my services would actually decrease considerably, because many more options would arise for those who still couldn't afford me would but need my services.

> "in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
> the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill."

The free market has ways of dealing with all of these. And yes some win, some lose. But in a socialist system, everyone loses (except for maybe the rulers and their lackeys). This seems, again, to be coming from a place of fear, a sense of helplessness without the government. But alas, nothing contributes to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness more than government does. Fact.

> "the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no
> better,possibly worse in such a system."

So, what is your proof that the poor will have it worse? How do you know? Or is this what you "feel" would be the case?

> "the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in
> place."

So was slavery when the South decided they wanted to keep it.

> "two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
> 1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
> 2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate
> drug prices"

1. Yes, the government would have a monopoly on health coverage, and by extension all of healthcare. Economic calculation at this point becomes utterly impossible. Chaos follows. And healthcare quality and service plummets. I have research studies to support this if you're interested.

2. Why not nationalize pharmaceuticals while you are at it?

> "i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit
> health care will still have similar results as our current because
> the poor and working poor population is growing."

Without appealing to moral superiority, allow me to assure you that there is nothing -- not one thing -- that is moral or ethical about allowing the government coerce, aggress, commit violence, and violate individual's inalienable rights to self-ownership and property rights, as you proposing with such socialist "solutions." In my humble opinion, a true man of faith would not stand for such things, but would stand against them.

> "the poor and working poor population is growing."

Indeed we do, and we all have inflation, cronyism, Lord Keynes' bogus economic "system" and government's meddling to thank for this.

> "i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done
> collectively."

By "collectively," I assume you mean "by central authorities," yes? Because the free market is, in fact, collective. But there is nothing "collective" about central planning. Except for the fact that the "collective" is mandated to obey the dictates of the central planners.

> "its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do."

1. Whatever your "feelings" are about it, there is an economic reality to deal with. Such a sentiment misses the point, and will result in hurting more people than it helps.

2. There is nothing "human" (or humane) in aggression, coercion, and violations of sovereignty, all of which underpins an implementation of a socialized system.

"The right thing to do" is to respect self-ownership and property rights. Doing anything else will eventually backfire. "People are not chessmen you move on a board at your whim."

Any one who is serious about contributing to solving and/or ameliorating the issues of poverty, homelessness, and/or mental illness and many of the other symptoms of our social detritus, needs to develop real, sustainable free market solutions to these. Otherwise, their efforts will be in vain (even if -- or perhaps especially if -- they are adopted by government for implementation). Anything else will not improve any of these but will only serve to make matters worse.

Going back to the basics, free market competition will always provide better goods/services at lower prices than the monopolies (fostered and engendered by the lack of economic calculations due to governmental intervention and regulations). Healthcare is no exception to this. Why would it be? Furthermore, why believe that the central planners/kleptocrats aren't profit-driven? Why believe that a "government" monopoly doesn't suffer from a lack of economic calculation? And what's wrong with being profit-driven, however you may individually define "profit?" Do you/I/we not act for what you/I/we consider the best? (Having faith is not a part-time job.)

Do you not act to achieve desired goals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't fully thought things through. But as I'm sure you know, "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."

> "thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few
> hours but i dont want to bore you. always a pleasure my friend.
> namaste"

It's not boring, but does take a bit of time to consider and understand all of the details. It's complex, and certainly a challenge to navigate your way through the morass of rhetoric, conditioning, and cultural misdirection that is pervasive in our society, especially when considering what passes for "news" and "facts." This is particularly true with regards to the economy, which is heavily politicized, despite being a rational science that can be understood if one takes the time to learn about its mechanism.

Since you signed off with "namaste," perhaps it would be worth reminding you that the first principle of yoga is "ahimsa para dharma" : non-violence is the highest duty.

Perhaps videosift isn't the best medium in which to educate people on non-violence and economics, but alas, it can be entertaining and, possibly have have some positive effect at some point.

Hope this helps.

Getting even part time minimum wage work can take months, at least where I live. When McDonalds had a hiring day for all their locations in the area, there were huge lines of people hoping to get a job there. I counted close to twenty at the one I was at (which was a fairly small McDonalds compared to the rest in the area), most of them twenty to forty something aged people. Every time I checked on my status, up to a month later, they were still evaluating people from that day. I would guess the weed part was a joke, but even then I wouldn't judge the guy, some people waste their money on alcohol (far worse for the person and society), others waste their money on tobacco (he does, and again far worse for the person and society), some waste their money on the lottery, gambling, clothes, movies, games, cable... who cares what they spend money on. Everyone spends money, if they got it, to help hide the misery of their life or improve their life. So long as they aren't spending it on actively hurting others (hiring hitmen, dog fights, etc.) who cares what the money is being spent on? I can think of billions of things better to spend money on than drugs (I personally don't get the point of drugs unless it is for medical reasons, but I don't get alcohol or legal depression drugs and the like either), but I'm not going to fault the guy for doing them.

Anyhow, I have a part time (barely more than minimum wage) job, and still can't pay any creditors (largely just a student loan and some old utility bills and one credit card that is all of a thousand or less that keeps trying to garnish but child support is in the way, you would think they would give up)... hell, my kids will have a very disappointing Christmas this year... I have to borrow money some weeks just to get gas to get to work (very poor gas mileage and work is 20 or so miles each way) so getting a part time job likely won't help pay the debts at all. Even a full time minimum wage job doesn't make enough to pay for basic living expenses like rent, food and essential utilities (that is no cable) let alone cover any debts created while better employed. Who knows how many applications/resumes he'll send out that day, its only 11 am (although the place looks excessively dark for daytime), so he could be heading out later. I don't expect an unemployed person to spend 8 hours a day 40 hours a week driving all over town, especially since a great many jobs only take applications/resumes online these days (especially the part time minimum wage ones).

That all said, I agree any company scared of being recorded is sketchy... how do they know you are actually recording for one, and then who cares second unless you are breaking or at the very least bending the law?

>> ^Velocity5:

@SDGundamX
The connection between your comment and my response is: People in her position would indeed be happier with what I'm suggesting. Excel at useful skills, contribute to society, and reap more satisfying career outcomes.
Don't glorify wastes of time.
You're making accusations of trolling and non sequiturs as a reaction to being exposed to intellectualism different from your own.


I'm making an accusation of non sequitur because that's exactly what your response was. My original comment was sarcastic for brevity's sake and basically said she should be more like you, a person who surfs the Internet and judges people based on YouTube clips. Your response was nonsensical--it basically said yes, she'd be much happier with that career. In fact, my initial reply to your comment was going to be something along the lines of: "Your career is to surf the Internet and judge the worth of people's lives? How much does that pay?"

Since you've clearly missed the illocutionary force of my sarcasm, let me break down the original comment for you a bit more bluntly.

You don't know jack shit about this girl aside from what you've seen of her in a 3 minute local news clip. You don't her goals and aspirations, her grades, whether or not she volunteers, has a part-time job already etc. and yet somehow you feel qualified to judge her life as a waste of time. You protest that she should be doing something for humanity without seeing the irony of the fact that by surfing the Net and commenting on videos you yourself are doing absolutely less for humanity than she is (at least she entertained thousands of people... can't say the same about your comments, sadly).

I didn't think anyone was ignorant or self-absorbed enough to NOT see the irony in your comments and thus concluded you were a troll. My sincerest apologies if I was wrong about that.

I still think you're trolling. In fact, I hope you are. Because the alternative is pretty sad.

While working a part-time job at a civil engineering firm, I got my undergraduate degree in General Business.

Looked for a job/career for 6 months, nothing.

Went back to school to get an MBA. A year later I was back searching for a job now with a Masters degree... nothing.

Finally, a year later I got a position within Disney doing finance for 2 hotels. Didn't like the job on many levels including the hour and a half commute each way with tolls which knocked out 1.75 days of salary a week (I didn't get paid very much ) I quit and work part time with the Engineering company again (welcomed me back with open arms) and now I am currently looking for a full-time career.

"I haven't thought about it."

Pretty much describes why the legal system is fucked side ways.

I mean if you got someone who is struggling, but still performing beyond the normal student. AND working a full time job AND working a part time job, you should put a little fucking thought into that.

When she turns 18, do they have the authority to throw her in jail anymore? Does she still have the right to an education if she misses then?

Why is it OK to punish teens like they are adults when they murder someone and then turn around and do it when they are doing everything in their power to keep everything together so they can try to make something of themselves?

That's not right and that's not justice. Just breeding hatred of the government punishing people whose biggest crime is doing TOO much to try to make a life for themselves and the worst law they broke is truancy WHILE making school their bitch with college level courses.

If she were a star sports player, they probably even wouldn't record her truancy days because "LOL she needs her rest for the big game!"

See that ladies and gentlemen: DON'T HAVE CHILDREN! They'll not only slow your own dreams, but the dreams of hundreds of other people.>> ^lucky760:

Just FYI, the biggest hang-up with the birth of VS5 is yours truly. I originally wanted to rebuild VS from scratch using my much better PHP framework that I've developed over the past 2+ years, however parenthood, my full-time job, and my part-time job have been a black hole of time, so it would probably take me more than a year to follow through with that plan, so VS5 will just evolve from this old relic.
VS5 will be my focus once I'm through with the current massive project that I've been working on for over a year now. (But then when baby #2 arrives in October, I'm sure my development time will vanish again.)
So, in short, everyone hang in there and bear with us and VS4. I am but one man and as I always do, I'll work my buns off for the betterment of we, our community, as fast as I possibly can.
Thanks for your patience!