A Nation of Moochers

[tjanuranus]

It's the abusers of the system that the government needs to crack down on.  Why it hasn't happened we may never know.  It hurts the real people who truly need the help.

Yeah, but our government keeps the debate at the level of discourse of this thread, we'll never get there. We'll be too busy taking part in the bizarre ideological war.

That is sadly been the case for a long time.

It's that way with EVERYTHING. That's why i pretty much quit my political dealings. Got tired of it all.

[King Postwhore]

Like you say tjanuranus, all I got is the power of my vote.

[73109]

Which is pretty much nothing.

[King Postwhore]

Which is pretty much nothing.

You can't look at it that way numbers.  Remember how close Bush vs Gore was.  Every vote matters.

[73109]

I personally go by the whole "there are 60 millions voters. I don't matter in a sea of 59,999,999 others."

[tjanuranus]

I personally go by the whole "there are 60 millions voters. I don't matter in a sea of 59,999,999 others."

This may sound cliche' and it is but many people died for our right to have our own democracy, good and bad. I believe voting is one of the most important things we can do as citizens. Even though it may seem like both parties are corrupt, which they are... We shouldn't let that stop us from having a voice. Vote for a third party if you want but don't let them take your voice!

[sonatafanica]

I personally go by the whole "there are 60 millions voters. I don't matter in a sea of 59,999,999 others."

Yeah, but only half of Americans vote. It's possibly more than that, even. So the people who don't vote are actually making a pretty big difference.

Which is why I think it's hurtful to liberals. Well, they harm themselves actually. The thing that conservatives have over them is that if conservatives believe in something, they go out and fucking vote for it. They get shit done. That's why there are always rallies for getting people to go out and vote for democrats and stuff like that.

[King Postwhore]

I personally go by the whole "there are 60 millions voters. I don't matter in a sea of 59,999,999 others."

This may sound cliche' and it is but many people died for our wrote to have our own democracy, good and bad. I believe voting is one of the most important things we can do as citizens. Even though it may seem like both parties are corrupt, which they are... We shouldn't let that stop us from having a voice. Vote for a third party if you want but don't let them take your voice!

Amen.

[William Wallace]

In Canada, you're required to look for a job while on welfare and have something to show for it, or else get cut off. Why not just put a similar system in place in the US?

This would have to happen gradually, but why not eliminate payroll taxes? What better way is there to reduce financial hardship than to allow people to keep more of their money? That would also end the "abusers" problem, since lazy fuckheads would not have access to benefits. And before I get called a heartless asshole, let me remind that nothing encourages employment more than the prospect of no check showing up in the mail.

The unemployment-insurance program involves a balance between compassion—providing for persons temporarily without work—and efficiency. The loss in efficiency results partly because the program subsidizes unemployment, causing insufficient job-search, job-acceptance and levels of employment.

[Genowyn]

In Canada, you're required to look for a job while on welfare and have something to show for it, or else get cut off. Why not just put a similar system in place in the US?

This would have to happen gradually, but why not eliminate payroll taxes?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but I would personally rather have my taxes taken off my paycheck so I don't have to worry about it come springtime 

[William Wallace]

In Canada, you're required to look for a job while on welfare and have something to show for it, or else get cut off. Why not just put a similar system in place in the US?

This would have to happen gradually, but why not eliminate payroll taxes?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but I would personally rather have my taxes taken off my paycheck so I don't have to worry about it come springtime 

No. As in, "make these taxes nonexistent," to eliminate them. 

[Perpetual Change]

Letting people keep more of their money isn't going to help those who don't have any coming in anyway.

[El Barto]

Which is pretty much nothing.

You can't look at it that way numbers.  Remember how close Bush vs Gore was.  Every vote matters.

Bush:  50,456,002   47.87%   
Gore:  50,999,897   48.38%

Your vote doesn't mean shit.

[William Wallace]

Letting people keep more of their money isn't going to help those who don't have any coming in anyway.

But a person's unemployment claim is based on his/her wages earned from previous work.

[Perpetual Change]

I don't see why what someone used to make should have anything to do with whether they need help or not now.

I'm not saying I don't support letting people keep more of their money. But that's hardly a solution to the problem.

[PowerSlave]

In Canada, you're required to look for a job while on welfare and have something to show for it, or else get cut off. Why not just put a similar system in place in the US?

This would have to happen gradually, but why not eliminate payroll taxes? What better way is there to reduce financial hardship than to allow people to keep more of their money? That would also end the "abusers" problem, since lazy fuckheads would not have access to benefits. And before I get called a heartless asshole, let me remind that nothing encourages employment more than the prospect of no check showing up in the mail.

The unemployment-insurance program involves a balance between compassion—providing for persons temporarily without work—and efficiency. The loss in efficiency results partly because the program subsidizes unemployment, causing insufficient job-search, job-acceptance and levels of employment.

WW, there's something that some of you guys continue to ignore. I'll try to explain it from my experience without sounding like a whiny douche bag like I probably did in my last post. (I should probably edit the damn thing but, it's after the fact at this point lol...)

In some areas of the country there are simply not enough jobs. It doesn't matter how hard someone might try to find employment in their area, in certain places the odds are simply against them. Case in point, as I mentioned before, I worked for a company from february 1998-May 2008. When I started working for this company they had the highest market share in the world for the product that we made. (Power Boats incase anyone is interested) I had a great work record with the place and even walked away with several letters of recomendation from people in management ect. ect...Someone like me with that great work record and still in the prime years of my working life (male in my mid-late 30's) should have no issue finding employment. I even have some college education to add to the mix as I also mentioned before. I sent out several hundreds of resume's and applied to every place possibe within a reasonable driving distance of my home and all that it netted me was a total of 7 interviews in 3 years time. That's not job offers, just interviews.

We have a GE plant in the town I live in (speaking of tax cheats). The city and state gave them a tax break to add 100 permanent jobs this past fall. They were taking applications at our local "jobs and family" building. I have a friend who's wife works in another section of the building and she told him that they took over 4,000 applications for the 100 available jobs in a single afternoon. Needless to say, a person out of work doesn't have a chance in hell against those odds. Especially with the mindset that many employers have these days that if a person hasn't worked in recent time or is currently out of work then they must be undesirable.

Some of you guys need to set aside your ideology and take a closer look at reality. Just because you hear stories about people sitting on their ass not looking for work doesn't mean that it's the reality about the vast overwhelming majority of out-of-work people in this country. Most of us "knuckle-draggers" want to work and not take a hand-out. The alternative is (and I'm not advocating this) is that people start doing all kinds of nasty shit to survive. Murder, theft ect. ect...you take away some people's last means of survival and you'll see pure chaos at some point.

[King Postwhore]

Which is pretty much nothing.

You can't look at it that way numbers.  Remember how close Bush vs Gore was.  Every vote matters.

Bush:  50,456,002   47.87%   
Gore:  50,999,897   48.38%

Your vote doesn't mean shit.

Your right, but I could bring up the hanging chad.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

In Canada, you're required to look for a job while on welfare and have something to show for it, or else get cut off. Why not just put a similar system in place in the US?

This would have to happen gradually, but why not eliminate payroll taxes? What better way is there to reduce financial hardship than to allow people to keep more of their money? That would also end the "abusers" problem, since lazy fuckheads would not have access to benefits. And before I get called a heartless asshole, let me remind that nothing encourages employment more than the prospect of no check showing up in the mail.

The unemployment-insurance program involves a balance between compassion—providing for persons temporarily without work—and efficiency. The loss in efficiency results partly because the program subsidizes unemployment, causing insufficient job-search, job-acceptance and levels of employment.

WW, there's something that some of you guys continue to ignore. I'll try to explain it from my experience without sounding like a whiny douche bag like I probably did in my last post. (I should probably edit the damn thing but, it's after the fact at this point lol...)

In some areas of the country there are simply not enough jobs. It doesn't matter how hard someone might try to find employment in their area, in certain places the odds are simply against them. Case in point, as I mentioned before, I worked for a company from february 1998-May 2008. When I started working for this company they had the highest market share in the world for the product that we made. (Power Boats incase anyone is interested) I had a great work record with the place and even walked away with several letters of recomendation from people in management ect. ect...Someone like me with that great work record and still in the prime years of my working life (male in my mid-late 30's) should have no issue finding employment. I even have some college education to add to the mix as I also mentioned before. I sent out several hundreds of resume's and applied to every place possibe within a reasonable driving distance of my home and all that it netted me was a total of 7 interviews in 3 years time. That's not job offers, just interviews.

We have a GE plant in the town I live in (speaking of tax cheats). The city and state gave them a tax break to add 100 permanent jobs this past fall. They were taking applications at our local "jobs and family" building. I have a friend who's wife works in another section of the building and she told him that they took over 4,000 applications for the 100 available jobs in a single afternoon. Needless to say, a person out of work doesn't have a chance in hell against those odds. Especially with the mindset that many employers have these days that if a person hasn't worked in recent time or is currently out of work then they must be undesirable.

Some of you guys need to set aside your ideology and take a closer look at reality. Just because you hear stories about people sitting on their ass not looking for work doesn't mean that it's the reality about the vast overwhelming majority of out-of-work people in this country. Most of us "knuckle-draggers" want to work and not take a hand-out. The alternative is (and I'm not advocating this) is that people start doing all kinds of nasty shit to survive. Murder, theft ect. ect...you take away some people's last means of survival and you'll see pure chaos at some point.

This is a good post.

I live in Philadelphia, where there are over 1 millions people fighting for some thousand-odd jobs if THAT. I've been looking for a job for months to no avail. The odds I'll get one in the next six months are pretty slim

[Perpetual Change]

The alternative is (and I'm not advocating this) is that people start doing all kinds of nasty shit to survive. Murder, theft ect. ect...you take away some people's last means of survival and you'll see pure chaos at some point.

This is what libertarians fail to realize again and again. The United States (and several other nations) adopted these pieces of social legislation because poor people were throwing bricks through windows and starting to consider the validity Communist revolutions that had taken place elsewhere in the world.

Those "lazy assholes" who make up the "peasantry" aren't going to just sit around twiddling their thumbs after you take away what little safety net they had and tell them they can't afford to go to the doctor's office because "they deserve it." They're going to take what they think they need, by force if necessary.

People need to have their basic needs provided for. Relying on the good-will of others should never be encouraged, but people who don't have what they need-- deservedly so or not-- will resort to violence and theft to get it, nearly 100 percent of the time. Neither "fairness" nor honoring the abstract principles at the core of libertarianism apply to people who have nothing in their lives working for them. That is the grim reality.

[rumborak]

Neither "fairness" nor honoring the abstract principles at the core of libertarianism apply to people who have nothing in their lives working for them. That is the grim reality.

Wholeheartedly agree, and it always comes down to that those extreme views of free-market neglect human nature. When pushed to the extreme, humans become essentially animal-like (because that's what kept us alive for thousands of years), and whatever nice "invisible hand" or "rational agent" theories you have fly out the window.
You definitely want to make jobs available as your priority because the ability to sustain yourself is one of the key ingredients to public tranquility (look at the Middle East right now), but when that can not be directly achieved you want to provide a safety net for those without jobs, because otherwise you get rampant crime, violence, or, as in the Middle East, uprising.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Thanks for posting your story, PowerSlave. I can appreciate your situation, as I was unemployed last year for several months, and my current employer has filed for bankruptcy. So I'm not speaking as someone with nothing to lose. But let me clarify a few things.

I specifically said eliminating UI would have to happen gradually. On those grounds alone the your-not-being-realistic argument fails. It would be unreasonable to pull the rug out from under people overnight. Fine. That doesn't mean, however, we can't make changes in the coming months and years.

Secondly, there are jobs out there, and the article I posted covered this. Even during the deepest part of the recession people were being hired. There's always frustrating anecdotes available, but basing policy on those is unwise. Why? Because we end up ignoring relevant facts like the one above and doing things that encourage unemployment - like extending benefits for 99 weeks. Even though it may seem counterintuitive, mean, or whatever adjective you prefer, reducing the assistance provided at the public's expense can make things better.

Referring back to this piece critiquing the Robin Hood mentality, nobody has a right to what other people own, or earn. That's the bottom line. Apparently, it's appropriate to assume that people's needs justify the welfare state, but that assumption has never been adequately explained in my view. And I don't think there's a good answer, only emotion laden arguments - suggesting that I think poor people are peasants and so forth. 

[Perpetual Change]

Referring back to this piece critiquing the Robin Hood mentality, nobody has a right to what other people own, or earn. That's the bottom line. Apparently, it's appropriate to assume that people's needs justify the welfare state, but that assumption has never been adequately explained in my view. And I don't think there's a good answer, only emotion laden arguments - suggesting that I think poor people are peasants and so forth. 

It's not an emotionally laden argument. No-one has "the right" to what other people own, but people will take that liberty when they have no choice. It's not a question of ethics, it's a question of human nature. You might not have liked me calling you out on being condescending towards the poor in your last post, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a pretty huge elephant in the room here.

If you disagree, I'd  really like to know what you think is going to happen if a safety net is taken away.

[William Wallace]

Referring back to this piece critiquing the Robin Hood mentality, nobody has a right to what other people own, or earn. That's the bottom line. Apparently, it's appropriate to assume that people's needs justify the welfare state, but that assumption has never been adequately explained in my view. And I don't think there's a good answer, only emotion laden arguments - suggesting that I think poor people are peasants and so forth. 

It's not an emotionally laden argument. No-one has "the right" to what other people own, but people will take that liberty when they have no choice. It's not a question of ethics, it's a question of human nature. You might not have liked me calling you out on being condescending towards the poor in your last post, but that doesn't change the fact that there's a pretty huge elephant in the room here.

If you disagree, I'd  really like to know what you think is going to happen if a safety net is taken away.

But it is an argument from emotion. It's not based on evidence, only empathy for poor people and the fear of what they may do if you take away their benefits. If reducing and eventually eliminating the safety net improves the economic climate, a proposition there is ample evidence for, your argument falls apart. And I didn't appreciate you calling me out for being condescending because I wasn't being condescending. I may not agree with your answer to a particular problem, but I'm not an asshole as a result.

[PowerSlave]

Secondly, there are jobs out there, and the article I posted covered this. Even during the deepest part of the recession people were being hired. There's always frustrating anecdotes available, but basing policy on those is unwise. Why? Because we end up ignoring relevant facts like the one above and doing things that encourage unemployment - like extending benefits for 99 weeks.

People in this area certainly wern't being hired. I'm proof of that fact. I don't know if I just happen to be in an unussually bad area that got hit harder than others or what but, the only profession that seen any regular hiring hear until the last year or so has been nursing. Infact, I remember reading in my local paper that when the national average for unemployment was hitting the 9% mark the county that I live in was around 17% for a time. If companies were hiring around here I would have certainly gotten more responses than I did.

Once again, I'll use myself as an example. If your theory about the benefits being extended were true then I'd be sitting on my ass collecting a check instead of working for very low wages and no benefits. For one, doing that goes against my moral code and I can assure you that I'm not the only person in my demographic that feels the same way. Sure, there are people that abuse the system and I know more than one but, most of the people I know are doing everything that they can to try and work honestly.

[Perpetual Change]

There's plenty of evidence   I and some others here have already alluded to a number of historical examples showing what was happening in the United States and Europe before these measures were introduced. Aside from that, there's an abundance of evidence that crime is related to socio-economic conditions, i.e. poor people are more likely to promote crime, so much so that it seems trivial to dig out an actual article but if you want me to look I will. What other kinds of evidence are you looking for?

And I'm not calling you an asshole for disagreeing with me. But are you honestly going call people on welfare programs "lazy fuckheads" and then say that my argument is the emotionally laden one?

Again, I'm curious to see what you actually think will happen when people have these kinds of programs taken away from them? Do you honestly think people with no jobs and no employment benefits are just going to fall in line under what libertarian values say they should do? That, in all honesty, is why I implied you think poor people are "peasants." While I was just being sarcastic, your argument (to me) has an aristocratic stink to it. "Those of us with money shouldn't have to worry about what the poor will do when they have none. Because it's not fair for them to do anything about it. They have no right to what I have!" That's not how people think. Especially people who don't have anything. Perhaps you believe you're being stolen from already-- but the fact that most people don't have to steal to survive, even if it makes them "lazy fuckheads," convinces me that our system is much better than it would be if we didn't have these kinds of programs in place.

Keep in mind that I include myself in the group of people who "have money." This isn't about class warfare or jealousy. I'm just pointing out that I think what you're saying is an incredibly unrealistic way of looking at things.

[tjanuranus]

There's plenty of evidence   I and some others here have already alluded to a number of historical examples showing what was happening in the United States and Europe before these measures were introduced. Aside from that, there's an abundance of evidence that crime is related to socio-economic conditions, i.e. poor people are more likely to promote crime, so much so that it seems trivial to dig out an actual article but if you want me to look I will. What other kinds of evidence are you looking for?

And I'm not calling you an asshole for disagreeing with me. But are you honestly going call people on welfare programs "lazy fuckheads" and then say that my argument is the emotionally laden one?

Again, I'm curious to see what you actually think will happen when people have these kinds of programs taken away from them? Do you honestly think people with no jobs and no employment benefits are just going to fall in line under what libertarian values say they should do? That, in all honesty, is why I implied you think poor people are "peasants." While I was just being sarcastic, your argument (to me) has an aristocratic stink to it. "Those of us with money shouldn't have to worry about what the poor will do when they have none. Because it's not fair for them to do anything about it. They have no right to what I have!" That's not how people think. Especially people who don't have anything.

Keep in mind that I include myself in the group of people who "have money." This isn't about class warfare or jealousy. I'm just pointing out that that's an incredibly unrealistic way of looking at things.

[William Wallace]

And I'm not calling you an asshole for disagreeing with me. But are you honestly going call people on welfare programs "lazy fuckheads" and then say that my argument is the emotionally laden one?

All your points are worth responding to, and I will tomorrow. But I wanted to explain what I meant when I used the term "fuckhead." I wasn't describing anybody who claims UI or welfare, only the individuals we've all admitted deliberately abuse the system. Somebody posted a comment specifically about how to reduce said abuse. My suggestion was to reduce the benefits we make available. That way "moochers" can't perpetually rely on UI and the people who are in genuine need have something to fall back on, though for a shorter period of time, maybe 26 weeks instead of 99.

And there is nothing aristocratic about my argument. As I said, I'm in jeopardy of losing my job in the coming months. I don't think I'm better than anybody because of my position in life; I'm not a heartless jerk either. That being said, I do think that the right to pursue your own interests and reap whatever benefits come of that pursuit are the foundation of a flourishing society. It's for that reason that I scoff at the idea of an extensive safety net provided at the expense of successful people.   

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Secondly, there are jobs out there, and the article I posted covered this. Even during the deepest part of the recession people were being hired. There's always frustrating anecdotes available, but basing policy on those is unwise. Why? Because we end up ignoring relevant facts like the one above and doing things that encourage unemployment - like extending benefits for 99 weeks.

[/quote]

Sure people are being hired, but at what rates? And how many people, after that, are STILL unemployed? Also, what happens when all those particular jobs are filled?

And extending unemployment benefits is not encouraging unemployment. Based on what I see here in Philly, I'd like to see you live off of an unemployment check. It's to keep people on their feet just a little longer in the hope that they'll find another job in the near future.

[tjanuranus]

Secondly, there are jobs out there, and the article I posted covered this. Even during the deepest part of the recession people were being hired. There's always frustrating anecdotes available, but basing policy on those is unwise. Why? Because we end up ignoring relevant facts like the one above and doing things that encourage unemployment - like extending benefits for 99 weeks.

Sure people are being hired, but at what rates? And how many people, after that, are STILL unemployed? Also, what happens when all those particular jobs are filled?

And extending unemployment benefits is not encouraging unemployment. Based on what I see here in Philly, I'd like to see you live off of an unemployment check. It's to keep people on their feet just a little longer in the hope that they'll find another job in the near future.
[/quote]

I was laid off in January. Been looking for another job that will pay me something similar to what i was making ever since. I was at my job for ten years. I got laid off four months before my pension was going to be vested. I just took a test for this job which i think i did well on. They told me "6 to 8 " weeks before they'll get back to me with the results. So my unemployment would run out in 2 months without extensions. Then i would not be able to afford my apartment, car, anything. So yeah shit isn't easy out there. The lower and middle class need all the help they can get as far as i'm concerned.

[Perpetual Change]

And there is nothing aristocratic about my argument. As I said, I'm in jeopardy of losing my job in the coming months. I don't think I'm better than anybody because of my position in life; I'm not a heartless jerk either. That being said, I do think that the right to pursue your own interests and reap whatever benefits come of that pursuit are the foundation of a flourishing society. It's for that reason that I scoff at the idea of an extensive safety net provided at the expense of successful people.    

I'm not saying your an aristocrat. I'm just saying the idea that the idea that "notions of fairness" will come into play when the masses of unemployed (with benefits taken away) begin to live on their own terms is one that reeks of not knowing what people will do when they're down on their luck.  Those notions of fairness might, you could argue, be enforced (and there'd be a LOT of 'enforcement' going on, I'd imagine), but that would paint a very different picture of what the supposed benefits of this libertarian system are supposed to look like. I agree with the second part of your statement, but if the market is supposedly capable of being the most prosperous system for everyone, isn't there a way that we could get relatively close to that without cutting away people's safety net? But I'll wait until further response.

I was laid off in January. Been looking for another job that will pay me something similar to what i was making ever since. I was at my job for ten years. I got laid off four months before my pension was going to be vested. I just took a test for this job which i think i did well on. They told me "6 to 8 " weeks before they'll get back to me with the results. So my unemployment would run out in 2 months without extensions. Then i would not be able to afford my apartment, car, anything. So yeah shit isn't easy out there. The lower and middle class need all the help they can get as far as i'm concerned.

Don't take this the wrong way, but why can't you get a job that doesn't pay you as well as the old one did for the time being? Even if that means doing something you don't like?

[tjanuranus]

And there is nothing aristocratic about my argument. As I said, I'm in jeopardy of losing my job in the coming months. I don't think I'm better than anybody because of my position in life; I'm not a heartless jerk either. That being said, I do think that the right to pursue your own interests and reap whatever benefits come of that pursuit are the foundation of a flourishing society. It's for that reason that I scoff at the idea of an extensive safety net provided at the expense of successful people.    

I'm not saying your an aristocrat. I'm just saying the idea that the idea that "notions of fairness" will come into play when the masses of unemployed (with benefits taken away) begin to live on their own terms is one that reeks of not knowing what people will do when they're down on their luck.  Those notions of fairness might, you could argue, be enforced (and there'd be a LOT of 'enforcement' going on, I'd imagine), but that would paint a very different picture of what the supposed benefits of this libertarian system are supposed to look like. I agree with the second part of your statement, but if the market is supposedly capable of being the most prosperous system for everyone, isn't there a way that we could get relatively close to that without cutting away people's safety net? But I'll wait until further response.

I was laid off in January. Been looking for another job that will pay me something similar to what i was making ever since. I was at my job for ten years. I got laid off four months before my pension was going to be vested. I just took a test for this job which i think i did well on. They told me "6 to 8 " weeks before they'll get back to me with the results. So my unemployment would run out in 2 months without extensions. Then i would not be able to afford my apartment, car, anything. So yeah shit isn't easy out there. The lower and middle class need all the help they can get as far as i'm concerned.

Don't take this the wrong way, but why can't you get a job that doesn't pay you as well as the old one did for the time being? Even if that means doing something you don't like?

I'm willing to take a pay cut but i don't have a degree right now. I'm working on it but there aren't many jobs that are going to pay me anything close to what i was making at my old job. In order to pay all of my bills and everything else i need to make a certain income. My wife works and goes to school full time. I'm also going to school full time and looking for full time work. If i get another job in the same pension system i will start at the same pay rate i left on plus get my pension vested. So yeah, i've put a ton of money into the unemployment system for the last 15 years and i don't feel bad about it using for a short time in order to live.

Plus it's not like it was my fault i lost my job. I had no control of that. The douchebags in charge went around the union and did things illegaly. They are in court but it may take a couple years to get a verdict. Odds are the union will lose anyway but there is always hope.

[tjanuranus]

i do work a second job though. Did when i had my main job and still do.

[Perpetual Change]

Just to make sure I'm getting you straight: you won't take a job that isn't giving you what you used to get?

[King Postwhore]

I've been laid off for 4 months now.  Before that the longest I went without work was one month and that was once.  Sure there are jobs out there but I've had placement agencies that want to pay $4 less an hour and that $160 per week loss add that over a month and that $640.  That's a big loss. 

I'm not naive to think that I'm not going to take a pay cut but I'd like to get close to what I was making.  I will tell you I "HATE" not working.  Sure it would be cool to have 4 months off but I'm the type of person that feels uneasy that it's not on my terms. I feel uneasy if I don't send out my resume ever day or at least try to.  I want to work & hope to find work soon.

[rumborak]

What do you do for a living, king? (you probably told me at the Cantina, but I forgot)

The programmer situation in the Boston area is insane right now. There are so many more jobs than there are people looking for them.

rumborak