So what are the essential goods and services in today's modern American life? Food, shelter, ... ??
So what are the essential goods and services in today's modern American life? Food, shelter, ... ??
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Or friends/family. When I was a student with no permanent abode I put my parents address down on job applications.Originally Posted by GGT
Those things require proof of domicile or residency (renting or owning a home), which require a credit card, good credit score, and a paying job. If they're lucky, they have a public library with free resources available, but if they're unlucky their library funding has been cut and they're shit outta luck.
Talk about a circular cluster fuck.
Could you name for me please what proportion of the US you think has absolutely zero access to the internet? Any guess?
How's that work for a 40+ year old who's supposed to be Head of Family? A homeless person living in their car? An Iraq veteran?
I don't have US figures on hand, but it's less access than Canadians and Finns have, that's for sure. Those countries have made a concerted effort to get broadband/internet access to even their most remote citizens. I think Alaskans and many Northwest US residents still rely on landlines ("dial-up") and radio/HAM operators due to geography.Could you name for me please what proportion of the US you think has absolutely zero access to the internet? Any guess?
Poor people in urban areas may not be able to afford monthly contracts for internet and/or cell phones. It's not cheap. My internet is bundled to basic cable....and costs over $100/month. That's in addition to my phone. Dish TV means leasing the satellite equipment and having at least a two year contract, with a credit card that can cover the whole shebang up front. Our public library has lost funding and responded with very limited hours. It's not really *practical* for people to check incoming messages, or apply for jobs, using library internet access.
Let's put this another way---how high should a struggling person be expected to "jump" in order to get internet access?
Last edited by GGT; 01-30-2012 at 03:18 PM. Reason: *
Any actual figures?
According to this data 30% of U.S. households didn't have internet in 2010. that number should have gone down by 2012, and that number should shrink futher still when asked who doesn't have reasonably consistent internet access at their disposal. It'd still be around probably 7-8%. Are we counting bums? All depends how you count. A noticeable percentage worth raising a point about.
Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 01-31-2012 at 07:08 PM.
This isn't true at all. I've had several jobs now, was below the poverty line for years, and never needed any of those things.
Especially untrue. Those jobs generally don't care at all about employee background.Even those part-time jobs with no guaranteed hours, or any benefits.
Also untrue. Most employers still prefer paper, and only grudgingly accept internet applications if they do at all. Varies by field, natch, and lower end jobs are the most flexible ones - higher end jobs are more likely to only accept paper.Nearly all employers either prefer or require internet applications,
All of that is very untrue.which means having their own computer with internet or a smart phone with wifi. Those things require proof of domicile or residency (renting or owning a home), which require a credit card, good credit score, and a paying job.
While GGT's post is at one extreme, I'd have to say that yours is a bit naive as well. While a cell phone might not be required, a phone (any phone) or internet access is, as you can rapidly lose your job from infractions if you aren't able to receive schedule updates where I work (retail). Reliable transportation is necessary as well, as you can be penalized both for punching in 5 minutes early, or 5 minutes late. Also employees who aren't at the whim of the bus schedule are more likely to get better hours, and more hours. So that means either getting a taxi, or having a car.
Part-time employees get background checked before being hired, and still need to be able to show up on time, and when asked to come in. If you're off and someone calls to ask if you can come in, and you can't, or its going to be a while because you have to wait for the bus, it is less likely they'll call you to fill in next time.Especially untrue. Those jobs generally don't care at all about employee background.
The retailer I work for only accepts internet applications, at least for the location I work at.Also untrue. Most employers still prefer paper, and only grudgingly accept internet applications if they do at all. Varies by field, natch, and lower end jobs are the most flexible ones - higher end jobs are more likely to only accept paper.
The internet thing GGT posted is wrong since you could technically apply at any place that will let you access a computer and internet, but they're going to call you, at whatever phone number you provided, if you pass the first round of acceptance...All of that is very untrue.
...you also need to pay for your own uniform.
. . .
and before someone mentions the safelink or other free phone for government assistance programs.
those programs require a physical address. every applicant has to have a unique address at that. so every sort of homeless shelter is disqualified.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I was not saying that you do not need anything ever, nor that you never ever need any of those things, only that they are not needed as a rule.
Some method of getting to work is obviously required, and I did not dispute this at any point. You do not need it to qualify for a job, and employers do not check as part of your qualifications. Unless something has changed recently, it is illegal for them to check. All they're allowed to ask is "can you get here?" How you arrive is irrelevant, and certainly does not require the purchase of a car.Reliable transportation is necessary as well, as you can be penalized both for punching in 5 minutes early, or 5 minutes late. Also employees who aren't at the whim of the bus schedule are more likely to get better hours, and more hours. So that means either getting a taxi, or having a car.
I'm sure that you can find someplaces somewhere that do that, and it is the norm in certain professions, but in general low-level jobs, and especially part-time employees do not get background checked beyond "did they give us a social security number that looks real-ish?". It's too expensive for the positions being filled, especially for part-time positions, where they'll probably leave and be replaced in six months. No place I have ever worked at has done background checks, not even my current job, which is a fairly high-level job and actually could justify the expense. Which is good, because on hiring I had no car, no cell phone, and no credit score. For any job I've ever had.Part-time employees get background checked before being hired,
This is not relevant to anything I've said.and still need to be able to show up on time, and when asked to come in. If you're off and someone calls to ask if you can come in, and you can't, or its going to be a while because you have to wait for the bus, it is less likely they'll call you to fill in next time.
Exceptions. Fair warning, you may have just given a pretty big clue as to who you work for. It was big news when a major retailer made that move a couple years ago, because nobody serious had ever done that before.The retailer I work for only accepts internet applications, at least for the location I work at.
Every retailer I've worked for showed me where the stack of employment applications were when I started, because part of my job duties was to hand them out whenever anyone asked for one.
For which you do not need a personal computer with internet access, nor a smartphone with wifi to accept.The internet thing GGT posted is wrong since you could technically apply at any place that will let you access a computer and internet, but they're going to call you, at whatever phone number you provided, if you pass the first round of acceptance...
Some type of phone to recieve calls on is the only thing that's been mentioned so far that really is a requirement at the general level, not counting obvious things, like the ability to actually do the job.. Oddly, the one thing GGT did not mention - unless you count the extremely specific 'smartphones with wifi' requirement.
We don't seem to really be in any serious disagreement here, since a good portion of what you posted was arguing with things I never said. My point with that post was to point out exactly what you yourself said, that GGT's post was at an extreme not reflective of reality.
Last edited by Wraith; 02-01-2012 at 02:03 AM.
Are we going by volume or what here, cause WalMart and Target both require internet only apps. If you're lucky you may find a machine in the store. When Brandy moved down here the only place that took a paper app was Marshalls.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I remembered WalMart after making that post, and Target was probably the other one I was thinking of. At least one of those two was supposed to have a kiosk in every store for applications. WalMart, probably. Although now that I think of it, I've seen those kiosks at both places. I remember wondering why my local Target felt they needed three of them, all lined up together. They can't ever really need all of those at once, can they?
Nicer looking clothes for the interview, i'd like to add as well... The clothes issue mostly targets bums difficulty with finding work. (this is the least of many such difficulties they have), I'm sure some very poor families may have it as well.
Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 02-01-2012 at 07:36 AM.
White skin helps, as does knowing Ogre
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Sigh...White skin helps, as does knowing Ogre
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
While I was stating that while they might not be needed as a rule, not having them hurts your chances of keeping, or advancing in whatever job you might get.
Again, you'd be at the whim of the bus schedule (which if its late, and thus they are late, they get an infraction). Some people would also be unable to do a closing shift, or a full closing shift, because the last bus for the day would be far in advance of when we'd be finished closing a store. Essentially the shifts you could work would be limited to those within the bus schedule.Some method of getting to work is obviously required, and I did not dispute this at any point. You do not need it to qualify for a job, and employers do not check as part of your qualifications. Unless something has changed recently, it is illegal for them to check. All they're allowed to ask is "can you get here?" How you arrive is irrelevant, and certainly does not require the purchase of a car.
Its not Walmart, but the policies are similar for a reason. Also I don't post a name so that the thread I post in doesn't show up in a Google search, or isn't immediately knowable via a casual read. Anyone who really wanted to know who I worked for would only have to click my signature link to my portfolio and then read my resume.Exceptions. Fair warning, you may have just given a pretty big clue as to who you work for. It was big news when a major retailer made that move a couple years ago, because nobody serious had ever done that before.
That and I only post stuff that isn't confidential, or that isn't already public knowledge via sites like glassdoor.com, their own press releases, or that could be found doing a google search. If you came in and asked for a job, you'd immediately find out we only accept online applications.
My argument was that continuing to hold this job would be easier, more convenient, or at least afford you more opportunities with said job, not that it'd be impossible to obtain one. Your post made it seem like someone without these things would have a similar experience as a person with them. This seems untrue simply from experience.For which you do not need a personal computer with internet access, nor a smartphone with wifi to accept.
Some type of phone to recieve calls on is the only thing that's been mentioned so far that really is a requirement at the general level, not counting obvious things, like the ability to actually do the job.. Oddly, the one thing GGT did not mention - unless you count the extremely specific 'smartphones with wifi' requirement.
We don't seem to really be in any serious disagreement here, since a good portion of what you posted was arguing with things I never said. My point with that post was to point out exactly what you yourself said, that GGT's post was at an extreme not reflective of reality.
. . .
You are not as interesting in your resume as you are in your posts
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What from my posting made you think I was interesting?You are not as interesting in your resume as you are in your posts
. . .
Is this like a question suggesting insecurity, as in why would anyone think you're interesting. Or is this a question asking what part of my resume did that for you, so I could highlight more, if it's something people like. Personally, I always just imagined you to be hot, that's why I think you're interesting.What from my posting made you think I was interesting?
Self deprecating humor. That and I don't think I describe myself or post about myself doing interesting things, hence the befuddlement.
. . .
Obviously, I didn't mean to imply that's true for every job, everywhere.But it has become more difficult for homeless, veterans, people in "transitional housing" with no fixed address, and no cell phone or internet to meet job requirements. It's not so much employers doing 'background checks' as requiring rapid communication (as Illusions said) for schedule changes, extra hours, and coordinating staff.
Read your local Want Ads. Not sure what your area employment looks like, but mine has many temporary, part-time and flex-time service jobs---requiring a personal cell phone (not provided by employer). Not a "home phone" land line, but mobile instant contact. Even for janitorial, assembly line, and fast food work. Larger employers list reliable transportation (meaning your own car, in places with crappy bus service) so they can move people where they're needed. Filling in for sick calls, adding someone on third shift when things get busy...etc. That's also common practice for staffing agencies, who need people who can answer calls immediately.
And maybe you don't "get it", either. It's not only possible but pragmatic to start tackling unemployment from a local/community level. Not waiting for government stimulus or mega-corporations to lead the way, hoping it will trickle down. That hasn't worked very well.
For that bottom-up type of enterprise to work means consumers have to be smarter and choosier. Not just looking at a price tag at check-out, but also recognizing "hidden" costs and long term "prices" paid for the cheaper import.
Because there exist a subset of people who merely see a product's category. For instance a Cup would be a product category. Whether the cup was made of glass, plastic, metal, etc. would be subsets of that category. You can then further refine by whether that glass cup is made of high quality glass, or some cheap glass, etc. Since they are viewing what they are buying as a category, and not what is in the product, or what went into its production, and just assume that they are buying top quality regardless of the actual price they are paying, they can then be surprised when they bought the cheapest item in that category, and discover it isn't up to their standards because it is cheaply made. This is mostly due to people not knowing the cost to produce something, both materials, labor, shipping, packaging, profit, etc. or how these differences are going to affect their usage/interaction with the product they are buying. What this results in, usually, is surprise when a really cheap product doesn't turn out how they expect it to. To give a simple breakdown: You have Product X. The cost to make it with high quality materials and labor, and the cost to ensure its shipped and shelved in top condition to ProductMart is $50. The cost to make it with low quality materials and labor, and just get it on the shelf is $5. If a person understood the first part, that it takes $50 to make top quality Product X, they would then not expect a $5 version to be made/produced the same way, or have the same qualities as the $50 version. The drive to make things cheaper, while also satisfying the desire for a top quality product, has resulted in us becoming very good at making cheap products that look like top quality ones (think making plastic look like chrome, steel, wood, etc.) but do not behave like them.
. . .
Beauty of the market, as consumers, we don't need to know how much they profit in order to make the optimal purchase for us. We just need total price and the qualities of the good we're buying. In theory, we should just buy the best quality/per dollar that suits our needs (without considering resale), then you may buy something better than what you need.
In my experience consumers often use price as an indicator of quality, such that they view expensive things as being of high quality. I'm pretty sure this has been demonstrated in many categories besides fine wines. Moreover, many consumers are influenced by simple things such as being told "this is very high quality" or "this is actually 1080p HD video on an HD-TV" or even "this is advil, the other stuff is just nasty old ibuprofen".
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
They might be influenced, but they certainly don't make their decision based mainly on this factor.
Hope is the denial of reality
This may hold true for certain categories of products, for instance cars, electronics, homes, etc. but from my frequent experience, the less someone knows about what makes a quality product in a specific category, and the less they know about how much this should cost, the more likely they are to be upset when the $1 version of a product doesn't perform as well as the $15 version. Car companies and Electronics companies have frequently tied how they market their product to the fact that luxury and quality cost more, where-as makers of everyday items like shower curtains, desks, shelves, etc. have not.
. . .
This is a humorous mistake people make, and sellers take advantage to that. There is a connection between price and quality, but sellers take advantage of that connection, and try to say since i have a high price this suggest my quality is good. It does suggest that, but it doesn't prove that.In my experience consumers often use price as an indicator of quality, such that they view expensive things as being of high quality. I'm pretty sure this has been demonstrated in many categories besides fine wines.
And let's not forget healthcare
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
