The Sheriff's CAN arrest the judge and start over
Just a thought.
Re: Will America Break Up?
The Sheriff's CAN arrest the judge and start over
Just a thought.
Re: Will America Break Up?
Democrats Run Biggest Cities as U.S. Residents Cluster by Party
November 27, 2013
Twenty years ago, half the 12 largest U.S. municipalities had a Republican mayor. When Bill de Blasio takes office in New York on Jan. 1, none will.
As middle-class residents moved out of cities and immigrants and young people replaced them, the party lost its grip on population centers even as it increased control of governor’s offices and legislatures. The polarization has pitted urban interests against rural areas and suburbs, denying Republicans a power base.
“The New York election hopefully is somewhat of a wake-up call,” said Scott Smith, the Republican mayor of Mesa, Arizona, and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. “If that doesn’t get Republicans on the national level more interested, then it should.”
De Blasio’s election means that besides New York, there will be Democratic mayors next year in Los Angeles; Chicago; Houston; Philadelphia; Phoenix; San Antonio; Dallas; San Jose, California; Austin, Texas; and Jacksonville, Florida. A runoff will be held in February in San Diego to replace Democratic Mayor Bob Filner, who resigned in August amid charges of sexual harassment.
In New York, Democrats outnumber Republicans more than 6-to-1, yet voters hadn’t elected a Democrat since David Dinkins lost to Rudolph Giuliani in 1993. De Blasio, 52, won this month by the biggest margin by a non-incumbent in city history on vow to close the growing gap between rich and poor.
Income Gulf
With its concentration of Wall Street professionals and urban poor, New York has one of the highest income disparities among large U.S. cities, according to U.S. Census data. While more than 26 percent of households earned at least $100,000 in 2012, almost a quarter earned less than $25,000.
In all but three of the dozen most populous cities, mayoral elections are nonpartisan and candidates’ affiliations don’t appear on the ballot. Yet their party is often known to voters.
In Boston’s nonpartisan election Nov. 5, both candidates were Democrats. State Representative Marty Walsh defeated City Councilor John Connolly, in part because opponents painted Connolly as the “Republican” after he attracted donations from that party, Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic consultant in Boston, said by phone.
Clustering Citizens
Demographics help produce the trend, said Bruce Katz, director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit research organization in Washington.
Racial and ethnic minorities that overwhelmingly support Democrats accounted for 83 percent of U.S. population growth from 2000 to 2008, with most living in the largest metro areas, according to Brookings’s 2010 “State of Metropolitan America” report. And cities themselves are growing. Between 1950 and 2010, the proportion of Americans living in urban areas increased to 80.7 percent from 64 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Two decades ago, crime was the dominant issue in those places, so law-and-order Republican mayors such as Giuliani in New York and Richard Riordan in Los Angeles were popular, Katz said.
“My motto was, ‘Tough enough to turn L.A. around,’” Riordan said in a telephone interview.
Everyday Issues
Today, the emphasis is on economic matters and equality -- issues that Democrats champion, Katz said.
“There’s this old notion that there’s no Republican or Democratic way to pick up the garbage,” Katz said in a telephone interview. “That’s not entirely true.”
Voters selecting mayors care most about who can do the job, and national Republicans are more focused on dogma, said Mayor Greg Ballard in Indianapolis, the most populous U.S. city run by a Republican.
“If they campaign or govern with a basis in ideology, they’re going to fail,” said Ballard, a 59-year-old former Marine who has supported mass transit and opposed a ban on same-sex marriage. “Being a mayor is about getting things done, and I do wish a few more people understood that.”
National Republicans haven’t made cities a priority, said Smith of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. While the 2012 Democratic National Convention gave prominent roles to mayors, including a keynote address for San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, no big-city mayors were featured at the Republican convention.
Elusive Prize
More Republicans won’t become big-city mayors until the party’s policies “align a little more closely with what’s good for African-Americans, Hispanics and poor whites,” Ed Rendell, the former Democratic mayor of Philadelphia and governor of Pennsylvania, said by phone.
Republicans, however, have increased their share of governorships to 30 from 22 since 2006, according to the Republican Governors Association. They’ve also taken the mayorships of smaller cities even as they fail to gain traction in the most populous, Kirsten Kukowski, a spokeswoman for the party’s national committee in Washington, said by e-mail.
“We are happy with the success we’ve had in statewide and local elections, but we know we need to find a way to communicate our principles to a wider audience,” she said.
The divide is dramatic in places such as Texas, where Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin are run by Democrats while the state as a whole is reliably Republican. All statewide offices are held by Republicans, including Governor Rick Perry, a 2012 Republican presidential candidate, and the party controls the legislature.
Separate Populations
As a result, when Democrats and mayors advocated issues such as higher taxes to support education and expanding Medicaid under President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, Republicans blocked them, said Mark Jones, chairman of the political-science department at Rice University in Houston.
Democratic mayors are “really left to their own devices,” Jones said by phone.
The nation’s divide makes consensus difficult on decisions such as whether a state should allow hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, said Joel Kotkin, who teaches about urban studies at Chapman University in Orange, California.
“Not only do people have different views, but they don’t even see the other people,” Kotkin said by phone. “Having a one-party system is just not a very good way to get to the best policy.”
Re: Will America Break Up?
That was the plan all along. Get as many dependent on the Democratic Party's gimme-shit-plan, move them to the cities and then slam the gates down on everyone.
Re: Will America Break Up?
Expert Testifies to Congress that Obama’s ‘Ignoring Laws’ Could Lead to Overthrow of Government
December 4, 2013
During a congressional committee hearing about the constitutional limits imposed on the presidency and the implications of President Barack Obama’s disregard for implementing the Affordable Care Act as written, one expert testified that the consequences of the president’s behavior were potentially grave. He said that the precedent set by Obama could eventually lead to an revolt against the federal government.
On Tuesday, Michael Cannon, Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies, testified before a congressional committee about the dangers of the president’s legal behavior.
“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.”
“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate,” he continued. “If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”
“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”
Watch the clip below via C-SPAN 2:
(There's no embed link for the video, you'll have to go to the site)
Re: Will America Break Up?
And that right there is the money shot.“If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Re: Will America Break Up?
In God We Trust, Maybe, But Not Each Other
November 30, 2013
You can take our word for it. Americans don't trust each other anymore.
We're not talking about the loss of faith in big institutions such as the government, the church or Wall Street, which fluctuates with events. For four decades, a gut-level ingredient of democracy - trust in the other fellow - has been quietly draining away.
These days, only one-third of Americans say most people can be trusted. Half felt that way in 1972, when the General Social Survey first asked the question.
Forty years later, a record high of nearly two-thirds say "you can't be too careful" in dealing with people.
An AP-GfK poll conducted last month found that Americans are suspicious of each other in everyday encounters. Less than one-third expressed a lot of trust in clerks who swipe their credit cards, drivers on the road, or people they meet when traveling.
"I'm leery of everybody," said Bart Murawski, 27, of Albany, N.Y. "Caution is always a factor."
Does it matter that Americans are suspicious of one another? Yes, say worried political and social scientists.
What's known as "social trust" brings good things.
A society where it's easier to compromise or make a deal. Where people are willing to work with those who are different from them for the common good. Where trust appears to promote economic growth.
Distrust, on the other hand, seems to encourage corruption. At the least, it diverts energy to counting change, drawing up 100-page legal contracts and building gated communities.
Even the rancor and gridlock in politics might stem from the effects of an increasingly distrustful citizenry, said April K. Clark, a Purdue University political scientist and public opinion researcher.
"It's like the rules of the game," Clark said. "When trust is low, the way we react and behave with each other becomes less civil."
There's no easy fix.
In fact, some studies suggest it's too late for most Americans alive today to become more trusting. That research says the basis for a person's lifetime trust levels is set by his or her mid-twenties and unlikely to change, other than in some unifying crucible such as a world war.
People do get a little more trusting as they age. But beginning with the baby boomers, each generation has started off adulthood less trusting than those who came before them.
The best hope for creating a more trusting nation may be figuring out how to inspire today's youth, perhaps united by their high-tech gadgets, to trust the way previous generations did in simpler times.
There are still trusters around to set an example.
Pennsylvania farmer Dennis Hess is one. He runs an unattended farm stand on the honor system.
Customers pick out their produce, tally their bills and drop the money into a slot, making change from an unlocked cashbox. Both regulars and tourists en route to nearby Lititz, Pa., stop for asparagus in spring, corn in summer and, as the weather turns cold, long-neck pumpkins for Thanksgiving pies.
"When people from New York or New Jersey come up," said Hess, 60, "they are amazed that this kind of thing is done anymore."
Hess has updated the old ways with technology. He added a video camera a few years back, to help catch people who drive off without paying or raid the cashbox. But he says there isn't enough theft to undermine his trust in human nature.
"I'll say 99 and a half percent of the people are honest," said Hess, who's operated the produce stand for two decades.
There's no single explanation for Americans' loss of trust.
The best-known analysis comes from "Bowling Alone" author Robert Putnam's nearly two decades of studying the United States' declining "social capital," including trust.
Putnam says Americans have abandoned their bowling leagues and Elks lodges to stay home and watch TV. Less socializing and fewer community meetings make people less trustful than the "long civic generation" that came of age during the Depression and World War II.
University of Maryland Professor Eric Uslaner, who studies politics and trust, puts the blame elsewhere: economic inequality.
Trust has declined as the gap between the nation's rich and poor gapes ever wider, Uslaner says, and more and more Americans feel shut out. They've lost their sense of a shared fate. Tellingly, trust rises with wealth.
"People who believe the world is a good place and it's going to get better and you can help make it better, they will be trusting," Uslaner said. "If you believe it's dark and driven by outside forces you can't control, you will be a mistruster."
African-Americans consistently have expressed far less faith in "most people" than the white majority does. Racism, discrimination and a high rate of poverty destroy trust.
Nearly 8 in 10 African-Americans, in the 2012 survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago with principal funding from the National Science Foundation, felt that "you can't be too careful." That figure has held remarkably steady across the 25 GSS surveys since 1972.
The decline in the nation's overall trust quotient was driven by changing attitudes among whites.
It's possible that people today are indeed less deserving of trust than Americans in the past, perhaps because of a decline in moral values.
"I think people are acting more on their greed," said Murawski, a computer specialist who says he has witnessed scams and rip-offs. "Everybody wants a comfortable lifestyle, but what are you going to do for it? Where do you draw the line?"
Ethical behavior such as lying and cheating are difficult to document over the decades. It's worth noting that the early, most trusting years of the GSS poll coincided with Watergate and the Vietnam War. Trust dropped off in the more stable 1980s.
Crime rates fell in the 1990s and 2000s, and still Americans grew less trusting. Many social scientists blame 24-hour news coverage of distant violence for skewing people's perceptions of crime.
Can anything bring trust back?
Uslaner and Clark don't see much hope anytime soon.
Thomas Sander, executive director of the Saguaro Seminar launched by Putnam, believes the trust deficit is "eminently fixable" if Americans strive to rebuild community and civic life, perhaps by harnessing technology.
After all, the Internet can widen the circle of acquaintances who might help you find a job. Email makes it easier for clubs to plan face-to-face meetings. Googling someone turns up information that used to come via the community grapevine.
But hackers and viruses and hateful posts eat away at trust. And sitting home watching YouTube means less time out meeting others.
"A lot of it depends on whether we can find ways to get people using technology to connect and be more civically involved," Sander said.
"The fate of Americans' trust," he said, "is in our own hands."
Re: Will America Break Up?
I believe we have been beating that drum for a long time now Mal. You've said it, Ryan has and I have at least (perhaps not in those exact words....).Originally Posted by Malsua
Re: Will America Break Up?
It doesn't matter anymore. Republicans are just as evil, power hungry and unconstitutional as the Democratic party. They all need to go. Every single one of our leaders must receive a rapidly deployed, sizeable concussive blow, thus ejecting them from office. Said ejection should be impactive enough to dissuade person in question from ever running for political office again.
Re: Will America Break Up?
I was torn on whether to post this in Financial, Riots or here. I went with this thread - because this affects the economy somewhat and it's a Leftist bullshit thing to destroy what's left of America.
In Washington, D.C., dozens of people carried signs and marched while singing "Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way, it's no fun, to survive, on low low low low pay."
In New York City, about 100 protesters blew whistles and beat drums as they marched into a McDonald's chanting "We can't survive on $7.25."
And in Detroit, more than 100 workers picketed outside two McDonald's restaurants, singing "Hey hey, ho ho, $7.40 has got to go!"
One-day labor walkouts were planned at fast-food restaurants in 100 cities Thursday, with protests in scores more cities and towns across the nation. Organizers, actually a loose-knit group of labor advocates mostly led by the Service Employees International Union, are pressing for an increase in the federal minimum wage, higher wages in the industry, and the right to unionize without management reprisals.
The advocacy groups are hoping to build public support for raising the federal minimum wage of $7.25, or about $15,000 a year for full-time work. A common battle cry has been "Fight for 15" — a $15-per-hour minimum wage.
Tyeisha Batts, 27, protesting in New York, said she has been working at Burger King for about seven months and earns $7.25 an hour. She said she hasn't been retaliated against but said her manager warned that employees who didn't arrive on time Thursday would be turned away from their shifts.
A protester in New York holds up a placard as fast-food workers and union members call for an increase in the minimum hourly wage to $15 and the right of workers to join unions. Peter Foley, epa
Next Slide
"My boss took me off the schedule because she knows I'm participating," Batts said.
In Detroit, the Rev. Charles Williams II, president of National Action Network, thanked protesters for their support and encouraged fast-food customers to aid the effort.
"We need them to sacrifice with us," he said. "We are sacrificing our time, the workers are sacrificing their wages. We need people who eat fast food to sacrifice their coffee, to sacrifice their McMuffin."
Arun Gupta, an advocate for income equality and founding editor of the Occupy Wall Street Journal, says he is encouraged by the nationwide effort but isn't expecting major changes.
"It's more a show for the media than something that will hit the bottom line of these employers," Gupta said.
The timing is good. In recent days, Pope Francis and President Obama have spoken out against growing income inequality.
"How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?" the pope asked.
Obama, who has expressed support for a Democratic proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, echoed the pope's concerns in a speech Wednesday. Obama noted that the American economy had doubled in size since 1979, but most of that growth has been restricted to a "fortunate few."
Despite the growing concern surrounding economic disparities, the pushback is strong. Fast food is a price-sensitive business — and the industry claims it would be difficult to significantly increase wages.
"Fifteen dollars an hour is not a reasonable approach," said Justin Winslow, the Michigan Restaurant Association's vice president of government affairs. In addition, the industry counters that many fast-food workers are younger workers seeking part-time work, not necessarily a lifetime career in the industry.
The National Restaurant Association, an industry lobbying group, said most of Thursday's protesters were union members and that "relatively few" workers have participated in past actions. It called the demonstrations a "campaign engineered by national labor groups."
Fast-food workers have historically been seen as difficult to unionize, given the industry's high turnover rates. But the Service Employees International Union, which represents more than 2 million workers in health care, janitorial and other industries, has been providing considerable organizational and financial support to the push for higher pay over the past year.
Supporters of wage hikes have been more successful at the state and local level. California, Connecticut and Rhode Island raised their minimum wages this year. Last month, voters in New Jersey approved a hike in the minimum to $8.25 an hour, up from $7.25 an hour, and the city of SeaTac, Wash., approved a minimum wage of $15 per hour.
Labor Secretary Tom Perez weighed in on the side of the protesters this week in his blog: "To reward work, to grow the middle class and strengthen the economy, to give millions of Americans the respect they deserve — it's time to raise the minimum wage."
Re: Will America Break Up?
You flip burgers and wrap them in paper. How much training does that require? A week?
I write code for a living. It's a very technical skill. It's taken me years to become really good at it.
You want a "living wage" without paying the wages of effort. Go fuck yourself.
I don't want to pay $20 for a fucking big mac so your stupid layabout low IQ ass doesn't have to improve yourself.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Re: Will America Break Up?
Thanks Mal.
I needed that
Re: Will America Break Up?
Bingo!
I've done my job now for 10 years. I've spent over 200 hours in classrooms learning products and even more time learning on the job.
I work on these:
And these:
And these:
Which work with these:
And then there are these, these, and these:
(That's the basic version, there are a couple more complex versions)
And that is just some of the more current equipment. There's a lot of older, and in many cases obsolete equipment that is still out there I'm responsible for working on.
How many of these turds have ever worked with IBM OS/2 let alone heard of it?
I even have to work on competitor's equipment like this:
for which I have no formal training and have had to learn how to service on my own, in the field.
I get to work on all that in these types of neighborhoods:
(That picture makes the area look way better than it is. It is bad enough, that branch has a man trap entrance. And yes, that ATM is an exposed island ATM.)
In these types of conditions:
And you know what I make?
Just over $16 an hour.
And these fucks think they deserve $15+ an hour?
Fuck them.
Re: Will America Break Up?
So... some day I will post pictures of the stuff I work on. And what I do. Someday. Not today.
I make a lot more than Ryan does (not bragging or anything, just saying I get more than he does per hour).
I get relatively regular raises (they are small, like .25 cents at a time which equates to 520 a year, so about once a year, twice if lucky) and I get a big bonus at Christmas usually.
I've also been here since April 1997 - going on 17 years. 16 years I've been working on the same stuff. 1 year I worked as a system administrator (windows, linux, Macs for the first month, getting rid of the macs).
Now, my wife was in fast food for 14 years, Taco-Hell and Wendy's. She managed. She made roughly 30-35K a year as a manager and couldn't KEEP good workers. The GOOD ones did get promoted and paid better, the rest left by attrition throughout the time. I asked her if they deserved 15 bucks an hour and she laughed and said "No, because they won't raise manager pay by a corresponding amount and why bother being a manager for that kind of money, especially when you're dealing with losers all day?"
So basically my wife made about, guess what? About $15 an hour as a manager.
Re: Will America Break Up?
Ryan, you I believe may be underpaid.
Is it not basic math? The business model of fast food does not, nor ever will, support an increase in hourly wages of their basic workers to their desired rate. Obviously, prices of hamburgers and tacos would rise to $10 apiece should their cries be heard and implemented.
Re: Will America Break Up?
The whole thing about the American model of capitalism, and mass production (including making burgers) is based on making enough money to actually be able to buy the stuff you make.
Cars, for instance. Anyone who is building them should be able to AFFORD them.
Seems to me if you eat every day, one meal in McDonald's, Wendy's, or Burger King and you're making 9 bucks an hour you would be spending 6-7 bucks of one hour's pay.
For a car, probably a couple of years of pay.
The question is, WHY would anyone want to eat in those places in the FIRST place?
Let's do some math. Let's use a "hypothetical person".
16 * 40 * 52 = 33280
Subtract taxes... let's be conservative here... 28%
33280 - 28% = 9318.4
Our hypothetical person makes about 23961.60 net pay per year. I didn't include health insurance and I'm guessing about what is taken out of a typical pay check.
Now, let's look at a Wendy's worker (because, frankly I know what they make because my wife managed the place for 12 years and Taco hell for 2 years).
At 9.50/hr (that's typical of their pay here, the average) they get 9.50 * 40 = 380 * 52 = 19760
Of course they take out some cash too. Now it gets complex though, not for them, for us.
For someone under 65, not married and making 19760 a year, you ONLY PAY TAXES ON $9,350 per year.
19760 - 9350 = 10410 -28% = 2914.8 + 9350 = 12264.8
(To be fair, our hypothetical person also doesn't pay on that first 9350 if he is single and under 65).
Now... what this really means is this.
Hypothetical person net income is about 23961.60
Wendy's Worker net income is about 12264.80
Now, several things are wrong with this.....
1) If you make more than about 30K GROSS PAY, you are paying very HIGH taxes.
2) If you make less than 19K you are paying very LOW or NO taxes.
3) If you make more than 40K you usually end up OWING the US Goverment money out of pocket because they didn't "take enough out".
4) If you make LESS than about 20K you usually end up getting BACK all the money or most of it from what was taken out.
5) If you're married you and your spouse are penalized even more money than you would be if each of you filed separately as single.
Either way, what this comes down to is two things...
A) Progressive income taxes which fuck those who make more (and all the other fucked up things about US taxes)
B) Unskilled vs Skilled workers.
Our hypothetical guy is skilled at his job, has massive training and gets paid peanuts for his job.
Our unskilled guy is a burger flipper, or fry cook who has training at a specific job (and usually can't even DO THAT RIGHT) and he wants as much as our skilled worker.
Our married working couples (* like my wife and myself) who are in both categories between us make a lot more than either of the individuals do, BUT we're penalized for being married, filing a joint return. They take money from us when we make it in the stock market right off the top. They (the government they) tax the holy fuck out of us for local SCHOOL taxes because we're home owners.
Our fast food worker is usually young, usually under 25 (if they aren't then they are either management, they are handicapped or they are simply working the job because they can't get something else, whatever that reason might be).
Re: Will America Break Up?
Just a bit.Did I mention I've had the best performance numbers in the branch 3 years in a row now?
Based on my skill and performance, I should be making up to double what I am and I know I'm not the only one in that boat at work.
Re: Will America Break Up?
We're all probably a little "under paid". I'm probably somewhat underpaid, but at the same time you would think an "engineer" would be rated as an engineer in something other than name only and get paid commiserate.
In the Navy, they have something they call "frocking" (the Navy is the weirdest service in the military anyway).
The younger troops, usually someone who is not yet an NCO will take on the responsibility of the rank, without the rank.
MOST OF us, I daresay take on more responsibilities than we SHOULD, based on the rank and pay anyway. That is "skilled" workers.
Mal is a programmer. I would think he'd make more than me. I'm an "engineer" - one that has the title and does design and implementation work, and then I actually DO the work required to make the things work. To be honest and fair, I'm very much like Ryan. I have this big electronic system I work on (has thousands of connections, parts, devices, all of which are unrelated but have to interface etc) and I'm THE guy that does the troubleshooting when it breaks.
So - they pay me as a "technician" but call me an "Engineer". Sucks.
Re: Will America Break Up?
Many are underpaid, especially in this depressed state of our union. However, there are some who (if possible) seem to be paid well above what would seem appropriate. Take my brother for instance. He's a software consultant for PeopleSoft/Oracle. On average, he garners about $125 an hour. That's some really green cabbage, no?
Last edited by MinutemanCO; December 6th, 2013 at 22:52.
Re: Will America Break Up?
Or just look at government sector workers. On average, they earn double what private sector workers earn.
Re: Will America Break Up?
I wonder to myself mostly, why people worry about someone else being paid a lot of money. (Not you MMCO, others specifically those who hate to see companies and corporations paying large amounts to CEOs etc).
The way this works is, there's a board of directors, and a CEO who is hired. The board makes the decision for the stock holders. The CEO is hired and negotiates a pay scale or contract for a time period (usually about 5-10 years), or the CEO started the company and holds the majority of the stock in the company.
So who CARES if he makes 30 million in a year? I don't. If the stockholders are making their money from the stocks, then why is anyone whining about that (I hear it all the time... in the came of Chrysler, now, the government jumped in and gave them more money to bail them out... instead of the board doing the right thing and downsizing and FIRING the CEO etc).
I would like to make 125 bucks an hour, but my job isn't worth that. I'm about where I OUGHT to be (hence I doubt I'm much underpaid, but I'm certainly not OVER paid at this point, if you include things like stress, driving 40+ miles per day for work - JUST to get here and back home again, and there aren't homes near here I can afford so I can't move... etc).
I promise you, if they call me even ONCE after I leave here (and that possibility exists) I will tell them I'll be happy to help as a consultant at $150 an hour, minimum of one hour each time they call me. The chances of them calling me are actually higher than anyone thinks they are here (A LOT of people who have retired or moved on have been called back for problems because they have that corporate knowledge needed that didn't get passed on, and if you think I didn't keep shit to myself, well... you'd be wrong
There are currently 19 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 19 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks