"No one owes you a job/anything" (interviewers, temp, agency)

[prosopis]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

First my example was what you see from a good number of business owners. That is not my logic, just logic that is compounded through many different anecdotal pieces of evidence by individuals in the millennial, gen X and even boomer age cohorts.

Must be a non technical field, or one swamped with labor. What I'm really getting from all this is that reality does not meet your expectations. You can accept that and do the job that is available, low pay and all, or you can look at other fields instead. I'm not working in the field I studied for, because there was no work for a time and I went in a different direction.

Originally Posted by mkpunk

Only a year or two? The current entry level jobs (ones you suggest that I apply for) are really looking for junior level are looking for an average of two to five years of experience with a degree.

Ok, fine, you work 2-3 in the cr*p job so that when you apply for the next one you are higher up in the que of desirable applicants. Your hypothetical involved being offered a job that didn't match your expectations - but it was a job! If the problem is that they all want experience but don't want to pay well without the experience, you take the low pay and suck it up to be better qualified next time.

Are you applying for jobs where you don't quite meet the experience requirement? You should be. If they don't get any applicants with the ideal qualifications or all that do have them botch the interview, you may get a chance. You wouldn't believe some of the people my boss has hired, all because he didn't want to go through the whole posting process again. Who knows, maybe the interviewer went to your alma mater and wants to talk about football (or whatever). Maybe his mother comes from the same town you do...

Originally Posted by mkpunk

You make it seem like people like me haven't. We have, entry level jobs and even McJobs just have the 100s of people asking for the same opportunity I am that "is too much to expect as my due" you mention in your quote.

Originally Posted by mkpunk

100 is a stretch but I see what you are saying if you compound what you mean from the first point. But the thing is if we go by how many jobless there are to the jobless numbers, it is one out of 5.1 per job. so you can't just give an opportunity to the other 4?

Why is 100 a stretch when you just used the same figure above? I don't follow your logic here. I'm not talking about jobless vs. jobless numbers, I'm talking about how the hiring process actually works. You get a certain number of applications for an available job. If there are only a dozen you probably look at each one. If there are 100 applications and 5 well qualified candidates out of the first 10, you may not even look at the others. That is why so many applications get no response and that is why you don't take it personally as the applicant and you don't get discouraged.

Originally Posted by mkpunk

In the recession I agree, during no recessions, I say that the number is MUCH lower mainly because one can be singled out much more easily.

Trouble is you are disagreeing based on what you've heard -- since you are talking about having basically no work experience elsewhere. I'm making the statement based on 25+ years in the workforce doing everything from manual labor to technical work, in both the private sector and a state job. Believe me when I tell you that few people are satisfied with their working lives for long.

Originally Posted by mkpunk

I neglected the point of moving because it is a non-starter because we all know that some people see the Dakota's Oil Boom as the wonderful wizard of Oz and others see the man behind the curtain.

A nice analogy, but completely irrelevant to your problem. Your problem is that you can't get hired, correct? Sure, booms don't last, anyone tells you there will be 2% unemployment up there for the next 30 years is wrong. But the point is that you need experience doing something, and there are jobs there now. Working for a year before the bust is better than sitting around and complaining.

Originally Posted by mkpunk

ND has a population of about 700,000 so 14,000 of their population are out of work and actively looking for work. Compare this to AZ (my homestate) of about 6.5 million with 494,000 of it out of work and actively looking or work (about a 7.6 unemployment rate.)

So what? Why calculate the thousands of people also looking? Surely you're not telling me that this is too hard or something? Why wouldn't you go where there are 480,000 fewer people to be competing with? I don't get it.

Originally Posted by mkpunk

For me, I don't have the savings for a move of this magnitude (we are talking about 1,500 miles from the Phoenix area to Bismarck. Google puts this as 22 hours on a straight run. This is without saying that many workers burnout fast or get fired within months.

Ok, so being employed isn't worth moving to you.

Quitter talk. Sorry man, you're never going anywhere with the quit before you try attitude. My first job was in Mexico, I was terrified of going, didn't speak any Spanish and wasn't happy about the pay, but I went anyway. I've worked in camps where locals wander through with machine guns, ND is a flipping cake walk. I didn't have a truck to take down there either, I caught rides with some of the other geo's until I could buy a truck. You never find solutions if you don't look for them.

Ok, so say you were willing to consider a job up there. Depending on your field you may be able to apply and do a phone interview without going up there - no cost to you. If you end up with a good offer, the cost of moving is trivial, especially if you know it's not permanent and you don't have to take all your stuff with you. If you're not qualified for anything technical up there, you may have to show up and earn $20/hour at Walmart for a while (hearsay is that is the going rate for casual labor). Bus ticket costs you around $300, just what is the problem? I don't get it.

Originally Posted by mkpunk

"All you have have to do is look around for another elsewhere if you want to relocate or simply find a better position." Sounds a little simplified. Let's remember I can look for work and try to find a better position and guess what, it may bring as much as your ballyhooed entry level jobs.

I've found working life to be just that simple. But then I don't share your attitude, and I'm good at learning a lot of stuff OTJ, so maybe it's been easy. Again it sounds to me like you are coming up with reasons not to try.

[skytop]

Actually, since functioning normally in this society requires some form of income, you kinda do owe people a job. If you don't then you should not complain about crime, homelessness and all other social issues. Which is fine, maybe this is where we are heading, wealthy people living in bunker type housing estates with private security, surrounded by herd of rowdy poors living in shacks, who no one owes anything to. Trust funds however are owed to wealthy kids under the laws of nature

[Rambler123]

Originally Posted by Marc Paolella

You haven't posted anything about reality. You've posted what you call facts, but they are not facts. We all know that statistics can be utilized dishonestly to push an agenda. And unemployment statistics are all about politics and agendas. So when you post them, and they are discredited, you claim that those who disagree with you are ignoring reality. That is not what I am ignoring. I am ignoring your bogus statistics because they are published for a reason. To push a political agenda. One you apparently agree with.

Blah, blah, blah - did you just copy Faux News or did you actually come up with this mumbo jumbo yourself? I like how you claim the actual numbers are "discredited" - by whom? Some nut on hate radio with no facts, or just by yourself, as if you have any credibility left at this point.

So, let me get this straight:

1) You deny the facts regarding the number of people who need work compared to the number of jobs available. You claim it is not based on reality and is solely pushing an agenda. You have no evidence of this, nor are you able to refute the methodology used to determine the number of people out of work, nor can you refute the number of available job openings. That ratio, at best, remains 2.6 people per 1 opening. I have no idea how anyone can think this is all some giant political lie, but we'll continue with that insanity in the next bullet point.

2) You claim the numbers are solely "pushing an agenda." What agenda? If you bothered to think things through, you'd realize that it is in the government's interest to make things look BETTER than they are. That would protect whoever in power and help them keep their jobs. So, if we go with the assumption that this is all about "pushing an agenda" - a claim you have not supported with anything but more far-right wing drivel - than the actual ratio of people out of work vs. job openings is WORSE than what is being stated (2.6 people per 1 job.)

There is some truth to that, interestingly. Some of the job postings are no doubt fake, as we've discussed earlier in this thread - the ones created solely to bring in visa workers instead of Americans, for example. Additionally, the 2.6 people per 1 job uses the optimistic U3 unemployment number. Using the more realistic U6 number, we're at about 5.1 people per 1 job opening.

Summary: If anything, the situation described is far worse than what is being reported, thus tying into the only believable agenda - protecting those in power regardless of political party and protecting big business. I'm sure these are more facts you're not interesting in hearing since the rest of your rant was just more far-right wing nonsense about "people like you" and how we have no "right to take things" when we are simply demanding the jobs be returned to this nation so everyone can earn a day's pay for a day's work. No sane person would disagree with the need to bring jobs back... but, you're also the one who claims "there are hundreds of jobs for everyone" - a statement that is so far out of touch with reality I have to wonder what you're smoking.

In short, your spiteful ranting contributes nothing to this discussion and quite frankly I am disappointed to know that people such as yourself who deny facts in favor of unsupported lunacy are allowed to vote.

[krmb]

I've heard the phrase, "no one owes you a living," implying that you have to get out and work for it, but the idea that, "no one owes you a job," is a little harsh. I mean, if I can't find work, how am I supposed to earn a living? It's true, though, that this does seem to be the prevailing thought of employed America, and, had I known what I do now, I probably would have begged my parents to send me to the best private schools, gotten involved with every club, begged my dad for an apprenticeship, and gone to a trade school for one year out of high school instead of taking a year off. Likely, I also would have majored in something more in-demand than teaching and gotten tutoring for the subjects I didn't understand. At least I would probably be employed now instead of living off of my meager paycheck and supplementing with student loans.

When I was a child, though, I suffered from bouts of social anxiety and feared bullying and other forms of disapproval from my peers. I was afraid to ask my teachers if I could pursue the top tier or get into the honors program, because I was afraid they would think that I was not smart enough and would rebuke me for asking. I had no idea what the merits of private school were and went to below-par public schools in an effort to fit in. I naively thought that the private schools were full of rich entitled bullies. I also thought that the popular kids would frown on me if I tried to attend an after-school activity. I had no idea how important volunteering was to helping someone build job experience and obtain necessary skills. I also thought that I probably had nothing to worry about since I usually worked with my dad at the family business and was supposedly getting trained by him; I only found out after he retired that he was the only one who knew how to run it properly and had trained no one to take his place. We quickly went out of business after dad retired. I was given so much when I was young, but I ignorantly took it for granted. What would I not do for a second chance?

[Cerebrator]

Originally Posted by HarryManback

Or universities could make every major an open one. The reason people settle for second-rate majors like Communications is often because they had to apply to get into a first-rate major and couldn't make the cut, for whatever reason. It makes no sense that the majors that have the most job opportunities available are usually the ones that make themselves the hardest to get into. I guess it's a way for their departments to keep up a prestigious image.

I see many people rip on the major in communications. I don't know about you folks, but I know quite a few people who are making high incomes who majored in communications. Perhaps not the majority who majored in it, but the ones who have thrived, are thriving quite well. My cousin worked at ad and PR agencies, and is now working at a MAJOR media company--you know, one that everyone on this earth knows of, the one that sets the stage for all sorts of fashion and behavior these days--making about $150,000 per year in her late twenties. I know another guy who is now a bigwig at a major marketing holding company.

[bruceox1962]

I moved from mainstream work force to selling on ebay from home. I got tired of being owned.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by prosopis

Are you applying for jobs where you don't quite meet the experience requirement? You should be. If they don't get any applicants with the ideal qualifications or all that do have them botch the interview, you may get a chance. You wouldn't believe some of the people my boss has hired, all because he didn't want to go through the whole posting process again. Who knows, maybe the interviewer went to your alma mater and wants to talk about football (or whatever). Maybe his mother comes from the same town you do...

I think that is something that not everyone on CD really understands. Otherwise it would be like this.



or this



I would argue that a company has a lower life span then most people. So to argue that somehow they can hold out forever frankly does not work.

Hiring is a process and the costs of hiring keep going up. How so? Because it takes time and as management advances the cost of their time keeps going up.

Ever read or watch Moneyball? If you build a team with top players it does not mean it will really work. But if you look at statistics it can help. Likewise if you hire people that have decades of experience for every role then what happens when they retire? Secession planning is a fact of life. I know of some organizations that sadly will collapse once some people eventually retire. Yes having someone "extra" on payroll might add up a tad but to a point it is labor/management insurance. I know of some that are practically one or two person departments. They have no time to train and are doing a disservice to their stakeholders because it is not sustainable.

I know of a non profit that was 1/5 full time employees for servicing about 18,000 people. Ok that's fine but frankly what happens when one gets sick or passes away? Why put it on that level? It had to merge with another to make sure that services were provided. Other comparable ones in other areas had two to three times the staff for nearly the same amount of people.

Now the credit/housing bubble creates equity traps and will create outright liquidation of assets for retirement. What happens when there are fewer people that can afford a product? Prices go down assuming it cannot market itself. How exactly can tens of millions of baby boomers afford to retire without gradually selling their stocks, bonds, mutual funds, 401k's, IRA's, 403b's, houses, cars, boats etc. There is evidence that as people age the likelihood of moving becomes less likely after the age of 65 (American planner association)
http://www.morpc.org/pdf/Myers_AgingBabyBoomers.pdf

But of course how is this a bad thing when lowering prices simply provides more equity for those that could not afford it otherwise? We can talk about companies all we want but the fact of the matter still remains is that this is the biggest bubble we've been putting off for a generation. What if inflation reverts into deflation and we start seeing prices going down en masse beyond 2008.

I'd recommend the book Average is Over.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by andywire

I'm quite satisfied with the fact that colleges hold high standards to their potential medical and engineering grads. I do not feel that just anyone should be able to enter these programs. More over, universities do not have the resources to teach an infinite number of medical or engineering students. Because of this, they have to limit the number of admitted students based on their qualifications. Sounds quite fair and reasonable to me. As a bonus, we can have a little more confidence in the critical work that these students will perform later in life.

Most schools do limit students and you have to get say a 3.0 or even a 3.5 GPA in general or even for major courses. Many do this for an Excalibur test for students to pass. Some do have the hard program enrollment numbers though, particularly wen it comes to transfer students, even from community colleges.

Originally Posted by andywire

This should provide extra incentive for young people in school today. Work hard, and you can gain entry in one of these professions that offer better job security and pay. If just anybody could pursue these professions, there would be no incentive at all to perform, learn and grow.

The issue is for good and for bad, other industries want this to. Let's say engineering, you want a good engineer and the should have math skills in their bag of skills. Sure computers makes things easier but, you do need a basis. Now compare that to say being a news anchor I can only see college for the research portion (maybe practical experience on the local college channel.) I can honestly not think of a true major that a degree is honestly not needed, maybe music and acting.

Originally Posted by prosopis

Must be a non technical field, or one swamped with labor. What I'm really getting from all this is that reality does not meet your expectations. You can accept that and do the job that is available, low pay and all, or you can look at other fields instead. I'm not working in the field I studied for, because there was no work for a time and I went in a different direction.

Entry level is fairly saturated anywhere. You look at administrative assistant (secretary) roles and you can see any number of college majors in those roles. Mainly because as you said (going by what you have said) 100's go into that and

Originally Posted by prosopis

Ok, fine, you work 2-3 in the cr*p job so that when you apply for the next one you are higher up in the que of desirable applicants. Your hypothetical involved being offered a job that didn't match your expectations - but it was a job! If the problem is that they all want experience but don't want to pay well without the experience, you take the low pay and suck it up to be better qualified next time.

I would do this IF I can get the crap jobs. I've tried with the lower paying places and enjoy no fruit from those squeezes and this has been with several different places.

The other thing is each company does stuff different. How many times have you see the blue squirrel requirements looking for 4 years experience, experience with Six Sigma, experience with our software. ect.

Originally Posted by prosopis

Are you applying for jobs where you don't quite meet the experience requirement? You should be. If they don't get any applicants with the ideal qualifications or all that do have them botch the interview, you may get a chance. You wouldn't believe some of the people my boss has hired, all because he didn't want to go through the whole posting process again. Who knows, maybe the interviewer went to your alma mater and wants to talk about football (or whatever). Maybe his mother comes from the same town you do...

There are some of that I've seen, most of the interviews I've been on have been much more strict and by the book than, "Oh you were in boy scouts, my son is an eagle scout." The issue is with your logic, I need to be close enough (and use enough buzzwords) to get through filters. That is the issue. Often you don't hear if you application was accepted and you moved onto the next part of the process unless you get the e-mail or phone call for the next stage.

Originally Posted by prosopis

Why is 100 a stretch when you just used the same figure above? I don't follow your logic here. I'm not talking about jobless vs. jobless numbers, I'm talking about how the hiring process actually works. You get a certain number of applications for an available job. If there are only a dozen you probably look at each one. If there are 100 applications and 5 well qualified candidates out of the first 10, you may not even look at the others. That is why so many applications get no response and that is why you don't take it personally as the applicant and you don't get discouraged.

1) I was using the 100 figure you used for the first part. That was not as good "quoting" by me to hit the point you just used.

2) The issue is if I am one of those first 10/12 and I am the only one without the set experience, I am SOL. If all 10/12 of them don't have the ext experience but I am the best, I still maybe SOL. It's a zero-sum game for the effort which leads to my next point.

3) It is easy to get discouraged if you look and look and look like I have and hear little to nothing, goto job fairs and see a lot of crap sales. I am talking pure commission based insurance sales and sold financial services (crap) jobs. In my case I had that and my ex broke up with me at the same time.

Originally Posted by prosopis

Trouble is you are disagreeing based on what you've heard -- since you are talking about having basically no work experience elsewhere. I'm making the statement based on 25+ years in the workforce doing everything from manual labor to technical work, in both the private sector and a state job. Believe me when I tell you that few people are satisfied with their working lives for long.

Perhaps but the issue is is feasible to move up. I may want to move up from say lead cashier to being an assistant front manager, doesn't mean I should get it just because I want it. Managers need to see your drive and that you are right for the role. If there are openings at your place, maybe the managers don't see it in you and you leave like your cut-bait after 1-2 years of the crap jobs.

Originally Posted by prosopis

A nice analogy, but completely irrelevant to your problem. Your problem is that you can't get hired, correct? Sure, booms don't last, anyone tells you there will be 2% unemployment up there for the next 30 years is wrong. But the point is that you need experience doing something, and there are jobs there now. Working for a year before the bust is better than sitting around and complaining.

It is only worth it if I can land the next job and not worry about burning through savings. The issue is specific experience is important in this labor economy, NOT any experience. I could work in the oil fields but unless there is another oil field found, that experience is irrelevant in many cases.

Originally Posted by prosopis

So what? Why calculate the thousands of people also looking? Surely you're not telling me that this is too hard or something? Why wouldn't you go where there are 480,000 fewer people to be competing with? I don't get it.

I am just showing the actuality. Small population (not even 1/6th of the entire population of AZ) and smaller unemployed (under 3% of the AZ unemployed.) That doesn't include "the hundreds" who are much closer and looking for the same job.

Originally Posted by prosopis

Ok, so being employed isn't worth moving to you.

Quitter talk. Sorry man, you're never going anywhere with the quit before you try attitude.

Thanks for the vote of no confidence just because I don't see the value in moving thousands of miles away for a not sure thing that it would be a long term job (emotional burn out, physical burn out and what not) and the costs to move back to AZ when I'm done.

Before you consider anything I would suggest educating yourself like I have thanks to posters on C-D.

North Dakota - Bakken Oil Field Jobs - YouTube

Some facts about working in North Dakota Oil Fields - YouTube

The reason I quit working in the ND oilfield - YouTube

Originally Posted by prosopis

My first job was in Mexico, I was terrified of going, didn't speak any Spanish and wasn't happy about the pay, but I went anyway. I've worked in camps where locals wander through with machine guns, ND is a flipping cake walk. I didn't have a truck to take down there either, I caught rides with some of the other geo's until I could buy a truck. You never find solutions if you don't look for them.

ND is a cake walk? Yeah only because you don't wander through camps with machine guns to fight the cartels. But there are different issues. There are enough of these problems that you see lawyer ads and websites when you search oil field injuries. This is ontop of the conditions of these camps. Mexico is slightly warmer than Arizona so I imagine night can be cold but the Dakotas can be as cold as the -0's in the day compared to maybe 30's in Arizona and Mexico.

Originally Posted by prosopis

Ok, so say you were willing to consider a job up there. Depending on your field you may be able to apply and do a phone interview without going up there - no cost to you. If you end up with a good offer, the cost of moving is trivial, especially if you know it's not permanent and you don't have to take all your stuff with you. If you're not qualified for anything technical up there, you may have to show up and earn $20/hour at Walmart for a while (hearsay is that is the going rate for casual labor). Bus ticket costs you around $300, just what is the problem? I don't get it.

For one, you are not me. I see things different from you. What is a slam dunk to you (and others) I am skeptic in. I don't think I would work out in the fields and don't think the $15 an hour McJobs in the Dakotas actually exist and do not want to find out that I was right because I could work at ones near me for $8.00 an hour. Path of least resistance.

Bus ticket for $300, that would be $300 I don't have to for housing and food, ect. for the first two-four weeks (depending on in the hole pay periods.) There's a lot of unknowns. I would only move if I had savings for several months in the reserves to do so and be able to last just incase I cannot find the temp agency jobs and the hiring process takes longer than expected. That doesn't sound unreasonable does it?

Originally Posted by prosopis

I've found working life to be just that simple. But then I don't share your attitude, and I'm good at learning a lot of stuff OTJ, so maybe it's been easy. Again it sounds to me like you are coming up with reasons not to try.

It may sound like it is to you but that is all you ever hear anymore. No companies want to train, they want turn-key employees. They can't afford the training and with the talent pools they don't need to.

[BigDaveyL]

Originally Posted by Rambler123

Blah, blah, blah - did you just copy Faux News or did you actually come up with this mumbo jumbo yourself? I like how you claim the actual numbers are "discredited" - by whom? Some nut on hate radio with no facts, or just by yourself, as if you have any credibility left at this point.

So, let me get this straight:

1) You deny the facts regarding the number of people who need work compared to the number of jobs available. You claim it is not based on reality and is solely pushing an agenda. You have no evidence of this, nor are you able to refute the methodology used to determine the number of people out of work, nor can you refute the number of available job openings. That ratio, at best, remains 2.6 people per 1 opening. I have no idea how anyone can think this is all some giant political lie, but we'll continue with that insanity in the next bullet point.

2) You claim the numbers are solely "pushing an agenda." What agenda? If you bothered to think things through, you'd realize that it is in the government's interest to make things look BETTER than they are. That would protect whoever in power and help them keep their jobs. So, if we go with the assumption that this is all about "pushing an agenda" - a claim you have not supported with anything but more far-right wing drivel - than the actual ratio of people out of work vs. job openings is WORSE than what is being stated (2.6 people per 1 job.)

There is some truth to that, interestingly. Some of the job postings are no doubt fake, as we've discussed earlier in this thread - the ones created solely to bring in visa workers instead of Americans, for example. Additionally, the 2.6 people per 1 job uses the optimistic U3 unemployment number. Using the more realistic U6 number, we're at about 5.1 people per 1 job opening.

Summary: If anything, the situation described is far worse than what is being reported, thus tying into the only believable agenda - protecting those in power regardless of political party and protecting big business. I'm sure these are more facts you're not interesting in hearing since the rest of your rant was just more far-right wing nonsense about "people like you" and how we have no "right to take things" when we are simply demanding the jobs be returned to this nation so everyone can earn a day's pay for a day's work. No sane person would disagree with the need to bring jobs back... but, you're also the one who claims "there are hundreds of jobs for everyone" - a statement that is so far out of touch with reality I have to wonder what you're smoking.

In short, your spiteful ranting contributes nothing to this discussion and quite frankly I am disappointed to know that people such as yourself who deny facts in favor of unsupported lunacy are allowed to vote.

If anything the U3 number is a lower bound of people that are unemployed. At best, 6.7% are unemployed. The numbers look even more grim if we look into the labor participation rate and average/median salaries.

Policy makers have to start somewhere and say "best case, this is how many people are unemployed"

And he forgets that the BLS is supposed to be a bipartisan organization. All they do is collect and collate data for the policy makers using well known statistical methods which they publish. If anyone had half a brain, they could understand their methodology and see that it is not really biased and does make some sense. For example, it counts people that WANT to work. So the retired and disabled and the home makers aren't counted. It's simplistic so that's why it is only a lower bound because more people are being forced into early retirement, for example.

[I_Love_LI_but]

Originally Posted by Rambler123

Well, the whole situation stinks no matter how you look at it:

1) Our leaders should at least be trying to put our people to work, not selling out to corporate shills who send the jobs overseas. Like it or not, charity begins at home as the old saying goes, and our nation really doesn't have an obligation to fix the economy of every other place in the world.

2) The people overseas who have taken our jobs aren't exactly loving life either. One of the reasons labor is cheaper over there is because it's perfectly fine to treat the workers like trash, pay them next to nothing, work them like slaves, and have unsafe working conditions. So, while I'd like them to also work, I'd honestly like them to not be treated like trash.

3) Everyone who's willing to put in a day's work deserves a day's pay. Everyone who has gone the extra mile with better skills, education, work ethic, whatever deserves a better day's work for a better day's pay.

Truthfully, I'd like that rule to apply the world over, but we have to start small, and quite frankly, we as American citizens have even less say over what goes on in those other messed-up nations than we have in our trouble-riddled one.

American corporations also have traditionally made out like bandits on our tax money because of the supposed "bargain" they give to our government in return ... provide jobs for the people traditionally equaled receive tax breaks and loopholes in the tax code for businesses and also receive a safe and rich infrastructure for your business to grow in (transportation, utilities, roadways, etc.) and for your corporate leaders to live in. When they try to have what they call a captive unit in India, for example, they have to be totally self-contained to the point of providing their own utilities for their buildings and they have to bribe government officials and numerous others to even get things they SHOULD be able to get legally, and they have to pay for SERIOUS security. So now they get the best of both worlds and pay a fair price for nothing ... our infrastructure off the tax money paid for by US citizens AND access to cheap employees they can pay like coolies in the third world.

Note when they outsource jobs and break their contract to provide employment for Americans, their loopholes and tax breaks do not disappear, nor are they forced to move overseas and live among the squalor their workers live in. Also, BONUS, the US military is on the job 24-7-365, making sure those shipping channels are safe so their goods can travel back to the USA to be sold without pirate attacks. Things would be rough if their garments made by children in Indonesia had a 1 in 20 chance of making it to be sold in the USA because of pirates, eh and they had to protect their own shipping lanes, wouldn't they? Oh no, the US citizen's tax money is on the job 24-7-365 courtesy of the US military, making sure the garments that used to be made here by US employees are shipped safely and at no extra security expense for these corporations while US citizens are left holding the bag paying for it ... with no jobs in the industry anymore and with our sons and daughters risking death in the military industrial complex to boot.

If they are not providing US citizens with jobs, which used to be the contract for all they get out of OUR tax money paid to the government, they should be getting a lot less of the perks out of our tax money. Yes, things have changed. Well, okay, their perks off our tax money PLUS their big corporate tax write-offs should become much smaller too to reflect this. The US citizens who pay taxes are being treated like a bunch of jerk-offs all around and if this offshore outsourcing is so great, let the corporations pay more taxes to reflect that, because they are no longer keeping their part of the bargain (provide jobs for America) to be entitled to all the tax breaks they get.