Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why

Post Reply New Topic

I think that's a good idea. Basically, try out the candidates.

Unlike grades, when it comes to jobs, there's only so many to go around. But (simplistic egs I know), the shelver who gets the job should be the one fastest and most accurate at shelving, the typist should be the fastest & most accurate typist etc. Not just schmoozing one's way to a job.

This actually ties in quite a bit with objectivism. At the start of the Fountainhead, nothing could get done well because those with the jobs and power were those who schmoozed best, rather than the best architect. The same in Atlas Shrugged for railways.

I feel like sometimes the best candidate gets overlooked for someone who's more of an extrovert/more NT who isn't necessarily the best for the job.

Even 'people skills' can be broken down. Does the employer want someone with good bedside manner (for eg, when hiring a nurse), who's good with kids (a teacher) or who's good at the schmoozing type thing that people associate with 'people skills' (sales)? These are all different skills - saying 'people skills' is as broad as saying 'computer skills' rather than 'fast typist', 'proficient in programming languages' or 'experience using Excel'.

Personal Responsibility is owning up to your choices and your behavior. You have the freedom for both, but own it.

I think it depends how you phrase it. There's a way to make that argument more persuasively and in a way that seems like you're improving things for the candidates.

For eg I couldn't get shop work because I didn't have GCSE maths grade C. I'm dyspraxic and my course in GCSE maths focused mainly on geometry and ability to draw graphs. I have experience working in a charity shop (thift store) as a volunteer and we didn't have a calculator on our till. I got good at quick mental arithmetic in my head - I've always been quite good at that but the shop made me quicker at it than most people. I think shops would benefit more from mental arithmetic than from geometry. Please, just test my mental maths!

An architectural job would require good ability to use geometry but that's why I wouldn't think of applying for those jobs. Again, different skills required. Think about what the job actually entails.

There's a similar riddle like this.

Let me put it to you all this way.

A. Do you want to pay for someone's welfare or SSDI?

B. Do you want to pay for someone's incarceration? You're paying for their three hots and a cot through your tax dollars?

Then, wouldn't it make more sense to again teach people how to fish?

White, despite the picture.

C. Would you rather have beggars out on the street? Disabled beggars and child beggars?

I value the ability to walk through streets rarely being begged to. It's kind of a selfish decision not to have even more homeless people than we do at present and to hope the homeless people we do see out there get help. I happily pay my VAT and inheritance tax knowing it's reducing the number of people out on the streets begging to me. I've never seen a child beggar in the UK, although I know homeless kids exist, and I'm glad of that.

When I was in McDonalds in Bulgaria just after it went capitalist, there were loads of homeless beggars at the door, mostly disabled, begging to me. I was a kid. It wasn't a pretty site. It was partly sad of course, but it was also scary, uncomfortable and put me off my food. A selfish part of me doesn't like that, as well as a selfless one.

Another question - why demand address on a CV? That makes it harder for homeless people to get a job. There should be a box to tick saying 'I'm homeless'.

Ya, C as well. And, guess what when the homeless builds their tent cities it is a breeding ground for disease. Hey maybe the next covid-19 will come from one of these tent cities. So, how is objectivism rational again?

In the US, socialist programs keep mentally ill people out of institutions where they could be helped. I have no problem with welfare programs where they are effective. The issue is that they typically aren’t. These programs are exactly what put mentally ill people on the streets, drug addicted, with no prospects for productive life.

If capitalism was allowed to be capitalism here, more people would have a disposable income with which they could afford treatment for their children or elderly parents. There’s no need for the state to step in. They could set up homes or hospitals for people in need. Instead, they grant them access to addictive drugs and keep them needy.

Objectivism holds that life is precious and valuable. If you value your own life, by extension you value others. You would want care if something bad were to happen to you, or if you were sick or mentally ill, and it is the hope that others would care for you in time of need that you care for others. If nothing else, you get dangerous people off the street. Lefties in the US are working to defund the police so more dangerous people CAN run free. Reciprocity is a tremendous benefit of rational self-interest.

American conservatism is not the same thing as objectivism. Don’t confuse the two. Libertarianism puts a lot of objectivist principles into action but, again, is not the same thing. Objectivism holds that government IS the problem. The aims of both political parties depend on keeping and building on the present corrupted structure. The solution would be a restoration if the government as originally designed and intended: guaranteed personal freedom for every person regardless of racial background or socioeconomic status, protection against foreign invasion, establishment of basic law and order. Our conservatives often bemoan the loss of traditional American values while throwing the doors wide open to their enemies to marginalize individuals.

Capitalism being allowed to be capitalism looks like Victorian England.

Nowadays, most of the more well-known health and safety regs are for employees or are absolutely obvious s**t. Don't operate machinery when drunk, don't let kids open medicine bottles, don't leave plastic bags near toddlers. You would have to be a child or an idiot to be unsafe with such things.

But we have other health and safety regs we don't talk about. Stuff like 'don't put chalk into bread to make it whiter', 'don't make clothing from explosive materials'. You wouldn't have to be an idiot to fall for that in a world with no regulations. I'm glad to live in a world with no spontaneous combustion.

And yes, in Capitalist Victorian England, there was child labour for many years. It was socialist policies which changed that when it comes to the working class.

Who looks after the working class in a purely capitalist society? Or people with the kind of mental illnesses unwanted in society (not mine - most people are quite sympathetic about anxiety but for eg schizophrenia or sociopathy)? I'm glad I live in a society where healthcare is free at the point of delivery.

Some people can't afford to look after their adult children by themselves. It has nothing to do with taxes, unless you mean the days of the Poll Tax.

Why?

When someone applies for a position, it is safe to assume that they are implying that their skills meet or exceed the minimum qualifications for the position.  I am giving them the opportunity to prove it quickly -- right there on the spot -- with a simple written test.

Sure, I could bring them on for a "probationary period"; but if, at the end of that period, they have shown that their skills are insufficient, I have to dismiss them and start over -- and no, I do not see the need to provide the training they should already have.  I am not running a remedial education center, I am running a business.I do, every time I read a résumé.  Not only does the job entail more than a working knowledge of maths and electronics, but it also requires the new employee to "hit the ground running" with minimal training and orientation.  In today's highly-competitive corporate environment, I cannot afford to carry a non-productive employee on my payroll for very long -- if at all.

That's good.

You were suppose to be confused by YELLOW house, BROWN doors, BLACK bear picture.

I'm fine with paying for those. Not everyone is capable of fishing.

Because the modern day GCSE maths system has nothing to do with whether a candidate can work in a shop or not.

It has everything to do with if a candidate is dyspraxic or not.

I can do the kind of maths that is required for a shop. More than that, considering most tills are electronic. I know this because I have worked in a shop - although only for free since nobody will hire me because I can't do geometry

the right's personal responsibility schtick is just so ableist.