Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Discrimination: Learn what you are talking about!


Most of the posters on the recent discrimination threads show a startling lack of knowledge regarding the history of discrimination and of the US in general. Discrimination and anti-discrimination laws are social issues, not business issues. Money is not everything.

In my view a business is a public trust: it is sanctioned and licensed by the government, which is the voice of the people -- not the voice of the owners of the business. Being able to turn a profit on an action does not make that action either legal or ethical.

Segregation laws are not enforced anymore because of the backlash of closet racism in America, not because of "other mechanisms". Women must be allowed equal access to the job market because it is an essential human need. If they have kids, so what? Do we want public institutions penalizing people who choose to procreate?

Americans are amazingly gifted at forgetting and ignoring history.

Jeff Kotula
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Bravo.

programmer
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

"In my view a business is a public trust: it is sanctioned and licensed by the government, which is the voice of the people -- not the voice of the owners of the business."

Well, that is *your* view, but it doesn't jive with the ideals we hold dear in America. Namely, that the government doesn't run everything from the military to milk production.  I don't need some silly license from the government to run my small business. And I certainly don't need some twit on a message board hinting how my business doesn't belong to me, but belongs to the "people". You must of just read some Mao Tse-tung.

Spare me your disproven and broken socialistic rantings.

Go Linux Go!
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

I agree, I think that many posters back up their arguments with a business reason while looking past the social impact. Is it better to be a good person or a good business man? I think both can coexist and one can run both an ethical AND successful business as many have proven. A business has a responsibility to the community, both locally and globally. It cannot just ignore that community and replace it with the bottom line. 


[Americans are amazingly gifted at forgetting and ignoring history. ]

I don't think this is limited to Americans btw. Ignorance is not restricted by borders.

Ian Stallings
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

"Do we want public institutions penalizing people who choose to procreate?"

No, but I'd like to see a licence for people to have children and if they don't hold that licence then would need to be penalized in some way.

Why do I think people should have a licence to have children? To show that they have an appropriate emotional/phsychological state and that they will be good parents. To show that they have enough money to support their offspring and not let them become a burden on the rest of society (although maybe in the US it's harder to be a burden on the state than it is here in the UK).

Gwyn
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

"Why do I think people should have a licence to have children? To show that they have an appropriate emotional/phsychological state and that they will be good parents."

I have one comment to make, actually a quote from recent history.

"Define the word  'IS'  "

Now you really want the gov't to decide who is appropriate for parenthood when the then leader of the free world needed a definition of the word "is"???  not to mention the circumstances surrounding said event.....

apw
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Go Linux Go: I think this points out the influence of business culture on Americans and how public responsibility has been replaced with greed. Corporations are constantly proving that since they bear no real responsibility that they can abuse the system and undercut the American people. Personal wealth and business' bottom line do not outweigh the rights of the people, which are simply protected by the government.

And if your business does not serve the greater good of the people than what does it exist for? Who are your customers?

Ian Stallings
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Go Linux, Go! said:

I don't need some silly license from the government to run my small business.

*****

Oddly enough, you do need a license to run a small business. It's called a "business license."

And anyone who has a business license has to be aware of and adhere to an exhaustive list of regulations. Without these regulations, we'd all be working in sweatshops, for the "economic good" of the business owners.

Benji Smith
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

I think GLG and the rest just get irate when they can't sum up the workings of the world on one side of paper.

Neil E
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Anytime someone starts claiming to be "the voice of the people",  I start looking for cover.

Business climate is dynamic.  Today's anti-discrimination laws are written in response to actions now 40 years old.  To expect them to be timeless is naive.  To expect them to be enforced uniformly is also naive.

The bottom line is that you:
1. Have an age and  race category.
2. You likely do not have a personal representative from the EEOC who will guarantee that your job search is discrimination free.

Deal with it. Age discrimination is not topping the list of national priorities at the moment, and likely never will.

Nat Ersoz
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Let's ask Joel, or anyone else who has suffered through the startup of a small business, whether they consider what they have created to be a "public trust".


On one hand I consider most businesses to be inhuman, demeaning, cruel, blatantly self interested, and actively crushing to the soul and the spirit to everone except the owners. I sometimes wonder if the point of many businesses that I've had contact with was to put down their employees and degrade people and prove a point, rather than turn a profit.


On the other hand, if you cloud the notion of starting one's own "thing" up with the notion that because you're a business you now have to satisfy an intricate web of social responsibilities and thus demote profit to less than primary importance, then NOBODY would bother to start a business.


People *only* start businesses because they think they can get ahead. The profit motive is imperfect, some consider it "disgusting", but it's the only reason the world keeps turning.


"Public trust"... sounds like limosuine liberal politics to me.

Bored Bystander
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Discrimination exists in all parts of the world, and its not age all the time.

What you can do is make sure you do not discriminate people based on anything.

The other thing is know it exists, and make enough money before it will affect you.

This is not a fair world we live in.

Prakash S
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Bored Bystander: so are you convinced that social responsibility and profit cannot coexist?

Ian Stallings
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

To talk competently on this actually takes a bit of research.  Here are some quotes by old US presidents:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.  As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- Abraham Lincoln

"This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." -- Rutherford Hayes

Of course, anyone who mentions these old "outdated" quotes arouses suspicion, as if they lived in the woods and organized militias.  But I don't care, because I don't live in America right now.

Corporations were given the same scrutiny as we give Linux vs. Microsoft now.  As I understand, the US was founded with a deep suspicion of corps (immortal legal fictions that can't sympathize), leaving it up to the states to scrutinize them.  However, in the chaos of the Civil War, politicians were a dime a dozen, and corporations were able to gain far greater powers.  After all, what does any entity do but try to thrive?

Anyway, that is near the limit of my understanding, gleaned from polisci classes and a few themes I've noticed.  Lincoln was apt in noticing that corps do "play on the prejudices of the people" to the point where normal guys will argue corps have a natural right to exist and are discriminated against.

Tj
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

"Oddly enough, you do need a license to run a small business. It's called a "business license.""

No..I don't...Self employment in my state requires a Social Security number. Regardless of how emphatic you are, I don't need a license. Stick with what you're good at.

It's a shame "Politically Correct" with Moyer is gone, because some of you would be quite entertaining to watch on there.

I have a small business that caters to small companies in my area. Some of you have extrapolated that to suggest that I must be an evil,greedy SOB who is out to destroy the Constitution and corrupt our system of government.

I serve my *customers*, not some silly notion of "The People". "The People" don't pay my bills. "The People" don't put food in my children's mouth.

I do honest work for my clients and get paid honest money. In return, I reserve the right to tell anyone to go f* themselves. Sounds fair to me. If it bothers you than I'm not actively recruiting homeless gay black men that are left-handed then I've reserved a special "go f* yourself" just for you.

Go Linux Go!
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Come on people, GLG is just trolling. 

If he was an actual business person, he would be painfully aware that somewhere down the line "The People" are responsible for whether or not he survives.  True for IBM, true for Joe's Liquor Stand.

debka
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

>> Bored Bystander: so are you convinced that social responsibility and profit cannot coexist?

Ian:

No, that was not exactly my point. I am simply pointing out that self interest is the *only* reason that businesses are started in the first place. It's in the human genome.

I am actually convinced otherwise than what you suggest -  that businesses are obliged to act decently. That is: OBLIGED morally, but really should not be coerced into becoming extensions of social engineering nor social welfare policy.

Let's face it: most smaller businesses, even in good times, won't make it and most are mediocre little s**tholes. But they provide *some* employment, they evidently fill a customer need, they pay taxes, and they keep the owners off the streets.  As long as what they do isn't outright illegal or injurious to anyone, they should *not* be taxed and legislated into oblivion. No matter what pricks the owners are, no matter how much they age-discriminate, no matter how much their software GPFs, no matter that they don't accommodate the handicapped properly, etc...

Employing people - even managers and owners - and paying taxes - *is* a social good that most latte' drinkers pontificating on the evils of "unregulated commerce" don't ever seem to acknowledge.


The 'progressive' mentality (which commonly appears in online forums and is often enunciated by programmers that have never started their own business) appears to be that business owners are "always" by definition a priveliged class that should be hung with a yoke of obligations.  This viewpoint is a mistake. Those owners indeed had a pivotal choice: NOT to do business at all and not employ anyone! Instead, they could have sunk the money in a T-bill or government bonds and worked for some really large company and forgotten about all that compliance crap.


Every time I run into a business that demeans or abuses its people or which is dominated by small minded and selfish thinking, I tend to think two things:

One, the business is just a projection and amplification of the owners' character faults.

Two, the small mindedness and lack of kindness, etc is evidence that the business in question is poorly run and has no 'slack' available to "be kind", responsible, etc.

In either event, crummy businesses simply reflect internal badness externally. Eventually, they implode due to forces set in motion by their badness.

Rampant legislation *isn't* the answer. It can only lead to a shrinking economy and higher prices, and accelerate offshoring.


I basically believe that at the level of sub Fortune 1000 business-  Darwin *really* should rule. In the realm of the Fortune 100, government inevitably will get involved because the leverage of those companies is just too great to allow unfettered in the marketplace, the environment, etc.

Bored Bystander
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

GLG, if your customers decided not to pay you, who would you turn to for help?

Neil E
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

"GLG, if your customers decided not to pay you, who would you turn to for help? "

Not sure what you are implying. Do you mean how would I cope without unemployment benefits?

To Debka, when I say "The People", I'm not referring to my customers. I thought that was clear. My point was that my business isn't here to serve the better good of the *entire* population. My business is here to serve the needs of my customers. My customers aren't the entire population of the US. It's really tragic that there are homeless people in Des Moine somewhere right now freezing, but my company's job isn't to directly help him. Sorry. That's a societal issue and my taxes go to help solve those problems. (Oddly enough, I pay a higher percentage of taxes than you folks that don't own their business. Oh the irony.)

Go Linux Go!
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

' "In my view a business is a public trust: it is sanctioned and licensed by the government, which is the voice of the people -- not the voice of the owners of the business." '

"Well, that is *your* view, but it doesn't jive with the ideals we hold dear in America...You must of [sic] just read some Mao Tse-tung.

"Spare me your disproven and broken socialistic rantings."

Thank you, "Go Linux Go!", for illustrating Mr. Kotula's point, to wit:  "Americans are amazingly gifted at forgetting and ignoring history."

If, GLG, you were less ignorant of American history (among other things), you'd realize that the debate about how much control the government should have has been going on since the beginning of our republic.  It was never a foregone conclusion; in fact the two main political parties at the beginning were founded largely on the basis of their feelings about this issue, about whether the government should have broad or narrow powers.  When you speak of "the ideals that we hold dear in America", I'm not sure whom your "we" refers to, but it certainly doesn't refer to all Americans.  Perhaps you mean to refer to all the people in some certain conservative or right-wing faction.

I myself have strong right-leaning tendencies, but I thank you for reminding me of the instances where government and law are needed to correct social wrongs that neither "the people" nor "the market" would self-correct.

Kyralessa
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

I'm implying that you might just ignore the fact that you're owed money, or more likely you'll take them to court - threaten them with the law, in other words.

But that's part the social structure you claim your business has nothing to do with. Worse still, it's and paid by taxes,
taxes that people who you don't even know have to pay!

You and your customers don't exist in some kind of isolated bubble.

Neil E
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Kyralessa,

There's been a debate over the authority of the government in this country? Wow. You don't say. Welcome to the obvious.

To put it simply, in deference to you, the concept of the government *directly controlling* business in this country has never been popular. Influencing? Absolutely. Regulating? Absolutely. Out and out controlling? Nope, only in war-time.

The original poster seemed to imply that businesses in this country are here for the benefit of the government. If you think that most people feel that way, then more power to you.

Go Linux Go!
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Neil...really...

I pay income and payroll taxes. I pay all of the regular taxes such as sales and gasoline taxes. I even put my pants on one leg at a time. How did you arrive at this notion that I think I live in a bubble?

Are you implying that in order to have protection of the law as a business owner I have to do something beyond what you have to do?

So..you..as an employee have full protection of the law, but I have to win a Nobel Peace Prize to qualify just because I own a business and employ people?

Please explain.

Go Linux Go!
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

'I serve my *customers*, not some silly notion of "The People". "The People" don't pay my bills. "The People" don't put food in my children's mouth.' Is what you said. Sounds pretty insular to me.

Neil E
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

I don't think I can make this any simpler.

I offer services to business. They pay for my services. I use that money to pay employees, taxes and buy goods and services from other people. 

What my business does *not* do is concern itself with the plight of the snowy owl. It doesn't bother getting worked up over the condition of workers in Guatamala.

My business may donate equipment, time or sometimes money to local charitable causes. But that's my *CHOICE*. 

My business isn't here to solve the problem of global warming. My business does generate tax revenue that might go towards the problem.

Go Linux Go!
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

I'm not sure what issue you're responding to, GLG, but it definitely doesn't have any connection with this thread anymore.

"To put it simply, in deference to you, the concept of the government *directly controlling* business in this country has never been popular. Influencing? Absolutely. Regulating? Absolutely. Out and out controlling? Nope, only in war-time."

I don't recall anyone advocating government "directly controlling" business, but since you're responding to things the initial poster was "seeming to imply" (as you put it), I would be willing to concede that your brain is detached from your typing fingertips.

Kyralessa
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Right at the start of the thread, you said your business has nothing to do with 'the people' whatsoever. Fine. If your business is robbed, you'll claim insurance. But I hope you only get what you've paid in premiums over the years but not a penny more.

Or do you accept that there's an element of give *and* take in your relationship with 'the people'?

Neil E
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

<<<I don't think I can make this any simpler.

I offer services to business. They pay for my services. I use that money to pay employees, taxes and buy goods and services from other people. 

What my business does *not* do is concern itself with the plight of the snowy owl. It doesn't bother getting worked up over the condition of workers in Guatamala.

My business may donate equipment, time or sometimes money to local charitable causes. But that's my *CHOICE*. 

My business isn't here to solve the problem of global warming. My business does generate tax revenue that might go towards the problem. >>>


Go Linux Go!

Dont be stupid! Are you trying to tell me that if your business dumps plutonium into the local water supply, thats not your responsibility?  Or are you saying that your business isn't there to solve the problem of genocide?

It has always been societiy's right and responsibility to decide what business can and can't do. The main problem is that both business and government have always taken it upon themselves to be creative with what "society" needs.

Daniel Shchyokin
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

"Dont be stupid! Are you trying to tell me that if your business dumps plutonium into the local water supply, thats not your responsibility?  Or are you saying that your business isn't there to solve the problem of genocide?"

Wow. So suddenly my small company has turned into a global polluter.

Dumping plutonium is illegal. Hell, I believe possessing it is illegal in most cases. Anyway, how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that I was advocating my business is above the law? Where did I suggest that?

And yes, I am saying that my business isn't there to solve genocide. I'm qualified in many areas of software and hardware engineering. Ending genocide isn't a skill that I can put on my resume.

You're killin' me....

Go Linux Go!
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Come on people, ignore GLG.  He is just trolling. 

debka
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Debka,

Your total and complete contribution to this thread has been to label me a troll twice.

Is it you think the audience can't read your first message, or do you just lack anything intelligent to say? I'm guessing the latter.

Go Linux Go!
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

GLG, your complete contribution to this thread has been something like:

"Me. Me, me, me, me. Me, me, me. Me"
"Oh, did I mention Me. And my business."
"F*k everyone except me."

It's been pretty unispiring too.


Wednesday, February 19, 2003

My intention wasn't to inspire you, so you'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over your inspiration level.

My reference to my business is simple: We're discussing businesses. I own one. I use mine as an example. Pretty simple actually.

Go Linux Go!
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Since you're here, what *is* your name and the name of your business? I'm sure there are people just queueing up to use the services of a go-getter like yourself.

Potential Customer
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Discriminating people won't take the bait here. Oops, I just did....I must be non-discriminating.

doobius
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

"Since you're here, what *is* your name and the name of your business? I'm sure there are people just queueing up to use the services of a go-getter like yourself. "

Actually, I'll pass on that for a number of reasons. One, I don't like having my family stalked by psychos who can't stand when someone disagrees with them.

Two, my services are aimed at businesses. Not individuals.

So I'm afraid you'll have to endure life without the receiving the stellar service that I provide to my clients on a daily basis.

Go Linux Go!
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

But definitley not three: wanting to keep head down after making a fool of oneself in public.

Potential Customer
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

"But definitley not three: wanting to keep head down after making a fool of oneself in public. "

No, it's the pyscho stalker thing.

I really couldn't care less what anyone thinks of me, particular anonymous posters on an Internet discussion board. If anyone here frets over their public opinion on JOS, then they should probably seek some counseling soon.

Go Linux Go!
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

GLG:

Points well taken, although don't agree with every nuance of them.

But arguing with the limo lib types is going to go nowhere. The purpose of their "argument" is mostly to demonstrate to everyone how "progressive" they are.

Milb
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

"Two, my services are aimed at businesses. Not individuals."

This struck me as a strange reason, partly because there are quite a number of individuals frequenting this board who own their own businesses or who are in a decision-making position in a business.  Granted that many of the most frequent posters seem to be just out of school and/or unemployed, but I think there are more than a few of us who could potentially be in your target market (unless you sell to a very specialized market).

OTOH, I completely agree with you on the psycho thing. I wouldn't give my name / company name etc in this context either.

MaisOui
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

"In my view a business is a public trust"

Seems like this is the product of someone who is amazingly gifted at forgetting reality and ignoring common sense.  I wish my competitors practiced that philosophy, though.  Maybe they'd stop trying to lure my customers away if they'd just be a little more selfless about it all. 

My business exists for a single purpose, in two parts:  to trade something I value a little (my products) to my customer for something I value more (his cash).  The nice thing is my customers come to me for a single purpose, also in two parts:  to trade something they value a little (their cash) for something they value more (my products).  The very definition of a win-win situation.  Maybe I am doing a public service after all.....

Chicken Sandwich
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

"The purpose of their "argument" is mostly to demonstrate to everyone how "progressive" they are."

Progressive doesn't enter into things; this is an old argument.

And I fully agree with GLG's points -- they completely support the original poster.  His company wouldn't give a damn about some snowy owl, whether he chopped down its trees or ran a software shop.  If discrimination against gay black men were expedient, well them's the breaks.  In no case does he contradict the original poster.

Tj
Wednesday, February 19, 2003

Feeding trolls...

Walk on by, nothing to see here.

Simon Lucy
Thursday, February 20, 2003

[The 'progressive' mentality (which commonly appears in online forums and is often enunciated by programmers that have never started their own business) appears to be that business owners are "always" by definition a priveliged class that should be hung with a yoke of obligations]


Bored Bystander: I agree with you, I don't think small business owners should be hung with too many obligations. I simply think they should work within the law as it is, treating employees and customers fairly. I actually own a small business with a partner and I am finding that there are a lot of obligations that I didn't forsee, but yet seem fair. Nothing that has came up is outside of reality or will impact profit, it seems fair. One is not obliged to donate their profit to save the rainforest or help the homeless.

I'm not some latte sipping anti-corporate noob spouting rhetoric on the evils of a capitalist system, but I do think that ethics need to be stressed further in American business to win back the public trust after some shady scum bags have made us all look bad.

Ian Stallings
Thursday, February 20, 2003

"some shady scum bags have made us all look bad"

Even in todays sligthly controlled society shady scumbags rule, and the only reson there are a few decent businessess still in operation is exactly because the controls you all seem to love to hate have not failed 100%, yet.

Just me (Sir to you)
Thursday, February 20, 2003

Go Linux Go --

Your libertarian philosophy really doesn't make sense.

As a business owner, you would certain expect and enjoy the protection of the government.  The government will protect your intellectual property, your physical premises, help you enforce contracts, and build roads that your business will be able to use to ship products or transport employees.

With the same power that the government gives your business its blessing and protections, it also exercises control over your business, in the form of licensing laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc.

You would not have been able to build your business without the benefits that good government has produced, in the form of research, infrastructure, education for the workforce, etc., so you have to pay for that by accepting government regulation.  In that sense, nobody really built their business alone ... so the business DOES operate in the public trust.

programmer
Thursday, February 20, 2003

programmer,

Your explanation doesn't make sense because your basic assumption is faulty.  You act as if a business owner is entering into a mutually agreeable contract for protection with the government.  He's not.  The contract is forced upon him by the monopoly supplier of "protection."  What this actually amounts to is more akin to extortion than a contractual relationship.

Did anyone ever ask the business owner to negotiate terms?  Are they negotiable?  Can the business owner opt-out, choosing to protect his property in other ways he might find more agreeable? Can the business owner sue the government for damages when they do not hold up their end of the "contract?" 

Also, why should the business owner be compelled to pay for benefits (either with taxes or by being regulated) derived from the government doing its job, if the business owner hasn't entered into a contract for these services?  If I sweep my sidewalk and keep my yard clean, should I charge my neighbors for the derivative benefits they receive through the effect on property values?  Should I be allowed to force them to paint their houses green because they derive some value from my actions?  If I sit outside all night to make sure no thieves are about, should I be able to force my neighbors to pay me for this "protection?"

get real
Thursday, February 20, 2003

FWIW, I'm not a libertarian nor did I ever advocate that I didn't believe in paying taxes, etc.

What I do object to is the liberal mentality that just because I own a business that I somehow owe something to society *beyond* what everyone else owes. Many people seem to suggest that because I own a business I have higher degree of social responsibility than they do.

And I've been called a fool, corrupt and even a polluter because I don't think that I have additional social responsibilities placed upon me. One of you even claimed that my small technical company should be concerned about genocide.

It's typical of liberals to expect "the other guy" to pony up more than they. This is ironic, but not surprising. I donate 10% of my gross income to charities. How many of you do that? Many of you don't, but will criticize me because I don't think my company's purpose is to end genocide or protect the snowy owl. My company's purpose is to make money, and *obey all laws* in the process. To argue that it serves any other purpose is naive and foolish.

Go Linux Go!
Thursday, February 20, 2003

get real, if you don't like it here go and live on your own island.


Thursday, February 20, 2003

"What I do object to is the liberal mentality that just because I own a business that I somehow owe something to society *beyond* what everyone else owes."

Yes, you DO owe more than everyone else owes, because you are more of a drain on the resources of society.  If you have a big business, you use the roads more than the rest of us, get more police protection than the rest of us, and have benefited from government-funded innovation more than the rest of us.

THAT is why you owe something beyond what everyone else owes.

programmer
Thursday, February 20, 2003

To "Get Real" --

No, of course you don't get to negotiate terms of this contract.  It is a "social contract," and nobody really opts into a social contract.  That's political theory 101.

At the heart of our social contract with you is the fact that we, the people, have the power take your business away from you.  (You're just one person.  We're everyone else.)  Our deal with you is that we will allow you to build your enterprise, and we will protect you, if you accept the terms that we set, which are quite reasonable, we believe.

-- We believe that you should not be able to discriminate against people for reasons we have deemed unfair (race, gender).

-- We believe you should pay the amount of taxes that we, collectively, decide upon.  (Of course, the better your business is doing, you get more consideration in that process -- via the high-dollar lobbyists you hire.)

-- We decide upon what sorts of environmental and safety regulations you must follow.  If you don't like them, try to convince us to change them.  If you don't succeed in convincing us, too bad for you.

The benefits you enjoy from living in a civilized nation far outweigh these burdens we impose on you.  Your ingenuity is only a tiny part of the business you're building -- mostly, your business will use the collected experience and innovation that our society made possible.

Welcome to the civilized world, my friend.

programmer
Thursday, February 20, 2003

programmer,

I see, you are trying to create as much outrage as possible in order to show how ridiculous the whole system is.  Good strategy.  Sorry I didn't realize that's what you were trying to do in your earlier post.  I'm wit ya now.

get real
Thursday, February 20, 2003

Programmer,

Did you write that without laughing? I don't know how...

First off, my business is small so there goes the theory of big business. Secondly, if I were a larger business then I would be employing more people thereby employing more people and creating more wealth and driving the economy. If my trucks use the road, they pay more in gasoline taxes and vehicle registration so that argument is moot too. All in all, a larger company contributes more to society by means of employment and wealth than the coffee house liberals living in their make believe utopian ivory towers who do very little but complain about everyone else.

Go Linux Go!
Thursday, February 20, 2003

Go Linux Go: you constantly set up straw men so you can defeat arguments that haven't even been raised.

No one said you have to contribute to anything or pony up more than others, as a matter of fact they original poster simply stated that the laws of this country where put in place for a reason and that as a business you must respect them. He also stated, in so many words, that your business exists within a community and you must respect the community's rules. Is that not true? 

Ian Stallings
Thursday, February 20, 2003

Don't knock the coffee drinking liberals so much. I think it's them that are keeping the economy ticking over at the moment. How many non coffee shop businesses do you see opening in your city?

Latte Liberals Unite
Thursday, February 20, 2003

I'm generally on the side of business in this discussion, but I just wanted to toss in a thought to stir the pot and create a lot more moral outrage :-) :

There *ought* to be a law on the books that says that ANY business that advertises a position (job) publicly MUST respond to EACH AND EVERY resume and other written contact sent to them from applicants in response to the ad.

The acknowledgement could be as small as a simple postcard that simply says "we got your application".

No exceptions.

Failure would be deemed the offering of a fictitious job, a misdemeanor, first offense $500 fine, which goes into a job retraining program for those thrown out of work by H1B and offshoring.

So what think? :-)

(I think that companies that blow off serious applicants with dead stony arrogant silence are run by *total*, and I mean total, assholes.... )

Bored Bystander
Thursday, February 20, 2003

There are alot of fictitious jobs already. We hardly need more ;-)

Patrik
Thursday, February 20, 2003

And I think such a law would be pointless anyways; since it would probably just result in companies demanding resumes be sent using email, and lo and behold, finally a perfect use for the out-of-office-style autoreply mails.

And getting an autoanswered rejection to your resume, would be like adding insult to injury. I think why people want replies sent out to them is that they spent a significant amount of time writing the application; and I know personally I feel like the least they could do would be to personally ackowledge they got it.

Patrik
Thursday, February 20, 2003

It sounds like a great idea to me. Drive the employment agencies out of business, then repeal the law. It'd only take about ten minutes given the sheer number of pretend jobs they advertise.

Neil E
Thursday, February 20, 2003

Ian,

No straw men need apply. You must have missed this quote from Programmer:

"Yes, you DO owe more than everyone else owes, because you are more of a drain on the resources of society.  If you have a big business, you use the roads more than the rest of us, get more police protection than the rest of us, and have benefited from government-funded innovation more than the rest of us.

THAT is why you owe something beyond what everyone else owes. "

Read that again and then tell me how nobody said that as a business owner I owe more than non-business owners.

Go Linux Go!
Thursday, February 20, 2003

Who do you think inhabit this forum? Total morons?

Don't you think everyone else can see that he wrote that in response to your complaint?

It seems you are indeed here to annoy everyone else, or why else would you twist and lie o obviously?

Practical Geezer
Friday, February 21, 2003

maybe go linux go's business isn't doing so well at the moment and hes taking it out on us. could be his customers get fed up with his arrogant tone of voice?


Friday, February 21, 2003

"Who do you think inhabit this forum? Total morons?"

Not everyone. Just a handful.

Go Linux Go!
Friday, February 21, 2003

GLG I am behing you one hundred percent.

You are not the only person still fighting for freedom.

Now to all you who think that GLG/business owes more to society, and therefore should pay more.

Is he by extension entitled to more representation because he has more to lose, pays more into the societal kitty? Say one extra vote per $10 000 he has invested??

tapiwa
Friday, February 21, 2003

Tapiwa,

Sure, just strip him of limited liability, which he most certainly has (unless he's an idiot, since most states now allow sole proprietarships to become LLCs with no tax problems).  As long as any of us can invest $10k for more votes, great!

It's interesting to think that corporations suffer from a lack of representation.

You know, those of us qualified to comment have already rolled their eyes and left.  Leaving fun offtopic flaming action to commence!

Tj
Friday, February 21, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home