This is serious shit. Men, women and others from their fifties on cannot get work. As they approach 65, many opt for Social Security and, if they are lucky, a pension. Others choose Disability, even if they are not technically disabled. With food, housing and other necessities luxury-priced, those sources are insufficent for most old fogies, who are living longer than ever. When Social Security was forced on us, most persons died before age 65, and Congress have never had the balls to adjust retirement to reality.
Oldsters may apply for part-time jobs, where they compete with college students and graduates, who also can't get jobs, and are often in debt to lenders for their useless degrees. I have no statistics, but anecdotal evidence shows that many employers prefer hiring younger persons, even with little or no experience. There was a time when experience meant something, probably the same time hard evidence mattered in news coverage and political discourse. Now adverts call for familiarity with numerous skills, claiming to be entry-level (read "low-paying").
Hiring youthful, attractive applicants may seem cool, although they can be problem employees. Most older individuals do not feel entitled to be on their personal devices (phones, tablets, vibrators) during work hours. They are less likely to blow off work or arrive late. You might say older persons take work more seriously, except for politicians. The aged also seem better versed in English and arithmetic, which comes in handy. These are generalisations, of course. Many juniors are smart and hard-working, many seniors lazy and ignorant.UNSKILLED OLD FART ·
Age is not the only reason grandpa is unemployed. Back in the day, as they say, he perused the Want Ads in the newspaper, a big stack of printed sheets which stained his fingers with ink. They were deceptive, often hawking non-existent jobs, come-ons for employment agencies. Then again, the agencies often did produce placements. I was a Temp for years, and worked regularly. Not so today. Haven't gotten a job from them in years.
Big agencies now have computerised tests in skills like using Microshit Office. Despite always scoring high, I never once got an assignment. Apparently, the best job is working in an employment agency. So how do they afford those fancy offices?
There are several services online, none of which are useful, as far as I can tell. They inundate you with false job opportunities, 90% of which are for Uber. You can apply to the driving service directly, cut out the middleman. Many other driving jobs crop up, most of which also require you use your own vehicle. Those that don't, require a special license, as for trucking. Then there are the work-at-home scams. Lots of them. Start your own franchise. (In other words, give your savings to open a business that may well fail, leaving you worse off than before.) Some of the real jobs require heavy lifting, or Sales experience. If you survived to your late fifties without selling something, chances are it is too late to start because it's not that kind of skill. There's always fast food. Watch "Lost In America" to see how that works out.
I love dinky openings in places like San Diego, Peduka, Chicago. What idiot would apply for a minimum-wage job hundreds or thousands of miles away? Target invited me to apply for a "cart attendent" job in Stockton, 96 miles away. They know where I live.
Most job sites are a tricky way to mine information, so they can try to sell you more schooling or other overpriced shit, recruit you for a class-action suit, or sell you a class on writing your resume. My BS degree never got me anywhere, or my computer-programming classes, I am not paying to take more instruction unless it is a prerequisite to a firm job offer. I'm fairly certain getting an MS won't get me a job.
Ah, resumes! Every employment expert I've consulted has his or her own preferred resume. They never like the one you have, and want you to reformat and rejigger it. You don't get a job because your resume looks impressive, especially if no one looks at it. The history and skills you manufacture are what is important. It is wise to adjust your resume to a particular job application. Same with your cover letter. Make it seem as if this is the job you crave and are best qualified to fill. Again, assuming anyone looks at it.
I believe it is illegal to ask your age. They can tell by how long you've been working that you are old, even if you look younger than you are. Sometimes they ask when you graduated from high school or college, another dead giveaway. That may be illegal but, you want a job, not a lawsuit.
Years ago, I lost out on a job because I was male. The personnel chick told me there were all women in the office, so they weren't sure how a man would fit in. When they didn't hire me, I could have complained to the government job discrimination office, but it would have been tough to prove. My feeling is they wouldn't have cared about anti-White guy practises. I moved on.
You never know why you didn't get hired. You only know you didn't; they rarely have the courtesy to send you a rejection letter or e-mail. It could be the lack of actual jobs in the economy at large. For Gramps, age is the obvious factor. Old age. (Unless you posted inane thoughts and pictures on Facebook in your youth, which you couldn't because: no Facebook.) So no, it's age. You're old. You will only get older. Accustom your cats to sharing their food with you.
Channeling Fox NewsI was ready for a roundup of prime time comedies, which are showing new signs of life, but shakeups at Fox News (FNC) required my vision. To be fair and balanced, I am underwhelmed by Fox's latest lineup changes.
Jesse Watters seems like a decent enough guy. His reports for O'Reilly when he chased down newsmakers were good. His "World" reports were okay, except for the constant interruptions with idiotic, often annoying clips, which made them unwatchable. I rarely watched his segments on "The Factor" and never watched his Saturday programme, regardless of his guests.
Of all the talent available to replace Eric Bolling on "The Five," Watters would be my last choice. It would have been better with a revolving fifth, as they do on "Outnumbered." For "The Five," Jesse adds nothing, and subtracts much, since he hasn't the gravitas of Bolling. I'll still watch "The Five" for the other panelists, but I will not be happy about it.
Off the top of my head, I would have preferred Lisa Booth, Eboni K Williams, Jessica Tarlov and others. Maybe Melissa Francis is happy with her FBN positioning, but she is great on "The Five." Maybe the producers feel more comfortable with three dudes and two women but, considering all the sex-related allegations, it might have been wiser to flip the mix.
The best thing about the "O'Reilly Factor" was the features, like Miller Time, the legal deal, and What the heck just happened. Regular viewers know what they are. Will they replicate them elsewhere?
Not sure if I will want to watch an hour of Eric Bolling daily, plus the receding "Cashin' In." "Bulls & Bears" is way better. Would have made sense to give "Red Eye" a daytime tweak, or twerk, to insert it in prime time. Everyone misses "Red Eye" more and more.
Tucker Carlson is delightful. I'm happy for his success and never miss a show. There were some great substitutes, when Bill was off, including Greg Gutfeld, if that is his real name, Dana Perino and others I can't recall. Again, Watters and Bolling were okay, not great.
The proof is in the presentation, so we shall see how all this turns out in short order.Posted 24 April 2017
The Official GT Slade Blog