What you did today

[Meshugger]

And if being the real theslug gets you screwed, then be theslug: genius edition.

 

Not really, from what i have gathered, we all wear different masks when socialising with friends, girlfriends, relatives, workbuddies and the boss. But those are only for restraint and being professional when needed. Presidents usually wear a mask too; you don't expect them to tell the same d*ckjokes to the press and the rest of the world as they tell their friends while drinking a beer.

 

Being The Slug: "Genius-edition" is a complete change of personal traits and capabilities, it is more of a forced persona than a theslug having a mask on. Basically speaking, he will be lying about himself and his character, which is ofcourse counterproductive in the long run.

[Walsingham]

I don't hold with all this nonsense about being yourself. What if you're a total jackass?

[theslug]

I don't hold with all this nonsense about being yourself. What if you're a total jackass?

Yeah me too but what kills me more than anything is people who go with the "No regrets" deal. That makes me angry, real angry. Just more new age no accountability for your actions bs I wish those people would get beaten with a sack of potatoes and then throw their lifeless body into a fire pit. That'd certainly be non regretful.

[Tigranes]

Was joking, meshugger. Sort of.

 

Without getting too professory (again), these days we're so concerned with "being ourselves" that we have a tendency to think any kind of failing is okay because we're 'being true to ourselves'. I know that's not what you're advocating mesh, but people seem to confuse the two a lot. It's all good yelling I'M FAT AND I'M PROUD, but not when you then make no effort whatsoever to control your eating habits or do some exercise. Equally, theslug keeps telling us he is a supreme bastard, but that's no reason not to make an effort. And you jump in a new environment where you *have* to change, well, you change. (Or you leave in tears.)

 

So what you gonna do slug boy?

 

For my part, I've gone days without receiving any projects and thus with nothing to do. One project is held up because our client has gone MIA and won't give us the details; one project is... held up for no reason whatsoever by my superior; so I elbowed my way into another project just to have something to do, but apparently that's not starting yet either.

 

Which means I've been going home early every day this week when I get fed up with reading Codex LPs.

[theslug]

Enough about me. I'm boring.

 

I did a bunch of school work and learndeded things about my personality that I've done in like 50 other classes. Since when do people need quizzes to tell them if they prefer to work in groups or if they are based in logic and math as opposed to working with your hands and being creative.

 

Also managerial accounting puzzles me. :'(

Edited January 29, 2009 by theslug

[Humodour]

I don't hold with all this nonsense about being yourself. What if you're a total jackass?

 

You seem to get by ok, so I don't think it poses a problem.

[Humodour]

My main client has decided not to keep me on as permanent staff. this will suck, as I enjoy getting paid regular and taken out for meals etc. But it could work out better in the long run, since any more work I send their way would earn me a finder's fee, plus a higher day rate. It all depends how lucky I get. It could equally be really cack.

 

What do you do? Analyst of some sort?

[Calax]

Almost missed my first homework assignment but managed to make a deal with the professor. On the flip side I was told by my boss that because I'd gone to see family after Christmas (the week after) he wouldn't give me hours. So I'm left out of work and in school, I'm gonna stop by In-n-out and try to get a job there.

[Deraldin]

I've done nothing all week. My little brother picked up a bug of some kind that had him feeling ill for a day or two over the weekend and the little jerk managed to pass it on to me. Whatever it is, it decided to hit me full force on Monday morning and has been going strong ever since. It's just completely sapped all my energy and it hasn't helped that I haven't been able to get more than 2 consecutive hours of sleep all week which has me feeling even more tired than I would be otherwise. I also have a stats assignment due this morning and a really basic Visual Basic program that has had the due date pushed back to Friday.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Deraldin

[Walsingham]

My main client has decided not to keep me on as permanent staff. this will suck, as I enjoy getting paid regular and taken out for meals etc. But it could work out better in the long run, since any more work I send their way would earn me a finder's fee, plus a higher day rate. It all depends how lucky I get. It could equally be really cack.

 

What do you do? Analyst of some sort?

 

Something like that. All I will say is: no women, no kids. That's the rules.

[Tigranes]

Wals contributes his genes to Third World biological databases, while doing some private detective work on the side for Greenpeace.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Been doing research on my family tree. I've been busy doing that for a while.

[Meshugger]

Was joking, meshugger. Sort of.

 

Without getting too professory (again), these days we're so concerned with "being ourselves" that we have a tendency to think any kind of failing is okay because we're 'being true to ourselves'. I know that's not what you're advocating mesh, but people seem to confuse the two a lot. It's all good yelling I'M FAT AND I'M PROUD, but not when you then make no effort whatsoever to control your eating habits or do some exercise. Equally, theslug keeps telling us he is a supreme bastard, but that's no reason not to make an effort. And you jump in a new environment where you *have* to change, well, you change. (Or you leave in tears.)

 

So what you gonna do slug boy?

 

For my part, I've gone days without receiving any projects and thus with nothing to do. One project is held up because our client has gone MIA and won't give us the details; one project is... held up for no reason whatsoever by my superior; so I elbowed my way into another project just to have something to do, but apparently that's not starting yet either.

 

Which means I've been going home early every day this week when I get fed up with reading Codex LPs.

 

Ah, now in undertand. Mine issue was more about professional conduct and acting according to ones abilities and will. Lying about ones profession is of course never recommended

[taks]

Been doing research on my family tree. I've been busy doing that for a while.

my cousin is a mormon. as a result, we have an incredibly well researched family tree on my mother's side. he even researched a bit on my father's side, but they came over from hungary in the early 1900s so there isn't much of a tree to report on.

 

kiwinkidentally, my wife was talking to one of her residents (she works in an assisted living facility) the other day and got some information highly relevant to this topic. this woman's mother had the same maiden name as my mother. she's in her late 70s, and her mother is no longer living, but would probably be late 90s, which puts her in the same generation as my grandfather, brother of my cousin's father. sooo, now i need to hunt down the extensive book of names my cousin gave me several years ago (goes back to the late 1700s for a few folks) to see if there is a relation. the name, btw, is actually a very common word, but not common for a last name.

 

taks

Edited January 29, 2009 by taks

[taks]

hmpf. mom says probably no relation. our ancestors came straight over from ireland (though they were not purebreeds!) to settle in missouri, changed their names (removed the O') and formed "<insert name here> Town." apparently their cemetary is haunted now. mom thinks the name is actually a common last name, btw.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Wals contributes his genes to Third World biological databases, while doing some private detective work on the side for Greenpeace.

 

You forgot the monkey punching.

[Gfted1]

I thought that was ghost punching.

[Calax]

Just got back from my business course. Interesting day in there, the professor had us come up with the answer to four questions about the economic stimulus package that's been within the past week.

 

The questions were:

Do you give money to corporations?

Do you give money to Small Businesses?

Do you give tax breaks or put money into social services?

Do you give relief to homeowners who's houses have been foreclosed?

 

Generally the class was pretty divided over the first two issues, some wanted to throw Corp's to the sharks because "they had their chance", and proven that they were incapable of making money, and so they wanted to give it to small business owners who would be able to grow and take over where big business had failed. The class kept pecking at this saying that if you let the corporations collapse you'd end up causing the economy to tailspin because the smaller businesses didn't have the infrastructure in place to move up to that level very quickly. The general consensus among those who wanted to give corporations money was that there would have to be a business plan presented, and government oversight.

 

For small businesses, it was a similar response, the class was divided about weather or not to give them money. The ones against it were generally saying that it'd be to much of a gamble to invest in a small business because they would probably have a higher failure rate than the corporations, and the small businesses didn't employ nearly the amount of people that Corporations did and thus would have smaller ripples when they went under. Arguments were presented that smaller business made up a large portion of the economy and they were being hit harder than the corporations in some areas, and thus would fail faster without government help. We didn't talk about his as much as the previous question.

 

As to Tax Breaks vs. Social Services, I was amazed. My groups idea was that instead of tax breaks you'd start up social projects like repairing roads, and maybe solve at least part of the housing crisis by constructing low income housing. But most of the class seemed to think that Tax Breaks were the way to go because it'd get spending up. They were thinking VERY short term IMHO, the social projects would generate jobs and thus allow people to earn money, and it would end up causing an overall increase in the governments tax money because of the earnings, where as a tax break would actually diminish the amount of tax money coming in at local state and federal levels causing things like School, police and fire budgets to be slashed in order to stay out of the red on the annual budget.

 

I almost laughed because when I presented our proposal (generate jobs via social projects/services) and not handing out tax breaks my proposal ended up being defended by our professor (the presenter was supposed to defend it) because the class kept sniping at the fact that generating jobs wouldn't give the economy the boost it needed to get back on more stable ground. They also didn't seem to understand that if you lowered taxes Cops and Firemen would be cut to meet the budget requirements. The professor had to explain that families generating income would end up having overall more money and give the government more money than a tax break would give to the family. Also another reason I proposed the idea to generate government jobs over tax breaks was because in our society, people would take the tax break and go buy something else that they couldn't afford rather than trying to fulfill their needs.

 

 

Later tonight I go in for Geology, and Human Development.

[Tale]

So, tomorrow's the last day. The office closes down. This has been a rather terrific time and I have to say that I will miss it.

[samm]

Tale: Damn, another last day? We're going to be a board of unemployed soon... While I still have too much to do :/

 

Calax, you may soon be attacked by some board members (two, probably three I can think of ) for your opinion on tax break vs. social services (--> "evil socialist"), so let me assure you I'm totally with you on this.

Edited January 29, 2009 by samm

[Enoch]

Just got back from my business course. Interesting day in there, the professor had us come up with the answer to four questions about the economic stimulus package that's been within the past week.

 

The questions were:

Do you give money to corporations?

Do you give money to Small Businesses?

Do you give tax breaks or put money into social services?

Do you give relief to homeowners who's houses have been foreclosed?

 

Generally the class was pretty divided over the first two issues, some wanted to throw Corp's to the sharks because "they had their chance", and proven that they were incapable of making money, and so they wanted to give it to small business owners who would be able to grow and take over where big business had failed. The class kept pecking at this saying that if you let the corporations collapse you'd end up causing the economy to tailspin because the smaller businesses didn't have the infrastructure in place to move up to that level very quickly. The general consensus among those who wanted to give corporations money was that there would have to be a business plan presented, and government oversight.

 

For small businesses, it was a similar response, the class was divided about weather or not to give them money. The ones against it were generally saying that it'd be to much of a gamble to invest in a small business because they would probably have a higher failure rate than the corporations, and the small businesses didn't employ nearly the amount of people that Corporations did and thus would have smaller ripples when they went under. Arguments were presented that smaller business made up a large portion of the economy and they were being hit harder than the corporations in some areas, and thus would fail faster without government help. We didn't talk about his as much as the previous question.

 

As to Tax Breaks vs. Social Services, I was amazed. My groups idea was that instead of tax breaks you'd start up social projects like repairing roads, and maybe solve at least part of the housing crisis by constructing low income housing. But most of the class seemed to think that Tax Breaks were the way to go because it'd get spending up. They were thinking VERY short term IMHO, the social projects would generate jobs and thus allow people to earn money, and it would end up causing an overall increase in the governments tax money because of the earnings, where as a tax break would actually diminish the amount of tax money coming in at local state and federal levels causing things like School, police and fire budgets to be slashed in order to stay out of the red on the annual budget.

 

I almost laughed because when I presented our proposal (generate jobs via social projects/services) and not handing out tax breaks my proposal ended up being defended by our professor (the presenter was supposed to defend it) because the class kept sniping at the fact that generating jobs wouldn't give the economy the boost it needed to get back on more stable ground. They also didn't seem to understand that if you lowered taxes Cops and Firemen would be cut to meet the budget requirements. The professor had to explain that families generating income would end up having overall more money and give the government more money than a tax break would give to the family. Also another reason I proposed the idea to generate government jobs over tax breaks was because in our society, people would take the tax break and go buy something else that they couldn't afford rather than trying to fulfill their needs.

Well, it depends on what level of government you're talking about. Generally, apart from municipal bond issues (which are having a tough time along with every other credit market), the Feds are the only ones allowed to deficit spend. So, federal level spending (and tax-cutting) wouldn't necessarily result in firing cops and firemen. At the state and local level, though, roughly-balanced budgets are usually mandatory, so any new spending or reductions in revenue have to come from somewhere. (One of the better arguments for a large federal-level fiscal stimulus is that it will offset the spending cuts and tax increases that lower-level governments are now being forced into by declining tax revenues.)

 

The argument for tax breaks as opposed to direct employment provisions is that the private sector is generally more efficient than government is at deciding where to put people to work. In the long run, I agree with this outlook, but there are reasons why it probably isn't the best approach to take in this circumstance. Specifically, a tax break doesn't directly help people who have lost their jobs (you need income before you have to pay taxes). Instead, it depends on entrepreneurs and businesses taking the benefits they get from the tax break and investing it in expanding their operations. And, in the current business environment, no amount of tax breaks are going to get businesses to start meaningful expansions anytime soon.

 

Direct employment (e.g., on infrastructure projects and the like), on the other hand, provides more guaranteed immediate help to people who are out of work, which provides a reasonably reliable boost to consumer spending that trickles through the rest of the economy. But in the long run, government programs to do this tend to outlive their usefulness (For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority was started as part of the New Deal's rural electrification programs, and it is still in existence today for no reason other than that local politicians have been skillful in defending it), and their decisions on what projects to focus on are often woefully inefficient and driven by politics rather than return-on-investment.

 

Also, building low-income housing is a terrible idea right now. Housing prices collapsed because the market is saturated with oversupply.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Enoch

[Tale]

Tale: Damn, another last day? We're going to be a board of unemployed soon... While I still have too much to do :/

I hope my unemployment doesn't last long. I have an application in with a company that I'd love to get a shot with.

[Calax]

Just got back from my business course. Interesting day in there, the professor had us come up with the answer to four questions about the economic stimulus package that's been within the past week.

 

The questions were:

Do you give money to corporations?

Do you give money to Small Businesses?

Do you give tax breaks or put money into social services?

Do you give relief to homeowners who's houses have been foreclosed?

 

Generally the class was pretty divided over the first two issues, some wanted to throw Corp's to the sharks because "they had their chance", and proven that they were incapable of making money, and so they wanted to give it to small business owners who would be able to grow and take over where big business had failed. The class kept pecking at this saying that if you let the corporations collapse you'd end up causing the economy to tailspin because the smaller businesses didn't have the infrastructure in place to move up to that level very quickly. The general consensus among those who wanted to give corporations money was that there would have to be a business plan presented, and government oversight.

 

For small businesses, it was a similar response, the class was divided about weather or not to give them money. The ones against it were generally saying that it'd be to much of a gamble to invest in a small business because they would probably have a higher failure rate than the corporations, and the small businesses didn't employ nearly the amount of people that Corporations did and thus would have smaller ripples when they went under. Arguments were presented that smaller business made up a large portion of the economy and they were being hit harder than the corporations in some areas, and thus would fail faster without government help. We didn't talk about his as much as the previous question.

 

As to Tax Breaks vs. Social Services, I was amazed. My groups idea was that instead of tax breaks you'd start up social projects like repairing roads, and maybe solve at least part of the housing crisis by constructing low income housing. But most of the class seemed to think that Tax Breaks were the way to go because it'd get spending up. They were thinking VERY short term IMHO, the social projects would generate jobs and thus allow people to earn money, and it would end up causing an overall increase in the governments tax money because of the earnings, where as a tax break would actually diminish the amount of tax money coming in at local state and federal levels causing things like School, police and fire budgets to be slashed in order to stay out of the red on the annual budget.

 

I almost laughed because when I presented our proposal (generate jobs via social projects/services) and not handing out tax breaks my proposal ended up being defended by our professor (the presenter was supposed to defend it) because the class kept sniping at the fact that generating jobs wouldn't give the economy the boost it needed to get back on more stable ground. They also didn't seem to understand that if you lowered taxes Cops and Firemen would be cut to meet the budget requirements. The professor had to explain that families generating income would end up having overall more money and give the government more money than a tax break would give to the family. Also another reason I proposed the idea to generate government jobs over tax breaks was because in our society, people would take the tax break and go buy something else that they couldn't afford rather than trying to fulfill their needs.

Well, it depends on what level of government you're talking about. Generally, apart from municipal bond issues (which are having a tough time along with every other credit market), the Feds are the only ones allowed to deficit spend. So, federal level spending (and tax-cutting) wouldn't necessarily result in firing cops and firemen. At the state and local level, though, roughly-balanced budgets are usually mandatory, so any new spending or reductions in revenue have to come from somewhere. (One of the better arguments for a large federal-level fiscal stimulus is that it will offset the spending cuts and tax increases that lower-level governments are now being forced into by declining tax revenues.)

 

The argument for tax breaks as opposed to direct employment provisions is that the private sector is generally more efficient than government is at deciding where to put people to work. In the long run, I agree with this outlook, but there are reasons why it probably isn't the best approach to take in this circumstance. Specifically, a tax break doesn't directly help people who have lost their jobs (you need income before you have to pay taxes). Instead, it depends on entrepreneurs and businesses taking the benefits they get from the tax break and investing it in expanding their operations. And, in the current business environment, no amount of tax breaks are going to get businesses to start meaningful expansions anytime soon.

 

Direct employment (e.g., on infrastructure projects and the like), on the other hand, provides more guaranteed immediate help to people who are out of work, which provides a reasonably reliable boost to consumer spending that trickles through the rest of the economy. But in the long run, government programs to do this tend to outlive their usefulness (For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority was started as part of the New Deal's rural electrification programs, and it is still in existence today for no reason other than that local politicians have been skillful in defending it), and their decisions on what projects to focus on are often woefully inefficient and driven by politics rather than return-on-investment.

 

Also, building low-income housing is a terrible idea right now. Housing prices collapsed because the market is saturated with oversupply.

Eh, it was just ideas being thrown around by students after having 30 minutes to talk about it.

 

I still don't understand the whole "You failed to perform so we're not going to give you money" train of thought, well I shouldn't say that, I don't understand that you wouldn't offer ANY help to an industry, Mainly because if something like the big three automakers goes under, you're economy goes into a deeper tailspin because all related jobs are cut. From the Auto plant workers to the sales reps and dealerships all of them get cut. Do they need to reform? Yes, but you can't just cut them off because you'd be doing more damage to the economy in the short term (I'm thinking like 5-10 years here) than you would fix in the long term. A group said that if we were to let a corporation fail, a smaller business would grow and take it's spot. The problem with that reasoning is that that smaller business would probably take several years (particularly in the transportation industry) to fill in where the previous corporation went under. I think one student guessed it might take as long as 40 years to recover completely from such a catastrophic upheaval within our economy. So the fastest fix right now would be to put in oversight and make sure the companies bailed out were changing their business practices so that they didn't fail again.

 

Socialist? Yes, but some socialism is good IMHO, mainly because of things like socialized medicine (Uninsured I was paying 300$'s a month for drugs that would keep me from becoming suicidal... 300$ a MONTH to save my life) and to a degree social services and projects could lead to more jobs being created and higher incomes for our governments.

[Walsingham]

I understand the second order dynamics involved, so what I'm interested in is actual studies showing the nature of the relationship. Tax money versus spending. It really can't be that hard to measure.

 

I've been listening to the Old Crow Medicine Show and making business plans.

 

As th emore astute may have deduced, I have also been drinking 7% beer and laughing a lot.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Tale: Damn, another last day? We're going to be a board of unemployed soon... While I still have too much to do :/

I hope my unemployment doesn't last long. I have an application in with a company that I'd love to get a shot with.

 

Does it start with an "O" and end with an "ian?"