171. Job search: Follow the rules?

For many, looking for a job can be a long process-tedious, stressful and depressing. It's difficult to pursue so many employment opportunities, to invest time, energy and hope-only to realize that many are dead-ends. It's difficult to be rejected over and over, especially if the job seeker is out of work and the bills are piling up. It's easy to understand why people break, and find the experience to be quite miserable. I've shared those same feelings.

I am certainly not an expert in human resources or career coaching, but I have made a few observations over the years that might be worthy of consideration.

With the difficult economy, technological advances and global competition fewer jobs are safe for one's entire working career. Many people have second careers-some by choice, some by necessity. To fuel that second career, many choose to go back to school. While I am an advocate of continuing education, I would caution with some realities. Going back to school is difficult. It costs money, time and affects one's family. But more than that, people need to be selective in their course of study. If you've done something for twenty years, you've likely become an expert in that field, and that's where your real value lies-often earning near the top of the pay scale. Switching careers is risky in that you'll likely start at the bottom of the pay scale-and worse, competing against people who may have considerably more experience.

I experienced this after earning my license in healthcare administration. I had learned that there was a shortage of nursing home administrators and worked hard to earn my license. After passing my test, I started applying for administrator positions-but what I neglected was the experience of the other candidates. Many other newly licensed administrators had worked for decades in nursing homes-as nurses or social workers. I had the same license, but my nine-month internship certainly could not compete with their experience.

I have always viewed job openings as a competition. It is not whether an applicant can do the job; it is whether he or she can convince an employer that he or she can do it better than every other applicant- through the limited sample of a résumé and interview.

In applying for jobs, we hear a lot about the rules of résumé writing and interviewing. We love rules, although all I think they really accomplish is separating the people who "know" how to apply for a job and those who do not. In a hiring position, I have seen all kinds of résumés, including many of the "what is he or she thinking?" type. In that respect, I am actually surprised at the number of people who don't follow the rules. Is it disrespectful or refreshing? I would say it depends, we hear that resumes should be one to two pages-maybe three at the most. But employers generally want the best applicant, regardless of how a résumé looks. I roll my eyes when I see a ten page résumé that lists every one-day training someone has attended, or every professional article that was ever published. But employers would probably offer an interview if he or she was one of the top applicants.

For most applicants, the goal of a résumé is to get an interview. The interview is a difficult process, whereby employers ask a bunch of usually scripted questions and applicants are supposed to provide a bunch of scripted answers. In this case, it is often charisma and appearance that separates the applicants.

The New York Times Bestseller "Sway" offers an interesting analysis of the interview process. It quotes Allen Huffcutt and his work on job interviews, He states, "We often base the image of the ideal candidate on ourselves. Someone comes in who's similar to us and we're going to click; and we're probably going to want to hire them." He continues, "Everybody thinks they have this ability to see an applicant and make a great decision, truly understand them."

Huffcutt also recommends that hiring managers restrain themselves from delving into "first-date type questions." Huffcutt looked at the top ten interview questions, such as "Why should I hire you?" and "What do you see yourself doing in five years?" and found them all to be meaningless except for one ("What do you know about our company?" was the exception). One of the least productive, and most scripted, is the "What are you strengths and weakness?" question. Applicants are placed in the position of not answering the question or answering the question absurdly. As the book notes, nobody is going to say that their weakness is staying out too late partying and coming to work late. More likely, we learn that the applicant "takes work too seriously" or "is a perfectionist."

Huffcutt's point, in short, is that most job offers are risky and based on limited information-often based more on the applicant doing what he or she is supposed to do, or due to extraneous factors, such as a "gut feeling." It's a difficult problem, for employers and applicants alike.

My wife and I just watched "The Company Men," which did a nice job of portraying the reality that faces most of us in this economy-the prospect of losing a job and trying to obtain another one. Most American jobs are not safe, and things can change quickly that disturb our lives. It affects our souls, our self-worth and our families. And all most of us can do is try to be prepared, "play the game," and hope for a little luck.

170. Science is real, not an opinion

AT&T's official policy on global warming is, "Climate change is a fact, and the scientific evidence so far seems to implicate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, as the cause of climate change."

ExxonMobil admits in its policy statement, "Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems." Likewise, UPS states that, "As a global transportation company, UPS acknowledges that Greenhouse Gas Emissions impact the climate and pose a serious challenge to the environment - and ultimately the global economy."

On and on it goes, corporations conceding what is a near consensus in the scientific community. Their admission, if we need to call it that, seems reasonable and responsible. However, it does not mean that corporations are happy about it.

ThinkProgress noted that these same corporations are also contributing to at least one group who is denying climate change. It found that "a number of these same companies are sponsoring toxic, far-right denial of climate science. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) pushes an extremist denier agenda throughout the United States, funded in secret by corporations."

ThinkProgress explains that, "ALEC denies that global warming is causing glaciers to retreat or sea level to rise. Not only does ALEC deny the threat of climate change, they even argue that ‘substantial global warming is likely to be of benefit to the United States.'"

It is frustrating that these groups exist and disappointing that corporations secretly support them.

What corporations are essentially saying is that we know global warming exists, it would be embarrassing to suggest otherwise, but if we can convince others that it is a controversial subject, one not yet decided, and we can save some money, then it is on them. After all, they might conclude, it's your planet, and if your religion or desire for cheap products or political viewpoint, outweighs your value of the Earth's sustainability, then who are we to stand in the way. Our shareholders appreciate your support.

Finally, the ALES notes, "There is no ‘scientific consensus' that global warming will cause damaging climate change."

ALES statement about scientific consensus is actually accurate; there is no consensus. Unfortunately, rarely is a scientific consensus reached, for there are still people who do not believe in evolution and there are even a few members in the Flat Earth Society. The Flat Earth Society makes the bold claim that not only do they not believe that the Earth is round, but that "scientific data and measurements back up our claims." Sigh.

Of course, that perspective reaches politics when Republicans serve the interest of corporations. Jonathan Chait noted in 2007 that Republican members who understood climate change were shunned when they sought a seat on the committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

"Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties."

At some point, we have to set financial interest and politics aside to move beyond a "deny and destroy" society. We hear a lot about the debt we do not want to leave our children, but we seem to have no issue with wasting resources and destroying eco-systems.

Climate change is not a policy statement to be secretly undermined to preserve financial interest. Nor is it a political issue that can be bullied about. Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson made an interesting point recently when he said that Congress is too convoluted with lawyers-and not enough scientists and other professions. Lawyers, he notes, are paid to argue either side of an issue, like members of a debate team. They get paid to argue a particular side of an issue, whether it is right, wrong or absurd. Not surprisingly, lawyers have a strong bias in favor of those signing their paycheck (or making campaign donations).

We clearly need to reintroduce science into our society-our schools and our culture. It is not a dirty word, it is not religious propaganda of the left to be "believed or not believed." Science is real, we experience the luxury of it every day, and it is not a belief system to be bantered about-politically or secretly.

169. Senate bill 5 is politics as usual

It is a rare occasion that State Representative Boose and I agree on an issue. Usually I find his interpretation of the issues to be intellectually insolent to those who follow politics. In the past, he has demonstrated the unique ability to take the most debatable of ideology, insert the word "taxes," and spin it into the most inexplicable of fabrication.

However, the sea has parted, and we finally agree on an economic philosophy-most specifically on his final point in his July 27 letter to the Editor. Like Boose, I wholeheartedly support "largely eliminating the disparity between the public and private sector." It does sound a little socialistic to me, but let's consider the arguments.

President Obama in his position as President of the United States, which represents the executive branch of the most important country in the world, makes $400,000 per year. His private sector counterparts, such as Philippe P. Dauman of Viacom made $84.5 million in 2010. Ray R. Irani of Occidental Petroleum made $76.1 million and at number eleven of the top 20 CEOs was Howard Schultz of Starbucks who made $21.7 million. Consider for a moment that the CEO of Starbucks, who does not do much more than sell overpriced, calorie-laden coffee-like drinks, made $21 million more than the president of the United States.

It is interesting to note that Starbucks is doing well, recording record third quarter profits. Of course, this comes after major layoffs in 2008 and 2009 when Starbucks terminated an estimated 18,000 jobs. Record profit, in the midst of employee layoffs, seems to be a common business practice these days. But I digress.

In comparison of private and public sector jobs, there is clearly a higher upside in the private sector. The public sector, by itself, does not create millionaires and billionaires. In terms of comparing middle class salaries, many public employees leave for the higher private wages-though to be fair, it is on a case by case basis and often by occupation. Obviously, there are not a lot of private firefighters. However, public benefits are often superior to private benefits-many times simply because of the reluctance of private companies to provide them.

But maybe the answer is not reducing public wages and benefits but raising private compensation. Maybe we should spend more time trying to raise the minimum wage, rather than eliminate it. Maybe more time should be spent paying American wages to American workers, rather than exporting them to countries whose workers will work for pennies on the dollar. Maybe private companies should stop paying their CEOs, lobbyists and shareholders millions of dollars that could be used to hire new employees or give raises to their current ones. Or, maybe, just maybe, we need more unions in our private companies-to promote worker interests and ensure they are paid as well as their public counterparts.

But if Boose and I are now partners in the disparity elimination business, and it seems that we are, clearly the largest disparity is not between the private and public sector but between the upper class and the middle and lower classes. The numbers just keep getting worse; in fact, 2007 data showed that the top 10 percent of Americans control two-thirds of America's wealth. As a Mother Jones article entitled it, "It's the Inequality, Stupid."

In our collective expedition to end the disparity, I expect that Boose will now support higher taxes, as well as the estate tax, on the wealthiest of Americans. This revenue can not only be used to help reduce the deficit, but also pay fair wages and stop the layoffs of public employees. As that money is reintroduced into the economy, there will be more for the middle class, and more for social programs-inspiring the economy and creating jobs in both the private and public sector. I am glad that Boose now recognizes the socio-economic plight of the bottom 90 percent and is committed to spread the wealth.
I guess it is off to the Batmobile for Boose and I-now firmly united as disparity crime fighters!

In reality, and although there are parts of Senate Bill 5 that I agree with, the idea that it is pro-middle class is a disconcerting proposition (some might even say an inexplicable spin of fabrication). Senate Bill 5 is about politics as usual-power, fundraising and reelection. Terrified of upsetting big business, and the wealthiest of Americans, Republicans have turned their attention to the teacher, police and fire unions-seeking to limit the very thing that created the middle class in the first place . . .the right to bargain collectively.

168. No one gets credit for this

When I think about a financial recovery, the things that excite me is the millions of previously hard-working people who would go back to work. I would be excited for their families, and what an economic relief it would be for them. Families could again have the essentials-maybe even a few luxuries or take a vacation. Children could afford to go to college; even retirement would be a possibility. I also think about the communities-working people means more tax revenue, and more tax revenue means better streets, schools and increased safety.

Perhaps way down the list in my excitement, if at all, would be the realization that a financial recovery would mean that President Obama might get reelected.

Don't get me wrong, at this point, and considering the current list of Republican nominees, I am hoping President Obama is reelected next year-but I would never sacrifice a financial recovery, if there was one to be had, to ensure it. Whatever happened to "team players" and "I don't care who gets the credit"? The current bunch of political leaders, on both sides, are so worried that an opposing idea might succeed that every idea is met with discontent, spin and stalling.

An article recently caught my attention which makes my point. The headline read, "Get Ready for a July Rally," written by Jim Jabak of MSN Money. In the article Jabak looks at the trend of July stocks and projects a July increase, which initially offered some hope. But then Jabak looked ahead and wrote in projection of next year's global economy,

"I expect this to be a wild year as politicians from Washington to Moscow to Beijing vie to buy popular approval (if not actual votes). We've got a presidential election in Russia -- think Vladimir Putin won't do everything he can to make sure that voters are happy? We've got a leadership transition in China -- think Xi Jinping and the other new leaders jockeying for power as Wen steps down won't do everything they can to make sure that China's economy doesn't falter?"

Then Jabak tackles the United States,

"And we've got a presidential election in the United States. This is a huge wild card. Yes, the incumbent will do everything he can to make sure unemployment falls and growth speeds up, although it's not exactly clear what President Barack Obama will be able to do with Republicans in control of the House of Representatives. Republicans have a vested interest in seeing the economy continue to struggle. At the least, they'll be tempted to block anything that might give the president an economic success to talk about in his campaign."

Michele Bachmann, who is somehow emerging as a serious presidential candidate, said as much when she said that she hoped that higher unemployment would improve her chances of winning the presidential election. Do you think Bachmann is going to do anything now that would hurt her chances of winning? What she should have said is, "I hope the high rate of unemployment decreases as soon as possible, too many people have suffered for a long time, but if not, then I hope my ideas can help if I am elected."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell essentially said the same thing, "I refuse to help Barack Obama get reelected by marching Republicans into a position where we have co-ownership of a bad economy." What McConnell really said, ignoring of course that President Obama inherited a failing economy, is that a bad economy is good for Republicans-people, and their families, can wait.

It interesting that Republicans, who often do a better job of spinning political issues, is on the wrong side on the debt ceiling issue. Their staunch defense of tax reductions for the top one percent, which is jeopardizing the United State credit rating, government payments and social programs is nearly indefensible-and showing the true colors of many in their party.

Republicans and the Tea Party have tried making this an ideological argument about not raising taxes and job creation-but the public is finally seeing through this, especially when the taxes being argued about are only those in the top one percent. Republican defense of the top one percent, those making almost two million per year, is clearly about political support, fundraising and the taxes they pay, not about improving the American economy and not about the middle and lower classes. Government has gotten smaller, hundreds of thousands of the public jobs have been lost, yet the private sector has been slow to add them-waiting perhaps until after the election.

Jabak anticipates that any recovery will be fragile, "What really worries me is that governments and central banks, having spent much of their ammunition on the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009 - and not having produced the economic growth necessary to reload their weapons-will have less, much less, to throw at any crisis that emerges in 2013."

I think Jabak is right on point here. The stimulus package did more to save jobs than create them. The unemployment rate over the last couple of years would have been a lot worse had the stimulus package not been passed. However, even as companies recovered, even prospered, as many have, they have refused to hire new employees-or even bring back some of those laid-off. They've realized that fewer employees, plus increased sales, equals more profit for them and shareholders.

The economic future of the country continues to be of real concern, and I for one do not care whose plan works in initiating its recovery. If a Republican can lead us to prosperity, I would gladly support him or her (last year I voted for Republican Tom Williams for county commissioner). What I do think is that it is time for the wealthiest Americans and corporations start pulling their weight and start giving back to the country that has given them so much. So far, Republicans have not embraced that ideology.

A shared sacrifice, regardless of who get the credit . . . what a noble concept.