-> DB> Perhaps YOU might review your own perspective as well.  If people
-> DB> are to take responsibility with their lives [and not require
-> DB> others to "pay their way", then opportunities must be extended.
-> DB> In essence, if you must work, then employers MUST supply that
-> DB> work.  Ultimately, we are all interdependent and are responsible
-> DB> for one another.  It is said that
->
-> I agree we are all interdependant. Unfortunately life IS very cruel.
No Don, Life is not cruel in the process...it is the participants who
make it so.
-> The true test of a character is to see how they deal with the
-> problems and stumbling blocks placed in their way.
Character is not a given, Don, it is gradually developed.  And NO ONE
makes positive progress, builds good character without the help and
consistent encouragement of others. Life IS inter-relating; you cannot
at ANY TIME go it alone and succeed.
-> Potential employers do not have a requirement to hire anyone. Yes,
-> jobs are necessary. I firmly believe to force an employer to hire
-> someone unneeded for production and at the detriment of the company
-> is a crime in itself as well as anyone who would take that job a
-> little short on ethics. Forcing someone to hire another person at a
-> loss is tantamount to another form of begging.
When I say "employers", I do not refer [necessarily] to business-owners
but to those in Human Resources whose responsibility IS to hire.
Unfortunately it is more the norm for these to hire EXPEDIENTLY rather
than ethically.  Even in the temporary agency industry, expedience is
the rule.  When weeks, sometimes months passed before I could get work,
I thought it might have been some deficiency in my performance.  But a
coordinator took me aside and explained that clients prefer workers who
are "more in keeping with the demographics of the workplace".  My skills
and work quality were sound, but clients were not comfortable or used
to the idea of a tall black man as an admin assistant.  To please the
client [and ensure $$$] the agency indulged this clear bit of
discrimination in the name of expedience.  This is not right, Don.  If a
person has the skills and there is a need for his services, he is
entitled to fair opportunity to work.
-> Do you know how many millionares are out there, who couldn't find a
-> job... so they created one? Names like WalMart, Famous Amos, Mrs.
-> Fields, Federal Express (good story behind that one) and others have
-> failed at finding work. They knew there was someplace in this world
-> for them and their talents and did something about it... other than
-> pixxing and moaning.
For every millionaire who succeeded there are 1000 who failed, Don.  And
EVERY successful millionaire had help at every crucial moment along the
way.  One of the greatest innovators was Cecil Rhodes, the UK adventurer
who founded Rhodesia and created the Rhodes Scholarship.  He had no
money or proceeds of his own...at EVERY step there was someone with
clout to help him, to support him.  And Rhodes did NONE of the work of
building his empire--he had ideas, but OTHERS performed the actual work.
Rhodes had a DYNAMIC personality, but TIMING is everything.  You have
named some top-shelf businesses, Don, but there are other ventures begun
by equally enterprising folk who could not find work--that failed
because there weren't the people to help at the crucial moments.  It is
not so 1-2-3 as you suggest.  *I* would rather work with the skills and
experience I have, knowing that there is ALWAYS a need for office
support.
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------