The Colorado law is silly, arrogant, unhelpful. And, it's backfiring in all sorts of ways. I have many friends in Colorado who are having a hard time finding work because they think that any company who "refuses to comply" with the law must be a terrible, unfair, toxic place to work. They've taken a moral high ground, preaching pay transparency and cataloging job descriptions from companies who aren't "following the law" and reporting them to the bureaucrats.
There are many reasons a company doesn't list salary ranges on job descriptions. Hell, most companies don't even know the damn law exists—they're just hoping to hire good people to do good work.
Yes, the hiring process at a lot of companies is not awesome. Yes, recruiters are useless, and technical interviews suck. But there are a lot of great companies out there that pay really well and care about their employees. If you want to talk about salary, put in a good application, make a good first impression, and you can talk money early on in the interview process. I've hired a lot of people throughout my career. These days, I'm absolutely dumbfounded by the amount of applicants who don't seem to care about anything at all—sloppy résumés, half-assed and poorly written cover letters, days go by in between scheduling emails.
You want to make $200,000 a year? Become a better writer and don't be a fucking idiot during your interviews. Stop swaying in your chair, and playing with your hair, and reprimanding your dog. Fix your lighting and your audio, put a clean shirt on—take things seriously. You might be "qualified" for the role on paper, but no one wants to work with unthinking slobs who seem completely uninterested in actually getting the job.
The longer people whine and complain about "pay transparency", the longer they'll remain unemployed.
These won't be called "boosters" for long. They'll become part of the standard vaccination regimen, and if you haven't had all 3 or 4 or 5 shots, you won't be considered fully vaccinated. No thank you—I won't be signing up for endless medical intervention.
I don't have some twisted ideological objection to vaccination in general, I'm not worried about the side effects of these vaccines, and I don't think ivermectin is a miracle drug that's going to end the pandemic. Mostly, I think the vaccines are unnecessary for a good deal of people, myself included. I got COVID two weeks ago, got sick, dealt with the sickness, and I'm slowly recovering. For four decades I've paid attention to my fitness, to nutrition, to sleep, to stress management. For the most part, I've done a good job at taking care of myself. So I went into this sickness with confidence—I was counting on my health and current state of fitness to get me through, to cope with the virus.
I'm against medicine as a commodity, and that's what these vaccines have become. It seems we are dependent on a highly marketed solution that offers narrowly targeted and short-lived protection. There's little talk of personal health and responsibility. We've been told what's good for us, and that we must sign up for it, and that's that.
Lastly, we don't seem to have an acceptance of limits. There is no limit to the number of vaccinations required for "maximum efficacy", no limit to how many drugs we'll take to ease our pain, no limits to mask wearing, no limits to the media-driven hygiene theater that keeps people locked in a state of nervousness, fear, and anxiety. A healthy society accepts limits, it accepts some level of sickness, it accepts death—it does not renounce all autonomy and cede personal health decisions to employers and corporations for the management of individual health.
I've been buying books primarily from bookshop.org. Every now and then I'll buy something from Barnes and Noble if I can't find it elsewhere. I also tend to buy directly from these publishers:
But one thing that annoys me across the board, and especially with bookshop.org, is the constant display of social justice reading lists. I was checking out recently and the whole page was plastered with Robin DiAngelo, X Kendi, Hannah Jones, and a bunch of other "celebrating blackness" titles. As if I am going to add these garbage books to my cart.
I wish bookstores would stop cramming the "reading guides for white people" down our throats. There are so many books out there, so many authors, so many topics you could promote! Let's talk about writers, not just "black writers." Show me some new literature, not just "black literature."
Point me to the book shop that doesn't constantly promote this nonsense and they'll have my money.
In fact, both Di'Angelo and X Kendi have written opinionated, arguably racist (reverse racist?) hot takes that both boil down to the self-flagellation of one race. The premise of both books (and yes, I have read them) is that white people are born with an original sin that cannot be cleansed, but only fought against, and the only way to do this is accept the (false) premise that you are intrinsically a racist and you must actively fight against this. By "you", I of course mean "white people". Ascribing negative traits to someone based on their race is racist, QED.
They are both textbook examples of a false premise. Extremely difficult to refute because by design it's created to immediately incriminate people opposed to it. So no one with any sense opposes, lest they become an anti-anti-racist, which somehow means "racist". It fails the freshman logic course test which tells you all you need to know.
They qualify as garbage. If not because the authors have a clear agenda other than (social) science, but because their cases are based on demonstrably false premises that lead to wild, racist, and absurd conclusions. There is very little difference between these books and the racist books of 100 years ago except the premise was altered and the colors changed. They might belong as a times best seller in today's social battlefield but there is no substance in them besides their inflammatory titles and racist conclusions.
> So no one with any sense opposes, lest they become an anti-anti-racist, which somehow means "racist". It fails the freshman logic course test which tells you all you need to know.
Aren’t you “opposing” in your comment? Wasn’t the first person “opposing” in their comment? Is Fox News, American Thinker, NY Post, The Federalist, and the National Review “opposing” when they write countless articles about this idea and these people?
There are many reasons a company doesn't list salary ranges on job descriptions. Hell, most companies don't even know the damn law exists—they're just hoping to hire good people to do good work.
Yes, the hiring process at a lot of companies is not awesome. Yes, recruiters are useless, and technical interviews suck. But there are a lot of great companies out there that pay really well and care about their employees. If you want to talk about salary, put in a good application, make a good first impression, and you can talk money early on in the interview process. I've hired a lot of people throughout my career. These days, I'm absolutely dumbfounded by the amount of applicants who don't seem to care about anything at all—sloppy résumés, half-assed and poorly written cover letters, days go by in between scheduling emails.
You want to make $200,000 a year? Become a better writer and don't be a fucking idiot during your interviews. Stop swaying in your chair, and playing with your hair, and reprimanding your dog. Fix your lighting and your audio, put a clean shirt on—take things seriously. You might be "qualified" for the role on paper, but no one wants to work with unthinking slobs who seem completely uninterested in actually getting the job.
The longer people whine and complain about "pay transparency", the longer they'll remain unemployed.