Man Creates Fake Craigslist Ad To View His Competition — He Was Quite Surprised

[marmar]

Man Creates Fake Craigslist Ad To View His Competition — He Was Quite Surprised


I’m not sure if anyone could describe the job search better than Eric Auld, a 26-year-old with a Master’s degree in English, who is searching for full-time work to leave his adjunct professor job behind:

… applying to dozens, maybe hundreds of jobs per week; staring vacuously at the familiar monitor glow at 3 a.m.; drinking gallons of coffee/alcohol to endure the monotony of it all; going days, weeks, months, seasons without a single response; yelling violently at the cat and punching the wall in frustration.

A few weeks ago, Auld had enough, and his impatience led him to create a fake Craigslist ad to see where he stood in the job market. He posted a basic ad in order to attract a wide spectrum of job seekers.

His ad read:

Administrative Assistant needed for busy Midtown office. Hours are Monday through Friday, nine to five. Job duties include: filing, copying, answering phones, sending e-mails, greeting clients, scheduling appointments. Previous experience in an office setting preferred, but will train the right candidate. This is a full-time position with health benefits. Please e-mail résumé if interested. Compensation: $12-$13 per hour.

In 24 hours, Auld received 653 responses. After sorting through every application, he found that 76 percent of applicants had previous true experience. Even 10 percent of applicants had more than 10 years of experience. ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/man-creates-fake-craigslist-ad-view-his-competition-he-was-quite-surprised

[DiverDave]

1. 653 Hopes for a job.

What a dick.

[freshwest]

3. +1

[joeybee12]

4. I agree...companies do this all the time...

Sets up false hopes.

[99Forever]

6. Apparently..

... the point of the OP was lost on you. I've been without a job since before Obama took office. I put in more apps than 653 in a month and never hear a peep from ANY of them. You think any of those people haven't experienced the same? You think one more app not getting noticed is a big deal to us?


And this guy is "a dick" for trying to get a handle on what the job market is?


Well, someone is "a dick," that's for sure.

[Curmudgeoness]

15. I agree. I think he was creative

in trying to find a way to go a leg up on other applicants.

Too bad that the results will cause him to be even more disheartened. That was really disturbing.

[DiverDave]

33. So that means it's ok to get

someone hopes up?
He wasnt doing it to get a job, so why do it?
Not a hero, or a smart guy in my book, just a dick.

[99Forever]

34. Asked and answered.

Shopping for a pissing match, are you?

[morningfog]

40. Only a fool would get their hopes up based solely on a single post.

He didn't call anybody back and set up fake interviews, did he?

[grantcart]

42. not only that he then went public to share the information

[progressivebydesign]

46. He's a jerk. If I had responded to that ad, I'd definitely tell him what I thought of him.

Fake ads... people on Craigslist looking for work have a hard enough time trying to find legitimate jobs, only to find that they're fake or a scam.

The idiot didn't need to do that. he could have read any number of articles or statistics.

[nanabugg]

50. Fake=liar=enough already!!! Don't we have enough lies going around from the GOP?

[99Forever]

52. So should I call up...

... every place I apply that doesn't bother to respond in any way and call them jerks and "tell them what I think of them? too" For all I know they are "fakes and scams" too.


Do you always devote that much negative energy and getting even to relatively minor things that "offend" you? You must be wonderful fun to be around.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. His intent does not appear to be malicious.

Unintentionally a letdown for those applicants maybe, but he didn't do it specifically to hurt anyone.

The result is surprisingly worse than I imagined, and is the sort of wakeup call that might help get things going for those very people.

[0rganism]

31. only 1 disappointment less than a real job opening would have

by my calculations, his hoax was 99.85% as good, hope-wise, as the real thing.

[freshwest]

2. So that was better than his 'adjunct professor job?'

The AlterNet story doesn't go into that.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. So, what's your point?

In this little study, he collected startling evidence on how desperate the employment situation is.

That's what he was trying to do. His own job situation is quite irrelevant, except insofar as it inspired him to do the experiment.

[Bjorn Against]

12. An adjunct professor job often pays so low that it really can't even be considered a job

Take a look at what adjunct professors get paid, you may be surprised to find out that it is often well below the poverty line. You can literally make better pay working at Wal-Mart, it is absolutely shameful what they pay adjuncts at many colleges.

[freshwest]

13. Thanks. So he was looking for a better job. That makes sense.

[Bjorn Against]

14. If his only income was as an adjunct I would consider him currently unemployed

It is common for adjuncts to only get paid $3,000 - $4,000 to teach a class for an entire semester, as adjuncts they can usually only get one class a semester and there are only two semesters in a year. That means their salary is less than half of what the poverty line is set at, that is a salary so low I think it is fair for them to call themselves unemployed.

[freshwest]

20. I would consider that rate of pay to be at the level of unemployment, as well.

The only thing I think holding him back, if he's still attending, is that the job he is thinking of, didn't quite rise to what we'd think of as a professor or teaching staff in higher education. I would fault his faculty adviser for not having him minor in more than English. While it's a great course of study with many divisions, employers don't seem to want it anymore than they did when I started college 40 years ago.

I was offered scholarships, but my family wanted me to attend something closer to home to help them out (in hindsight, not in my best interests, but I felt it my duty) so I went to a state university and planned to go into what I seemed best suited, English, etc.

Going through freshman orientation, we were all given a shock. Those of us who were intending to work for degrees in what was called 'a liberal education' or humanities, were called to a big meeting and told that the university now knew those would not be the jobs of the future. So everything was going to shook up and we had to go into the more technical or harder sciences, or find a special field that would use us, such as psychology, social work, teaching, journalism, advertising or professional writing.

IOW, little respect for having a Ph.D. in English and social studies. I wonder if this young man has fallen into this trap. And a good deal of these jobs are in decline in our country.

I'm afraid the skill set he lists there, are what many students out of high school can do without college degrees. It's sad that a person with a Master's in English is not able to apply for anything better than what many would term a clerical job. He is not describing any special skills there.

But a person with good English skills might be well advised to specialize in fields that require them such I listed above. But just the love of language does not always help. The article didn't specify that he had trained in any of those fields, or that he had specialized IT or other skills to offer an employer.

I regret our country has taken a different path, too pragmatic, in order to produce a worker or employee for a corporation. That their full range of reasoning abilities and talents, which may not fit that mold, is not being developed. I was taught having a well-rounded education was a valuable thing. Times have changed, we are pressed into small compartments of specialization. Now that there is little of the commons left, our talents no longer serve the whole. JMHO.

[DotGone]

24. Adjuncts are basically indentured servants. I know an adjunct prof who makes $1500/class

I know an adjunct prof who makes $1500/class teaching at a community college. She also works at a Target and is barely scraping by. One of her classes didn't have the necessary enrollment this past semester for full payment and the college asked her if she would still teach for tuition payments only which is ~$200. She nicely told them to pound sand.

[JDPriestly]

25. I know someone with a PhD who was paid $2,000 for a semester.

It's frightfully depressing. She even had a great deal of job experience and education (on edit, I should add -- in advanced science courses) beyond her PhD. In addition, she writes extremely well.

Meanwhile, we hire Chinese and Indian and other immigrant intellectuals to work for our companies.

It's ridiculous. There is a great deal of prejudice against well educated American intellectual workers.

[coalition_unwilling]

30. There's a reason they're called 'Gypsy Scholars' and it ain't

because the lifestyle is so romantic.

[Greybnk48]

39. Where I teach, part-time is less than $18,000 per year gross.

That's 1/2 time. No benefits and no money from July until October...that is, if you're re-hired. My campus is very generous and we are given a 2 semester contract. Most of the campuses are 1 semester only, so absolutely no job security.

[Posteritatis]

54. Fast food pays better than many adjunct positions. Conditions there are pretty bad. (nt)

[freshwest]

56. And, if he is still a student, he might be accumulating student loan debt at the same time?

[Egalitarian Thug]

5. Interesting to note that the first responses all completely ignored the point. K&R n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Not uncommon around here.

[trumad]

9. What---Knee Jerking on DU...

[Blanks]

10. Some degrees are better than others.

A masters degree in English sounds a little over-qualified for the position he listed to check competition. Otherwise not very practical outside an academic environment.

For $12 to $13 an hour couldn't this person get a teaching position at a high school? Or even a middle school?

Why is he so hell bent for leather to get out of an academic environment after having stayed in one for so long?

He would have been better off going to technical school if this was all he was after.

[Lex]

11. It was an experiment to see what even a basic job advertised

would get as far as job applicants; it wasn't necessarily to see what HIS job market environment was like.

[jtuck004]

27. The job he listed is exactly the kind of job people with community college, Masters, and even

PhD's degrees are applying for. There are no jobs at colleges to speak of, and I don't know if you have noticed that public employees, including teachers, are being laid off. And such a position comes with another couple of years of work in teacher's school, often requires a Masters, etc.

Even the private position he advertised - over 650 responses, 620 or so after he weeded out those w/o resumes or a clue - think a company isn't going to up the bar on qualifications, start asking for Masters, maybe even PhD - leaving all those technical degree folks, and all the rest, in the dirt? There's a reason they say PhD stands for poor, hungry, and desperate, and that was BEFORE this jobs crisis.

He doesn't want out. He wants a freakin' job. And there aren't any for the 27 million people (at a minimum) the BLS report says need and want jobs, in a country that can ill-afford what that is doing to our security.

That final point has no merit. Tens of thousands of students are graduating from technical schools with nothing to look forward to but student loan payments, and no job. That's no answer.

[Blanks]

35. As a potential employer...

I would hire someone who has gone through a technical program to work in my office before I would hire someone with a doctorate or a masters.

I'm a civil engineer and my wife is an attorney, and we both agree; someone with a masters degree in English wouldn't be that much help around the office.

Not all employers are impressed with advanced degrees in subjects that have very little practical use in an office environment.

People need to do a little research on what kind of degrees are marketable before choosing a program.

The problem that I have with a person with a masters degree in English is this: here you have someone who was comfortable in an academic environment and decided to stay there as long as possible. No real world experience.

He needs to try to get a job working construction when things pick back up. Contractors hire the warm body in front of them when they need someone. If this guy can run a wacker packer in the blazing sun for a couple of 12 hour work days; all kinds of opportunities will open up for him.

[jtuck004]

38. Potential employer = mythical

There is virtually no demand. You can do research till the cows come home, but at least 30 million people or thereabouts need work, and at best we show 3 million jobs, and that's only if skills are spread equally, and they aren't. Unless one wants to rely on mythical jobs, mythical income. The rest of us have to live in this more realistic world.

The problem I have with the advice is that most of it no longer applies, and tends to show a real ignorance and lack of understanding about how little opportunity exists out there. People are still operating on the myth that if one just applies their self things will work out, ignoring the criminal activities, the 70+ billion being afforded the banks in subsidies, the destruction of programs which used to help people move into new areas. Just in college along we are graduating nearly 800,000 of the total 1.6 million graduates, that have no chance at work, that ignores other millions that didn't go to college for whom opportunity is even less. So then people turn to especially ignorant advice that people should go work jobs that the adviser would never think about doing, that typically people don't work at for very long, never develop any wealth or future from.

Given the depth of the wreckage that the banks brought us via their fraud and theft, things won't be picking back up for at least another decade or two. Which leaves 500 people applying for every one of those "construction" jobs.

[Blanks]

43. Believe what you want to.

People who are graduating with civil engineering degrees right now are still getting jobs. They may have to relocate, but there are jobs.

Yes, the economy has slowed down, and right now there aren't a lot of construction jobs.

When (or if) the presidents job bill passes; there will be construction jobs within weeks.

I'm not working right now, but there are several jobs out there that are looking for professionals with my qualifications. I'm not concerned because if I don't get one of them; I'll go into business for myself since I am also a licensed surveyor.

I remember the doom and gloom when Reagan was president and how quickly the economy turned around when federal dollars started rolling into the economy.

Again, believe what you want to, but I expect certain types of education aren't as employable as others; a masters in English is probably pretty close to the bottom for employability.

[jtuck004]

44. I don't have to believe. I just read the data, and it stinks.

It says we are short tens of millions of jobs, that many in a position to change this seem to have accepted it as necessary. In the absence of a sense of urgency about a problem, what motivation could make people do what is needed?

Of course there are some degrees which aren't as useful in a skills based job search (got a link to back up the assertion about English degrees?), but that has nothing to do with being nearly 30 million jobs short of a full load. That's about 1% of what is needed, and a fair number of those have requirements that many don't have. The whole 30 million could go get trained in the appropriate degree, wouldn't make a dent. There are some people being hired, sure. BLS estimated 163K last month, a number that, historically, has been revised down, usually multiple times in the months following. Has a + or - 100,000 margin of error. Combine that with SS Administration and Census info, some bank info, and it tells us that the majority of us are losing what we have, or what we are keeping is losing its value. That saps demand.

Regan cut some taxes (raised some too) and started spending govt money which, of course, stimulated the economy. Whose taxes you gonna cut? The thieves at the banks, Mi$$ Rmoney? Maybe one could tax the people who are unemployed? Have you noticed all the people running around with their hair on fire about the national debt, which continues to rise? You think they are gonna let you open the coffers for the good of the country? HA. And I don't know if you have noticed, but medical costs are rising faster than we can pay for them, and there are several other pressures (10,000 people a day turning 65, 15 million housing unites still at risk, among others) that make it highly likely that "federal" money will come grudgingly and in nowhere near the amounts needed to really affect change.

Building a few bridges is a pathetic excuse for an employment program, though it might help your personal bottom line for a few years, and that's a good thing. But take a look around - the factories are shuttered and 40 years out of date where they exist at all. Go ahead and bring the jobs back. Where they gonna work? Who is gonna rebuild the private infrastructure, when there is no demand for products? What degree gets you a job at a non-existent factory?

We have been divesting ourselves of human and industrial assets for 40+ years, and it would take perhaps $20-40 trillion invested in manufacturing and industrial/agricultural research and education. We are nowhere even close to provisioning for that. We need for millions to be trained in scientific arts and philosophy, to enter into basic research and figure out what the future is going to look like, to be supported in efforts to solve new problems. Instead we have ceded that ground to other countries, who are sending some of their kids to college here (with 800 SAT scores) to gain some international exposure and compete on the world stage. We, on the other hand, are graduating people with debt that will only be collected when they start getting social security, likely throwing many into utter poverty. Be scared of our mighty power!

The data says we can look forward to at least another 10+ years of excuses because there is NOTHING which can be pointed to that is going to up that demand. Belief says just wait, money will be falling from the sky any time now, that people can continue to live by the same rules that worked in 1970 when we started becoming serfs for the financial sector.

I know which one I trust, and it's not a fantasy about how things are going to get better in even the grandkids lifetime (except perhaps the ones trained to take advantage of a global market). If I am wrong I will be pleasantly surprised and enjoy the crow. If not, I am working on being prepared, and helping others to be so.

But as you said, ymmv.

[Blanks]

45. Wow...

I know things are bad. I agree with you on the factory jobs. If you've ever watched Modern Marvels on the History Channel; there's a reason why a lot of factory jobs are gone for good. The people designing those elaborate factories don't have English degrees, and you don't need any kind of degree to work on a factory floor.

However, when we transition to a more sustainable economy; there will be a lot of jobs created.

When you talk about investing in our infrastructure; you're not talking about 'building a few bridges' you're talking about installing solar panels, wind and wave energy, and discovering a lot of things that haven't even been invented.

Try not to feel so defeated. I believe there's an entire economic boom coming that's agriculture based. If you took all of the farm subsidies from corporate farms and all of the food stamps and distributed that money to small farmers and small businesses you'd immediately have an economic boom. It isn't that the money for a boom isn't out there it just isn't going into the right hands; yet.

We'll have to do something to produce more food locally because we're gonna run out of cheap oil. If you aren't already; learn to grow some of your own food.

[jtuck004]

58. "However, when we transition to a more sustainable economy"

Don't hold your breath.

Not defeated, and I grow great garlic.

[Blanks]

59. You're well on your way then.

At some point either the price of gas will be so high that only locally grown food will be realistic, or we will have transitioned to alternative energies.

Either way, with the Chinese and the Indian demand for oil growing; we're gonna have to make adjustments.

Perhaps garlic will be the new currency.

[jtuck004]

62. Ready to trade cloves <G>

I agree about food. It could also be impacted by climate so much we can't grow what we are used to, major challenges. Local food is better anyway, and better for a local economy. But yeah. The demand might make the Ag degrees worth more.<G> But it doesn't much matter what degree one has if there are no jobs.

I think we need something more fundamental than adjustments. There is a small but wealthy minority who have a far different idea of adjustment from the rest of us, and I don't think most people realize they are already living their life under their rules, for their profit. Have been for some time. Drifted and voted themselves into it.

More people could be richer, more people could thrive, we would be more secure if we work towards that sustainable economy mentioned above, but today we are supporting the old order, where capital is more important than people and we don't hold the people who own us responsible for their bad behavior. I haven't seen much of a change in that, or much recognition that most people are just profit centers.

Once people really begin to grok that, perhaps they will ask if there is another way, but I doubt that will happen for a couple hundred years, based on history. I think the world (other countries) will reshape things before then.

But if there is an answer, if people learn to own and operate their own assets and lives, it will probably be taught like gardening. Plant the seeds, fertilize with good shit, watch 'it grow... I practice on garlic.

[Blanks]

65. The answer to the 'no jobs' problem is in small scale agriculture.

Imagine if food stamps could be used at farmers markets and a local farmer raising catfish and watercress were getting farm subsidies and research grants.

I'm not saying that this is what is going to happen, but there are a lot of ways to get the economy going if we just get away from the corporate farming, subsidize box stores model.

There are some places where farmers markets can accept food stamps and there are agricultural programs cropping up in elementary schools.

I rail on about our hypnosis over money because we have people who live in really nice houses one day, and the next they are eating at soup kitchens. Food only comes from grocery stores and grocery stores only take money. There is no other way to obtain foodstuffs.

We are powerless to stop it as long as we think like that. It's gonna take a lot of small incremental steps, but they are happening all over. In this age of shared information; all we need is a new agriculture/alternative energy/technology revolution and things will happen very fast.

If you want to see some interesting stuff; you should watch TED talks.

[jtuck004]

67. Ok, but save some time for medical research while plowing the wheat.

Because we are really gonna need those results.

Food stamps can be used at farmers markets here, which is great. A push to move those people into some kind of sustainable food system would be an improvement, because I think those food stamps will be more at risk in coming years. A judge just ruled they could cut them off from legal immigrants, iirc, and there is going to be more push-back against them, I am sure.

That money thing, I don't think it's a hypnosis. It's very real when big mortgage bank borrows a bunch of private money and puts it out for mortgage loans with no underwriting to mitigate risk (they KNOW it's gonna blow), but they aren't on the hook. They collect billions in fees, create a housing bubble, people all around them establish lives on this ether. When it all tumbles down, the banks keep the money. The economy, already weak from replacing production with debt, is hurt Or Bain (or any of the other big capital pirates) borrows a bunch of money, pays a few people big money to make a deal on a company that no one else there would approve of, then pockets the fees and uses the lives and assets of the workers on the hook for a debt that won't be repaid. And the economy is hurt.

One can start an organic farm, good idea, but you have to have a market for your food, (in my case, garlic), pay taxes, have medical care, run the country, do world trade, provide for security, the aged, etc. So you have to have a market, but if Bain or some mortgage company sucks all the life out of it you gonna be eating a lot of garlic. So we have to engage them somehow. One way is to begin to teach people that THEY SHOULD own the assets (Like the Rmoney kids are all taught) in a democratically-run coop (I suspect this possibility is cut out of their textbooks).. People need motivation and spirit to do things like farming and cooperatives, however, and that's tough to nurture in people who eat at The Colonel, watch too much TV, and don't sing together much. I.e. most Americans today.

We aren't powerless, but the road ahead (as well our expectations and desires) makes it look like it. I think the best bet is to find (and develop) small cooperative groups that can own and control assets, and some of those will very likely be small scale, perhaps organic, farms. It's the only freedom from corps I can see, whether its farming or engineering, would give people more power. May not be large, but it might be all they can do in their lifetime.

[Blanks]

69. I know there is more to money than hypnosis.

It just seems that's the only place people look to for solutions. When you have house payments; it is the only solution. However, it isn't always the only solution, but it is still the only place a lot of people look.

As far as coops; I'm all for it, but when a group of people get together to work for the common good they are branded socialist or communist and that makes them 'bad' according to certain groups. I don't agree with it, but that's just one of the obstacles.

If you have Netflix; I recommend that you watch the documentaries 'Ingredients' and 'Broken Branches' (if you haven't already seen them). 'Ingredients' deals with the health issues related to our national diet and provides one of the possible solutions. While 'Broken Branches' is about the apple industry in Washington state and how some farmers have modified their practices to be more sustainable. You didn't comment on TED Talks, if you haven't seen any of them; I recommend you look into it.

I only point to these things because it gives me hope that there are quite a few people out there who are taking steps toward getting us away from this complete dependence on money and away from current accepted methods.

The resources that it takes to grow food are available in so many places; money has no intrinsic value, yet we look to money to solve problems with hunger. it really makes no sense.

How much of the money that the federal government provides for agriculture goes toward fuel? How much energy is used in tractors when the crop itsef may grow better (or at least equally well) hydroponically? How much energy is used to pump water from the ground; when hydroponic systems use 5% of the water as conventional irrigation systems? How much energy is used hauling food from places far away; when that food can be grown locally?

Lots, lots, lots and lots.

Yes we all need to work together, and the banking crisis was a huge setback. However, never before in world history have people who have never met (like you and I) been able to literally move about in the world and exchange views while watching TV, or sitting at the dinner table. I do most of my typing on a mobile device.

Gutenberg was voted the most influential person in the millennium for inventing the printing press. Anytime the ability to communicate has been enhanced; it has brought about huge social change. The printing press contributed to bringing Europe out of the dark ages. Look at the effect social media has already had in some parts of the world.

I just don't believe it's going to take a long time to get things turned around because now we all have the ability to find people with common goals and bring these people together; share ideas, research and in some cases resources.

It took a long time to get things going during the great depression, but the advanced media of that time was radio. Television brought war into our living rooms and effectively ended the Vietnam war. So the military industrial complex gained control of that, but they can't control this media... Yet

I think we'll get this thing turned around quickly once the republicans lose control. As far as food stamps; they're a temporary fix to keep people from starving. Once people go back to work and get busy; people won't care about food stamps.

[jtuck004]

71. "Debt makes all participants clinically insane"

I read that in something a while back, just thought it was worth sharing.

[jtuck004]

68. Have you seen this?

http://www.growingpower.org/

[Blanks]

72. I've been there.

In 2008 (or 2009), my wife and I went to the Chicago Green Festival and took the train up to Milwaukee for the tour. There are a couple of youtube videos that they have made about the place that we saw and so I had to see it.

It was very interesting. The guy in the video gave us the tour.

[jtuck004]

74. Saw this, thought of you...

http://www.archive.org/stream/ruralroadstosecu00ligurich#page/n7/mode/2up

[missingthebigdog]

51. I bet you are a RIOT at parties!

Do you have any suggestions to improve this outlook?

Sometimes the glass is neither half full, nor half empty. The glass is simply too big. I think that is where we are as a country.

There was a time when a family could live on the wages that one adult made. That was a time when most people didn't feel the need to drive cars that cost half of their annual salary (or more) and live in houses that were beyond their needs and their means.

We need to readjust our perspective on success. We need an economy that makes it possible for a family to live modestly, on one income, without having to do without life's necessities. We need to reevaluate whether we all need two cars, whether each of our kids really needs his or her own room, and whether paying for a cell phone for a nine year old is reasonable. We need to consider tearing down some of these foreclosures (toxic assets) and replacing them with community space for shared gardens, or workshops, or child care co-ops. We need to learn to SHARE with our neighbors.

Just my 2 cents.

[jtuck004]

60. I am actually a very funny person.

But yeah, first everyone needs to quit living as if we are gonna "get back" to where we were. We are not, as you suggest. That life is over. We have to build the life of the next century, and it is gonna take lots of people trained really well doing research, and a government that cares enough to create opportunities for ordinary working people to thrive, instead of doing things like paying billions in subsidies to banks for criminal and fraudulent behavior.

You can't fix a problem till you recognize it however, and as a nation we are still acting as if we are fixing the old problem, limping along till some solution falls out of the sky and we can get back to where we were. Not gonna happen, and the outcome of such thinking will be more like turkeys dropping out of the sky on WKRP, not solutions. We have to engineer it, invest, make it happen. And in this environment it should be clear that we haven't even started down that path. We are just coasting...

I agree with you about cooperation, strongly. But I lived through the 60's, recently did a community non-profit thing, and this whole idea of people cooperating is much easier talked about than accomplished. Doable, but will take decades to address the old learning that will get in the way. If you weren't there then you should know that most of the experiments from the earlier period failed, and since then most folks have been steeped in competition, not cooperation (ironic, since the really great and big things we have done required great cooperation). I don't say that to say it's not possible, because it clearly is. There are 50,000 or so registered coops in the US, iirc. It's just harder than most people think to make it work for a long time, because it really does require a new way of looking at things. That makes people more uncomfortable than losing their home to an unscrupulous bank.(Figure out why THAT is and we maybe could beat the bastards back).

Along with the gardens we need to figure out substitutes for our current energy sources, figure out how we are gonna feed everyone since we have toasted the climate and screwed up the water, deal with the coming strains on Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid (perhaps trillions of dollars in pensions), more unemployment, an entire generation that is well trained - for a decade ago -, and perhaps the complete overhaul of our criminal financial structure so that everyone is not living as a serf to the financial sector while they garden.

But I really do like the idea of gardens, because growing a bit of food, and eating it, takes a little support from the greedy corporation. They lose enough support, they will fall on their own, without anyone having to lift another finger. And we have to start somewhere.

Which reminds me, I have some really tasty garlic varieties. They are orphioscorodon, or hardnecks. You can't hardly buy that in the stores or even get it in restaurants, but it's much tastier than what most people eat. I try to turn people on to it when I can, especially around planting time in September.

.

[missingthebigdog]

64. As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly, lol.

I agree that cooperation is a challenge, but I suspect it may be less so for the millenials. Young people seem to "get" the concept.
One factor that has made co-ops difficult is that they are so often focused on "like-mindedness.". People have to believe the same things to participate. This can work- the Amish come immediately to mind- but often doesn't. And it isn't really necessary. I don't need to share your religious or political views to share greenspace with you.

[VPStoltz]

16. Maybe might hat is made of tin, but...

Isn't there the distinct possibility that there ARE jobs - millions of them - that are purposely being left empty to create a political crisis?
How soon after a Rawmoney win do you thinking hiring will be in full swing again?

[Jackpine Radical]

17. That's tinfoil, alright.

No typically greedy Republican businessman would hurt himself by not hiring needed labor just to increase the chances of a Romeny win.

I side with Lenin on this one: "The capitalists will sell you the rope you intend to hang them with."

[Occulus]

63. On the other hand, there have been threads, serious ones,

posted here in the past positing precisely that possibility... and the articles weren't written by Obama's friends...

[Jackpine Radical]

66. I see 2 possibilities.

1) Reid's got something. This is my bet. Maybe it's something bigger than what he's talking about.

2) Reid wants to put the pressure on to force the tax records out, just on the general principle that there's bound to be something in there out of which political hay can be made.For example, people will be very interested if Romney turns out to have been tangled in the UBS scandal & took advantage of an amnesty to avoid felony charges.

[CK_John]

19. Sorry, job levels are set for a decade, we need SocSec at 50. nt

[sendero]

22. No....

.... I hate to break the news to you, but the hiring equation is simple. Not hiring when you can turn that salary into a profit would be stupid and businesses are not stupid or they don't last long.

There is no hiring because there is no DEMAND in the economy. It really is as simple as that.

[Rozlee]

23. Not too soon is my opinion.

Not if Rmoney is going to start by giving 2 trillion dollar tax cuts to the uber rich and tax raises to everyone else while raising military spending by an equal amount and probably starting a war with Iran. He'll certainly pass more tax breaks for corporations to ship jobs overseas and pass more bank and market deregulation and we'll be more royally screwed than ever before. Romney's Dubya on steroids. We may be damned now, but under Romney, we'll be damned to the tenth power.

[intheflow]

28. Hiring will be in full swing, all right, if Rmoney wins...

full swing overseas. Nothing at all on the domestic front. We American works are too greedy for the likes of a savvy business man like Rmoney.







<----- Added for the alert-jumping, sarcasm-deprived DU crew.

[obxhead]

21. Anyone still believe that 8%ish unemployment number?

I certainly don't.

[harun]

26. Never believed it

[Egalitarian Thug]

32. Not even before the closer-to-real numbers started coming out. n/t

[progressivebydesign]

48. Umm I do, but then again, I'm a Democrat. n/t

[Skip Intro]

61. Being a Democrat doesn't require being blind to reality. nt

[obxhead]

73. Really?

You honestly believe the unemployment number is anywhere remotely close to 8%?

I wasn't trying to be snarky against Obama in my post. The fact is we don't use employment data to accurately reflect our unemployment/underemployment numbers in any way. It's still really fucking hard out there!

Are things better now than when Bush and friends were in power? Sure. Things are nowhere close to rainbows and unicorns though. 8% is a magical BS number made by economists to keep *insert market here* falsely inflated/deflated.

I'm a Democrat too, but I look at life with my reality glasses on.

[slampoet]

29. Heard the NPR interview with this d-bag.

it almost seemed like a hit-piece against Craigs list. He provided no real helpful advice and didn't get to the core of the real problem which is the automated systems that employers require applicants to register into. They often take an hour to apply to just one job.

[progressivebydesign]

47. like Taleo.. Satan's job search system. n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

36. Masters in english? Why not get at a grade-school or high school job?

Don't teaching jobs usually pay about $13-$17 per hour starting out and you gat a month or so off in the summer? Plus, if you go with a public school you get in on a union.

[We are Devo]

41. Need to have a multi-subject credential

to start, or at least be working on one. There aren't exactly tons of teaching jobs out there now...

[Posteritatis]

55. You need a lot of breadth to get into teaching in some places

I four-pointed my undergraduate degree (history and political science) and did okay in my history MA, but I couldn't qualify to teach social studies anywhere at the K-12 level because I don't have enough other subjects and the depth in them. For instance, I'd need some more science, math, some more English - each of those at a decent enough level to keep my head above water in the likely event that I had to teach them - on top of statistics, psych, and some other materials necessary on the teacher's side of things instead of just classroom material. Some places also need an education-specific degree or additional post-graduate credentials on top of that.

The standards to get one's foot in the door around here are extraordinarily high. I like that they're that high, since it implies some decent things about new teachers since the requirements were updated, but that doesn't change the fact that in a lot of places it's not a thing you can just hop into.

[ecstatic]

37. That really sucks. If I were him,

I'd become a ghost writer or start a company that does term papers (assuming there are no other options at all).

[progressivebydesign]

49. So he's an administrative assistant? looking for a low level job? n/t

[IrishEyes]

53. What state was this in?

I may have missed it in the article. I was just wondering if it was the same craigslist that I go on. Was it in a place like Nevada or California with very high unemployment?

[Loge23]

57. Don't be surprised - this country sucks.

Mr. Auld's experience is familiar to me.
When I worked at my previous job, I would post real jobs for positions on CL and be absolutely inundated with responses - hundreds literally. After I walked out a few dozen employees and replaced others with lower paid replacements, I too was eventually let go. Welcome to Amerika, 2012 - uh, 2011.
From there, I sent out more resumes than I care to count - for four months - until landing an staff position, that I absolutely loathe, in a local college. No wonder the OP is looking to move on from his adjunct gig. Adjuncts are paid hourly with no benefits and are treated to the spectacle of watching the full-timer 10 month contract crew doing half the work for twice the dough and full benefits. Cest 'la vie. ...not to mention the BS fiefdoms that dominate the academic communities in so many institutions these days.
The situation for the working American seriously sucks these days. Instead of criticizing the poor guy for posting a bogus job, why not send out some positive vibes - it's all we have left that's free to do after all.
And who cares anyway? If your unemployed and looking - and my heart goes out to you if you are - you send out dozens of resumes/applications every week. Most go to heartless bastards who are doing you a favor by ignoring you and potentially making you even more miserable than you may already feel. They suck and this country is as dead as dead can be.
At least the bloke is sharing the ugly truth.

[FreeJoe]

70. A lot of job postings are fake

I've worked at several large corporations. With virtually every new job, an ad is posted. The truth for a big percentage of those jobs is that we already know who we are going to hire. It's either someone interal that was picked or a contractor being converted to an employee. Sometimes it is someone that someone knows being recruited. In less than 25% of the cases is it truly an open position where someone answering the ad is likely to get the job.

Why do we have to post ads for those roles? I have no idea. It's an HR thing and I've never understood HR rules. In my experience as a manager, this is what you are up against. You will only get to hire one person for the next one to three years. If you hire someone that is terrible, you'll spend a year firing them and you might end up losing the position instead of replacing them. If you hire someone mediocre, you will have them forever. You want someone really good, but you don't want to take a chance. That forces you to stick with low risk candidates - people in the company with good reputations, contractors that have proven themselves, or people coming with ironclad reputations from people you trust. If you are really good and your industry doesn't get crushed (causing everyone you know to lose their jobs or quit hiring), this system works great once you break into it. If you are on the outside looking to get in, it is a nightmare. Having been on the outside and the inside, I still have no idea how to fix it. I'm just glad I'm not a manager anymore.