Guys, this is satire. And old, the guy posted it for comedy some time ago. Not seeing anyone calling this out, so just FYI. No need to get angry over this.
Somewhere I read the comment, "LinkedIn is like high school but for adults." I see it as a circle jerk of enthusiastic Kool-aid guzzlers mixed with the greatest hits of Hallmark card business wisdom. A place where people excitedly chat about how really REALLY NICE the weather is.
As someone who is unemployed I detest it and the culture it promotes. The switch in my brain that recognizes the job search must be transactional cannot be willfully ignored for some reason. If I met people organically and shared a genuine interest then sure, you can call that "networking" if you like. That's a great path if you have a job and plenty of time to tend to those relationships.
Wading through all the Mr. Meeseeks wannabee LinkedIn influencers certainly does not restore my faith in humanity though. /rant
Why do you even pay attention to any of them? Been on linkedin for years, gotten jobs through there, tons of offers, never had to deal with any of that. Maybe it's the industry you're in, or the type of job you're going for, but all I use it for is to update my profile, log in to respond to head hunters and that's about it.
I was in one job that really did require staying on top of LinkedIn activity. That's where our "people" were. Predictably, it was the wooooorst. The words "leader" and "leadership" are among those literally permanently ruined, irrevocably, for life, as a result of it. It could be a Medal of Honor ceremony for a WWII vet, but say "leadership" and I will probably snort at least little purely by reflex. Gag.
I think the key to your comment is "for years" and I'm betting that you have some sort of desirable technical skill. I was a teacher (here in the US) and I'm making a transition in middle aged. There are a couple of problems here. Teachers as a rule have no need for LinkedIn and don't use it, so any professional contacts I've had over the last 13 years are not there. Any contacts I knew prior to becoming a teacher are at least a decade old.
So I'm basically building my network from scratch. I'm unemployed so the quicker the better, which doesn't lend itself to building genuine, strong professional relationships. I'm told that 80% of the job search is networking. That's positive news. I was an English and social studies teacher so I'm solely dependent on soft skills and playing match game with my transferable skills and their job post. As you can guess, I have difficulty tolerating superficial, bullshit conversations so I'm struggling with that 80% of the job search piece.
TL;DR - The enforced positivity and needlessly advertised success rubs me the wrong way. Also, thanks for listening. I'm normally not so bitter and enraged.
I'm told that 80% of the job search is networking.
I think that's very job dependent. Yes I am a technical worker, but I also transitioned close to middle age. As far as building a network went, I just put my skills and experience on there and then added a bunch of people in related jobs. Didn't know any of them. Didn't keep up on anything they did. What it did do though is show to headhunters that we had a bunch of contacts in common.
If you're only soft skills looking for another soft skill job, it's going to be tough. Retraining might be an option for you. If you have the aptitude you can be ready for a technical job in 6 months. Get your foot in the door. The soft skills will come into play later as you're a mature worker with experience, it'll help fast track you for management possibly.
All shareholders are liable for the actions of the company they own and control. When a company commits a crime, the shareholders should be held personally accountable. No fines. Jail time.
I disagree. Shareholders don’t have a say in how the company is run, and buying shares in a company doesn’t really change anything about how the company is run.
I do think execs and board members should be jailed for committing crimes though. If you have a part in the decision making, you’re culpable.
I sort of disagree. It should be tackled from both sides. Shareholders do have some culpability for investing in unethical businessed and not doing enough due diligence. Your average person saving for retirement probably did nothing wrong, dumped the money in an ETF or IRA or 401k and the investment company handled it, but the investment company should have been looking at business practices and not solely stock performance.
Jail time for the decision makers. We already have a way to punish shareholders: Fines on the company. They should just stop being small fines and start at the very least exceeding the amount the company made through crime.
Jailing the decision makers will discourage crime to some extent. The temptation will still be there to pump numbers and make a lot of money. Hitting investors and investment firms in the wallet will encourage a culture of giving a shit about where you’re putting your money.
Buying stocks is not wrong and never will be wrong. There’s nothing wrong about buying shares in an unethical company, it doesn’t provide them any money, it just pushes the stock price up slightly.
investment company should have been looking at business practices and not solely stock performance.
Investment companies should merely look at the strategy of the fund. If the fund’s goal is to match a benchmark index (e.g. S&P 500), it should only look at market cap. In most cases, the practices of the company are irrelevant, that’s why you’re buying a fund.
If you want, you can buy an ESG fund, which buy companies with a high enough ESG score. I personally think those aren’t the way to go, I think you’ll have far more impact by investing for return and buying products from ethical companies with the proceeds, assuming that ESG funds trail the overall market.
So I reject the notion of “ethical investing” and instead promote ethical consumerism.
Investing in a company is, in a real sense, providing them money. Stocks aren’t pretend money totally separate from corporate finances, they are intended to provide capital for expanding a business. If it goes well, the company makes money, the value goes up, and you can sell at a profit. If it goes poorly, you can lose up to 100% of the money you spent to buy the stock. That’s why it’s “investing.” You make it sound like a dog track where the money you put in has no actual effect on the outcome of the race, but that’s not true.
Even if it were true, where is the line? If I come to you with my meth business, a proven track record, and a high potential rate of return and I just want money to help expand, you would consider that a good business? What if it’s assassination? Suppose it’s a totally legal banana company but also they moonlight in overthrowing democracies?
It may be that my literal dollar bill that I invest does not end up in the hands of a guerilla, but in helping dump money into the company I am helping enable the behavior. In this scenario, I think figuring out who is legally culpable and should have known is impractical and the risk is too high of innocent people ending up in jail for us to lock up shareholders, but losing the money invested is absolutely a risk you take when investing, and if people lost their money more often they’d probably pay more attention and it would be a net good.
Companies only get money from stocks when they issue new shares, other than that, you buying a stock has no impact. If you spend $1000 on shares, maybe the stock price goes up by a penny or so, but the company gets none of that $1000 because you’re buying from another investor.
So no, it’s not giving them money in pretty much any sense at all unless you’re making a deal directly with the board to issue new stock at a certain price.
If I come to you with my meth business, a proven track record, and a high potential rate of return and I just want money to help expand, you would consider that a good business?
That’s completely separate from public shares.
If I buy a public share of your meth business, that doesn’t give you any new capital at all, it only gives capital to the seller. That sale has an infinitesimally small impact on the share price, so you’d see pretty much no impact unless I’m buying a very large quantity. My share is also likely not a voting share, so I have no say in how the company is run.
It’s closer to buying second hand products. It provides no direct revenue to the original manufacturer, though it does slightly increase demand for their products, which could mean they might make a little more money in the future, though most likely it’s not going to change anything at all. The main difference is that, instead of products, it’s a small piece of the company, so the market value should reflect the value of the company, not the market value of a single product.
Let’s say your meth company doubles in value because you’re a real Walter White. I could then sell my share and use the proceeds to buy ad space to oppose meth. The purchase and sale has no impact on your business, but my ad space absolutely does.
So me buying shares of an unethical company does pretty much nothing to their bottom line. If I bought a single product from them instead, it would have a much larger impact than spending the same amount on a share of their stock. So the best thing you can do is invest wisely (i.e. chase returns) to grow your money and spend your gains on ethical products.
losing the money invested is absolutely a risk you take when investing
Absolutely! That’s why I shouldn’t buy Enron stock or whatever. Due diligence is absolutely important, but the due diligence should be on future growth potential (well, market sentiment about long term growth, actual growth is less important), not in ethics. If a company is doing illegal stuff, that’s a risk to long term growth since the government will likely step in.
Invest to grow your capital, and spend ethically. There’s something cathartic about making a bunch of money investing in oil and then buying green products with the proceeds.
«il suffit de traverser la rue!» (you just gotta walk across the street!) is the trendy joke in France since one of our elected morons uttered it.
I never really understood the whole “sending hundreds of resumes” thing, so I don’t think it’s quite the end of the world if you have any skills, but these people are demented, thinking it’s that easy. Clearly never lost a job or known involuntary unemployment.
What “I’m interviewing someone and they don’t even know” means is he reckons he’s going to head hunt them at some point.
Of course there’s always the possibility they’ll turn the offer down. Also they do know because you get notified by linkedin whenever someone looks at your account. So they’ll see this guy continuously creeping on them and pretty much know what’s coming. The fact they haven’t reached out themselves already probably indicates they’re not interested.
Yep. And I’m saying that when he gets better at it, he will call them, ask them to grab lunch, and openly say at the start of lunch “I’m buying because there’s this thing I might want to hire you for, and I want to talk about it during lunch”.
I’ve head-hunted people over the course of five years, myself. But they knew it, because I bought them lunch at least once per year to talk about how I’m a fan of their work.
This dude is likely to be disappointed because while he’s been thinking about job fit for 5 years, his ideal candidate hasn’t thought about him at all.
They’re talking about stalking someone on LinkedIn.
Hi so over here we understand the concept of figurative speech. Would you like to come over here and stand on this side of the line, or are you going to be an idiot over there by yourself?
Tbf it looks very suspicious, Malaysia, No family, no place of residency, coin something…
This type of jobs do exist but no company would look for this kind of job with so much responsability and access to sensitive information on likedin. Those type of jobs are either internal promotion or head hunted with classified information until later in the interview process
I gotta say that is one depressing looking house. It looks like a garage with a house attached to it rather than the other way round. And it’s just so grey and featureless.
Do not underestimate how nice your house can be inside when you have adequate storage space for things you dont want on display. Does need some landscaping though.
it's got that mcmansion roofline without the size. it's just a sucky house in a shitty suburban hell. I bet the owner can't even legally use all the land they bought to make a vegetable garden
This actually looks kind of quaint to me. Now the house would be on top of the garage and there would be six of them and the trees would be gone. I’d feel like a prince of the world if I had a 3% mortgage on this.
All the new houses going up around me look like that. Except for the ones that take up almost the entire lot so they can cram a 4,000sq ft house on a quarter acre.
Everything today is starting to suck because they're all min/maxing. Cars are all egg shaped SUVs or boxy trucks. Movies are all reboots, sequels, prequels, or live-action remakes. TV shows are epic fantasies or raunchy animated comedies or dark supernatural dramas. Because that's what all the metrics say will provide the best ROI.
I wish this Gilded Age were half as original as the last one.
I completely agree with you, and I also noticed cars gradually losing personality around the turn of the century, but the most egg shaped car of all happens to be the one I love the most: the VW bug. I had one ~20 years ago, yellow even, and I still miss it.
Thank you for also noticing the shitty shape of cars. I guess there’s a demand there, but I hate it too. I constantly bring this up, so I’m happy someone else agrees lol
I figure it’s a combination of three things; the level of aerodynamic engineering the industry has achieved, lowest common denominator design to appeal to the largest possible group, and a demand for storage space.
linkedinlunatics
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.