My life's work

I'm unemployed right now.  I've been unemployed for a while now.  I've been trying to figure out what I'm good for and what I want to do.

I have some experience and some skills in the software industry.  Unfortunately, those skills are not in demand right now, and there are very many people with the same skills out looking.  Software companies like to hire people who have computer science degrees or MBAs, and I don't.  That puts me near the bottom of the pile for any job that comes up.

I've done some coding.  There are a ton of openings for software developers right now.  I could probably take a few coding classes and reinvent myself as a coder.  With my non-CS degree I would probably only get a junior position.  But there are so many positions that I think I could eventually land one.  And I wouldn't be miserable writing code all day.

But that's not what I want to do.

I want to redesign democracy.  Or maybe I should say that I want to design a new form of democracy.

There are many problems with the forms of democracy that we have today.  There are many new features that I want to install in my new form of democracy.  (I'm not going to detail all of that here, but you can find much of it elsewhere on my blog.)

My problem is that I can't figure out how to get there from here.  How do I go back and get a PhD in political science at this point?  Or is there some other path?

Religion in the workplace

A friend of a friend, Dr. Martin Gaskell, was discriminated against in the hiring process, and a lawsuit has ensued.  I've only heard one side of the story, but that side is very clear and seems air-tight.

Here is the trial notebook of the American Center for Law and Justice, containing their notes and views on the trial.  The judge's findings in the preliminary hearing were very enlightening:

• The record contains “substantial evidence that Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position until the issue of his religion” became part of the search committee’s deliberations.
• The head of the search committee wrote in an email to the Chair of the Physics & Astronomy Department that “no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin [Gaskell] on any basis other than religious . . .”
• The Department Chair admitted “that the debate generated by Gaskell’s website and his religious beliefs was an ‘element’ in the decision not to hire Gaskell.”
• One member of the search committee admitted that Gaskell’s “views of religious things” were “a factor” in his decision not to support Gaskell’s candidacy.
• Another member of the committee, having discovered Gaskell’s website, warned fellow committee members that Gaskell was “potentially evangelical.”
• The search committee head, anticipating a decision against Gaskell by his fellow committee members, wrote that “Other reasons will be given for the choice . . . but the real reason we will not offer him the job is because of his religious beliefs in matters that are unrelated to astronomy or to any of the other duties specified for this position.”

Here is the article that got Dr. Gaskell into trouble.  I've read the article, and he is clearly not a kook of any variety.  Some rumors have started, which say that Dr. Gaskell is a "young Earth creationist."  Anyone who repeats that has clearly not read the article.

Based upon our common friend and that article I assume that Dr. Gaskell is evangelical--meaning that he will share and defend his faith, rather than avoiding those types of conversations.  But that is not a crime, and cannot be considered in the hiring decision.

I know some Christians who are obnoxious in the way that they constantly talk about God and turn every conversation into a religious discourse.  Three altar calls a day, in the office, is just annoying.  That's not religion, it's inability to focus on work.  If a person had that sort of reputation, or if they tried to lead me in the sinner's prayer during the interview, then I wouldn't hire them either.

I'm not sure exactly what Dr. Gaskell is hoping to get from this suit.  I can't imagine he wants the job, and they probably already hired someone else anyway.  He will probably get some money.  But he will also get the reputation of a person who sues people who don't hire him.  That's going to make it harder for him to get a job elsewhere.

The university will certainly learn a lesson.  If nothing else they will learn to not leave a paper trail when they discriminate against a candidate.  I doubt that they will actually learn tolerance and good judgement--those sorts of things are not learned by losing lawsuits.

Job search update

I'm looking for a business software start-up that needs to build their first services team.  I'm the person they need to build that team.

Business software means that I'm looking for a company that sells software to companies.

Services includes both technical support and professional services.  Most business software start-ups will decide they need technical support first, because the salespeople will get tired of doing technical support.  But some will decide that they need professional services first, because they can get paid for professional services (like training and implementation consulting.)

Here is my 'marketing plan', which describes the position/company that I'm looking for in more detail.

This is my resume.

This is my profile on LinkedIn.

This is my new blog.  I'm writing articles there that demonstrate my expertise in this field.

My resume and LinkedIn no longer connect to this blog.  Maybe some potential employer will find this one, but I doubt it.  Most people don't click the links that you put right in front of them, let alone go to Google to dig.

I'm going to empty my brain into that new blog for the next few weeks.  I'm not going to work on anything else until I run out of ideas for what to post there.  When that is done then I'll go back to one of my other side projects.  Posting on this blog will probably be light for the next few weeks, because I'll be writing on the new blog.

Please let me know what you think about the new direction, resume, etc.

More Congressional incompetence

Once again, Congress shows that it does not understand the consequences of it's actions.  They passed this big healthcare overhaul without really thinking through how businesses and people would react to it.

If you raise the taxes on milk then people buy less milk.  But if you raise the taxes on alcohol then people buy less milk.

People rarely respond to rules, like taxes or healthcare mandates, the way they are intended to.  If you pass a tax on alcohol then you are probably expecting people to buy less alcohol.  When Congress passed their healthcare mandates they expected companies to just suck it up and pay for the additional coverage.  But the Department of Health and Human Services has realized that many employers will simply drop their healthcare coverage entirely and leave their employees worse off.  So the DHHS is now handing out exemptions to the healthcare mandate.

Soon every company in America will apply for a waiver.  Those that don't get it will drop their employee healthcare coverage.  Those employees will be forced to buy their coverage from the government.

So the mandate will end up having no effect except to leave many workers worse off, and to improve the profits of companies that don't get the waivers.  This is stupid.  Even if you think that Congress's goal was to socialize healthcare then you must agree that the whole DHHS waiver maneuver seriously undermines it.

You have to design laws with people's responses in mind.  When we do this, how will people react?  What could people do to subvert this rule?  What will the long-term effects be?

If you really want every employee in America to be insured then a mandate is the wrong way to do it.  That's a stick.  You need a carrot, or at least a carrot and stick approach.  How about a graduated scale of payroll taxes?  Uninsured employees cost X% more in payroll taxes than insured employees.  I'm sure there are many similar approaches that would make companies choose to provide appropriate minimum levels of insurance.

I don't really know who Urban Institute is, but they wrote a great article describing what they call 'Evidence-Based Policy'.  This is the sort of planning and thinking that I believe needs to happen before a law is written.

But those implementation issues are not the real problem.  Adding health insurance increases the cost of each employee.  If push comes to shove, many companies will choose to lay off workers rather than absorb the extra cost of providing additional insurance.  There isn't a carrot that you can attach to that.  It's simple math.  So your healthcare mandate (or whatever other rule you implement to replace it) will decrease overall employment.  And it will do it at the bottom end of the employment scale--low earning part-time jobs go first.

This is why the Democrats are going to lose big in this coming election.  They chose to decrease overall employment during a recession.

Steve needs a job

I attend a couple of job clubs.  Monday night I met a guy named Steve.  Steve needs a job.  Lots of people need jobs, but Steve's need is a little more urgent than most.  Please look over his background and ping me if you have any leads for him.  I can send you his resume and put you in contact with him.

Steve has a BS in Aviation Management from Tarleton State.  He worked in aviation for a number of years before that industry started shrinking.  He's done several things since then.  He has a strong background in media relations and production.  He managed a planetarium.  He's done substitute teaching.  And he's been a customer service rep--managing relationships with long-term customers.

Steve is smart and very well spoken.  He is very personable.  I think he would do a great job in meeting and talking with people, and maintaining long-term client relationships.  I also think he would excel in managing small and medium teams of workers--in pretty much any environment.

Steve loves the outdoors.  He is a hands-on guy.  He's a nice guy.  It would be very hard to not like him.

He just moved to town from Colorado.  He was only there for a few weeks.  Before that he was in North Carolina.  The unemployment rate is much worse in NC, and he has had some significant periods of unemployment.  That's depleted his savings pretty badly.  He needs to get to work soon.

He is in Austin right now, but he would move again if necessary.

Do you know of any position that could use a friendly and attentive manager, or manager-in-training?  Customer service manager?  Customer relationship manager?

Please let me know.

Unemployment idea

The people who are supposed to know such things are forecasting many years of high unemployment.  High unemployment is a huge drag on the economy.  Unemployed people don't buy stuff.  Stuff being bought is the driver of our economy.  Unemployed people can't make their mortgage payments.  Missed mortgage payments hurt the banks.  This is a troubling vicious cycle.

The top 1% of the US population now gets about 60% of the income in the country.  That is a massive concentration of wealth.  This is a social problem.  But it may also be a great opportunity.

We need to get people back to work.  And we have a small group of people with the resources to hire them, if only they will.  So how do we enable the rich to employ the unemployed?

Traditionally employment involves having an idea for a product or service, forming a company, managing a company, etc., etc., etc....  I've done some of that, and I don't really blame people for not wanting to do it.  So what if we shortcut that?

Let's form a single non-profit company.  Let's hire unemployed people to build and manage the company.  Let's offer basic benefits, like health insurance, and low-but-livable salaries.  Let's put up a website where anyone can suggest projects for the company to work on.  We'll do make-work, if we have to.  But it would be better if we could do work that would actually benefit society.

It will be a non-profit company.  Any services provided would be either no-cost or low-cost to the recipient of the services.  Any products created would be given free, or virtually free.

We would have to employ a management staff to hire people and administer the business.  We would need project managers to oversee the (probably) large number of small projects being done.  All of the work would be fully documented, so anyone and everyone could see that the workers were doing what they were asked to do.

Clean up that vacant lot and build a park.
Repair those old people's houses.
Tutor children after school.
Help poor people apply for assistance programs.
Provide free after-school care for single parents.
Whatever, wherever, whenever.

Obviously the company would be donation-driven.  Donors would get priority in voting for projects, and would get whatever amount of progress reporting that they wanted to see.

As the economy rights itself, sometime in the future, the workers will start finding better-paying jobs.  The company will definitely shrink, but depending upon the level of need it might not ever go away.

It would be something like a Goodwill for people who are fully employable, but who just can't find jobs right now.

What do you think?