Posts by Nathan Kelly5

urbanwalker72 said:🤣 I’ve already told you that getting certified isn't going to be your saving grace. I see firsthand how hard a truly talented accountant works for peanuts. Mine is incredibly knowledgeable and pulls massive hours, yet he doesn't earn anywhere near what he deserves. This is despite him having a degree from a top business school, holding his CPA and CFE credentials, and sinking countless hours and dollars into continuous education...

My point is this: the reason you can't command the fees you deserve isn't because of "waitresses and hairdressers" as you put it, but because there is zero oversight. Everything just slides by. And if everything passes without scrutiny, why would anyone bother paying for high-end accounting, tax, or financial advice?

Not everyone is going to see eye to eye. While mandatory certification feels a bit absurd here, in functional countries, people pursue these credentials voluntarily if they actually intend to be serious about the profession. Without certification, you simply lack credibility. In the USA, sure, you can keep books, but if you aren't a CPA, you aren't taken seriously—who would hire you?

The gap between a certified accountant and an auditor here is far too wide, and auditors have exploited that divide to their own advantage. In the USA, a CPA has the authority to perform audits, which proves that the exam is anything but trivial.

On top of that, you have access to the CFE, CFM, CMA, and other specialized designations, plus there is the EA—a credential issued by the IRS that guarantees, from their perspective, that you are a true tax expert.

Just imagine if our version of the IRS started handing out certifications like candy... 🤣

That's completely wrong. I don't do external accounting at all; I work in-house. In fact, I don't even strictly do accounting—I handle system-wide controlling, or sometimes I basically perform management duties because the executives can't even handle basic math, let alone make decisions.

External accounting firms make excellent money. Aside from salaries, overhead is almost nonexistent. At two external firms where I worked, the profit per employee was roughly $27. That means with 10 employees, you're looking at $267 in profit. And those weren't even premium clients; I'd say the billing was actually below average.

So, there's no such thing as poor earnings, regardless of what the media reports.

I am speaking about different reasons, which I have already explained sufficiently in this thread. I am speaking from the perspective of the evolution of the accounting profession.

The others are just speaking from self-interest. It’s tragic that hairstylists and waitresses are shaping the future of accounting. People like that shouldn't have a vote!

Congratulations to the hairdressers and waitresses; you've successfully defended your incompetence and ignorance, proving your absolute determination to learn nothing at all before retirement. It clearly paid off!

My God, what a joke of a country..

urbanwalker72 said:That is all quite accurate, though I think the issue isn't just about the "hairdressers"—as Nathan Kelly5 puts it—but rather that almost nobody actually feels the need for a legitimate accountant, auditor, or tax advisor.

The reason is simple: there is zero oversight. For most, basic "record-keeping" is sufficient. If the IRS were a serious institution, similar to how they operate in other developed nations, everyone would be forced to seek out professional accounting, financial, and tax advisory services.

Until that changes, anyone can keep the books with very little risk. Occasionally, a good bookkeeper is helpful, but the odds of being hit by a tax audit or an inspector who actually knows what they are doing are about the same as being struck by lightning.

The market share held by these "hairdressers" would shrink drastically if there were actual scrutiny regarding the legality and logic of financial statements—ranging from legal compliance and standards down to checking reported turnovers to see if they are even realistic enough to support a living.

So, why would anyone pay for professional services that nobody seems to require?

It should be in the state's interest to fix this to develop the market and attract capital. Because with the current quality of financial reporting here in America, you can't do much with them. From Walmart-sized entities down to small local shops.

But of course, we are still trailing thirty years behind the developed world in almost everything. Here, oversight seems focused solely on ensuring the bureaucrats get their cut, and that's about it.

Don't let it get you down; everyone in the market needs your expertise, even if they don't realize it yet. They are living in a delusion. In the West, more accountants are moving into executive roles for obvious reasons. I believe there was a recent stat showing that the number of people with accounting backgrounds serving as CEO has surpassed 30% among the top X corporations in London. Ultimately, no matter what you want to achieve in business, it all comes down to the numbers. Whether you want to benchmark against industry peers, analyze investment viability, evaluate your own operations, cut costs, or forecast... whatever decision needs to be made, there is simply no one else in the company who can match your level of knowledge. In our neck of the woods, maybe some marketing or sales gurus can sell smoke to owners, but even that won't last long. Plus, with the way people skip foundational experience nowadays—hiring analysts and controllers who have never actually performed accounting—they will never have the full picture. How can someone who has never done the books truly understand what drives the financial indicators? You could let a child compare ratios; numbers are one thing, but understanding the reality behind them is another. I wouldn't advise anyone to invest even three cents based on that kind of shallow analysis. I don't see how anyone can make informed decisions today without the expertise we possess.

Though, what you are saying applies mostly to small businesses and sole proprietorships. To them, professional services are just a burden. They've always viewed it that way and always will; they just want to get paid for their work and survive. Anything beyond that is just a nuisance and an expense.

I get the sense that you only truly realize these things when you reach a stage where you simply don't have the luxury of time. When you have nothing but free time to sit around at a Starbucks, it's hard to be wise, to grasp true values, or to set your priorities straight. But once you hit those years where you're up at 5:00 AM for the commute and getting home at 9:00 PM completely drained, everything starts to click. You begin to see what actually matters, what was a waste of time, what’s worth the effort, and which battles were just a lost cause.

Then again, by the time you finally get your head and your life sorted out, you're practically on your deathbed. Maybe it’s better to stay young and foolish after all.

Henry Edwards33 said:Honestly, your perspective is incredibly negative—I’d even go as far as saying it’s insulting. Luckily, I haven't had the misfortune of dealing with people like you.

I’m genuinely curious: who exactly should be regulating this profession, and what specific things would they even regulate?
How many negative audit reports actually turn up at companies that have been audited, or how many fines are issued because of a bad report when it wasn't the management's fault, but rather the accountant's?
Trashing the entire profession and generalizing problems like this just shows a total lack of knowledge, information, and insight into how things actually work. It’s a trivial way to diminish the value of people based on the work they do.
It's not like I failed at being a hairdresser or a waiter. I've been working in accounting for quite a few years now, and I am extremely happy with my job and my income.
I believe things can be better, and that’s exactly why I’m involved in this. My commitment goes much deeper than just sitting behind a keyboard and anonymously spitting venom on a forum.

What exactly is the insult here? The truth is that accounting is one of the few professions in the USA where the majority of practitioners didn't actually start out in the field. It’s mostly former hairstylists, servers, failed lawyers, and administrators.

I'm not sure if you realize that this isn't exactly a normal situation, nor is it how things work in other countries. In fact, when it comes to accounting standards, Canada is actually a few levels ahead of America.

"Quote:"

I'm genuinely curious: who should be responsible for regulating this profession, and what exactly should fall under their scope?

We need to certify the individuals authorized to sign off on financial statements, but more importantly, we need to establish actual accountability. While the specific requirements for certification are open to debate, we absolutely cannot allow these "associations" to hold a monopoly on expertise. Right now, we have a situation where certain figures in the audit chamber refuse to recognize some of the most prestigious accounting credentials in the world. It’s funny how those same qualifications are considered more than sufficient for executives at the largest global corporations, yet they aren't quite good enough for us. I suppose it's easier to protect the chamber's bottom line that way.

Accountability is non-negotiable. If you participate in an intentional violation of the law—whether for your own gain or someone else's—you are liable, period. That means being barred from the profession and facing criminal charges. After all the investment in college and voluntary certification, people should at least have the integrity not to act as bookkeepers for some small business owner's theft. $167If we can't step in to stop it at a higher level, then there isn't much else to be done.

How many negative audit reports actually surface for companies that undergo an audit? Specifically, I'm curious about how often fines are issued due to poor reporting when the fault lies with the accountant rather than the company's executive leadership.

Do you actually understand how an audit works? Unintentional errors that serve no one's interest get corrected during the process. What is done intentionally, however, almost never makes it into the sample. If an auditing firm doesn't want to take on the risk, they simply walk away from the engagement, and the owner pays someone else to issue a clean opinion. More often than not, fraudulent activity just misses the sampling entirely by pure chance. The audit itself is conducted strictly according to law and standards; it is impossible to review every single transaction, so sampling is a necessity. The working papers remain spotless, and any reconstruction of the audit process would only confirm that everything was performed properly. Even the Big Four were cleared of all charges in court following the Enron scandal—the largest bankruptcy in history. They couldn't prove anything against them; they collapsed because of their reputation, not due to proven malfeasance. And of course, those professionals just moved on to work at other firms. It’s the same story with Walmart—the auditors were dissolved, and nothing happened. Any attempt to pursue criminal charges against an auditing firm is just a waste of time and money.

When was the last time you heard about an audit reporting State Attorney Financial Malfeasance in America? It’s hard to ignore that roughly 90% of privatized companies here are involved in blatant criminal activity and looting. Yet, from 1991 through 2018, despite this entire era of plunder, every single audit opinion remained positive. I can look at a balance sheet and an income statement for two minutes and tell you exactly whether a small business is operating under the table. It’s hard to believe that an organized audit firm, with full access to all documentation, just "happened" to miss decades of systematic theft. Pure coincidence, clearly.

The defense is always "that's not auditing's job." Well, obviously not. Their actual job is to issue a clean opinion and collect their fees in a way that keeps them shielded from any legal fallout. It’s a fine art.

Attacking the entire profession and generalizing the issue just shows a total lack of knowledge, information, and insight into the matter. It trivializes the work and devalues people based on their profession.

How exactly am I devaluing the profession? If anything, I might take it more seriously than others do, simply because this is my career. In every firm I've worked for, I've been told, "your department isn't the most important one." Fine, maybe not, but it is essential. I don't cut corners; if you want things done poorly, do them yourself.

So, because I won't accept that "hairdressers" are running the show in accounting, suddenly I'm against the whole profession? I'm entitled to my opinion, and if you don't like it, that's your problem.

I wasn't a failed hairdresser or a waitress. I've been in accounting for a decent number of years and I'm quite happy with my work and my salary.
I believe things can be better, which is why I'm engaged in this—it goes beyond sitting behind a keyboard and venting anonymously on a forum.

I haven't called anyone out by name. Besides, regulations aren't written for you or me; they're written so that in 10 or 20 years, accounting actually looks like something.

Moving on...

Tell me, how is it possible that after this massive scandal in America, no one questioned the accountability of the accountants and auditors? Who carried out this financial heist? Who prepared the reports and signed off on them? Who conducted the audit and how? Where are those people now? Did anyone face consequences, criminal prosecution, or a ban from practicing? Or are they just passing their experience in fraud along to the next job, well-paid for it? Take Walmart, for example—who is responsible for the fact that citizens' retirement funds were gambled away? The leadership stole, sure, but who falsified the statements? What is the point of all those official seals, signatures, documents, and reports then?

If a doctor unmasks even a single patient, they face criminal charges or, at the very least, lose their license. But in finance and accounting, there is zero accountability; instead, we see public campaigns and petitions asking "hairdressers" to sign stuff! Everyone needs to step up and realize you're turning this profession into a circus just to serve your own petty interests.

Arthur Thomas5 said:If the benefits from an AICPA under the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are going to be just as hollow as the perks entrepreneurs get from the Chamber itself, then why even bother having such an association?

You’re forced to pay them, yet the return on investment is zero. In fact, they’re actively working against you—you’re stuck with a mandatory membership fee, but you won't see any actual value now, or ever.

It looks like just another bureaucratic entity designed for endless meetings about nothing. What’s the point? Other than providing a convenient way for some Republican Party or Democratic Party cronies to hitch themselves to state funding? Maybe they'll even use the Chamber's budget to fund a quick safari to Africa to hunt buffalo, much like their former president did. Honestly, the whole thing should be dismantled—the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, all its sub-associations, the lot. Abolish the membership fees entirely. If these organizations actually provided anything useful, people wouldn't be fleeing the country in droves. I don't see how this new association could possibly be any different; even if the people involved have the best intentions, they aren't going to achieve anything of substance.

Anyone lacking specific education—say, an economics degree or a specialized accounting track in high school—plus a requisite number of years of professional experience, should be legally barred from practicing accounting. Period. If practicing law without a license is both illegal and punishable for everyone except lawyers, why on earth would we allow a hair stylist or a chimney sweep to handle accounting? Can I suddenly decide to perform neurosurgery just because I *think* I know what I'm doing?

And let’s stop with this tired narrative that professionals with actual degrees are incompetent while these less-educated outsiders are somehow "visionaries." You can take that argument and throw it in the trash. I’ve worked with both groups, and in over 95% of cases, those with legitimate training—I'm talking real vocational schooling or a university degree, not some two-week crash course—are superior to those coming from outside the field, regardless of what other degree they might hold. There are exceptions, sure, but they're rare. Usually, the professionals are better.

Sure, a trained accountant might mechanically record entries correctly most of the time, but the second a non-standard situation arises, you realize they have no clue what they’re doing and can't see the big picture. Accounting isn't a skill you pick up in a fortnight. And for heaven's sake, people, stop conflating everything with accounting. Law is not accounting, no matter how many statutes and regulations an accountant memorizes every single day.

If everything were fine with accounting in America, it wouldn't be a field composed of 90% women and 10% men. For context, in the United Kingdom, the average male participation in this profession was above 70% for many years. Only recently has the enrollment for certified accountants become balanced, and it's expected to take another 20 or 30 years to reach parity there.

In America, however, it has been viewed as an unambitious path. It's seen as a fallback for failed hairdressers or waitresses who think office work sounds great: just finish a course and start filing papers.

I think it's fine if such individuals work as hybrid administrative data entry clerks, but it is tragic when they are the ones leading the accounting profession in America and drafting legislation!

Henry Edwards33 said:I think you’re looking at this licensing issue way too superficially; what you wrote is just a drop in the bucket. I’m not even sure if you’ve actually looked at all the requirements they slap on you once you finally get that license.

Here’s my take: licensing is a bad move for a dozen different reasons. First off, the proposed price tag is astronomical. Then you have a massive chunk of accountants who won't meet these criteria—which, by the way, doesn't mean they aren't experts at what they do. Instead, this will mostly benefit a tiny group of people wealthy enough to stomach the costs and those required to jump through hoops for endless mandatory education hours (where, let's be honest, the seminar organizers make all the money). On top of that, you'll have an audit firm overseeing everything and pulling licenses (seriously?!?), and accountants will be forced to join yet another chamber. And don't even get me started on how hard it might be to renew that license down the road. Just looking at this list, we're talking about a mountain of cash being funneled into a few pockets, and there is absolutely no guarantee it will actually improve the quality of accounting or raise our status.
It’s honestly sad to see someone try to regulate the market this way. Even the European Union recognizes that free market services are valuable and provides guidelines to reduce red tape, often pushing back against unnecessary new burdens.
I’ve been in this game a long time and I’ve been posting here for years, so I’ll let my track record speak for itself. On a personal level, I work myself to the bone to provide the best, fastest service because I want to outshine the competition. It feels wrong to me that someone would try to forcibly shut out 80% of my competitors via regulation.😉

I genuinely wonder: who exactly thinks they have the right to dictate how this profession should be organized?

And one more thing—what about the entrepreneurs who are basically running wild in the market? Do they need special education, a license, or some other hoop to jump through?
They do whatever they want. Some of them haven't even bothered to read a single law because they think it’s irrelevant, yet they hire employees who end up depending on these amateur bosses for their livelihoods...

We could go on about this forever.😁

Government intervention in the accounting sector is entirely justified. On one hand, you have owners driven by the desire to pay as little as possible; on the other, a crowd of unqualified charlatans willing to oblige them because there are no entry barriers to the profession. The end result is a complete collapse in the quality of accounting outputs.

Quality issues don't just impact the owner. If they hire a poor CEO, an incompetent IT specialist, or even subpar sales staff, servers, or HR directors, the fallout is significant. More importantly, poor financial reporting has a much broader ripple effect—it touches creditors, shareholders, partner firms, potential employees, investors, suppliers, customers, and the government. As we saw with the Walmart situation, it can even jeopardize citizens' pensions.

Your perspective is incredibly narrow and self-serving. The real question here is what accounting education and the profession itself should look like ten or thirty years from now. If you believe training is unnecessary—and that the profession should be treated with the same level of rigor as a quick retraining course for a hairstylist or a retail clerk—then we really have nothing left to discuss.

The accounting profession is certainly one of those rare fields where regulation actually makes sense—even more so than in law. If you hire a bad lawyer, they only impact the specific client paying their fees; if that client wants to risk hiring someone self-taught or incompetent, that’s their prerogative and their loss. However, when an entrepreneur chooses an accountant, the quality of that work affects far more than just one business. A faulty product leads to poor decisions across the entire economy. When that happens, who carries the blame? Is it the owner, the accountant, the person who placed their trust in them—which is the very foundation our economy relies on—or the government for failing to regulate the field?

I’ll say it again: self-proclaimed bookkeepers shouldn't be the ones deciding this, nor should entrepreneurs, since their only real interest is the bottom line. We need licensing, education, and oversight. The specific format is open for debate, but the current state of affairs is unsustainable and frankly nonsensical—regardless of how many people refuse to admit it just because they’re happy collecting their slice of the pie and avoiding the headaches it causes.

Personally, I find it absurd when an actual accountant opposes organized education. You might expect that from a firm owner whose mantra toward staff is usually: "Why bother with training or extra credits? It's a waste of time; you're better off working overtime here for a tiny bit of extra pay instead of chasing professional development after hours." You really only hear that kind of talk in America.

First, the Chamber takes an aggressive stance against licensing, then they turn around and invite people to join their new association under the guise of being able to "express opinions freely" or "change things from within." It’s nonsense; everyone knows exactly which way the wind is blowing and why this is happening.

Bookkeepers shouldn't have a say in licensing standards. Why? Because 80% of them don't meet the requirements for stricter licensing, so naturally, they'll fight it. They should have a voice in how to simplify processes or improve business efficiency, but deciding the standards isn't their call. Their priority isn't advancing the profession—it's just protecting their own pockets.

It’s like letting car manufacturers or factory owners decide legal greenhouse gas emission limits. If you ask them, they’re obviously going to vote to increase emissions rather than cut them, because they couldn't care less about the "greater good"—they only care about their bottom line. But that doesn't make it right for the country, the businesses, the workers, or the profession at large.

While the rest of the world recognizes the need to unify financial reporting standards to protect stakeholders in this era of globalization—not that anyone in America could actually pull that off with our current accounting workforce—we’re stuck in a different reality. In a world where borders are fading and professional expertise is highly valued (for context, a certified accountant in places like France, Switzerland, Australia, or the UK can command an average net salary of $35,000 to $75,000), the debate here is centered on what happens if some experienced lady with a cosmetology background suddenly loses her signing authority. It's a local tragedy of global proportions. Besides, there will be a transition period anyway, giving those without the credentials a chance to get their formal education in order.

Classic behavior from Americans; always standing in opposition to reason and progress.

The motive behind the resistance is clear: let everyone do accounting, and allow employers to continue paying peanuts for a complex profession.

And don't even get me started on the education aspect. The ultimate absurdity is that in America, an ACCA license isn't recognized, despite it being the premier and most respected association within the European Union. It would be like refusing to recognize a Harvard degree, insisting instead that someone buy a diploma in Mostar before we'll take them seriously.

The reason is obvious: how else would local associations and chambers make money by distributing licenses and diplomas under the table? And let's not forget that to finish an ACCA program, you first need a university degree followed by at least three years of intense study. Meanwhile, for these local courses, I suppose all you need is two months of prep work.

I have zero interest in seeing accountants gather under the banner of a corrupt chamber. When it comes to licensing and growing the profession, this chamber has made it crystal clear: their only priority is protecting capitalist profits. They couldn't care less about the actual development of the accounting profession; they just want to shield capital. It’s the same logic you see when employers in the hospitality industry are forced to offer better conditions, yet the chamber suggests importing cheap labor from developing nations to work for pennies and a place to sleep. Then, they frame it as being in the "national interest," simply because some local business owner wants to afford a new BMW by underpaying staff.

We are looking at the exact same pattern here. If we implement strict licensing—requiring, say, 300 credit hours, five years of experience, and a formal license—then the compensation needs to reflect that. You can't expect someone with nothing more than a high school vocational certificate $1.75 and a company phone to manage entire financial operations while navigating twenty different complex sets of regulations, including HSFI and MSFi. Honestly, what are we even talking about? Accounting standards in this region are lower than almost anywhere else in Europe.

It's a classic case of collusion: those without any formal education have teamed up with a crooked chamber that exists solely to protect corporate margins. Now, they’re forming associations claiming to represent the interests of accountants.

Give me a break. They're just trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

I think I fall into that category myself. 😁

The way I see it, it’s just personality; some people bond easily through social interaction, while others find fulfillment elsewhere.

Now, I don’t mean to sound superior, but I can’t stand that endless "recounting" of life over coffee. I honestly don't understand how people find it engaging to listen to someone drone on about their workday for ninety minutes when nothing actually happened😵—like an old lady taking a seat on the subway, my kid failing a test, my nephew getting promoted, a clerk at the grocery store being rude, a friend's boyfriend saying something specific, picking up a jacket on sale at Gap, visiting an old friend, or even just getting a rash after sitting down for coffee. I don't listen to that from my own mother, my sister, or my partner; I'm just not interested. If there is a concrete problem, tell me and we can solve it, but I have no desire to act as a therapist for someone dissecting a day where absolutely nothing of consequence occurred. I respect that everyone is different, but I don't get how some people fail to realize that not everyone finds this interesting.

It's also funny how people like that are always convinced their version of friendship is the only valid one. If you don't live life according to their script, they decide something is wrong with you—suddenly you're angry at them, or you have a problem with them, or you simply cease to exist in their eyes. They won't even consider your needs or interests if they want to be your friend; they only accept you as a friend as long as you dance to their tune. The moment you stop meeting their criteria, you're out.

I prefer spending my time alone or engaged in activities where things are actually happening—where you feel something in the present, rather than depressively ruminating on what happened two days ago.

The issue is that being this way makes me the perfect target for those who love to suffocate people with small talk. Because you aren't wasting energy listening to their constant, trivial venting, you tend to have a sharper perspective on situations. Since you aren't filling the air with your own chatter, it leaves even more space for them to talk.

Ultimately, the best way to deal with them is to invite them to do something active instead of meeting for coffee. I recommend this to anyone dealing with similar people, because they rarely care about anything other than sitting down for a drink and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, without ever stopping. 😵

Christian Miller48 said:I clearly stated how many of us showed up at the stadium, and that's the end of it. Nobody mentions the blacklist, so why bother when I can't even get into the damn stadium? Then you have certain individuals claiming old faces are returning, which is simply untrue. No one is coming back and won't come back (to repeat myself). You have the numbers we have, and there's no point in deluding ourselves...

What kind of "returning" are you talking about? There were maybe 2,000 of us around Yankee Stadium today. If this were a normal situation, we might have seen 3,000 or 4,000, and that would be it. How many people do you want? Millions? We've never even had that many. Once we start seeing 10,000 to 15,000 people per match, then maybe the lower stands will fill up. But that won't happen until the club regains some semblance of its former self—or in plain English, until the management stops screwing us over and people actually want to show up for the football again. Nowadays, people aren't going to the stadium to cheer; they're going to protest.

Besides, look at the crowd around you. 90% of the people are older; probably more than half the stands are 30+. You won't find an atmosphere like this on any other supporter section in Europe. And think about who is actually missing from the stands—the ones currently banned or blacklisted—who were the most dedicated among us.

It's clear that in this entire country, you can't even gather 200 people for a protest within an hour, even when people's livelihoods are at stake. Meanwhile, we've been banging our heads against a wall for five years, pushing forward and refusing to back down. We are here every single week and we aren't giving up. When everyone else threw in the towel, instead of standing together with pride, someone always feels the need to talk trash or nitpick.

Is anyone forcing you to show up? If you're fed up, don't come. Simple as that.

Christian Miller48 said:Sure, let's pretend one crowded section means we're making progress. It hasn't even been two days since two of our own were shot by those extremists, and suddenly everything is fine? This is a far cry from when we had 3 or 4k people showing up for a casual indoor soccer game just a few weeks ago.

Who is actually pretending? We are who we are, so quit acting like a bitter old lady. There used to be a thousand of us; if they sold tickets to everyone, there'd be two; if you add a few hundred under bans and a few hundred more who can't stand Yankee Stadium anymore, we'd be at 3 or 4. I wish there were eighty thousand of us, but there aren't. We have exactly as many as we have, which is still five times more than

And the guy above me put it perfectly: whenever I get near Yankee Stadium, I feel like throwing up because of how much this place disgusts me, but as soon as I leave, I fall into a mini-depression because I hate it all so much. Still, we've endured everything, and we'll endure this too. Moving forward.

Nicholas Williams7 said:If I personally believe that lesbian women would make better parents—similar to my general view that women tend to be better caregivers than men—and I clarify that this is just my own opinion, then I don't see why anyone should take issue with it or react so strongly!

And if someone believes that viewing caregiving ability through the lens of gender is pathological, why would that bother you?

Christian Taylor3 said:🤣
There is no such thing as "separate property" within a marriage; you should probably look up the American family law statutes.

What if the phone actually belonged to someone else?

I am requesting that higher forum moderators review this matter. I recognize that he performs useful work regarding legal matters, but unfortunately, much like many officers in this country, he clearly cannot handle criticism from those with differing views due to a deep-seated institutional mindset. What is the purpose of the "Police Investigation" thread if my posts concerning police conduct in Columbus are repeatedly deleted? I have stayed quiet about this censorship for nearly three years, but I feel compelled to speak up now.

Furthermore, I request that instead of simply erasing my posts without a trace, he issues formal warnings. There should be a recorded history of infractions rather than this silent erasure, which feels reminiscent of old-school political suppression—a mentality seemingly baked into the very structure of the police department.

Thirdly, where can I start a discussion regarding the laughably ineffective internal affairs investigations that have been used to placate the public for years? It seems every profession protects its own, yet here, any attempt to discuss it results in censorship. We need genuine Civilian oversight of the police, but systemic censorship is being practiced both on this forum and in the media to prevent the public from holding law enforcement accountable. All it takes is one mass protest and an informed citizenry to change things.

Thank you,

Nathan Kelly5

What kind of sign-ups are these? Is there no way to just show up and get started? When are the training sessions held?

I’m looking for some training sessions in downtown Chicago, ideally priced under $150 per month. $67 I don't care much about fancy gyms or high-end equipment; I just want a solid atmosphere—productive, but without all the excessive hype. I have experience in Muay Thai, though I’m not in peak condition right now, and I’m open to trying something new like Wing Chun or Krav Maga. If anyone has recommendations, I’d appreciate it.

Michael Miller39 said:@Kyle Lee7
My mistake. Read it wrong. :-(

It’s hilarious to me. Even today, you see high-paid management types obsessing over whether someone clocked in at 9:00 sharp or if they "sneaked out" at 5:00 instead of staying until 6:00. They treat punctuality as a measure of work ethic—not talking about some cashier closing up early, but someone doing intellectual work that isn't tied to a client or specific hours. And this is happening at a massive private corporation. Unbelievable.

And they actually "track" it. Instead of evaluating the quality or completion of the actual task—or questioning what the supervisor is even doing if an employee leaves early—they just watch the clock. It’s pathetic. American management is a weak link.

Anyway, that's off-topic. Back to the point. I don't get why psychologists ask the exact same generic questions for every single profession. It’s always the same superficial nonsense. Then you end up stuck in some mindless job you could have done with half the credentials.

I didn't intend for my post to be taken as an indictment that they do nothing, earn huge checks, and know nothing (though there are certainly plenty of those types—you see directors paying themselves bonuses for summer vacations while the company struggles with debt, or accounting heads who couldn't manage a lemonade stand). Even the executive level has it tough; they carry heavy responsibilities, yet the board sets vague goals that don't serve the long-term interest of the firm. The leadership isn't respected enough, so the company drifts without a strategy beyond chasing short-term profit. When that happens, the executives stop caring; they just do enough to secure their bonuses, and they couldn't care less if the whole thing goes downhill as long as the money hits their accounts... but again, this is straying from the topic and won't help the author, so we should probably move on.

Kyle Lee7 said:Actually, I don't think it reflects the employers themselves, but rather the perception people have of them.

That being said, if you're looking at a massive government agency or a huge bureaucracy—well, I won't even go there because those places are driven by red tape and endless formalities.

But when you're dealing with a private company, where you actually need someone competent to get the job done properly—that's different. You want someone who actually knows their stuff and wants to work, and honestly, you can't fake your way through that for long.
What kind of manager would I be if I hired someone based on an act, only to realize they're incompetent and end up having to do two people's jobs myself?

So that explains why most people around here land jobs through "referrals"—which is really just a polite way of saying "who you know." It might be slightly less common in the private sector than in government agencies, but it’s certainly more prevalent in domestic companies compared to major US corporations. That says quite a bit on its own.

America is only just beginning its transition from a capital-driven economy to a knowledge-based one—a shift the developed world completed roughly seventeen years ago. Most employers aren't intentionally sabotaging their own success; rather, they are doing so unconsciously. Because a vast majority lack the necessary educational foundation, they remain oblivious to the true value of human capital. They simply don't realize the damage they're causing.

Do you realize that the first major studies on how human factors drive corporate productivity were conducted in the U.S. between 1927 and 1932? It’s striking that while Americans were uncovering these insights nearly a century ago, we didn't even begin to consider them until after the fall of communism—and even then, only really within the last decade. It feels like we're still struggling to accept what they realized eighty years ago. There is still this prevailing mindset here that people naturally dislike working or avoiding responsibility, so why bother giving them autonomy or influence? Instead, the standard practice remains rooted in rigid hierarchies and micromanagement, attempting to force execution through strict control rather than engagement.

Please don't try to tell me otherwise. I’ve spent the last four years auditing domestic companies, and I can tell you that management incompetence here has reached an entirely new dimension. It's honestly tragic; most people who actually know what they're doing lack any real leverage because, in this country, the line between executive roles and ownership is far too blurred.

Here is a fresh example where anonymity is guaranteed, but let’s assume we are talking about one of those big-name corporations. Loans are maturing in foreign currency while leasing payments come in in USD, leading to millions in losses. You point out the discrepancy, but they aren't exactly eager to fix it. What else is there to say about the American economy? They won't risk their massive profits by simply correcting the books, and frankly, the human element seems pretty insignificant to them at that scale. I'll give credit where it's due—there are exceptions, of course, as there are still capable and driven employers in this country—but they represent a tiny fraction. In many ways, incompetence is just synonymous with how business is done here. And it isn't even strictly a mindset issue; looking at how much more efficient the Canadians are compared to us tells you everything you need to know. Look at how they handled the fallout when Walmart faced restructuring issues; it was obvious that any major player would try to dominate the market, which would naturally shake up the local food industry. Instead, we tend to hand over advantages that allow outsiders to dismantle us rather than trying to protect our own interests.

Everything I’ve laid out just highlights how nonsensical modern hiring practices have become. Take my old firm, for example: we had a guy who crushed every technical assessment we threw at him, yet they passed on him simply because he showed up to the interview in jeans. They viewed it as a lack of discipline. It’s absurd. About thirty years ago, a major study was conducted—one that most people here wouldn't be familiar with—analyzing the common traits of about 40 of the most successful long-term corporations. One key finding was that these companies actually tolerated eccentricity over rigid discipline. Yet today, companies hire based on sheer self-confidence, charisma, and "personality" rather than actual expertise. The root cause is pure arrogance. Managers are so convinced of their own abilities that they prioritize hiring people who are easy to manage and delegate to. It’s a total failure, and frankly, it feels like we're sliding thirty or forty years backward.

I won't even begin to explain how little they actually understand about employee motivation. The most basic rule when dealing with people on a manufacturing floor is simple: don't drown them in unproductive busywork, like endless administrative reports and such. Yet, 90% of employers do exactly that—mostly because they lack the insight, and frankly, they aren't even trying to find it. We could go on about this for days...