Posts by hiddenheron3

Carl Rivera43, look, it is what it is. You learned something about yourself, and now you can move on—hopefully a little wiser than before.

Dwelling on the past feels like a convenient way to dodge whatever is staring you in the face right now. Am I hitting the mark? 😛

Carl Rivera43 said:Do you ever feel like your brain is just... too full? Like there are way too many thoughts running at once?

What can you actually do about it? How do you rewire yourself to stop those ugly, depressing memories from constantly popping up?

I’ve always been a pretty sensitive guy. I really don't do well with pressure, and honestly, I can't stand conflict. Watching people argue just drains me.

I've noticed lately that all these heavy, depressive memories are hitting me way too often. Any tips on how to regulate that?

Well, you have to work for happiness. It isn't some magic state that just lands in your lap. A lot of people seem to think being happy means feeling euphoric 24/7, but that's not how it works. You're still going to fight windmills, deal with daily headaches, and solve endless problems. But at the end of the day, you can feel a sense of internal satisfaction and gratitude because you know you actually gave it your all.

Start by focusing on what you're actually grateful for. I read some solid advice once for people who tend to spiral into self-depression: try keeping a journal, but only record the good stuff. (Honestly, why would anyone want to relive the bad parts in vivid detail anyway?)

Alex Collins3 said:Greetings.

I'll keep this brief and skip the fluff. I’m posting this in Psychology since that seems most relevant.

It’s been over six years, and I still haven't moved on from my ex. I’ve reached a point where I'm somewhat content with my own life, but there's this persistent void where our relationship used to be. Six years later, and I still can't seem to fill it. Finding out he got married after we split was the final blow. It felt like any chance we had was gone forever.

I tried settling down myself, but I just couldn't find any real happiness.
I regret the breakup deeply. I honestly thought we were living some kind of American dream—that we’d be together forever. Reality had other plans.
The regret is constant. I cycle through anger, bitterness, and pure disappointment because he walked away and never once looked back. He made it clear I wasn't his choice anymore. For a long time, I felt played and pathetic, yet the grieving process just won't end.

As the title asks: how much regret is too much?

Grief doesn't have a timer, but in your case, no matter how you look at it, it’s been going on far too long.

In my experience, the sadness and disappointment following a breakup—even when I was the one who ended things because they weren't working—usually lasted two, maybe three months tops.

It’s hard to give a definitive answer without knowing more, but it might be that you’re struggling with your own self-confidence to move forward alone. You might be lacking the hope or optimism needed to believe you'll find what you're looking for. Essentially, something is missing that's preventing you from actually living life to the fullest.

I’ve reached a point where I can't stand my phone, even though—alongside my laptop—it's basically my entire livelihood.
It just feels wrong talking to someone when I can't actually look them in the eye.

But, naturally, I just ignore that discomfort because, let's face it, making calls is unavoidable.

I've never actually worked in customer service, but if I were ever looking for a hypothetical job, I think I'd much rather stay home than deal with that.

I’m with a few of the recent comments here—you’re putting way too much weight on some label or diagnosis. Once you actually see the kind of people you'll be dealing with in the real world, you’ll realize how lucky you are to just have what you have. 😁

Jokes aside...

A day has 24 hours, and honestly, nobody is going to notice if you lose 60 minutes while your brain is basically mush. (Unless you’re a surgeon, obviously.) Just take a job you actually enjoy.

Someone mentioned earlier that most employers are just looking to squeeze out maximum profit while paying their staff the absolute bare minimum. Honestly, looking at how things work these days, that feels like the most realistic take. Here are a few examples, strictly speaking generally rather than about my own life.

For instance, as I noted above, for standard operational roles, you’ll see companies hunting for highly educated professionals with all sorts of specialized skills—basically overqualified people—just so they can justify paying them peanuts. You only have to look at the job postings on LinkedIn to see it happening everywhere. Instead of finding someone who actually fits the role perfectly and creating a win-win where both the employee and the boss are happy, they opt for this cheap labor model. It's inefficient.

Or take blue-collar work. Nowadays, physical laborers can make decent money, especially if they head overseas for certain contracts. Yet, there are still construction firms right here in the States that pay their crews miserably, operating under the assumption that they'll always find someone desperate enough to take the job. At the end of the day, these workers are being paid disproportionately little compared to the actual value and productivity they bring to the firm.

It is entirely possible to hit corporate targets without grinding employees into the dust or treating them like idiots. But given how many toxic examples we see in the real world, it’s no wonder people are either jumping ship or deciding to go freelance instead.

urbanwalker72 said:One shouldn't focus solely on the velocity of labor, but rather on the actual substance of the results produced. When contemplating the principles of economics, you can never go wrong if you place the concept of total output at the very heart of your reasoning.

To illustrate the disparity, consider that an operator utilizing a tractor can yield a ton of product within a specific timeframe, whereas a laborer working manually would only manage to produce twenty kilograms in that same interval.

It stands to reason that if everyone is being compensated with an identical twenty percent share of the total output, then it becomes perfectly clear why the individual operating the tractor managed to secure a more favorable outcome.

How does he justify the idea that today's college-educated professionals are being outpaced in pay by manual laborers? Does his logic imply that pursuing a degree was a wasted endeavor altogether? It seems intuitive to me that anyone who makes the significant investment of time and money into higher education expects some semblance of a return on that investment. Nowadays, I see so many parents advising their children that it might be more practical to master a specific trade or go for a vocational certification instead, believing those paths offer much better long-term stability.

One must first recognize that a higher salary is typically reserved for the worker who possesses marketable skills. It is not enough to simply hold a degree; there must be a genuine, practical proficiency present, coupled with a legitimate market demand for that specific expertise. Ultimately, however, the employer’s own business performance serves as the foundation, for an organization must remain profitable if it intends to compensate its staff accordingly.

A university degree is essentially a hollow credential in and of itself. If an individual pursues higher education solely to collect a diploma, without any genuine interest in acquiring practical skills or understanding whether those abilities serve a meaningful purpose in society, then they have fundamentally misunderstood the entire reason for studying in the first place.

Many individuals pursue higher education simply because they lack a more defined sense of purpose, which ultimately results in an abundance of economists and lawyers who possess little to no practical expertise. It is much like filling a stadium with spectators who have never actually played the game; they hold the titles, yet they lack the fundamental skills required to truly contribute to the field.

I will set aside those who believe that simply holding a university degree entitles them to a leadership role or grants them immediate seniority within a private corporation over seasoned professionals already in management; such individuals will always exist. Instead, I find myself wondering why a company wouldn't choose to hire one or two truly elite experts—individuals who meet every requirement—and compensate them generously enough that they fully understand the value of their position, rather than attempting to retain six or seven mediocre employees on meager salaries. Those two exceptional performers will be inherently productive and will rightfully expect a premium wage. When we discuss intellectual labor, I believe we cannot view it through the lens of manual tasks like tending garden beds; most people contributing to this discussion are engaged in much more complex endeavors than simple yard work.

I believe we ought to draw a clear distinction between formal education and true, practical knowledge, as the two concepts frequently diverge from one another.

When the government acts as an employer, it remains bound to compensation based strictly on formal educational credentials; however, private enterprises ought to focus more intently on an individual's actual proficiency and their tangible ability to execute tasks.

The predicament you're describing strikes me as being characteristic of a public sector issue.

The catch, though, is that the tractor operator doesn't necessarily possess some mystical talent. In reality, any laborer could step in and use that shovel, and the business owner clearly still needs those manual workers to function. Ideally, that 20% slice (of the total) should be distributed among all equal contributors. But, let's be honest: it's much cheaper to just pay the one guy driving the machine and give the shovel crew some vague, half-baked explanation as to why their checks are so small.

urbanwalker72 said:One shouldn't focus solely on the velocity of labor, but rather on the actual substance of the results produced. When contemplating the principles of economics, you can never go wrong if you place the concept of total output at the very heart of your reasoning.

To illustrate the disparity, consider that an operator utilizing a tractor can yield a ton of product within a specific timeframe, whereas a laborer working manually would only manage to produce twenty kilograms in that same interval.

It stands to reason that if everyone is being compensated with an identical twenty percent share of the total output, then it becomes perfectly clear why the individual operating the tractor managed to secure a more favorable outcome.

How does he justify the idea that today's college-educated professionals are being outpaced in pay by manual laborers? Does his logic imply that pursuing a degree was a wasted endeavor altogether? It seems intuitive to me that anyone who makes the significant investment of time and money into higher education expects some semblance of a return on that investment. Nowadays, I see so many parents advising their children that it might be more practical to master a specific trade or go for a vocational certification instead, believing those paths offer much better long-term stability.

One must first recognize that a higher salary is typically reserved for the worker who possesses marketable skills. It is not enough to simply hold a degree; there must be a genuine, practical proficiency present, coupled with a legitimate market demand for that specific expertise. Ultimately, however, the employer’s own business performance serves as the foundation, for an organization must remain profitable if it intends to compensate its staff accordingly.

A university degree is essentially a hollow credential in and of itself. If an individual pursues higher education solely to collect a diploma, without any genuine interest in acquiring practical skills or understanding whether those abilities serve a meaningful purpose in society, then they have fundamentally misunderstood the entire reason for studying in the first place.

Many individuals pursue higher education simply because they lack a more defined sense of purpose, which ultimately results in an abundance of economists and lawyers who possess little to no practical expertise. It is much like filling a stadium with spectators who have never actually played the game; they hold the titles, yet they lack the fundamental skills required to truly contribute to the field.

I will set aside those who believe that simply holding a university degree entitles them to a leadership role or grants them immediate seniority within a private corporation over seasoned professionals already in management; such individuals will always exist. Instead, I find myself wondering why a company wouldn't choose to hire one or two truly elite experts—individuals who meet every requirement—and compensate them generously enough that they fully understand the value of their position, rather than attempting to retain six or seven mediocre employees on meager salaries. Those two exceptional performers will be inherently productive and will rightfully expect a premium wage. When we discuss intellectual labor, I believe we cannot view it through the lens of manual tasks like tending garden beds; most people contributing to this discussion are engaged in much more complex endeavors than simple yard work.

I believe we ought to draw a clear distinction between formal education and true, practical knowledge, as the two concepts frequently diverge from one another.

When the government acts as an employer, it remains bound to compensation based strictly on formal educational credentials; however, private enterprises ought to focus more intently on an individual's actual proficiency and their tangible ability to execute tasks.

The predicament you're describing strikes me as being characteristic of a public sector issue.

I agree. Unfortunately, not everyone in the American workforce is "marketable." A significant portion of people don't even know how to sell themselves.

urbanwalker72 said:One shouldn't focus solely on the velocity of labor, but rather on the actual substance of the results produced. When contemplating the principles of economics, you can never go wrong if you place the concept of total output at the very heart of your reasoning.

To illustrate the disparity, consider that an operator utilizing a tractor can yield a ton of product within a specific timeframe, whereas a laborer working manually would only manage to produce twenty kilograms in that same interval.

It stands to reason that if everyone is being compensated with an identical twenty percent share of the total output, then it becomes perfectly clear why the individual operating the tractor managed to secure a more favorable outcome.

How does he justify the idea that today's college-educated professionals are being outpaced in pay by manual laborers? Does his logic imply that pursuing a degree was a wasted endeavor altogether? It seems intuitive to me that anyone who makes the significant investment of time and money into higher education expects some semblance of a return on that investment. Nowadays, I see so many parents advising their children that it might be more practical to master a specific trade or go for a vocational certification instead, believing those paths offer much better long-term stability.

One must first recognize that a higher salary is typically reserved for the worker who possesses marketable skills. It is not enough to simply hold a degree; there must be a genuine, practical proficiency present, coupled with a legitimate market demand for that specific expertise. Ultimately, however, the employer’s own business performance serves as the foundation, for an organization must remain profitable if it intends to compensate its staff accordingly.

A university degree is essentially a hollow credential in and of itself. If an individual pursues higher education solely to collect a diploma, without any genuine interest in acquiring practical skills or understanding whether those abilities serve a meaningful purpose in society, then they have fundamentally misunderstood the entire reason for studying in the first place.

Many individuals pursue higher education simply because they lack a more defined sense of purpose, which ultimately results in an abundance of economists and lawyers who possess little to no practical expertise. It is much like filling a stadium with spectators who have never actually played the game; they hold the titles, yet they lack the fundamental skills required to truly contribute to the field.

I will set aside those who believe that simply holding a university degree entitles them to a leadership role or grants them immediate seniority within a private corporation over seasoned professionals already in management; such individuals will always exist. Instead, I find myself wondering why a company wouldn't choose to hire one or two truly elite experts—individuals who meet every requirement—and compensate them generously enough that they fully understand the value of their position, rather than attempting to retain six or seven mediocre employees on meager salaries. Those two exceptional performers will be inherently productive and will rightfully expect a premium wage. When we discuss intellectual labor, I believe we cannot view it through the lens of manual tasks like tending garden beds; most people contributing to this discussion are engaged in much more complex endeavors than simple yard work.

I believe we ought to draw a clear distinction between formal education and true, practical knowledge, as the two concepts frequently diverge from one another.

When the government acts as an employer, it remains bound to compensation based strictly on formal educational credentials; however, private enterprises ought to focus more intently on an individual's actual proficiency and their tangible ability to execute tasks.

The predicament you're describing strikes me as being characteristic of a public sector issue.

I've worked exclusively in the private sector; I couldn't imagine working in government—it's just far too monotonous for me. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "your problem," because, frankly, I've managed to command a pretty enviable salary. But looking back, the choice was always between doing what I love for peanuts or doing something else for a decent paycheck.

Well, Wand is clearly acting as the moderator here, so I’m hoping he doesn't mess things up too badly. That's why I'd love to hear his expert opinion...

Since he's comparing laborers with hoes to those operating tractors—arguing that the hoe-wielder is slow while the tractor operator is "technically equipped" and therefore faster—I’d love for him to explain why the guy on the tractor is (obviously) better paid. On one hand, he’s faster; on the other, he has to cover the cost of the machinery investment. Perhaps Wand was clumsily trying to imply something else, but... regardless of that, I have a follow-up question...

How does he justify the fact that today, highly educated employees are often paid less than manual laborers? Does his logic imply people shouldn't have bothered going to college? Any rational person investing in a degree expects some sort of return on that investment. These days, many parents suggest their kids go into a trade or get a vocational certificate instead because they'll actually make a living. Now, there will always be people who assume a degree automatically entitles them to a leadership role or higher status in a private firm compared to someone already in management, but that's beside the point. Why not just hire one or two top-tier professionals who meet all your needs and pay them enough so they actually understand their value, rather than keeping six or seven people on starvation wages? You'd end up with two productive workers who actually want to stay. When it comes to intellectual labor, I don't think you can compare it to tilling garden beds, and most people chiming in here aren't out there tilling garden beds anyway.

If an employer is looking for someone to handle basic operational tasks, then paying minimum wage is fine—you don't need to use your brain, you just do what you're told. It's a great alternative to any underpaid manual laborer. But if you want someone to give more than the bare minimum, you can't keep them on a low salary.

Wand has plenty of smart answers in this PDF; you can tell he works in a field where he actually had to invest in his own knowledge. So, I'm curious to see his common-sense reasoning without all the fancy charts.

Wand, the floor is yours. 😁

It’s honestly depressing to watch talented people settle for peanuts just to get a foot in the door. By underselling themselves, they end up dragging down the market value for everyone else who actually knows their worth. It creates this endless, exhausting cycle where nobody wins.

Roger Fowler said:If you're offering typical American "dead-end" jobs and working conditions, don't expect much. There isn't a single domestic firm out there that can compete with my current employer on salary or benefits, especially since I'm already giving them everything they need to keep me happy doing the exact same job.
You just have to accept that if that's all you're offering, that's all you're going to get, because you simply can't go toe-to-toe with major multinational corporations. At best, you'll just serve as a stepping stone for people looking to move up the ladder in export-oriented industries.

I'm with them on this. Employers need to be realistic about their budget and look for talent that actually fits the compensation they're offering.

Noah Fowler3 said:Switching through four different companies wasn't easy, but it paid off.

Good luck with the new business. 😉
What kind of work will you be doing? Just want to know who to call if I ever need help. 🙂

It’s actually refreshing to see some positive examples popping up here in the States. You really can't afford to throw in the towel while you still have a clear vision of what you're trying to achieve. Success requires staying the course.

Quincy:

Toxic Joker As requested: Good luck with the business. 😉 So, what exactly is your line of work? Just wondering so I know who to call if I ever need a hand. 🙂

Thanks. 🙂 I'll probably need a little luck to pull this off, too. 🙂
I won't clutter everyone's feed here; I can just shoot you a DM instead.

Noah Fowler3 said:You missed the most important part—it’s not the job that changes, it's the boss.

It didn't happen for me on the first try either, but it did by the fourth.
I have everything you mentioned, plus my coworkers are great, and the bonuses on top of my base salary are excellent.

You can find a good spot out there; you just can't stop looking. 😉

Must be nice. 🙂 Luck hasn't exactly been on my side in that department. The closest I ever got was a role I actually wanted, but the pay was pretty low. By the time I hit retirement age, the salary might have bumped up by maybe a grand or two. On top of that, the senior colleague I was eventually supposed to replace couldn't wrap her head around me taking over, nor could she accept the fact that she was retiring.

So, I switched careers. I'm doing quite well there since I'm fluent in German and English, and right now, I'm actually in the process of launching my own business...

Just to add my two cents regarding the whole psychological assessment and IQ testing thing—honestly, once you hit a certain age and have actually lived a little, subjecting an intelligent person to those kinds of tests feels like a genuine insult to their intellect. 🙂

wearymason93 said:Spot on..

Getting people to actually take responsibility, stay engaged, and build trust is an uphill battle...

And when you factor in the salary requirements, it becomes almost impossible.

What's the secret to running a truly great company?

By what metric are we defining a great company—its market dominance or the caliber and satisfaction of its employees? Or is it both?

wearymason93 said:I agree...

What's your take on IQ testing?
Or maybe a character assessment?

Maybe if you’re drowning in candidates who all look equally qualified on paper and you need some extra tie-breaker?

Otherwise, I don't see the point.

Personally, if I ever end up in a position where I'm hiring someone, I definitely won't be handing out tests.

Looking at it from my side—the employers who actually showed interest in me usually just chatted with me for about an hour about the role. They saw I knew my stuff, and that was enough to get me the job, rather than some flawless, sterile resume (not that mine is bad, 😁).

The whole concept of "highly motivated, top-tier employees" feels like a total pipe dream to me.

In the real world, most people—even the genuinely talented ones—show up just to collect a paycheck and get through their daily grind. Work isn't the center of their universe; if they manage to have a little fun chatting with coworkers along the way, that’s just a bonus. As for those "highly motivated" types? They’re driven by a desire to climb the ladder or grow personally, which actually makes them incredibly difficult to retain.

I mean, building a perfect team is basically impossible because we’re dealing with humans. And this is just work. 😁 But you can certainly put together a decent crew if you actually put in the effort.

(When I first entered the workforce, I had these idealistic hopes of finding a company where I could truly reach my potential—somewhere that would invest in my training, pay me a fair wage, and surround me with decent people. I never found it.)

wearymason93 said:Could you please elaborate on the bolded part?

The logic is simple... You retain high-quality employees through better conditions, and the primary condition is money.
In most cases, obviously.

It’s about mutual benefit.
The employee is happy with their pay, and the employer is happy with the work and the level of engagement provided by the employee...
Money is the bridge between them.

I don't see what else could possibly disrupt that order...

Look, if you're hunting for the perfect employee, you’d better be prepared to offer perfect conditions.

What actually defines a "perfect" worker depends entirely on the industry.

As for what employees actually want? That’s subjective. But for most office-based roles, I’d say employee satisfaction usually boils down to three main pillars:

- Obviously, the money.
- The job itself—whether it actually matches what was promised during the interview.
- And the workplace culture.

Most people can overlook one of those if things aren't quite right. But once two factors fail, the third one usually collapses too, even if the paycheck is decent.

If you want to actually hire people worth their salt, you have to start with basic honesty. Without that, you're dead in the water.

The talent is out there, sure. But high-quality workers don't stick around if they can find someone offering better terms. You simply can't expect to retain anyone if you aren't matching what they bring to the table.

I’ve never considered myself a martyr.
What I actually do is just making choices within the options I have. If I decide to pour my life into something, that’s entirely on me. We always find the time for what we actually care about; everything else is just an excuse.

And honestly, I wouldn't call your hiking a sacrifice either, assuming you were just following a personal whim. 🤷

Thanks for the help, but I'm still running into issues with certain programs...

I've decided to pull the plug on Windows 7 and just roll back to Windows 10. Clearly, there's some kind of compatibility glitch with this software that I'm not winning against.