Here we go again... Nepotism is out of control.

Elections are over. I'm satisfied. It’s all right-wing from top to bottom. Voted Libertarian, but hey, at least the Democrats are out.

Ran into a buddy of mine a few days ago—he's originally from Imotkin—and he tells me... wow, his guys won. Now he's got a cousin working in some government department who's gonna land him a job at the airport, maintenance or something. Good pay too, like maybe $1,200 a week. Everything's looking up, apparently.

So I'm sitting there thinking, what was the point of me grinding through college?
The guy barely finished high school and isn't even qualified for the work. Honestly, it feels like everything is just sliding back to how it used to be. As long as you have the right connections, that's all that matters.

We were actually hoping for something better. I'm bitter about it. I really hope this is just one weird exception that doesn't prove the rule, because if it does....

tiger said:The elections were a success in my book. I’m happy—the right wing won big. I voted for the Libertarian Party, but honestly, it’s just great to see the Democrats finally out.

A few days ago, I ran into an old friend of mine, originally from the Central Valley, California, and he tells me... "Man, my guys actually won! Now one of my cousins works at the Department of Transportation and he's gonna hook me up with a job at the airport doing maintenance. Great pay, like $80k or something, so overall, things are looking up."

And I'm sitting there thinking, what the hell was the point of me grinding through college?
He only finished high school and he's totally set... It feels like everything is just sliding back to the way it used to be, where all you really need is a solid connection to get ahead.

We were all hoping for actual progress, so I'm feeling pretty bitter about this. I really hope this is just a fluke that doesn't define the new administration, because if it does....

Would you turn down a job if your cousin could pull the strings for you??

tiger said:I really hope this is just a one-off outlier, because if it’s actually becoming the norm...

It isn't. That hasn't changed regardless of which party holds office, and there's zero sign it's going to change anytime soon.

Well, that is simply a standard occurrence. After all, you cannot expect George W. Bush to be some sort of hundred-headed hydra constantly monitoring every single low-level official who feels the need to hire their entire incompetent extended family...

To be clear, there is absolutely nothing controversial about hiring someone well-known if they actually possess the qualifications and skill set required for the role; that happens everywhere. However, hiring someone just so they can collect a paycheck when they have zero connection to the actual work? That is straight-up criminal. We shouldn't act surprised when a plane goes down because of some technician who was only hired for maintenance because his uncle works at the Department of Transportation. 🙄

I really have to weigh in on this one. Someone posted this on the forum earlier:

"Mess with nepotism, and you're messing with the very foundation of American society."

Note: I might not be quoting them word-for-word, but you get the gist.

That’s just how things work around here. Take, for instance, if some Republican Party member out in the Central Valley, California, starts pulling strings—and because of him, the whole town swings the vote toward the GOP—the big shots at party headquarters will reward that guy regardless of his actual qualifications. Then, being a "good guy," he gets a cushy job in some federal agency or a city department where he can look out for his own people...

This is a total disgrace. It’s just gonna drag us down further... Not until we actually establish a real democracy where lobbyists can't just play games and leech off the entire country.

Anyway, just getting a "new" political elite isn't enough. We need a completely different kind of leadership. An elite that, even before stepping foot in office, decides to walk away from any outside interests and focus solely on the common good.

Arthur Martinez7 said:Well, that’s just par for the course, isn't it? It’s simply impossible for someone like George W. Bush to be some massive, all-consuming monster who personally tracks down every low-level bureaucrat tasked with hiring their entire roster of incompetent relatives...

Look, there is absolutely no debate here that if someone in a leadership position hires an acquaintance—provided that individual is actually qualified and capable of doing the job—that is standard practice everywhere you look. However, hiring someone purely to drain a paycheck when they have zero connection to the actual work is nothing short of criminal. You really shouldn't act surprised when a commercial airliner goes down because the technician on the maintenance crew was only hired because his uncle sits in the Department of Transportation. 🙄

I am in total agreement. 👍

I’ll be the first to admit that I landed my current position through pure nepotism, but my conscience isn't even slightly bothered by it; besides the fact that I am perfectly qualified, I consistently receive stellar performance reviews, and quite frankly, I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks about it.

Bradley Fisher20 said:It’s honestly embarrassing. Who’s going to keep an eye on us moving forward? Until we actually establish a functioning democracy—one where lobbyists aren't just allowed to parasite off the rest of society—we're stuck.

Anyway, swapping out the old guard for some "new" political elite isn't enough. We don't just need new faces; we need a completely different breed of leadership. We need people who, even before they step foot in office, have already committed to walking away from any benefit other than what serves the public good.

We also need to overhaul the entire mindset—the core value system—that most Americans hold onto. As long as the average American thinks their only priority is looking out for themselves and making sure their immediate family is taken care of while everyone else fends for themselves, nepotism is never going away.

True democracy doesn't really exist; there are only different versions of it.

Terry Castillo82 said:I find myself compelled to address this matter immediately, as someone on this forum recently posited the following statement:

"To challenge nepotism is to strike at the very bedrock of American society."

A minor disclaimer: while the wording might not be an exact, verbatim transcription, the underlying sentiment remains perfectly clear.

I was actually the one who penned that line, though it seems a vast number of people failed to grasp that I was quoting Vlatko Micković.

Terry Castillo82 said:We need a total overhaul of the mindset and value system most Americans carry. As long as people only care about themselves and making sure their own family gets every handout possible while everyone else struggles, nepotism is never going away.

Real democracy doesn't even exist—it’s just different versions of it.

Don't be an idiot. It's totally normal for you to put yourself first. BTW, who *is* actually at the top of your priority list? What's your actual drive? Is it just the idea of making your own life better?

And regarding "real" democracy... just because it's an ideal we can't fully reach doesn't mean we should stop fighting for it.

You're telling It’s starting all over again.......

Are you out of your mind, or have you just been in a coma? When did it ever actually stop just to start up again? 😁 😂

Look, there’s really only one way to actually kill nepotism in the workplace: hold people accountable for their damn results. Period. I would never, ever hire some cousin who doesn't know a single thing about the job if my own neck was on the line. If my entire department's success depends on whether or not things are running smoothly, then I'm not playing games. At the end of the day, if my numbers are solid and the work is getting done, I don't care if half my staff are my buddies or old college friends... it just works.

Look, I’m all for being against nepotism in theory—really, I am. But if my cousin offers me a gig? I’m taking it. And then I’ll go right back to preaching about how much I hate nepotism. It’s a total scam when you don't have those connections, isn't it?
And honestly, I find myself agreeing with Keith James812 more than most on this thread. 👍 😍

Keith James812 said:There is precisely one effective way to tackle the issue of nepotism, and that is through strict accountability for performance results... I would never dream of hiring a relative who lacks the necessary skills if my own position depended on whether the department I manage functions correctly or not... provided that I am delivering solid results, it is entirely irrelevant whether some of my employees happen to be my friends...

It is commendable of you to value accountability, though I find myself struggling to understand how you intend to implement this particular "method" at a national, federal level?

Perhaps we should broadcast televised messages urging public officials to embrace responsibility?😁

Furthermore, one's career shouldn't always be held hostage by someone who secured their position through nepotism despite being utterly unqualified.
Take, for instance, the very first CEO of General Electric (who commands a salary of roughly $17 per month today) right after the company went independent; he was the son-in-law of Mate Granić—an absolute incompetent who didn't have the slightest clue how to actually run a major corporation...

dustyscout53 said:And wouldn't you know it, I actually find myself agreeing with Keith James812 most on this whole thread. 👍 😍

If you weren't such a bleeding-heart patriot, we’d probably be best buddies since we're totally on the same page about everything. 😍

Eric Wells3 said:Take the first CEO of General Electric (they’re paying about $17 a month for that role now) right after the war—he was just some nephew of Mate Granić. Total amateur, honestly... had zero clue how to actually run a massive corporation...

But who's actually on the hook when things go south? The owner. And who owns General Electric? The government. There's your answer right there. We've been dragging our feet on privatizing companies like General Electric way too long... same goes for everything else. I'm not saying you don't see nepotism in the private sector, but at least heads tend to roll over there. In state-run companies, the favoritism just keeps going because nobody's truly accountable for the bottom line. We're still trying to wrap our heads around that kind of accountability, aren't we?

Eric Wells3 said:Look, if you actually care about accountability, fine. Kudos to you. But I honestly don't see how you plan to pull off your little "method" when we're talking about running an entire country. It's not that simple.

It takes time, okay? Real change doesn't happen overnight. Once voters stop looking at politicians like they're these untouchable, little communist gods sitting in high chairs they have zero say over, then—and only then—will people start applying pressure. We need those tough questions coming from the bottom up and the top down simultaneously. That's how you break the system.

dustyscout53 said:And who exactly is held accountable for a corporation's performance? It’s the owner. Now, who owns General Electric in this scenario? The government. Therein lies your answer regarding the General Electric situation. They have been dragging their feet on the privatization of General Electric for far too long... and it is the exact same story with these other state-run entities. I am certainly not suggesting that nepotism doesn't exist within private firms, but in those environments, heads actually roll when things go south. In state-owned enterprises, nepotism will persist indefinitely as long as nobody is truly answerable for the bottom line. And frankly, we haven't quite mastered the concept of accountability yet; we are still trying to learn it.

How exactly does one hold them accountable? The only thing that ever happens is a director gets handed their walking papers. For ten years straight, the company has basically just broken even because they refuse to hold legitimate, merit-based competitions for leadership positions, and since Granić hasn't been fired—and legally, he can't be—nothing ever changes.

Eric Wells3 said:How exactly does he answer for it? The absolute most that happens is the CEO gets canned.

Like, instead of just stepping down, he’s supposed to walk straight to the guillotine? 😕

Mickey Mouse said:How exactly are they held accountable? The only thing that actually happens is the director gets fired. This whole company has been stuck in this loop for ten years—revenue equals expenses, nothing grows—simply because they never bother with actual competitive hiring. And since Griffin didn't lose his footing, and legally he can't anyway, nobody's hair is even ruffled.

I never said anyone was being held responsible for the bad results. They should be, obviously, but they aren't. Maybe eventually, though.
It used to be that when a new party took over, the directors of state-owned companies were just swapped out automatically. Now, it looks like they’re picking people again without any public bidding process. Everyone should be hired through an open, competitive process. If I recall, Vera and Thomas Dragicevic were both chosen that way. And if you're hired through a legitimate search, the new administration shouldn't just toss you out, right? That's just one example of how the system ought to work.
Churchman was on thirteen NATO boards, and I think Lincoln was on seventeen. They were technically "volunteers." Honestly, who cares if they were volunteers or not? Being on thirteen NATO boards is just overkill. Didn't the Democratic Party have more people to put forward? If not, they should've brought in some independent experts instead of just stacking the deck with their own guys.
Sanders is the one who broke that tradition.
I reckon Racoon's wife pulled in a ton of votes for him. Actually, that's kind of a step in the right direction.