Those so-called "shepherds

Can someone explain why this is getting so much media coverage, why it’s such a massive deal, and why the attacks are specifically being leveled at Angela Merkel?
Here is the reality. She stated she wouldn't hand out 80% of those work permits to foreigners because there are unemployed Americans right here at home. She used an example of a rancher who needed 150 workers but only received 16 applications. In response, Angela Merkel suggested that workers need to be more flexible and willing to work during a crisis like this.

So why is this being weaponized against her? Why is everyone using that rancher story to insult her?
To be clear, I am not defending the Republican Party. In my view, they are the absolute worst group to ever loot and ruin America—mostly opportunists with zero moral compass.

But why use this specific instance to attack Angela Merkel? In this case, she is 100% correct. Refusing to issue those permits was a smart move because so many Americans are out of work. When you look at it this way, you have to consider not just the politicians' failures, but our own as a nation. Every job is honest work, including ranching, and in a country with 300,000 unemployed people, surely more than 16 individuals should have applied for that position. I'm not trying to lecture anyone; I know many people are struggling, and I truly hope things improve. But if people use that 300,000 figure to create a sense of catastrophe while simultaneously failing to apply for open, necessary jobs, isn't it hypocritical to turn on Jadranka and complain? In this particular scenario, the fault lies with the American citizens, not Angela Merkel.

Once she finally drops the name of that business tycoon, I might actually stop rooting against her.

🤦

Maybe they’re just messing with her because, even after all this time, nobody can figure out which guy was actually supposed to be managing those 150 ranch hands🤷🤷

Do you honestly believe someone went out looking to hire 150 people just to work as shepherds?
🤣🤣

It’s a bit strange, isn't it?
Maybe there’s some sort of secret ranching boom happening right under our noses—one the mainstream media just isn't covering?
Do you guys actually have any idea how many sheep it takes to keep 150 people occupied? No? Honestly, neither do I.
But even the wealthiest cattle barons out in the Wild West didn't need a crew of 150 cowboys!

Even if Jaca isn't exactly crushing it when it comes to managing the shepherds, she’s actually got a point here. She just pointed out one single instance where people flat-out refuse to work, and honestly? If they just stripped away all those government handouts, you'd see people actually picking up a shovel in no time.

vividraven26 said:Even if Jaca isn't exactly crushing it when it comes to managing the shepherds, she’s actually got a point here. She just pointed out one single instance where people flat-out refuse to work, and honestly? If they just stripped away all those government handouts, you'd see people actually picking up a shovel in no time.

Look, honey, I’ve actually been in a spot where I had to rely on those social safety nets myself. Believe me, you can't do squat with them. If you're expecting some massive windfall of cash, forget about it. You get just enough to keep from starving.
Health insurance? You've already got that covered the second you sign up for unemployment.

Either I missed something or nobody bothered to tell me, but I don't know anything about any other perks. Probably the people who didn't even need the help but grabbed it anyway just because it was the trendy thing to do.

And as for herding sheep?
That sounds like a dream job to me. I tried it once back when I was just a kid. You spend the whole day out in the fresh air, you don't need some overpriced gym or those fancy little machines for mice, and all you hear is birds chirping and sheep bleating. Around noon, you just chill under a tree, milk the sheep, and whip up some stew. Throw a fire together, roast some potatoes, bacon... the works.
If you're actually curious about things, you can bring books or even a laptop.
Doesn't that sound amazing?

silverraven7 said:Look, honey, I’ve actually been in a spot where I had to rely on those social safety nets myself. Believe me, you can't do squat with them. If you're expecting some massive windfall of cash, forget about it. You get just enough to keep from starving.
Health insurance? You've already got that covered the second you sign up for unemployment.

Either I missed something or nobody bothered to tell me, but I don't know anything about any other perks. Probably the people who didn't even need the help but grabbed it anyway just because it was the trendy thing to do.

And as for herding sheep?
That sounds like a dream job to me. I tried it once back when I was just a kid. You spend the whole day out in the fresh air, you don't need some overpriced gym or those fancy little machines for mice, and all you hear is birds chirping and sheep bleating. Around noon, you just chill under a tree, milk the sheep, and whip up some stew. Throw a fire together, roast some potatoes, bacon... the works.
If you're actually curious about things, you can bring books or even a laptop.
Doesn't that sound amazing?

I wasn't talking about the cash, I was talking about the healthcare. You offer someone a gig, and if they turn it down, you kick them off unemployment and strip their health coverage. Who in their right mind can deal with being uninsured today and pay full price at the doctor? Just watch how fast they start taking jobs if that's the case.

And then there's the whole thing where they scrap the guaranteed minimum pension and switch to this system based on total years worked—so whatever comes out is what you get. It means you could actually end up with more if you work fewer years.

I'm down for cows too. It's a solid job, you're out in the fresh air and walking around, though it does have one downside. You won't have Wi-Fi everywhere to keep up with all the drama on social media, so they might get bored.

In America, primary health insurance isn't just some social handout—it’s actually treated as a matter of public interest. I mean, if you look at how big epidemics or poor living conditions can spread things around, public health is really there to help lower mortality rates rather than make them worse.

Though, I guess it is technically possible here for something like that to be scrapped entirely, which would leave us all in a pretty grim spot, sort of like facing a cholera outbreak without any backup.

Honestly, talking about getting rid of free primary healthcare feels pretty reckless to me. It’s almost making me think of those old T4 scenarios, which is a heavy thought.

wearyrider26 said:In America, primary health insurance isn't just some social handout—it’s actually treated as a matter of public interest. I mean, if you look at how big epidemics or poor living conditions can spread things around, public health is really there to help lower mortality rates rather than make them worse.

Though, I guess it is technically possible here for something like that to be scrapped entirely, which would leave us all in a pretty grim spot, sort of like facing a cholera outbreak without any backup.

Honestly, talking about getting rid of free primary healthcare feels pretty reckless to me. It’s almost making me think of those old T4 scenarios, which is a heavy thought.

You only get access to primary healthcare if you’re actually chipping in the same way every other worker does. You don't want to work? Then you don't get the coverage. Period. There's always going to be someone foolish enough to grind away for 40 years, paying into a system that supports people who won't even bother to get out of bed in the morning. It's pure socialism. That's exactly why those systems fail, and it leaves the hardworking people broke. Sure, everyone will probably get their vaccinations for free when an epidemic hits, but for anything else, they can just forget about it. This is exactly why the healthcare system is such a mess—we have tiny amounts of revenue coming in and massive expenses going out.

On my end, I'm putting money aside for my own retirement, not to fund the pensions of slackers and freeloaders. People should get out exactly what they put in.

vividraven26 said:You only get access to primary healthcare if you’re actually chipping in the same way every other worker does. You don't want to work? Then you don't get the coverage. Period. There's always going to be someone foolish enough to grind away for 40 years, paying into a system that supports people who won't even bother to get out of bed in the morning. It's pure socialism. That's exactly why those systems fail, and it leaves the hardworking people broke. Sure, everyone will probably get their vaccinations for free when an epidemic hits, but for anything else, they can just forget about it. This is exactly why the healthcare system is such a mess—we have tiny amounts of revenue coming in and massive expenses going out.

On my end, I'm putting money aside for my own retirement, not to fund the pensions of slackers and freeloaders. People should get out exactly what they put in.

I feel bad, but following that logic, I guess the right to life should only belong to those who create things—you know, people who directly produce new value—because everyone else is just a drain on the budget.

(It reminds me of that old farm story where a horse and a dog are arguing about who's more important. The sheepdog says, "I protect the farm, so I'm worth more than you." And the horse just replies, "Well, honey, if I wasn't out here plowing, you wouldn't have a farm to protect!" )

Basic healthcare is really a hallmark of civilization. Honestly, the costs for cancer treatment are so high that even Bill Gates might struggle to cover the full amount.

And then there are accidents involving serious injuries, or things like floods, fires, violence...

I think this is mostly about pure pragmatism. Public health is in everyone's interest. Those arguments about "workers vs. non-workers" were probably okay to sell back during the socialist era when the government was the biggest employer. But things aren't really like that anymore, and nowadays, the government acts more like a service provider for the group of people that makes up its voting base. That includes the whole administrative system and institutions like the Department of Labor. But, "luckily," those agencies don't exactly operate based on performance.

silverraven7 said:Look, honey, I’ve actually been in a spot where I had to rely on those social safety nets myself. Believe me, you can't do squat with them. If you're expecting some massive windfall of cash, forget about it. You get just enough to keep from starving.
Health insurance? You've already got that covered the second you sign up for unemployment.

Either I missed something or nobody bothered to tell me, but I don't know anything about any other perks. Probably the people who didn't even need the help but grabbed it anyway just because it was the trendy thing to do.

And as for herding sheep?
That sounds like a dream job to me. I tried it once back when I was just a kid. You spend the whole day out in the fresh air, you don't need some overpriced gym or those fancy little machines for mice, and all you hear is birds chirping and sheep bleating. Around noon, you just chill under a tree, milk the sheep, and whip up some stew. Throw a fire together, roast some potatoes, bacon... the works.
If you're actually curious about things, you can bring books or even a laptop.
Doesn't that sound amazing?

Honestly, we might be better off tossing the 21st century and all its baggage aside and just heading back to a simpler time.🤷
But then again, who looks after the sheep?😕 Being a shepherd is basically just a tedious walk with the flock whenever necessary, herding them together, and keeping a watchful eye to make sure everyone is accounted for.😉
So, if someone truly enjoys being a shepherd, fine. But please, let’s not act shocked when certain people demand a bit more than just swinging a staff and chasing around smelly animals.☕
I’m surprised she didn't mention that some people would also want to be stable cleaners🙄; I bet there are plenty of folks out there claiming that would be a perfectly desirable career.😁

wearyrider26 said:I feel bad, but following that logic, I guess the right to life should only belong to those who create things—you know, people who directly produce new value—because everyone else is just a drain on the budget.

(It reminds me of that old farm story where a horse and a dog are arguing about who's more important. The sheepdog says, "I protect the farm, so I'm worth more than you." And the horse just replies, "Well, honey, if I wasn't out here plowing, you wouldn't have a farm to protect!" )

Basic healthcare is really a hallmark of civilization. Honestly, the costs for cancer treatment are so high that even Bill Gates might struggle to cover the full amount.

And then there are accidents involving serious injuries, or things like floods, fires, violence...

I think this is mostly about pure pragmatism. Public health is in everyone's interest. Those arguments about "workers vs. non-workers" were probably okay to sell back during the socialist era when the government was the biggest employer. But things aren't really like that anymore, and nowadays, the government acts more like a service provider for the group of people that makes up its voting base. That includes the whole administrative system and institutions like the Department of Labor. But, "luckily," those agencies don't exactly operate based on performance.

Everyone has a right to life. Period. But the right to medical treatment? That belongs to those who contributed—retirees, those currently contributing through employment, the vulnerable over 65, children, and everyone else once they start paying their way.

If Bill Gates wants to build his own private oncology clinic just for himself, he can go right ahead. What are you even talking about?

And yeah, we'll still treat people injured in fires and all that.

But we shouldn't be footing the bill for people who refuse to work or are working under the table while enjoying free healthcare paid for by everyone else. That’s the real issue here.

vividraven26 said:I wasn't talking about the cash, I was talking about the healthcare. You offer someone a gig, and if they turn it down, you kick them off unemployment and strip their health coverage. Who in their right mind can deal with being uninsured today and pay full price at the doctor? Just watch how fast they start taking jobs if that's the case.

And then there's the whole thing where they scrap the guaranteed minimum pension and switch to this system based on total years worked—so whatever comes out is what you get. It means you could actually end up with more if you work fewer years.

I'm down for cows too. It's a solid job, you're out in the fresh air and walking around, though it does have one downside. You won't have Wi-Fi everywhere to keep up with all the drama on social media, so they might get bored.

But what about someone with a chronic illness who needs machines to live, like people on dialysis?☕
So this person gets hit by bad luck or a recession after, I don't know, working in the private sector for 20 years, and honestly, who's gonna hire them during a crisis? Plus, someone whose kidneys aren't working isn't exactly able to just jump into any random job—damn it, dialysis is exhausting and comes with so many side effects.
I think I know how it feels to be on dialysis because when I was a kid, I had an accident and ended up on it a few times. It's not a great experience at all, especially when they shove a catheter into your neck.☕
So what are you supposed to tell someone who's been laid off? Just like, "Hey, go be a construction worker" or "Just die without insurance"?☕

Peter Wright3 said:Can someone explain why this is getting so much media coverage, why it’s such a massive deal, and why the attacks are specifically being leveled at Angela Merkel?
Here is the reality. She stated she wouldn't hand out 80% of those work permits to foreigners because there are unemployed Americans right here at home. She used an example of a rancher who needed 150 workers but only received 16 applications. In response, Angela Merkel suggested that workers need to be more flexible and willing to work during a crisis like this.

So why is this being weaponized against her? Why is everyone using that rancher story to insult her?
To be clear, I am not defending the Republican Party. In my view, they are the absolute worst group to ever loot and ruin America—mostly opportunists with zero moral compass.

But why use this specific instance to attack Angela Merkel? In this case, she is 100% correct. Refusing to issue those permits was a smart move because so many Americans are out of work. When you look at it this way, you have to consider not just the politicians' failures, but our own as a nation. Every job is honest work, including ranching, and in a country with 300,000 unemployed people, surely more than 16 individuals should have applied for that position. I'm not trying to lecture anyone; I know many people are struggling, and I truly hope things improve. But if people use that 300,000 figure to create a sense of catastrophe while simultaneously failing to apply for open, necessary jobs, isn't it hypocritical to turn on Jadranka and complain? In this particular scenario, the fault lies with the American citizens, not Angela Merkel.

First off, I think it's a lie that there's some guy with sheep who needs 150 ranch hands!! You don't find livestock operations like that even in Chile or Australia. Second, do you even know what being a ranch hand actually means?? Being a ranch hand means being a servant to those animals 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. You have to move away from home and live like a tenant on the boss's property just to stay close to the herd. You leave your family behind because it would be inhumane to drag a wife and kids along to serve someone else. There are no "working hours" where you go home after 8-10 hours, or get a weekend, or take a vacation. The bosses are looking for a servant for 24 hours a day because dealing with livestock happens day and night—illness, lambing, and tending to newborns doesn't follow a schedule. My grandfather raised sheep, cows, and horses, so I know exactly what caring for livestock entails. But when you're tending to YOUR own, it's a lifestyle, not a chore. When you're doing it for a paycheck, you aren't a worker—you're a servant!! Clear enough?!

vividraven26 said:Everyone has a right to life. Period. But the right to medical treatment? That belongs to those who contributed—retirees, those currently contributing through employment, the vulnerable over 65, children, and everyone else once they start paying their way.

If Bill Gates wants to build his own private oncology clinic just for himself, he can go right ahead. What are you even talking about?

And yeah, we'll still treat people injured in fires and all that.

But we shouldn't be footing the bill for people who refuse to work or are working under the table while enjoying free healthcare paid for by everyone else. That’s the real issue here.

Well, I guess it just comes down to constitutional law. Like, the right to access primary healthcare shouldn't really depend on whether you're employed or not. I mean, sure, maybe some other specific benefits might be tied to your job status, but basic medical care? That should be separate. It’s just how the system is supposed to work here in the US, I suppose.

Well, I mean, that's how it looks on paper, I guess... but in actual practice? Not really. Maybe it works that way in theory, but you know how things actually go out in the real world. It's just different. ☕

I guess it’s pretty obvious what kind of "free" treatment we're actually talking about here. It’s that specific type of care that even the wealthiest person in America probably couldn't afford to pay for out-of-pocket if they went private... you know, everything from specialized surgeons to oncologists. Maybe that's just how it goes, I suppose.

I guess cosmetic procedures and stuff like that fall under voluntary insurance, so they’re usually handled through private agreements. Maybe? It just seems like that's how it works over here in the States.

I guess we shouldn't really get into the whole topic of unemployment. It feels a bit out of place here in the States, where there's such a massive gap between what jobs are available and who's looking for them. Maybe it's just not the right time to dive into that, I suppose.
I guess we shouldn't really mix up our terms or assume that being unemployed automatically means someone isn't working, you know? There’s this other kind of inefficiency that actually costs the government a massive amount of money, and I don't mean the benefits paid out to people looking for jobs. It’s more about certain specific salaries and pensions. It feels like those are basically used to buy votes during election season, maybe. And when you look at those high salaries and pensions, it's really what ends up driving up the US national debt. Just my two cents, I suppose.

I mean, I guess I'll go ahead and agree that working under the table is bad for everyone... but honestly, it just feels like proof that the administrative inspectors—the ones who are actually supposed to be enforcing the laws (and getting paid to do it, obviously!)—just aren't doing their jobs. Maybe they are? I don't know, it just seems that way to me.

Sandra Johnson58 said:But what about someone with a chronic illness who needs machines to live, like people on dialysis?☕
So this person gets hit by bad luck or a recession after, I don't know, working in the private sector for 20 years, and honestly, who's gonna hire them during a crisis? Plus, someone whose kidneys aren't working isn't exactly able to just jump into any random job—damn it, dialysis is exhausting and comes with so many side effects.
I think I know how it feels to be on dialysis because when I was a kid, I had an accident and ended up on it a few times. It's not a great experience at all, especially when they shove a catheter into your neck.☕
So what are you supposed to tell someone who's been laid off? Just like, "Hey, go be a construction worker" or "Just die without insurance"?☕

Look, I wasn't talking about people who are actually sick. It’s totally obvious you can't offer certain jobs to someone in that condition, and honestly, the real question is whether they can even find *any* work at all. What I meant was the healthy crowd—the ones turning down every single opening because it doesn't massage their ego enough. How many of them have degrees? Honestly, you can't count them. Even old folks will tell you, "Oh, my son/daughter went to a top university," but let's be real, with that specific degree, you aren't finding a job in America for the next 500 years because nobody needs what they learned, yet they still refuse to take up a regular blue-collar gig. Or you've got the former white-collar types who just can't stomach being laborers. Or the "handymen" working under the table, refusing to register and turning down legitimate work. I know the whole lot of them; I see them wandering around, sipping their lattes, acting like they're too good for the real world.

wearyrider26 said:Well, I guess it just comes down to constitutional law. Like, the right to access primary healthcare shouldn't really depend on whether you're employed or not. I mean, sure, maybe some other specific benefits might be tied to your job status, but basic medical care? That should be separate. It’s just how the system is supposed to work here in the US, I suppose.

Well, I mean, that's how it looks on paper, I guess... but in actual practice? Not really. Maybe it works that way in theory, but you know how things actually go out in the real world. It's just different. ☕

I guess it’s pretty obvious what kind of "free" treatment we're actually talking about here. It’s that specific type of care that even the wealthiest person in America probably couldn't afford to pay for out-of-pocket if they went private... you know, everything from specialized surgeons to oncologists. Maybe that's just how it goes, I suppose.

I guess cosmetic procedures and stuff like that fall under voluntary insurance, so they’re usually handled through private agreements. Maybe? It just seems like that's how it works over here in the States.

I guess we shouldn't really get into the whole topic of unemployment. It feels a bit out of place here in the States, where there's such a massive gap between what jobs are available and who's looking for them. Maybe it's just not the right time to dive into that, I suppose.
I guess we shouldn't really mix up our terms or assume that being unemployed automatically means someone isn't working, you know? There’s this other kind of inefficiency that actually costs the government a massive amount of money, and I don't mean the benefits paid out to people looking for jobs. It’s more about certain specific salaries and pensions. It feels like those are basically used to buy votes during election season, maybe. And when you look at those high salaries and pensions, it's really what ends up driving up the US national debt. Just my two cents, I suppose.

I mean, I guess I'll go ahead and agree that working under the table is bad for everyone... but honestly, it just feels like proof that the administrative inspectors—the ones who are actually supposed to be enforcing the laws (and getting paid to do it, obviously!)—just aren't doing their jobs. Maybe they are? I don't know, it just seems that way to me.

What I'm talking about are the people at the Department of Labor and how they go about looking for work. When an offer is put on the table, they reject everything. Sure, there's a mismatch in the market, that's true, but there are still people offering jobs, people accepting them, and then there are the ones rejecting them. Those are the ones I'm interested in, and frankly, I'm against them. They're the grateful voters because they get perks just by sitting around at the agency. If someone is at the Department of Labor and absolutely no one is offering them anything, fine, let them stay there—they probably have nowhere else to go with all those benefits and rights they're clinging to.

Daniel Bailey39 said:Honestly, we might be better off tossing the 21st century and all its baggage aside and just heading back to a simpler time.🤷
But then again, who looks after the sheep?😕 Being a shepherd is basically just a tedious walk with the flock whenever necessary, herding them together, and keeping a watchful eye to make sure everyone is accounted for.😉
So, if someone truly enjoys being a shepherd, fine. But please, let’s not act shocked when certain people demand a bit more than just swinging a staff and chasing around smelly animals.☕
I’m surprised she didn't mention that some people would also want to be stable cleaners🙄; I bet there are plenty of folks out there claiming that would be a perfectly desirable career.😁

Look, everyone thinks sheep ranching is this idyllic, peaceful little dream—just sitting out in the pasture under a big sky. It’s not. Not even close. In reality, it's a gritty, demanding job that requires you to be a jack-of-all-trades—you need a massive spectrum of knowledge just to keep things running smoothly.
You really have to keep a tight leash on those sheepdogs—seriously, if you don't know exactly how to handle them, they’ll take your hand off without a second thought.
Look, you also have to know how to actually fix things when they go south—like if a sheep breaks its leg, you need to know how to treat that injury. You’ve got to be able to assist with a difficult birth when a lamb is struggling. And then there's the whole issue of keeping the wolves and jackals at bay—which means, yeah, knowing your way around a firearm is pretty much a requirement. On top of all that, you need to be able to calm down agitated livestock; if things get really bad, you might even need to provide them with some semblance of psychological support.
You’ve got to herd the sheep. You have to wrangle them, shake things up, yell a bit, and keep everyone on their toes—all just so you can eventually stand there and flip the lamb on the spit for the rest of the ranch hands.

vividraven26 said:Look, I wasn't talking about people who are actually sick. It’s totally obvious you can't offer certain jobs to someone in that condition, and honestly, the real question is whether they can even find *any* work at all. What I meant was the healthy crowd—the ones turning down every single opening because it doesn't massage their ego enough. How many of them have degrees? Honestly, you can't count them. Even old folks will tell you, "Oh, my son/daughter went to a top university," but let's be real, with that specific degree, you aren't finding a job in America for the next 500 years because nobody needs what they learned, yet they still refuse to take up a regular blue-collar gig. Or you've got the former white-collar types who just can't stomach being laborers. Or the "handymen" working under the table, refusing to register and turning down legitimate work. I know the whole lot of them; I see them wandering around, sipping their lattes, acting like they're too good for the real world.

What I'm talking about are the people at the Department of Labor and how they go about looking for work. When an offer is put on the table, they reject everything. Sure, there's a mismatch in the market, that's true, but there are still people offering jobs, people accepting them, and then there are the ones rejecting them. Those are the ones I'm interested in, and frankly, I'm against them. They're the grateful voters because they get perks just by sitting around at the agency. If someone is at the Department of Labor and absolutely no one is offering them anything, fine, let them stay there—they probably have nowhere else to go with all those benefits and rights they're clinging to.

The Department of Labor is mostly there to handle the statistics on labor supply and demand in the market—they don't really hunt for jobs or hand them out themselves, I suppose.

If you want to find the privileged classes, you should probably look toward the public sector and those early retirement categories involving people who are technically still in the workforce (but maybe without the right education or experience to actually be competitive in the real world).

The Department of Labor, much like the Census Bureau, definitely has its purpose, but I don't think we need to give that agency more weight or importance than it actually deserves.

nimblemarlin6 said:Look, everyone thinks sheep ranching is this idyllic, peaceful little dream—just sitting out in the pasture under a big sky. It’s not. Not even close. In reality, it's a gritty, demanding job that requires you to be a jack-of-all-trades—you need a massive spectrum of knowledge just to keep things running smoothly.
You really have to keep a tight leash on those sheepdogs—seriously, if you don't know exactly how to handle them, they’ll take your hand off without a second thought.
Look, you also have to know how to actually fix things when they go south—like if a sheep breaks its leg, you need to know how to treat that injury. You’ve got to be able to assist with a difficult birth when a lamb is struggling. And then there's the whole issue of keeping the wolves and jackals at bay—which means, yeah, knowing your way around a firearm is pretty much a requirement. On top of all that, you need to be able to calm down agitated livestock; if things get really bad, you might even need to provide them with some semblance of psychological support.
You’ve got to herd the sheep. You have to wrangle them, shake things up, yell a bit, and keep everyone on their toes—all just so you can eventually stand there and flip the lamb on the spit for the rest of the ranch hands.

That's pretty much it. But I suppose some people think ranching is just sitting in the shade under a tree, listening to music while reading the USA Today.

wearyrider26 said:The Department of Labor is mostly there to handle the statistics on labor supply and demand in the market—they don't really hunt for jobs or hand them out themselves, I suppose.

If you want to find the privileged classes, you should probably look toward the public sector and those early retirement categories involving people who are technically still in the workforce (but maybe without the right education or experience to actually be competitive in the real world).

The Department of Labor, much like the Census Bureau, definitely has its purpose, but I don't think we need to give that agency more weight or importance than it actually deserves.

Honestly, if they aren't doing anything useful, why even have them? Just scrap the whole thing. People who actually want to work are already finding jobs through online listings anyway.