Community | March 20, 2011 | 79 comments

America's Stigmatization of the Unemployed

source: http://figrd.blogspot.com/2011/03/stigmatization-of-unemployed-posted-20.html

Image
figgdimension
One thing I have never understood in America is the way that people who lose their jobs become pariahs in the job market. We’ve now had a spate of commentary on the fact that official unemployment figures are looking a tad less dreadful by dint of the fact that increasing numbers of the long term unemployed have dropped out of the job market entirely. Even the conservative Washington Post woke up last week, Rip Van Winkle like, to take note of the growing number of long-term unemployed. Bizarrely, or perhaps as a fit illustration of the spirit of the day, the article was titled: “Hidden workforce challenges domestic economic recovery.” In other words, they are Bad People because if the economy ever picks up, they might come out of the woodwork and start looking for jobs!
Many pundits, such as Paul Krugman in his latest New York Times op-ed, have decried the lack of anything remotely resembling adequate responses to the unemployment problem, particularly that of the long-term unemployed. Ronald Reagan, hero of the right, was concerned when unemployment rose over 8% and took a series of corrective measures, including the Plaza Accord, which was a G-5 currency intervention to drive up the value of the yen. So why do we have a nominally Democratic president sitting on his hands in the face of much worse unemployment?
I’d argue that the roots lie in a fundamental change in policy that took place around 1980. The lesson that economists drew from the stagflation of the 1970s was that labor had too much bargaining power. The excessive fiscal stimulus of the later 1960s and the oil price shocks of the 1970s had been amplified by the fact that workers had enough clout to demand and get wage increases when they faces sustained price increases. That of course led to more price increases since higher wages led to higher production costs which led business owners to increase prices of their goods and servicer, thus accelerating the inflation already under way.
The solution, per neoclassical economists, was to use unemployment to keep wage demands in check. Thus having a lower level of employment even in good times and taking other measures, like weakening unions, was key to keeping those pesky workers from ever serving to create a reinforcing inflationary dynamic.
As an aside, there were other convenient (to the capital-owning classes) side effects of this policy. Before, there had been an explicit agreement between unions and employers embodied in the so-called Treaty of Detroit, which was that workers were to share in productivity gains. President Kennedy even warned major corporations that if they did not adhere to this understanding, he’d push through legislation to make sure they did. Since wage growth and productivity growth marched in near lockstep from 1950 to just after 1980, it appears white collar worker benefited from blue collar bargaining successes.
Mike Konczal points to a recent paper by Daniel J.B. Mitchell and Christopher L. Erickson that goes through twenty years of Fed transcripts. The Fed was clearly obsessed with unions; it saw them as actively bargaining for higher wages, which in a central bank that kept fighting the last war of runaway inflation, was to be discouraged. And let us not forget that that viewpoint turned traditional growth models on their head: rising worked incomes had been seen as the driver of prosperity.
Yet as much as I’d love to take a few more notches out of Greenspan’s reputation, I’m not a believer that the non-existent growth in real worker wages can be laid at this feet. Both the wage stagnation and the cessation of workers sharing in productivity gains dates started before Greenspan took the helm. As much as he has been sanctified for breaking the back of inflation (and putting banks through a lot of pain to do so), he was also explicit about seeing weaker worker wages as a sign of success (he carried a card in his pocket in which he was logging construction worker wages; he wanted to see them fall before he was prepared to declare victory). The Volcker Fed was no friend to the ordinary worker; Volcker was simply willing to put the banks through a lot of short term pain for their own long-term benefit.
Konczal asks for falsifiable hypotheses on this idea that the Fed was a big culprit in the fallen standing of labor. I don’t think they can be constructed, since monetary policy is a blunt instrument, and even though Greenspan began to break with the Fed’s traditional stance re independence, he was not an active player in the Administration’s policy setting. Moreover, the Greenspan put, which took hold in the 1990s (starting with the derivatives wipeout of 1994-5) meant if anything that Fed policy was overly loose.
The reason that that didn’t lead to firmer employment, as former Fed economist Richard Alford argues, was inattention to persistent trade deficits, and that was due to policy measures outside the Fed’s purview. The Fed failed to factor that in fully due to its reliance on macro models that assumed any trade deficits were transitory and hence could be ignored. But older-school economists would have recognized that sustained trade deficits meant that US stimulus, including monetary policy measures, would leak into foreign demand.
I think there have been significant second-order effects as a result of a restructuring of the American workplace by employer who like to claim that “employees are our most important asset”: but really treat them as expenses to be minimized, ruthlessly. One is the way unemployment quickly becomes a barrier to getting a job again. There has always been bit of a stigma surrounding unemployment, since the concern is that the individual lost his job for performance reasons, as opposed to bad luck (his company being acquired, say).
But I’ve seen the bias become far more ingrained over time, reinforced and rationalized by the bizarre way that companies now spec jobs. Whereas in the stone ages they’d hire a competent-seeming individual with some relevant experience, they now look for people who have done exactly the same job at a similar company. This overly narrow hiring spec then leads to absurd, widespread complaint that companies can’t find people with the right skills. That’s bunk. As Dean Baker has pointed out repeatedly, it means they need to pay more, or as I’d suggest, they need to broaden their horizon a tad. The idea that people need a lot of costly training is in most cases grossly exaggerated, a convenient “whocoulddanode” for manager who are quick to fire people and then discover when they want to gear back up that there are costs of brining new workers on, no matter how hard they try to minimize them.
This bias against those out of work is long-standing, although it has gotten worse over time. Talented people over 40 who have lost a corporate perch are pretty much unemployable; I cannot tell you over the last 15 years how many people I’ve seen retire early (and at a modest standard of living) who’d much rather be working. They are the high class version of this problem. And from what I can tell, a significant portion of new business formation is out of necessity: people who cannot find a job setting up their own single instead.
So this “skills” meme is basically an excuse for bad policy and lazy management. It allows for the rationalization of outcomes that would have been seen as unacceptable in the Reagan era. And it’s hard to pin this development on the Fed. This weakening of the position of workers is the result of both deliberate action and misguided economics frameworks. It’s time to take aim at the ideology, not just some of its key followers(more at link &sources)
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   Culture,   Random,   17 more
  2. tags:
    Economy,  Obama,  fed,  Unemployed,  3 more
  3.     
    |

79 comments // America's Stigmatization of the Unemployed

  • Mayeffie
  • JohnA
    • 0
      JohnA  

    • "Talented people over 40 who have lost a corporate perch are pretty much unemployable". Not true, not true at all. I was fired from a NYSE listed company that I worked at for years. I now work for a small business for better pay and better benefits. The hours are hell, but it pays the bills and that was what I was looking for. You may not get the perfect job you had, but there is a depression on and you have to take what you can get.

    • 1 year ago
  • Milieu
    • +1
      Milieu  

    • RE: Emucratic
      For some reason people tend to think that the unemployed are just lazy people who could find work if they wanted to

      That is an Absolutely true statement. Often, I have heard great Economic thinkers such as InSeanHannity, mAnn Coulter, and Bill O plus other greats espouse those same beliefs.

      And, hey, if you can't trust people like them, who can you trust.

      "The Tide comes in, and the Tide goes out."

    • 1 year ago
  • Maggielee
    • +1
      Maggielee  

    • Were you all aware that many companies blatantly state that "Unemployed Persons will Not be Considered" in their job notices? I was astounded when I head this. Apparently many companies have taken the notice down but still adhering to this bias policy. SOBs!

    • 1 year ago
  • percipi224
    • 0
      percipi224  

    • i perused the comments carefully and I didn't read anyone who pointed out that Mcd's, wal-mart etal have more people on welfare than any other company and not because they employ more people. they tend to hire only part time to avoid the whole have to abide by full time fed. laws like health care or sick leave, vacation etc. funny how these places hire mostly women. if you are a kid looking for work you are competeing with the 45 year old ex bank analyst who is trying to keep a roof over the head much less keep his family in the life style they have come accustomed to. I work full time on >7.82 an hour with a masters, my mortgage is only 668.00 add it up. Rent would be double btw so I am glad i could keep my house albiet in the dark, without water or gas, no car (i can walk to work) and little food. as it is my husband and i get by with his 1600 a month as well. we can still afford the luxery of internet and phone, car and house insurance and shopping for clothes at goodwill aint all that bad and we do manage to save a little each month just in case a tire blows out or a toilet starts leaking. our biggest splurge is a bottle of wine and 35 dollar riding lessons once a month for the 13 year old. life is good neh?
      i totally get the stigma of unemployment. in the 80's i was one of those very rich welfare queens Reagan talked about. on hud, no car, no phone. people thought I had just gotten out of jail or something, there biggest worry was who would take care of my kid if she was sick. Now, at 53 and 8 years looking for a mental health job i find my creds. stale and i don't have a social work degree so the institutes can't get money to pay me. this sucks big time. i spent thousands out of my pocket to get an education and guess what? Bush takes all the mental health dollars and gives it to preachers. great. talk about a wasted brain. I feel for everyone who did the right thing in order to get shut out for profits and ideology. No sweat at least i can recognize the on set of depression and heal myself...lolol mad laughter

    • 1 year ago
  • carmalite
    • +2
      carmalite  

    • Conservatives ALWAYS blame the victim first, unless, of course, its them.
      Just watch Fox long enough and you will hear them blaming the poor, the unemployed, even raped, abused children for their plight. And that constant ugly hateful drumbeat has coarsened conservative Americans even more than they were already coarse.

    • 1 year ago
  • good_stuff
    • +2
      good_stuff  
    • Image

    • Yes, I think this topic is very interesting. I like the fact that it is presented from a economist's perspective instead of the more typical social perspective.

      I think the most amazing part about this is the fact that high unemployment reduces inflation.

      http://www.peoi.org/Courses/mac/mac14.html

      Now, let me ask you this? Why are we seeing high inflation in food/gas and high unemployment? Is this economic theory wrong, or just too complex to really be modeled? Corporate overloards?

    • 1 year ago
  • figgdimension
  • Jeremy_Benson
    • 0
      Jeremy_Benson  
    • good_stuff:

      The inflation of food and gas prices that we are seeing now has little to do with any correlation to unemployment. I would imagine that in a market that is mostly influenced by national sources that graph would hold true, however the rise in food/gas has much to do with international forces. The turmoil in the middle east disrupts some oil pipelines as well as causing some hackles to raise in the investor community, driving prices up. Also, as the third world develops, the demand for food as well as products that require oil - and there are many besides gasoline - grows. India, for example, is seeing record demand for fresh produce and other common imports. Since much of our food and oil is imported - food especially during the winter - this puts us into direct competition that we haven't previously faced for supply lines, causing price inflation.

    • 1 year ago
  • Schnookums
    • +2
      Schnookums  
    • Image

    • Yves over at Naked Capitalism is a wonderful writer. This is the principle reason that the current group of sell-out politicians want to remove the "maximum employment" mandate from the private Federal Reserve......they feel it gets in the way of the "stable prices" mandate. Very few, of course, talk about removing the private Federal Reserve from monetary policy altogether, but at least we're talking about it.

      To look at how "stable prices" might fare when the maximum employment mandate is removed, look at a chart of how the dollar's value held up (or didn't) prior to the addition of the 1977 maximum employment mandate. To me, it looks more like the private Federal Reserve itself is the problem......not their mandates.

    • 1 year ago
  • figgdimension
    • +2
      figgdimension  
    • Schnookums:

      Yes she is... Probably my fav economic writer for sure(she doesn't mince her words does she,god love her!) ,,...theres a couple other writers helping too at Naked Capitalism and her book econned

    • 1 year ago
  • remanns
    • +1
      remanns  

    • Good points, I think.

      [ I think there have been significant second-order effects as a result of a restructuring of the American workplace by employer who like to claim that “employees are our most important asset”: but really treat them as expenses to be minimized, ruthlessly. One is the way unemployment quickly becomes a barrier to getting a job again. There has always been bit of a stigma surrounding unemployment, since the concern is that the individual lost his job for performance reasons, as opposed to bad luck (his company being acquired, say).]

    • 1 year ago
  • existentialist
    • -2
      existentialist  

    • “Hidden workforce challenges domestic economic recovery.” "In other words, they are Bad People"

      That title in no way implies that long-term unemployed are bad people. This is an example of someone reading what they want to read instead of what it actually says. If a headline reads "Flu Season Challenges Local Hospital" no rational person would take from that: sick people are "bad people." They are just adding an extra challenge to the hospital in the same way large numbers of long-term unemployed are adding an extra challenge to the economy.

      "And from what I can tell, a significant portion of new business formation is out of necessity: people who cannot find a job setting up their own single instead."

      The author says this like it is a bad thing. Ultimately, the government and businesses are NOT responsible for ensuring a person has a job: It is up to each individual. Heck, I was able to live for a year buying and reselling on eBay.

    • 1 year ago
  • hmhn22
  • remanns
  • extracrazykiwi2008
  • extracrazykiwi2008
    • +2
      extracrazykiwi2008  

    • I have noticed the very same thing as a unemployed person myself. I am in my early 30's, well educated and I have over 11 years of sales and management experience. I cant find anything new in the Boston area! I feel that I am pigen-holed to fill only the very same position that I held before. I am even willing to take a 50% pay cut to enter into a new career field, but I have not had a single chance to interview for anything.

    • 1 year ago
  • existentialist
  • Milieu
  • existentialist
    • 0
      existentialist  
    • Milieu:

      "It generally takes 2-5 years to recover financially from a move of any distance"

      I don't know where you got that information, it has never taken anybody I know that long to recover from a move. That is total nonsense. Maybe you can explain how that works.

      "Plus, all the "Up-Front" money you have to make the move."

      That is why you move before you are dead broke or out of unemployment insurance.

    • 1 year ago
  • artemis6
    • +8
      artemis6  

    • It is all part of that "blame the victim" mentality that has been fostered and dutifully absorbed the last few decades .

    • 1 year ago
  • figgdimension
  • worldnews_daily
  • figgdimension
    • +1
      figgdimension  
    • worldnews_daily:

      No doubt and the homeless and the working poor and anybody with a heart any true American ,... any veteran any homeowner or used to be homeowner every victim of Violence and ignorance and greed... Yea pretty much obody's slept well except...hmmmmm the rich the elite the PIGS

    • 1 year ago
  • Emucratic
  • existentialist
    • -6
      existentialist  
    • Emucratic:

      "Wasting time selling burgers won't make the cut"

      I worked at McDonald's with no less than three husband/wife couples. Two of the couples had young kids, so one would work the day shift and the other the evening shift. They were able to provide for their family just fine. In fact, millions of people provide for their families on fast-food salary. What makes you so different that you cannot do the same?

      "Those people have paid into the system for years"

      When UI keeps getting extended it goes past what most people have paid into and starts causing other problems.

    • 1 year ago
  • good_stuff
    • +4
      good_stuff  
    • existentialist:

      You can't be serious? How do you pay for your children to go to college working at McD's? What happens if one of those kids or worse yet, the adults gets sick? Flipping burgers is for highschoolers trying to earn money over summer break. I have no doubt that a family can get by for a little while on that sort of money, but if something catastrophic happens you can sure bet they are on welfare/streets pretty quick. I wouldn't brag about something you obviously have only heard about 2nd hand. I don't think your coworkers were telling you the whole story.

    • 1 year ago
  • existentialist
    • -4
      existentialist  
    • good_stuff:

      I'm not bragging or saying they are living some glamorous lifestyle, but rather it is a fact of life that millions of people raise families on close to minimum wage jobs. McDonald's provides insurance for family members who get sick. Scholarships, students loans and grants get the kids through college. Even McDonald's provides scholarships for employees and their families. Low income families getting surprisingly good grants.

      "Flipping burgers is for highschoolers trying to earn money over summer break."

      That mentality is the problem. People think they are better than the people who make ends meet working fast-food. This article talks about how the rich despise the lower classes, yet many many middle-class people seem to hold same attitudes towards the lower class. I know from personal experience that no one is too good to live in the "bad" part of town. I am sorry if you feel you deserve a better job than flipping burgers, but the reality is you don't need a house with a two-car garage in the suburbs to survive or even to raise a happy and healthy family.

    • 1 year ago
  • hammywill
  • SamFL
  • existentialist
    • 0
      existentialist  
    • hammywill:

      It probably depends on what your standard of living is, because I am sure there are people getting by on McDonald's wages there. I won't argue with you though, but there is always the option of moving. I used to live in Modesto, but things could have changed in the last 10 years.

    • 1 year ago
  • existentialist
    • 0
      existentialist  
    • SamFL:

      That sucks. I worked at a place that never gave full-time even after I became a manager. Shouldn't be too hard to become an assistant manager though. A lot of McDonald's are franchises, so maybe if you tried another location they could give you full-time. Or maybe walmart then?

    • 1 year ago
  • figgdimension
    • +1
      figgdimension  
    • existentialist:

      Yes, ... In the Existentialist's Candy land Game sure your so outta touch just give up douche your so wrong on everything you say its just pointless when your just saying what you've been programmed to say, nobody feels that way ,and anyone who REALLY had friends would never talk about the way they raise their wonderful fast food kids(or brag about there job at mcdeaths) ---Im sure the kids are fit as a fiddle too and see their parents what 5mins a day you suck and no nothing about people or their struggles your a liar flat out you FAIL philosophy drop-out douche-bag robot go away your not fooling anyone here we've seen "Your" kind BLEEP BLEEP ...before.... Game Over Atari

    • 1 year ago
  • figgdimension
    • 0
      figgdimension  
    • existentialist:

      I know now your a liar and i don't abide liars so talk to the hand I wont be commenting to your asinine statements anymore and I recommend the rest of you do the same till X grows up and stops lieng and gets real

    • 1 year ago
  • figgdimension
  • hammywill
    • +1
      hammywill  
    • existentialist:

      No, I don't mean by standard of living. When the owner of a McDonald's is making $10,000 of profit a MONTH and their workers are all part time minimum wage workers, it is impossible to make a living here. It is also impossible to make anywhere near enough money to save up and move.

      Even if one were full time at California minimum wage and is lucky enough to get 40 hours a week (California law says that if you work 32+ a week you are full time, so you could be given only 32 hours a week.) You would make around $17,000 a year. Now the Standard of Living Wage in the Bay Area is close to $37,000 a year. This means that a full time, minimum wage earning McDonald's employee in San Jose, Ca is making $20,000 below the average wage for the area. You can imagine how difficult it is for them to find affordable housing, food, energy.

    • 1 year ago
  • tlbuffin
  • SamFL
  • existentialist
    • 0
      existentialist  
    • figgdimension:

      Sorry you find it so hard to believe that you don't have to be rich to be happy. You are the one who knows nothing about peoples struggles; you paint the lower-class as ignorant, unhappy, dependent bottom-feeders who need you to be their champion. Well they don't need or want you to champion for them. If they are not miserable and helpless then your empty arguments and conspiracy BS fail.

      Have you ever even worked a minimum wage job?

    • 1 year ago
  • existentialist
  • existentialist
    • 0
      existentialist  
    • tlbuffin:

      Did you live in a lower-end area? After searching for houses and apartments in San Fran, I don't see how you couldn't of lived well making that much. There were plenty of houses less than $100,000 and plenty of apartments less than $700 per month.

      Also, whether you find it impossible or not, the fact is, people do make a living flipping burgers.

    • 1 year ago
  • tlbuffin
  • existentialist
    • 0
      existentialist  
    • tlbuffin:

      I am sure prices are lower now for houses. On trulia is where I found the houses and apartments. I admit, it is pretty expensive in San Fran; my arguments are weaker in areas with a large cost of living / minimum wage discrepancy, but for the country as a whole I am pretty dead on. There are places with high costs of living and if times are tough I think a feasible solution is moving to a city with a lower cost of living (before you are dead broke or out of unemployment).

    • 1 year ago
  • KSirys
  • figgdimension
  • cmc101
    • +3
      cmc101  

    • get the free-loafing tax dodgers bonus receiving money enterprises start investing in jobs, or pay taxes and start pack-en Move in with the drug dealers out of this country. Suggest Libya and keep low I have a remote control and IT WORKS .

    • 1 year ago
  • figgdimension
  • figgdimension
  • corndog67
    • +1
      corndog67  

    • Pretty timely. I interviewed last week for a manufacturing job here in Central CA. I am working right now, but looking (I'm always looking, don't like to get caught out by surprise). The guy told me that he received a lot of resumes from unemployed people, this is for a skilled journeyman position, but was considering me because in his experience, people that are long term unemployed, are unemployed for a reason. His words, not mine.

      He told me that someone that has been out of work for 2 or 3 or 4 years, either does not know how to work, or does not want to work.

    • 1 year ago
  • kayatz3
  • extracrazykiwi2008
    • 0
      extracrazykiwi2008  
    • corndog67:

      SAD! That is really messed up, but many employers think the very same thing.

      Many employers that I know, want to steal the very same employee from their competition or a similar company. The idea of training anyone seems unreasonable since they figure they can temp the perfect employee from another company. What ever happened to employer or employee loyalty?

    • 1 year ago
  • corndog67
    • 0
      corndog67  
    • extracrazykiwi2008:

      There is no employer or employee loyalty anymore. I make a decent wage, but I'm willing to go where they will pay me more. My employers would do the same, either get someone cheaper, or get them from another company so they don't have to train them.

      But young people do not seem to want to go into my field, machinist, so I feel pretty safe in the jobs that I get, in the sense that I can get another pretty much anytime.

    • 1 year ago
  • hunzedog
  • figgdimension
  • bailey78
  • Shanekwa
  • figgdimension
  • ClassicalGas
  • Shanekwa
  • ClassicalGas
  • existentialist
    • -8
      existentialist  
    • hunzedog:

      I am sure if you spent less time smoking weed and more time looking for a job you would find one and would be able to pass the drug test to get it. Surely there are Wal-Marts and McDonald's there. You could also start your own business, surely you got some skills.

    • 1 year ago
  • existentialist
  • hunzedog
  • existentialist
  • hunzedog
    • +3
      hunzedog  
    • bailey78:

      how are things in florida you ask.

      zero tolerance for cannabis....they will take your car for a roach...

      but in broward county you can get all the friggin oxycontins you want...

      a dozen people die every day from those pills in florida....even more in ky ......

      cannabis never hurt anybody......but you know that already...

      yippee

    • 1 year ago
  • existentialist
    • -5
      existentialist  
    • hunzedog:

      Just in case you got the wrong idea, my comment isn't about whether or not drugs tests are correct or fair, but about doing what one has to support themselves. If a person prioritizes getting high over getting a job than maybe marijuana is a problem for that person. I'm taking a break from smoking right now so I can find a job for some extra summer cash. I don't even know if it applies to you, but if a person can't get a job because of failed drug tests it is no one's fault but his own.

    • 1 year ago
  • hunzedog
    • +2
      hunzedog  
    • existentialist:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IhPI6sK1tc
      i digress...i say they shouldnt have that right in the first place.
      what if they gave a gay test....
      what if they tested you for masturbation when you apply for a job.
      what about people who have a doctor say they need marijuana.
      should those people take tests.

      its nobodys friggin business what i do with my body.
      but insurance companies mandate drug tests...
      why.....
      cannabis does not impair people....
      cannabis cures cancer....
      my body is made with a endocannabinoid system....

      im gunna use it.

      xanax and valium and oxy and all the other pills are ok.

      100 million people smoke weed...

      SOON IT WILL BE LEGAL ......

    • 1 year ago
  • hunzedog
  • hunzedog
    • +4
      hunzedog  
    • existentialist:

      ciggaretts kill friggin 500,000 people a year.....
      do you think that causes illness or bad performance at work...
      taking cig breaks every 30 minutes.....
      why not drug test for cigs....?

      its a rackett....

    • 1 year ago
  • existentialist
    • -2
      existentialist  
    • hunzedog:

      I agree that companies shouldn't drug test; if I get high it is nobodies business. At the same time if I have to not get high in order to get a job, that is a tiny, tiny sacrifice. If marijuana is so much a part of a person that they can't quit for a month or two every once-in-awhile, than I believe marijuana is a problem for that person. Its not the same as being gay or masturbating. But if a company did a chocolate test, no matter how unfair, I would recognize that is the requirement and stop eating chocolate for awhile before I applied for the job. There are so many other arbitrary factors that job-seekers submit themselves to in order to find a job: dressing nice, getting a haircut, shaving, etc..., that quitting weed for a month shouldn't be a big deal and, if anything, shows the employer you are willing to make sacrifices if necessary.

      Also, if you believe that cannabis doesn't impair people you have been smoking so long you must have forgotten what is like to be sober. It sure as hell impairs me. I sometimes have trouble relating stories to my friends when I am stoned, I couldn't imagine having to conduct a business meeting all hashed-out. I forget stuff, lose my line of thought, perform tasks slower than when sober and that's not even mentioning what it does to my motivation. I am an advocate for marijuana legalization and I am against drug tests, but you are straight up lying when you say marijuana doesn't impair people. Of course everybody I have ever got stoned (they call it stoned because people who smoke sit their like rocks, not wanting to move) with and myself could just be anomalies.

    • 1 year ago
  • bailey78
  • existentialist
    • -1
      existentialist  
    • hunzedog:

      Some companies do test for cigarettes. Of course, I am against that too. I am against extra breaks for smokers and don't see a problem with not allowing smoking weed or tobacco on work grounds at all.

    • 1 year ago
  • bailey78
  • hunzedog
    • 0
      hunzedog  
    • existentialist:

      if you dont like things made by potheads your world is gunna change...
      throw away your computer and quit watching movies and stop listening to music too...

      some people dont get it.............

    • 1 year ago
  • hunzedog
  • existentialist
  • figgdimension
  • figgdimension
  • hunzedog
more from Community:
from the community

top videos