What sort of help would you want or expect? A severance package or help by having the employer pay a recruiter to pimp the former employee? Or something else? In any case I'm totally fine with the idea of no help being offered provided such an exit clause is not part of the contract of employment the employee signed. If you want some specific sort of help from your old company in the event they fire you for cause, require that to be in the contract before you accept employment.
The goal is precisely feel good charity tourism as a safe adventure you don't need to quit your job over, so it seems like good advice to me. Remember, the top comment is looking for a 'safe' adventure, not trying to be maximally efficient in improving the lives of strangers.
> The goal is precisely feel good charity tourism as a safe adventure you don't need to quit your job over, so it seems like good advice to me.
That might be the nathan_f77's apparently stated goal, but nathan_f77 also states they do not really know what they want. Charity tourism is just disgusting racist white savior paternalism that exploits POC-in-former-colonies poverty for white-people-from-former-colonizer-countries ego inflation. You use the word 'safe' in quotes so I assume you know this: the phrase "safe adventure" is literally an oxymoron (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adventure). Charity tourism might just turn out to be one of those unfulfilling consumer experiences the poster is looking to avoid, wrapped in a feel-good veneer.
There's also the basic observation that many big companies that provide valuable products and services pay rich people lots of money to run them or compensate them for their financial help. Would there be an Uber at all without anyone getting rich off it?
Another observation - when we need a doctor or a lawyer, we find their contributions to us to be worth so much we'll pay them more than we pay a cleaner. After all, we could do the cleaning ourselves if we had to but the barrier to start operating on ourselves or writing our own contracts is higher and those rich people have invested work in overcoming that barrier so they could provide those services to people who can't.
Isn't that basically what you'd expect with a progressive tax system? Paying taxes is not the only way to contribute to society -- almost all the money people earn do to some extent, through taxes, and consumption, and investments, etc. Which contributes more I don't know. That's why I was hoping for a citation.
To your second point, there is evidence that CEO performance is negatively related to their pay: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1572085. Measuring competence is difficult, wealth is a appealing proxy but maybe not that reliable.
Practice your softer skills for interviewing. Do you get anxiety over other aspects of the interview, like the fact that there's an interview itself? Work on that. Many times candidates get hired even if they bombed some aspect of the technical portion of the interview, for various subjective reasons. (Also consider asking for a take-home problem where they give you 2 hours or whatever to email back the solution. It can help if that is solid but your on-the-spot whiteboarding is shaky.)
Also consider an SDET role, those can sometimes be easier to get and then you work internally on removing the T if you really don't like that sort of work.
Have you looked into commercial real estate at all? One of the factors that scares me off from residential real estate is that one bad tenant can really screw me over, especially as I'm just getting started. It intuitively seems like if you can get a business to pay rent on a property instead you're less likely to have a disaster situation...
The best explanation is that they were starting to impinge on sales of the F-150 -- which is probably the most profitable vehicle ever produced by humans.
The problem was CAFE; the Ranger was too small and too inefficient to meet increasingly stringent CAFE standards. CAFE rules are based on the "footprint" of the vehicle, basically the area between the wheels, and in 2012 the "light truck" target would edge past the Ranger's footprint/economy combination. There's a detailed article here: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-com...
Redesigning the Ranger to have a larger footprint results in a mid-sized pickup only slightly smaller than the base model F-150, which is where the sales-cannibalism problem comes in.
Exactly. Producing small trucks with the options/amenities American consumers expect was less profitable than shifting that consumption to full-size trucks.
In the same time span, full-size trucks have grown a fair bit, so it appears it's now possible to market a mid-size truck (the Canyon and Tacoma are quite a bit larger than the old S-10 or Ranger). Nobody is actually selling compact trucks in the US any more, nor does anybody plan to do so (that I've seen).
I thought the death of the compact truck was more due to the fact that full sized trucks now get good enough fuel economy that's it's just not worth having a smaller truck.
For me, age 26, I'm already slower than I was when I was 18. I write better code though and can wade through harder abstractions, so on hard, novel material I'd likely win against my old self. Still, I really detest the "work" aspect of work which I don't wake up excited to do, so my plan that I'm on track for is to be "retired" by 32. Why slave until I'm 50? I've even considered depleting my savings earlier on to take a couple years off and then come back, delaying "retirement" by a few years but potentially making the "come back" slog much more pleasant. (I don't think I'll ever master the tricks other, often older, people seem to have about becoming excited to do even the mundane or just being able to plow through it regardless of 'motivation' or 'pleasantness'. My mother basically worked her whole adult life until she died, I don't understand how but sometimes wish such a mindset was more genetic.)
