I have experienced this first hand. I have applied for a LOT of jobs in the last 2 years and one of two things happens: They don't talk to me, or they do, and I sail past the preliminary interviews only to get rejected after the background check. I am not a felon, a terrorist, or a scourge of society. I have bad credit.(Funny/sad aside, I once went to Best Buy to see if I could get a card to finance something with the idea of improving my credit score. I was rejected summarily. I was trying to buy a toaster. I literally can't finance a toaster.) This scarlet letter had precluded me from any job paying a living wage. And that's why I'm retraining myself. No one cares what the FICO score of a talented software engineer is. At least, that's what I desperately hope the case is. For recruiters out there: Do you care about the credit of a potential coder?
I've always wondered why an employer would demand good credit. Even if the person is a spendthrift, what does it matter so long as they perform their job?
My employee could be living in a shack having had every single item of worth repossessed... but if they can do their job well, why wouldn't I hire them?
In any case, I know what you mean - I'm from Canada, and arrived in the US after the financial meltdown and subsequent tightening of the credit belt. I still don't have a credit rating since I couldn't convince any major bank in the USA to give me a credit card. Yes, this includes secured credit cards (i.e., you leave a month's credit limit with the bank in cash, if you miss your bill at all, they take the entire sum... aka zero risk for the bank) And yes, my credit in Canada is stellar - but that counts for absolutely zip in this country.
It's not until very recently that I was able to flash about an employer's name and convince one of them to cut me some slack. It'll be months still before my credit score populates - this has made renting apartments, and just about everything a nightmare.
The only way I've been able to skate by is by flashing an offer letter and pay stubs showing I make >3x the US median income... imagine if my pay was dead average... I'd be fucked.
At a guess, it probably indicates that the employee is a higher than an average risk of engaging in fraud (to pay off debts), and it probably does, again on average, speak to their discipline, maturity, life skills, etc.
The trouble with that thinking is of course the multitude of reasons that someone can get into debt through no fault of their own - especially in the US with health care - the fact that people often mature faster than their credit score recovers, not to mention situations like your own where there's no credit score to begin with.
I'm glad that in my native Australia, as another poster pointed out, it's illegal to discriminate based on credit score for hiring purposes. It seems that the small amount of good businesses may get from this discrimination is way out balanced by the harm it causes society in general - though obviously I'm preaching to the choir here :)
Agreed. Also the less you're paid, and the less responsibility you have, the more you're scrutinized. Maybe because they can, maybe because at that level there are things you can physically steal, or break. Also maybe (please, I'm speculating) at that level there are likely to be more irresponsible people, and the time and expense of credit, drug and security checks becomes worthwhile.
I'm guessing your in the bay area? Goto the bank of america close to the stanford mall (which is next door to stanford), open an ebanking checking account and credit card. There is a canadian credit program that BoA has that should give you a ~$2000 credit limit card. Most BoA people are fairly clueless (Stanford mall BoA employees are pretty good!), but they do have it. If you can't go there, ask the BoA retail banker to look up the "Diplomat, Large Corporate and Canadian Client Consumer Credit Card Special Handling Form" and the "Bank of America credit card application - BankAmericard Power Rewards Visa Card Diplomat, Large Corporate and Canadian Clients" and they'll have to fill out a W-8BEN since you haven't had a US tax return yet. They'll also need your employment verification letter (your address on the letter will also help), your passport with your visa, your Canadian SIN and your american SSN.
Citibank also has a program where if your a 'newcommer' and can show proof of $1000-$2000 average balance in an american bank account for 3 months or $5000+ in a canadian bank account for 6+ months, they will give you a credit card. They'll need the employment verification letter with your total compensation and address (and passport, and SSN card, and other standard things). If I'm guessing your wage correctly you can get a $9000+ credit limit card from citi. I went to a citibank on El Camino close to Stanford.
Thirdly, Capital One has a newcommer card. I just filled out the application for that online and I got a $500 limit card. I think you just need a new/blank SSN for that one to work. If you can actually talk to an actual person, you might be able to get a better credit limit. They also offered to open a secured card with me when I talked to them on the phone.
Also if you've had an RBC account for 6+ months in Canada, you can get an american credit card from them over the phone. They're a big PITA about it although so I eventually didn't go that route. HSBC premier clients can get sweet credit transfer services worldwide, the US included. I was told in Canada that they do credit transfers after having any sort of account for 3 months with them, but the HSBC banker said they thought only premier clients could get that (that was at the palo alto branch where ~90% of their clients are premier clients, on a barely staffed saturday, so she said she might be wrong). On the east coast TD bank also has a much larger presence, but they will only service you if you live on the east coast. Also American Express canada will also transfer your card over to the US if you've had a card with them in Canada. Also applying for those airline credit cards inside airports and W-8BEN and the employment letter might work too.
If you want to avoid credit checks most of the time, go room mates and explain you just moved from canada. As long as you have a job most roommates don't care about credit histories. People in the bay area are big flakes about roommates, pounce on it and get it setup (deposit and all) right there if you like the place.
Also, best kind of banking there is BoA ebanking for atm cash/check deposits and charles schwab for your paycheck/main account. Schwab refunds all ATM fees worldwide and they don't charge a currency exchange spread, unlike the %2-3 you get everywhere. Great for whenever you fly back to Canada, or travel anywhere in the world. They don't give duplicate cards although, you have to open another free account with them to do that.
Thank you for a very helpful and specific answer here.
For folks who do not have exactly this situation, the easiest way to boostrap up a US credit card history is to go to the bank you have direct deposit with (they have the most reason to like you) and ask to open a secured card. They will open a special savings account and require you to fund it, generally to the tune of $500. That account is then frozen: it continues to accrue (pitiful) interest, but you can't withdraw it. They will simultaneously issue you a credit card with a $500 limit. It is exactly like every other credit card: you pay interest if you revolve balances, it has to be paid on time, and it reports to the credit bureaus.
After 6 to 12 months of "good behavior", they will a) unfreeze your deposit and b) "upgrade" the credit card from a secured card to one of their standard beginning product lines. Expect something like a $2,000 limit at a fairly unfavorable interest rate, much like you'd get if you were a college student.
Continue periodically buying a stick of gum on that card and paying it when it is due, and you'll have 800 FICO within about two years.
Or pay to fuel your vehicle with it and then set aside an equivalent amount of cash and pay the balance off when the bill comes. Of course, if you don't own a car, you can pick some other thing that you'd ordinarily only buy with cash.
Years ago, when I graduated from HS, I had my credit ruined for me by a thief. What I know now that I didn't understand then was that if I had pressed charges, things would have gone differently. But somehow I've managed to slither through life with almost no credit. It's sad to see that times have changed.
I heard this for the first time on HN the other day. I think (and certainly hope) it's illegal for potential employers in Australia to use your credit file as a factor in deciding whether or not to hire you.
Not hiring people with bad credit seems to me to be patently absurd. Talk about kicking someone when they're down - as if non-payment of debt was a crime!
It seems that the likely result of this for most is the development of a disenfranchised underclass of black market employees.
Having healthcare attached to employment makes this all the more despicable.
Why aren't people in the U.S just rioting in the streets?! This is the real outrage.
Not sure about hiring but I just checked my employment agreement (I'm in Oz) and my employer can definitely fire me if I declare bankruptcy:
*the Company may terminate your employment without notice (no payment in lieu of notice will be paid) in any of the following circumstances:
×If you become unable to pay your debts as they become due
×If you are declared bankrupt;
According to the letter of the contract, it sure seems that way.
I went over the contract with the HR team back in the states (I was transferred over to Oz) and they thought these clauses were very strange. Especially considering that Australian workers have much stronger labor rights in practically every other way compared to the US.
I'm Australian but not a lawyer... have heard "unable to pay debts as and when they fall due" as a definition of insolvency, which requires one to declare bankruptcy if directing, say, a limited liability company. The actual act of becoming bankrupt is separate to insolvency, though, so they're probably just trying to cover all bases.
Again, not a lawyer, and only passingly familiar with this stuff, so excuse me if I'm stating the obvious or if it's the same the world over.
I suspect you'll find that clause in your contract is to protect your sponsoring employer from liability in the event that you declare bankruptcy. That is, they cease to be your sponsor and thus absolve themselves of any liability.
Because you'll become poor, and then medicaid and welfare will cover you, somewhat. It's a healthcare system with cracks, but it covers the elderly, college students, most of the employed and the poor, which is the vast majority of the voting populace.
What you're saying is true, but It's difficult to imagine a common scenario where someone with a lot of poor credit decisions has a lot of cash on hand, as those credit decisions usually occur because of limited cash flow.
Also, companies can tell when low scores result from sparse history or poor decisions. They don't just get a 3-digit number. The issue here isn't low scores per se, but low scores resulting from poor history.
Your experience stands in stark contrast to what the general belief of the tech media, including HN, is. Specifically, that the job market for engineers is extremely tight and that even junior developers can name their price, that recruiters are spamming everyone who has ever written a line of ruby, and that even the dumbest ideas are attaining ludicrous levels of funding.
I find it interesting that this 'tale of two cities' situation is becoming more pronounced.
I think the article does a pretty good job. I've figured several times that there is no "talent shortage" but a "training shortage": companies want people with skills they learn on the job but are unwilling to actually train anyone.
So you've got a bunch of companies sitting around waiting for a miracle to happen. Maybe HR imagines that a Google product exec will fall from the sky and accept $40k a year.
Even traditionally 'entry level' jobs that historically don't need a four-year degree are like this these days - secretary/receptionist jobs are almost always looking for people with two or three years of prior experience.
I wonder how much of this is due to the job market. Is it a supply and demand issue, where there are simply so many applicants that HR can sit back and wait for the perfect candidate? Or is the reluctance to hire less-experienced workers a long-term behavior shift that will stick around even if the worker supply dries up?
Uh, the outrage is over on reddit. Let's leave it to them, please. There are plenty of things to be outraged about to the point we could innondate the site with them.
Down the path of "outrage!" lies discussions about abortion, gay rights, appropriate levels of taxation, health care systems and any number of other topics that people feel VERY STRONGLY about.
The article also says 4.3 Americans have been jobless for months if not years. If this number includes those who are in prison, that means that nearly half of what is counted as unemployment is actually within the prison system.
Part of me says there are way too many people in prison, but the other side says, what if these people weren't in prison? Would the actual number of people competing for jobs be higher?
Simple arithmetic says yes, there would be more competition for jobs.
But you're talking about a dramatic change in US public policy. A first-order approximation is not sufficient, and higher-order approximations depend heavily on what guesses you want to make about the social outcomes.
What's the alternative to being in prison and what are their prospects? I suspect that employers of the sorts of jobs that the incarcerated could find are probably not that eager to hire people with a history of drug use[-1] regardless of its legality, but I do not have any data.
[-1]I also suspect that this is the main source of the incarcerations. But I'm not a US resident, I don't have any data here, either.
That's an interesting chart, although it's for state prisons, drug offenses are the main source of incarcerations for federal prisons: http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp#2
usually, 'unemployment' figures refer only to those who are actually currently on unemployment insurance payments. which is one of the serious problems with that number.
I'd wager close to another 1 in 5 works for the government directly or indirectly. And I assume we're not including retirees in any of this.
The ratio of retirees to workers continues to get worse. In the 1940s, there were 42 workers per retiree. Today there are 3.3 workers per retiree.
So you have a shrinking group of people who are actually producing (total workforce minus unemployed, minus goverment workers, minus workers who exist due to government purchasing) and a growing number of people who get a chunk of that production.
Some of them produce useful goods and services, but at a drastically lower efficiency than the private sector due to lack of competition and economic incentives (spending other people´s money). Still it´s good that someone is planning out the roads and running fire departments, even if they´re bad at it. On the other hand, the government also produces a lot of counterproductive ´services´ like war, financial meltdowns, and software patents. It´s in no way obvious that government employees as a whole do less harm than good.
I think that your position is ideological and not correct. The government provides institutions that lower risk to the rest of the economy and enable more stability and growth.
Is regulatory capture a problem at some agencies? Sure. Are some departments outdated or ineffective? Sure. But it is irresponsible to look at a few cases and claim that the entire government is a problem.
You want to see less government? Visit Yemen or gangster Russia
"You want to see less government? Visit Yemen or gangster Russia"
Quite a strange statement given that the governments of both those countries are central to their problems and deeply involved in crime and corruption themselves. In Yemen the government employees shoot innocent people in broad daylight with impunity. Real libertarian haven they've got there.
I can't speak for all government agencies, but in the area of the government that I work, we have created no software patents at all. In fact nearly all the software we create is open source, and we are encouraged to use and contribute to other open source products. It's the very fact that we do not have a profit motive that allows us to do this.
I'm not saying they don't work hard. I'm just saying that there is a growing list of people whose livelihood depends on the government writing them a check and the government gets its money from taxing citizens and businesses.
If 1.5 out of 5 people are retired, 1 out of 5 people aren't working, and 1 out of 5 people work directly or indirectly for government, that's about 70% of the population surviving because the government writes them a check (probably a bit less-- some retirees actually saved money for retirement).
Because hamstringing and stifling business activity that does not comply with the interests or arbitrary whims of politically connected powers is not an economically productive activity?
It's been more than a generation since women started making more money than men in some households due to increases in equality between the sexes. The phrasing and positioning used implies that a stay-at-home dad is something that we should be reacting to as an economic problem.
In other words, it required the assumption that men are the proper breadwinners in heterosexual households.
Perhaps the article writer was making the assumption you imply, but there's potentially more to it than that.
Members of households all need to contribute, and while I am neither female nor married, I have heard from many married females that unemployed men do not generally tend to assume the duties of housekeeping. That is to say, the wife winds up both breadwinning and housekeeping, and the man does not contribute. This is broken.
It's sexist of me to generalize (and certainly I hope if I wind up married and unemployed, I won't let my partner take all the burden), and it may well not be what the author was thinking of, but if we take feminine anecdotes at face value there are more reasons to encourage men to be breadwinners than simply because it's their role.
Hear hear. Also, besides that, there is still a fairly widespread (if minor) stigma to making less than one's wife. It's not necessarily the writer making that judgement.
I agree, in that the article is sexist by omitting half of the adult population! When reading it, I was expecting to see the equivalent numbers for women out of the workforce, but the author didn't provide this information. Women have an equal 'right' to work, but this is ignored by the article.
You're reading something into the article that isn't there. Perhaps that is what the author was getting at, but he certainly didn't make it clear. Rather it could simply be referring to an increase in the number of single-income households.
And salaries for women still tend to be lower than those for men. Is it sexist to point this out?
The article is sexist from the title... it is gender specific from the beginning for no apparent economic or societal reason other than to be outright sexist.
It's not mentioned in the article, but the unemployment rate among men is higher than among women. Even if it weren't, there is absolutely nothing sexist about an article which addresses unemployment for one sex to the exclusion of the other, just as there would be nothing racist about an article on unemployment among blacks, whites, et cetera.
I think seanmcq is referring to the implication that "getting by" means subsistence wage (of the wife).
I don't think it was a sexist statement, but rather the focus is on "getting by." It could've been "getting by on his partner's wage" (if he were homosexual).
So if a tool made in China cost $20 and the same kind made in USA cost $100, which one do you think people are going to buy at the hardware store (even if the one made in China lasts 1/4th as long).
What if there was a tax that made the one made in China cost $70 - you think the one made in USA would have a fighting chance? I think so. It would create a whole bunch of jobs because there would be less impulse to move jobs overseas.
What if that $50 was used for single payer health care so that "job providers" didn't have pay for health insurance or play that game and compete with the international market.
You know what happens if we tax the hell out of cheap overseas goods? Everything gets more expensive. Cost of living skyrockets and wages would have to go up commensurately if people were going to survive/thrive. Businesses who raised wages would have to curtail hiring because more of their revenues were going to wages.
Any they'd keep shipping jobs overseas because of the healthy margins selling in overseas markets. Start taxing that stuff too and see how many corporations decide that being a US company isn't so awesome anymore...
Right, and you're not even discussing the subsequent tariff war. Other countries would tax the hell out of American goods, global demand for our goods will fall, we'd produce less, companies would make less money, and people would lose their jobs.
We barely sell anything overseas as it is - what exactly are they going to "tax the hell out of" ?
Have you seen the mountain of shipping containers in our ports from inbounds with no outbounds? They are stacked a dozen high over HUNDREDS of acres of land. No exaggeration.
We are the only potential consumers of our own products - because every other job has been shipped overseas that can easily shipped. Most of what is left is services and assembling components made elsewhere (auto industry).
I'm tired of hearing this from people. The US exported more than every country except China and Germany last year.[0] We're the leading producer of airplane components and engines, and we still produce a high volume of heavy equipment that goes overseas.
> Or they would buy fewer things that they actually needed, and that would probably last longer.
Unfortunately that's a recipe for economic disaster.
> Not an idle consideration on a planet with finite resources and an ecosystem being pushed beyond its limits.
Not really. The resources are effectively infinite because they are never destroyed, they only get changed into various different forms. We can keep making things, then remaking them into different things basically forever.
And the ecosystem is not anywhere near its limits (not that making less things would help it even if it was). There are definitely areas where things are bad, but the good areas far outweigh the bad.
> "We can keep making things, then remaking them into different things basically forever."
Woah, since when?
For one thing, making things (and remaking them) takes a tremendous amount of energy, which uses fuel, of which as of yet we are still running on finite reserves (disregarding the environmental angle completely, even).
Secondly, when you chop down a tree and make it into paper, that paper may be recyclable, but never in the exact same form (there's a reason recycled paper is not used in many applications of paper). Not only that, many items that we make are not practically recyclable, or dangerously so - see: recovery of precious metals from electronics. Nigh impossibility unless you want to burn the rest of it away, spewing toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and causing skyrocketing cancer rates.
Until we have infinite, free energy and the ability to transmute matter at will, we cannot keep remaking things forever, not even close. No amount of recycling will even come close to the environmental and resource savings of simply not making something in the first place.
We have plenty of fuel in the form of nuclear power. Just because we aren't using it today doesn't mean we can't.
I never mentioned the word recycle. I don't expect anyone to recycle paper. Instead you compost or burn the paper, and grow a new tree. The elements that make up paper are infinity reusable.
The same for the precious elements in electronics. True, we do a poor job of recovering them today, but we could change that easily, and keep making and destroying electronics forever without running out.
We don't even need to recover them, we have plenty in mines. We could store the electronics in a big hole in the ground (for example in an old mine) and only use them much later when we need to. The only reason we do try to recover them is for money, not because we are going to run out.
By far the majority of the stuff we build is made of just a few elements: silicon (in concrete), carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen (those four make up plastics, wood, and lots more) and iron. We are not going to ever run out of those - the planet is made of them.
We could keep making and destroying things forever without running out. All we need is energy. (There is no need to transmute elements.)
The ecosystem is not anywhere near its limits? You're kidding right?
Scientific consensus for CO2 atmospheric levels to limit warming to 2 degrees C in the next century: 350ppm. Current levels: 390ppm
Massive over-fishing of ocean fish-stocks? Yep, happening right now.
And that's just two examples I can think of now.
Claiming that we're nowhere near the ecosystem's limits is naive, delusional and dangerous. The laws of nature, despite the beliefs of most economists, don't worry about what causes "economic disaster".
We could easily fix the CO2 issues by switching to nuclear power, and I expect we will eventually.
And over-fishing is a problem, I agree. I did say there were areas with trouble. But there is a solution: farmed fish. Meaning we are not at the limit, we just need to be smarter about what we do, which was my point.
That would be quite funny, given that USA has spent much of th last hundred years promoting free trade and trying to force other countries to open up their economies for foreign imports.
And I don't think a protectionist customs scheme is what you want. It could boost local manufacturing on a short them, but eventually the lack of incentive makes them fall behind. Then you have whole industries producing stuff nobody would buy, except for the fact that anything imported is way overpriced.
USA has a quite large domestic economy, but it still probably isn't enough for the companies there if they are not competitive elsewhere.
Then everything else would become way more expensive and the quality of life would decrease a lot.
Protectionism never many a country rich. Only production of goods and services that people actually want will do that. This may require people to upgrade their skills, but so be it.
On top of that 20%, there are people that are working part time to make ends meet. So in reality, the number of people that need full time jobs is much higher.
What's really interesting here is that companies are reporting awesome earnings[1], yet they're still resting on their laurels when it comes to hiring.
And, I think everyone is outraged when it comes to what's going on in Washington right now.
All companies need unskilled people: you train them so your business can expand. That's where global supply chain managers and database programmers came from originally--and in many cases still do--they don't fall from the clouds.
The issue is that a lot of these companies are only expanding overseas, so they're not really ready to hire and train people. Much of their profits come from cutting back on their junior staff, from laying off the next generation of skilled workers.
As an employer, I'd be willing to take a chance on a new employee without experience if he/she could demonstrate some aptitude and some effort to learn independently. I got my first software job with no formal training this way. I spent several months studying Java on my own and did well enough on an interview test to persuade the company to give me a shot at a low salary.
However, I don't think I'd be interesting in bringing somebody up from absolutely nothing. It's just too big a risk and an investment. I think the fundamental problem is that the American public education system just isn't training people in the skills they need to succeed in a modern economy.
This isn't going to help us. The "reform the education system" model is usually an incredibly stupid idea. The issue is that you're essentially farming: you take 22 years to grow a new crop of skilled workers.
In the education reform arena, what we should concentrate more on is patching workers. Most people could probably gain hackable proficiency in languages like Java or Python in 6 months or less. We need to be concentrating on this sort of thing, not making high school and college better.
An example: the retraining benefits attached to UI are often meager and highly targeted towards special interests (the construction and healthcare industries seem to loom rather large in my conversations with EDD). What we could be doing instead, at least in California, is directing the CCs and CSUs to create 6 month curricula in more portable skills. Again, we could be teaching scripting languages plus basic data analysis skills.
What if it takes 20 years to grow a crop of skilled workers? Go ahead and walk down to the unemployment center, pick 20 people at random, and let me know how their Python coding is coming along six months from now.
I was able to jump into programming because I was lucky enough to get a solid math & science education that nurtured whatever innate talent I had. The kind of analytical thinking it takes to do higher-level information work can't be taught from scratch in a few months.
Both my parents teach at the University level and they tell me that the students they see coming into their classes now can't even write a simple, logically coherent essay.
Oh, I agree that this is a problem, but you have to admit that attempting to patch workers is a far better medium term solution than trying to besiege the education system for 20 years.
Sure, it doesn't have to be an either/or thing, but it's important to realize that our current problems are many years in the making and might take many years to really fix.
For a simpler long term fix, we could just change how we do college admissions. For example, if we raised the entry requirements for 18 year-olds and kept the requirements re people in their mid-20s and up.
That would eliminate lots of liberal arts majors very quickly, replacing them with more technical people who are better motivated for difficult subjects. It's not an elegant solution, but it's probably easier than untangling the knot of education or somehow getting the political will to slice it in twain.
I don't want to hire a DBA that's never touched a DB before at this point, though - since that field has been around for a while now, there's now a lot of signaling where before noone could distinguish themselves. Those who have the aptitude and/or are motivated/interested in the field have made themselves into DBAs or something similar that could easily transition on their own time. I don't want to hire a warm body that's looking to work just for a paycheck. If you've never bothered to learn to program, I don't want to hire you as a programmer, even if I think I could train you.
There is a shortage of employable people in the US, and a glut of unemployable. To me, this means that our culture and our education system need a lot of help.
My point is that when DBAs were new(ish), you had a lot of people you had to train to become them. We don't see this as a problem now because we're past that point in the database arena. The people I knew who ran databases when I was in high school had all learned it on a job somewhere. It's only with my generation (it seems) that DBA was something you got a lot of external training for.
Some of the jobs quoted in the article are short workers because they're relatively new. "Managing integrated supply chains" is something most workers would have learned only recently, since before the spread of IT in the late 1990s/2000s it was pretty much the province of major corporations.
What is it they say? "Better to educate your people and risk they leave than to not, and risk they stay?"
But yeah, training would be more likely if you either took a lower salary (part of your income comes in the form of training) or agreed to stay with the firm for a number of years.
You can interpret that several ways. Perhaps those awesome earnings are short-term gains due to not paying wages for all those empty jobs, but long-term losses due to faltering growth as a result of all those empty jobs?
Okay, it sucks. What do you want me to do about it?
There are not many obvious sustainable solutions that don't involve the government suddenly deciding to reallocate pork funding to major public works or otherwise taking unlikely actions which would dramatically alter the current climate.
Meanwhile, it's a good time to start a business. It probably won't create many jobs and it might not take off, but at a minimum it will be good experience and it will look better than a few blank years on the resume.
Hmm, just had a thought - wouldnt it make sense, based on what you are saying, for people to just lie and say that they started a business which failed during the time they were unemployed?
Most likely, that will just end up wasting everyone's time when it turns out that you do not, in fact, have any experience whatsoever with business development or product design.
From the little I know about the Tea Party it seems to be a dumping ground for anyone who ever thought that the government didn't listen to them. From people that think we should ban gay people from 'merica, to people that think that socializing health care is an Obama 'Nazi policy.'
