You're missing the point. Applying 27 times for the job kinda disputes the assertion that the 99% are "lazy and unmotivated", as we are so often characterized.

I don't think bootypop is missing the point. I think he/she is saying it's absurd that anyone considers it a good thing that it took 27 times applying to get a job as a barista. One application per job opening should suffice.

Susan... I think you're missing the point. We do whatever it takes to get a job... 1 application at 100 places, or 100 applications at 1000 places... You have to work hard in today's economy just to get an opportunity to prove how hard you're willing to work.

You obviously don't think much of Baristas... why? It's a job... As Dave said... there's a ridiculous misconception that unemployed people are't "trying hard enough"... or that they expect too much or aren't willing to work hard... This is BS.

dave63 see's it for what it is! Zach wanted a job so much that he did not give up! He continued to let the employer (in this case Starbucks) know that he wouldn't quit. With so many people looking for jobs it stands to reason that companies are going to be looking for the best possible people to fill the limited openings that are available to fill.

Now I know you dark and gloomy nay saying I can't believe he applied 27 time jokers are thinking "If he applied 27 times, why didn't he get hired before?" It is simple, there are a lot of really good people out there looking for work with few jobs to be had.

The cool part of this image shared with us on Rachel's blog is that Starbucks and its Customers reaping the benefits of Zach's tenacity, drive and obvious love of the job he was hired to do. Zach is the type of person that will help turn this country around, having that all American don't quit attitude that we should all be known for, don't you think?

I don't know why you inferred that I don't think much of baristas, but you were incorrect to do so. I do not, however, think much of an economy where you have to apply for the same job 27 times before you get it, especially a job that is relatively low-paying in the first place. This has nothing to do with the type of job or even the company (Starbucks, which I do not happen to like, but that's because the coffee is expensive and mediocre).

I was out of a job for nearly 3 years, although I took appropriate part time work when it was available. I went to law school and as a result am in debt the size of a house. I went to law school under what was, when I entered in 2003, the assumption that a lawyer could reliably earn a salary that would pay off law school debts. This was a gross error. Blame me, blame the economy, blame the law school culture; I don't care. The point is the unemployment and the debt I have been unable to pay.

I was taught not to apply for the same job more than twice in a year. I was told by multiple "authorities" on job hunting that this looked desperate and that employers do not like desperate job-hunters. (In fact, statistics show that employers prefer job-hunters who already have jobs, and that they discriminate against people who are unemployed, but that's mostly a separate issue.) So unless this dude applied for this job 27 times over the course of about 13 years, he broke the rules of job-hunting I was taught. If the rules have changed, please tell me now so I can apply for my next desired job 27 times without irritating management (27 applications from the same person would annoy the hell out of me as a manager, but hey, I'm hardly a manager here in the pseudo-legal job I finally got).

I think you all got the point, it's great that Zach is determined and didn't give up, and it's also awful that he had to apply 27 freaking times before he could get a relatively LOW paying and often unappreciated job.

Who said it was great? It kind of sucks, which I think is the point. Maybe applying 2 or 3 times at most, but this is indicative of what is happening. I have 6-7 companies that always have job listings that I have applied to several times, up to a dozen, but have never received any response. And I am more than qualified for each listed position. . .

In 1976, I applied 57 times to work for Miller Brewing Company,Milwaukee,,at that time you actually filled out an application in ........14 months later I was called for my interview......36 yrs later I retired from the company..incredible pension, and great health care...the squeeky wheel gets the grease..........

They're hidden in women's va-jay-jays, thus his obsession with regulating them. Gotta git up in thur and find the jobs!

OMG Jeff!!! LOL

If my experience is anything to go by, it's more indicative of the numbers of people that are competing for the same jobs.

I have to admire his perseverance, too. He really wanted to EAT and PAY HIS RENT.

I wouldn't be too quick to blame it all on Mr. Boehner, though. As I recall, upon being elected President in the wake of the worst recession in 80 years, Mr. Obama set right to work on the country's top priorities: equal pay for women (those who still HAD jobs), and (really, let's call it was it is) health insurance reform. Let's not overlook the fact that the Dems controlled the House, the Senate and the White House for the first two years of the Obama presidency. While Obama's efforts to stave off economic collapse are laudable, it was too little and (in the case of "job creation") too late. Had Team Obama-Pelossi made job creation "job one" from Day 1, there might be a damn sight fewer Tea Baggers in office today.

Repeating the lie of "two years of control" doesn't help your cause.

So, it's a lie, now? They DIDN'T really control it all for 2 years!? I think denying the facts doesn't help the libs' cause. It just makes them as pathetic as the Repugs. The first step to correcting a mistake is admitting you've made one.

Not actually, no. With the long, drawn out recount process for Al Franken's senate seat and considering the length of time that Sen. Kennedy was in health, our super-majority in the senate was only a few months long. And the republicans REQUIRED that we have a super-majority in order to pass anything... Think about it.

Dave... you're wrong. The President's job isn't to fix "a" problem... He's been trying to address as many as possible. Ultimately he also doesn't hire people... there are lots of problems right now... most are cultural... YOU are as big a part of the problem as the rest of us. And as big a part of the solution as you feel the President aught to be.

I seem to recall a lot of legislative obstruction on the part of the minority party, constantly shifting position, etc.. To be honest the major mistake made by the President and the Democrats was trying to work with the Republicans!

Sorry, davefromberkley, but if you're completely honest with yourself, you'll acknowledge that having a majority in the Senate today means 60 votes, not 51. So, no, the Ds did NOT "control it all" for two years.

Nice try, though.

Dave obviously- being a RepubliCAN'T,- does not know that you cannot herd cats or Democrats. Especially the blue ones. . .

This graph showing use of the filibuster is a bit long in the tooth:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/02/10/3878726-graph-filibuster-out-o-control?lite

but this one from another site includes last year's numbers as well.

http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/02/a-teachable-moment-republicans-were-right/

MSNBC Producer

This graph showing use of the filibuster is a bit long in the tooth:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/02/10/3878726-graph-filibuster-out-o-control?lite

but this one from another site includes last year's numbers as well.

http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/02/a-teachable-moment-republicans-were-right/

There have been quite a few famous filibusters by the Democratic members of the Senate over many years. Your graph links projects comparison to numbers of filibusters, but attached is some highlights of some of the more famous filibusters subjects.

In 1953, Senator Wayne Morse set a record by filibustering for 22 hours and 26 minutes while protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation. Senator Strom Thurmond broke this record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes,^[10] although the bill ultimately passed. In 1959, the Senate restored the cloture threshold to two-thirds of those voting

One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when southern Democratic senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours, which included a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Senator Robert Byrd. The filibuster ended when the Senate invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927.^[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

You people are also forgetting the fact the the dems had to deal with the conservadems , who also would not let jack pass , that and rightfully so , imo , the dems in the house required everything to be paid for , unfortunately our brave moderate voters do not appreiciate honesty and responsibility , because they turning around and voted gop

If only there were someone out there wanting to buy all the stuff you're proposing to manufacture.

If only there were someone out there wanting who can afford to buy all the stuff you're proposing to manufacture.

Fixed it for you.

I wonder if those law firms actually wanted to hear from me 27 times....

You got THAT right! My understanding of the word 'insanity' always included "doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome."

it's not just THAT Starbucks. I applied a number of times myself with Starbucks and I am still out of work.

That's circular logic, since he's only 'Partner of the Quarter' because he was denied a job 26 times.

That presumes he got 27 interviews. Chances are, his application didn't even get looked at the first 26 times.

You bet we did. Sadly, it's the same 'bottom' I find myself back at some 40 years later. Pffff....."American Dream", my sweet patootie!

Depends on how you look at it.

Your dream is what you make it.

I make less than 40K a year, but, I have a house, a spouse, a car, two dogs and a cat.

I'm comfortable.

40K is enough for a house and a car in some markets, especially if you have a spouse who also works and contributes to the income of the family.

40K is not enough to buy a house in most of the East Coast markets, and if you have student loan debt, you may never own a house. (I'm okay with not owning a house, though, after what I've seen some of my friends go through in recent years - yikes!)