Podcast #3308 - "Nobody Will Hire me" - UPDATE! - And a question.

[FMMLiberty]

Hi! As one can surmise, I'm a long time lurker and listener, first time poster :). I'll try to be as concise as I can.

For TL;DR, just read what's in bold.

UPDATE: 
I'm the caller for question #3 on that podcast, and I remember that Stefan asked me to update him on my progress. Of course, it's like over a year later, but I keep my word!!!

The question I asked during the podcast was, paraphrased, "despite graduating at the top of my class, successfully running my own business (and paying for college from its proceeds), speaking 4 languages, and having all of these other qualifications, why won't anyone hire me?"

During the podcast we went into my ACE score a bit and touched on some of the tragedies that happened with my family, and Stefan suggested that I go to therapy because of a variety of socially awkward tics and speech patterns that likely developed from my traumatic past. He also generously offered to pay for the first few weeks.

While I appreciated the offer, I didn't want to squander it on ineffective treatment, so I thought I would go for the first few weeks and try different doctors out, and once I get one I like, contact Stefan and ask for his help.

I tried contacting a few places, and eventually started going to a local therapist, but after 5 weeks, they told me I didn't need therapy. I asked why, and they said I didn't have any specific billable event (inability to work, psychotic episodes, etc.) for which they could report to the department of health to get their subsidies, or I would have to pay exorbitant rates for therapy under a "private practice" classification.

The first thing I thought of was, "Well, if I cut up my arms horizontally, I can claim a billable event without actually doing much damage to myself," but then I realized that someone with such little self regard that they would consider mutilating themselves in order to access therapy that they were being denied was someone who probably needed a lot of therapy.

Anyway, I decided to take a more cognitive approach since I had no interest in wasting 5 weeks at a time on an indefinite number of therapists in search of "the right one" before I contacted Stefan. I decided instead to address my tangible issues directly. I may be socially awkward and a bit strange, but I had bigger problems. Primarily, I had the CPA (certified public accountant) exam to worry about (this is a test that you have to take in the US in order to operate independently as an accountant). It is a pretty nasty exam, about as difficult as the BAR exam is for lawyers.

So instead of chasing ghosts in my mind, I dedicated myself wholeheartedly to beating this stupid exam and trying the job market again after it. Surely, once I got that license, people would have to hire me, despite my awkwardness!

I'll skip over all the other developments that took place during this time, but I eventually passed that monstrous beast of an exam. I finished my last part and got my scores this last September, and looked for a job. Here is my breakdown (and this will lead to my question):

From late September to about mid October, I contacted multiple professional recruiters to place me in local firms. The recruiters would talk to me for like, one day, and then just disappear. My experience with recruiters could be its own podcast given how unprofessional, impetuous, deceptive, and just outright disgusting these people are. I absolutely despise recruiters after this experience. Eventually, when pressed, they would all say the same things:

I was told, "some firms and hiring managers will see you as competition," "you're too old and managers won't think that you're capable of obeying orders from someone younger" (I was 29), "managers don't need the best workers, they just need people who are good enough," "you have a unique skill set, but we just don't have a place to put you." Ad nauseum.

In Mid October, I decided to change my strategy and started applying to places on my own, aiming for smaller firms on Craigslist. While I got a few offers and interviews, they did not quite work out or offer what I needed.

Around late October, I was getting desperate, and decided to dumb down my resume. I removed any references to self employment or independent thought. I eliminated any evidence of critical thinking capacity on my resume beyond saying "problem solver." I deliberately tried to make it look like I was as generic and unthinking a drone as I could possibly make it seem, and continued to target smaller local firms.

I was still getting rejected from most firms, so clearly that wasn't working either.

I then hired a virtual assistant to call my references as if they were a hiring manager and inform me about what they were saying about me.

Before that assistant completed her task, however, I received a call for an interview with a local firm who wanted candidates who had passed the CPA exam.

Ironically, I was hired specifically because of my thinking capabilities and independent work ethic. They were specifically looking for someone with an entrepreneurial mindset.

So, I start in two weeks! It doesn't mean my psychological issues went away, but thanks to Stefan's guidance during the call, I've been able to address some of it on my own and resolve a bit of that trauma, thankfully, it seems, enough to get past the issues that were costing me jobs and keeping me from gaining employment in the past.

I guess I really just want to say "Thank you" to everyone here at FDR for their compassion and generosity.

My question though, is the following:
I understand that generally, managers don't just hire for skill, but also for someone who fits in with a culture, who will be easy to work with. Being awkward and socially outcast is a liability in that respect, despite one's skill set. However, each successive generation seems socially awkward to its predecessors and its successors (i.e., younger generations are enraptured by stupid fads, older generations are stuck in outdated and outmoded habits). At what point do those expectations diverge to the point that the hiring process becomes almost impossible to surpass and an entire generation is rendered unemployable?

I'm haunted by the notion that I'm not the only one who has faced this wall in the job market. Is my case unique? Is anyone else dealing with this? How?

Some relevant statistics from the department of labor:
Unemployment data:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
4.1% unemployment as of October

"People Not In The Workforce":
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000

95,385,000 people not working as of October (wait, what?)

Irrelevant Tangent:
Our population is around 330,000,000, so you show me how they get 4.4% unemployment! (I know, they only count recipients of unemployment insurance and don't count everyone else, yes, but that doesn't really encompass all of the "unemployed," DOES IT? )

[barn]

Hi @FMMLiberty

(background: I'm no manager now, though had a tiny bit of experience several times leading smll-mid sized groups of people, doing my own 'thingy' entrepreneurial-ishly. Currently working my way towards making even more and bigger failed attempts at the next stage of success. Yeah, baby! embrace the 'suck'! - definitely, no pun intended.)

1/4 contribution - I'm not able to 'square the circle' around why aren't you hiring yourself. Could it be done you think? I wouldn't be hyperbolic if I supposed you could stuff your brain quite easily with more skills, 'knaaalidge', would I?!

My favourite approach so far is of Mike Cernovich's (I'm not giving it justice here, better check it out in his book Gorilla mindset) "start small, keep your job, 'GIT GUD', watch your heath-inner talk and stay centered" and then notice how you are beginning to transition to the 'big-league mindset' with proof to show for.

2/4 contribution - Isn't social awkwardness tightly related to self-esteem and the 'not up to par operation of your radar system'?

my line of thinking: (cliché but could be useful)

" Birds of a feather flock together. "

i.e. - Your conscious standards DO NOT match that of your unconscious desires, manifesting in some form(s) of unintended cognitive dissonance(s)?

(If I'm projecting or way off, apologies for that. Really, just thought I might mention it.)

3/4 contribution - Stefan Molyneux once said something like (sorry, yet again I'm approximating..)

"You need a meal, you eat anything. You love a meal, you wait for the BEST!"

< 'wait'ing I think he meant = keep your eyes on the ball, while being pro-active in the direction of >

4/4 contribution - Yeah, sure everyone expects from the entry level staff the job just to be done. No high openness required (in most lower rangs) but if a company is well-run, for sure the higher ups are looking for candidates who will be their replacements (upward mobility) and that's when the 'out of the box thinking', the reliability, the dedication to the brand is being tested for real. And hope you don't mind me not going into the usual caveats of cultural/plug related(networking) and exceptional market scenario related things. I'm trying to make point, a rule of a thumb sort of argument. Here I would recommend another great read from Scott Adams, How to fail... - especially (for my point here as a supplement) the part where he speaks of having been accepted for a position but already applying for the next one going up... and makes a staggeringly good argument there. Read it if you can, you'll do yourself a favour (I am certain).

+1 contribution - When I was looking for therapy, I went through a couple. My thought process was this: "I'm not looking for a therapist or counselling. I'm doing my best to find answers and I will need the best way/person to help me with that."

- - - -

Thanks for your time and effort coming back and posting an update, don't worry about how much it took you. You did it, most of the people don't.

Looking forward to reading your posts, oh and one more thing...

In here, I didn't experience you one bit awkward. Is that because I myself am too fall in that category or categories are just categories...

Have a good one,

Barnsley

Edited December 8, 2017 by barn
pun of bravery

[FMMLiberty]

I appreciate your feedback!

Well, "hiring myself" is how I've been paying my bills so far! Unfortunately, California (and actually every state in the US) requires that every CPA candidate clock 1,000 hours under the direct supervision of another CPA, so it's one of those things where no one is allowed into the industry other than "Amici Nostri" among the CPAs already in the profession (which would have been nice to know before sinking 4 years and $30,000 into college to learn accounting!).

Try as I might to run my own bookkeeping and tax firm, I'll never get that magical designation until I am "accepted" into a sort of apprenticeship, which is mainly why I'm elated about having been hired. Otherwise, I would never have even bothered.

This actually caused me a lot of problems, it seems, because while it was never addressed directly in an interview, outside of interviews, I was CONSTANTLY questioned about the validity of my experience under self employment and about how such experience either means it was inadequately supervised, fraudulent, or if accurate and effective, a threat to the firm looking to hire since I would either be a flight risk or possible competition.

These HR chicks (and I rarely dealt with men in HR departments or recruiting firms) would literally question me about whether I was actually making any money working for myself, or whether I really put myself through school through my own business.

It's almost as if the principles of hypergamy still held true in the world of HR. Some of these women were absolutely ruthless. I can deal with a "shit test" if I'm picking up some girl on the street, but...in an employment setting? I don't know how to handle that without getting written up or sued.

Anyway...

I don't know if you listened to the podcast, but not to write a novel in this comment section, my upbringing was... turbulent. And it ravaged my self esteem. I have severe self erasure issues, and it certainly didn't help when, in my late teens and early twenties, I started reading a lot of material about psychology and trauma, and everything I ever believed about myself turned out to be a lie.

It's been difficult recovering self esteem and self appreciation, and for a while I thought I was doing well given how I excelled in an academic setting. The next 3 years of unemployment and uncertainty wreaked havoc once more upon my self esteem, but I think I have a handle on it to an extent. Still, it's something I need to work on for sure. I'll definitely check out your resources!

Thanks again!

[Somewhere]

Young people tend to greatly overrate the significance of exam success in finding jobs. What an employer generally wants is somebody who can do the job, and for that, work experience counts for far more than exams. I work in IT with recent grads and my productivity is maybe 10 times higher than typical recent grads, and that's in tasks that they can actually do, because a lot of the things I do, they would not be able to do in any reasonable timeframe at all. A lot of firms will find it uneconomic to hire people like that. Even after 2-3 years of experience, they get to maybe 25-30% of my productivity. These are not stupid guys and they work for a well-known consulting firm. If they carry on with what they're doing, they will get there, but it takes time to become productive.

[barn]

The Dunning&Kruger effect should be a mandatory interview question.

(the abstract - find it here)

Barnsley

[barn]

Hi,

a couple snippets,

23 hours ago, FMMLiberty said:

Well, "hiring myself" is how I've been paying my bills so far! Unfortunately, California (and actually every state in the US) requires that every CPA candidate clock 1,000 hours under the direct supervision of another CPA, so it's one of those things where no one is allowed into the industry other than "Amici Nostri" among the CPAs already in the profession (which would have been nice to know before sinking 4 years and $30,000 into college to learn accounting!).

You are making it work, one paper at the time. (nobody hears the trees growing, only when they fall.)

So basic but so few people actually take the effort to speak to a real-life professional before starting at Uni... (my other anecdotes come from a friend who's now a poor but dedicated archaeologist, the other who's a lawyer without 'plugs' and an architect who's been doing mainly odd jobs with occasional success at getting a few temp contracts. 'Failing to plan is planning for...')

23 hours ago, FMMLiberty said:

This actually caused me a lot of problems, it seems, because while it was never addressed directly in an interview, outside of interviews, I was CONSTANTLY questioned about the validity of my experience under self employment and about how such experience either means it was inadequately supervised, fraudulent, or if accurate and effective, a threat to the firm looking to hire since I would either be a flight risk or possible competition.

Part of the 'game'.

23 hours ago, FMMLiberty said:

It's almost as if the principles of hypergamy still held true in the world of HR. Some of these women were absolutely ruthless. I can deal with a "shit test" if I'm picking up some girl on the street, but...in an employment setting? I don't know how to handle that without getting written up or sued.

Ouch. Yes. HR.

But.

How about this? Recently I was interested to learn more about panic attacks (lovely isn't it) and was stunned to learn how easily it can be treated. Obviously I will have to run it by a few people I know have trained in relevant fields... But the 'truth' is

"Panic attacks can produce some of the most terrifying sensations imaginable but they cannot cause you any actual physical or mental harm. No matter how extreme. "

That's interesting, isn't it?

Now if we shape it to fit your issue...

Would it be possible to keep your cool in sessions with those 'succubi', reminding yourself that you are a professional and emotional involvement is distraction?

I would recommend you observed your own self-fulfilling prophecies (if any, maybe there aren't, but I suspect that there are a few...) Who knows, you might get down to de-weeding bad habitual thinking and coming out a new you, a balanced and professional you. Imagine the scenario where regardless the 'perceived' stress you said what you wanted and didn't what you preferred to hold back.

Another good way to look at it is that there's absolutely nothing personal in the 'roasting'. Like a personal trainer, who is paid to make people suffer. He is working. That's what he is getting paid for.

Any of this clicks?

On 12/09/2017 at 6:17 AM, FMMLiberty said:

It's been difficult recovering self esteem and self appreciation, and for a while I thought I was doing well given how I excelled in an academic setting. The next 3 years of unemployment and uncertainty wreaked havoc once more upon my self esteem, but I think I have a handle on it to an extent. Still, it's something I need to work on for sure. I'll definitely check out your resources!

- - - - Flowery language - - - -

No sh@t. How about caged animals or divorcees leaving the court(thinking about whether they'll be at least able to hold onto their own toothbrush) ... I bet they don't feel too upbeat and dandy neither.

Of course, man! Approval is essential. That's why you must choose goals you have a chance reaching, therefore proving to yourself worth and follow-through. Self-esteem is rooted in your success, appreciation of your values.

i. e. - Say you had dark hair. If I tried to tease you for having dark hair (other than you looking funny at me), you'd just brush it off. Why? Because YOU KNOW YOUR HAIR IS DARK.

What's the counterpart to doubt? Certainty. Certainty in yourself. Acceptance and feeling proud because of your virtues you have developed.

No extremes are healthy.

The one I suspect(I'm theorising here, excuse my extrapolation if any) you hold, therefore kicking yourself for not having already 'conquered the world'. (irrational, un-examined objectives without proper warm-up, and finally not seeing results because they are to huuge as of yet. With the current set of devices, at this stage, temporarily.)

or

Feeling on the top of the world, until you realise you've been just lucky and/ the surroundings was no match for your skills, abilities. (irrational, un-examined again... you see this a lot with over-bearing yet under-performing bosses)

Start winning. Start it now.

Look around, what IS that's a healthy challenge and you could win it. Reasonably. And first complete the challenge before you would carefully nudge the aim a bit higher to proceed for a greater challenge. No half done stuff.

i. e. - I can make 700 on the side. I am now committing to making 750. Is it a challenge? (yes.) Good. Now, what will I need to reach that? (improving? how?) I got it. Good. Now, what will I do to help myself to ensure I can do it? (doable? when? how? - if no, go back to the drawing board and scale back a bit, until it's viable.) Got it. I'm prepared. (Yes,I'm fully equipped for winning, it's doable)

Let's do this!

I'm winning again.

I feel good.

Barnsley

 

[FMMLiberty]

On 12/9/2017 at 5:22 AM, Somewhere said:

Young people tend to greatly overrate the significance of exam success in finding jobs. What an employer generally wants is somebody who can do the job, and for that, work experience counts for far more than exams. I work in IT with recent grads and my productivity is maybe 10 times higher than typical recent grads, and that's in tasks that they can actually do, because a lot of the things I do, they would not be able to do in any reasonable timeframe at all. A lot of firms will find it uneconomic to hire people like that. Even after 2-3 years of experience, they get to maybe 25-30% of my productivity. These are not stupid guys and they work for a well-known consulting firm. If they carry on with what they're doing, they will get there, but it takes time to become productive.

I definitely agree. I've tutored a lot of the "recent grads" you're referring to, and some of them can't even put together a complete sentence.

Two counterpoints to your statement though:
#1) How is someone supposed to get their first job, following this line of thinking? I.e. how do they demonstrate they can do the job (or learn to do the job) if they haven't had a chance to already do that specific job?

"You can't work in fields in which you've never worked beforehand." It's...circular reasoning. What is the alternative? Nepotism?

#2) If work experience counted for so much, then why is there a glut of experienced older workers in the job market?
(https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/for-older-workers-getting-a-new-job-is-a-crapshoot.html)
(https://www.aarp.org/work/job-hunting/info-06-2013/job-security-issue-for-older-workers.html)

Obviously, other factors apply. My point with my original post is, at what point do these extant requirements (someone who will stick around, someone who will get along with the other employees, someone who will look nice bending over in front of my desk, etc.) begin to, in concert, prevent otherwise well qualified people who can perform the necessary job functions from gaining employment to the point that a nation's economy as a whole is strangled into oblivion?

Have we reached that point?



One more thing to add to your comment. Yes, young people tend to overrate their exam scores. If we are talking about what we can assume to be a normal (Gaussian) distribution, roughly 68% of those young people will overrate their exam scores because their exam scores actually suck.

About 5% may possibly overrate their scores due to their relative perceived academic superiority, at least in terms of academic performance. What about individuals who score in the 99.5th percentile? 4 out of 940, 20 out of 4,000. How many of those individuals overestimate their capabilities (Dunning-Kruger and all)? How many of those individuals do employers even get to interview, ever?

The individuals who scored in those categories were not divorced from reality. They saw things precisely how they truly were, and that is why they performed as they did. It's why I performed as I did.

Could it be possible that at a certain level of performance, the candidate's capacity to learn new material can actually be more important than another candidate's already accumulated experience? For example, I speak 4 languages. Can anyone learn two or three more languages faster than I can learn any particular single job?

Another example: I built a business in an unrelated field, from scratch, and was successful enough to pay for college with the income generated. Another candidate did 6 months in an internship in a field directly related to the job, and is saddled with insurmountable debt. Both candidates are otherwise equally experienced. What would lead the employer to hire the internship candidate over the entrepreneur? And what hard data validates the assumptions they would make in order for logic to justify that decision?

Furthermore, any random hiring manager is likely to score 1 to 2 SDs from the mean in most endeavors. If the hiring manager meets a candidate who scores close to 3 SDs away from the mean in that same field, does the manager even have the capability to accurately judge the candidate's abilities? How does the candidate explain to the hiring manager that, while the language they're using is similar (have an impact, redefine what's possible in the industry, push boundaries, seek challenge) to the 1 SD from the mean narcissistic recent grad millennial, their track record indicates that their self assessment is not so inflated, and explain it in a way that doesn't go over the manager's head?

And what if the hiring managers themselves are these narcissistic, dunning-kruger afflicted, navel gazing, millennial dipshits who overvalue their capacity to judge another person's performance? How does a high performer cope with that?

 

On 12/9/2017 at 5:28 AM, barn said:

The Dunning&Kruger effect should be a mandatory interview question.

(the abstract - find it here)

Barnsley

I'm honestly a fan of competency testing. Unfortunately, such testing has been considered "racist" since the civil rights movement, but I think Stefan goes into that in one of his videos much better than I can.

Edited December 11, 2017 by FMMLiberty
Added some more exmaples

[Revolutionary Thinking]

7 minutes ago, FMMLiberty said:

Obviously, other factors apply. My point with my original post is, at what point do these extant requirements (someone who will stick around, someone who will get along with the other employees, someone who will look nice bending over in front of my desk, etc.) begin to, in concert, prevent otherwise well qualified people who can perform the necessary job functions from gaining employment to the point that a nation's economy as a whole is strangled into oblivion?

Have we reached that point?

Well I know I felt like I reached that point. They ask you for job experience when they aren't willing to give you the job to get the experience. I also know our education system can do a much better job of hopefully giving that experience before we graduate but, that hardly happens. Even if you have experience sometimes when you live in a high population area (like I do) there are people that are super experienced because they graduated before the recession and they are older than you so you don't have a chance when competing with them. 

[barn]

5 hours ago, FMMLiberty said:

Could it be possible that at a certain level of performance, the candidate's capacity to learn new material can actually be more important than another candidate's already accumulated experience? For example, I speak 4 languages. Can anyone learn two or three more languages faster than I can learn any particular single job?

Another example: I built a business in an unrelated field, from scratch, and was successful enough to pay for college with the income generated. Another candidate did 6 months in an internship in a field directly related to the job, and is saddled with insurmountable debt. Both candidates are otherwise equally experienced. What would lead the employer to hire the internship candidate over the entrepreneur? And what hard data validates the assumptions they would make in order for logic to justify that decision?

... I wonder how you think about my other points but in the meanwhile an observation.

Isn't this (quoted) a proof just how little those merits are perceived as value(in that particular type of employment)? It's really mind-boggling to me but can there be another logical conclusion?

I know you asked for hard data underpinning said outcome but since I can't and have a simple point to make...

What do you think if people, the majority, generally being accepted have any entrepreneurial experience and if that number has been increasing or not?

If there was incentive, why it wouldn't shift towards? Isn't what government and the professions closely related mirror by homogenising? (colonial mentality?)

I'm reminding you of your own assertion regarding the more capable representing a 'flight' risk, less probably coerced into the mold that the company has in mind for the applicant. And while sure, the re-training cost is lower, so is the higher likelihood of undesirable independent traits, having to put up with someone who WON'T-/CAN'T- 'not think for themselves' ... or am I mischaracterising it?

Barnsley

Edited December 11, 2017 by barn
'grrrr-mer' :-p

[barn]

And another...

This is about the whole subject, the overall arc. (bridging over a problem by applying constructive focus)

Why bother trying to push an immovable object, when an unrelenting force couldn't do it. At a certain point, giving up trying, stopping clinging is the very best one can do. (opportunity cost, life won't wait it's constantly going on, what if instead the door you could use the window)

What if we focused on the existing possibilities, creating new approaches that will lead to a near identical, desired outcome?

How's a smart person (I mean it) such as yourself allowing his talents to get waisted in the 'waiting hall'? How have the companies deserved your skills and abilities? How are you an inspiration to other intelligent/hard working individuals seeing you 'bounce' back time after time?

Something is not visible here. But I honestly want to help. I sympathise.

Barnsley

[FMMLiberty]

On 12/11/2017 at 2:02 AM, barn said:

... I wonder how you think about my other points but in the meanwhile an observation.

Isn't this (quoted) a proof just how little those merits are perceived as value(in that particular type of employment)? It's really mind-boggling to me but can there be another logical conclusion?

I know you asked for hard data underpinning said outcome but since I can't and have a simple point to make...

What do you think if people, the majority, generally being accepted have any entrepreneurial experience and if that number has been increasing or not?

If there was incentive, why it wouldn't shift towards? Isn't what government and the professions closely related mirror by homogenising? (colonial mentality?)

I'm reminding you of your own assertion regarding the more capable representing a 'flight' risk, less probably coerced into the mold that the company has in mind for the applicant. And while sure, the re-training cost is lower, so is the higher likelihood of undesirable independent traits, having to put up with someone who WON'T-/CAN'T- 'not think for themselves' ... or am I mischaracterising it?

Barnsley

I think you make some great points. I must apologize for completely missing an entire post of yours!

Let's consider; if being an extremely fast and capable learner, an independent thinker, and a supreme performer who speaks multiple languages is considered to be undesirable, what are these companies selecting for?

That's why I dumbed down my resume :). I don't know if I got results due to having dumbed myself down on paper, but after I did that, instead of rejection, I started getting inquiries from interested companies, so much so that I had to shut down my indeed. I don't know, that doesn't bode well.

Then again, that's anecdotal, so it doesn't necessarily mean that companies are definitely seeking slow, incapable, controllable, unthinking drones to populate their ranks. I don't have enough evidence to corroborate such an assertion, however...

A more important question here is why is someone's excellence considered a "flight risk" in the first place? Why must a company look for candidates who can be coerced instead of candidates who can cooperate with the firm? And if this is the case, it leads into your next point.

Why am I allowing my talents to go to waste? Why am I not pursuing an entrepreneurial career from the beginning?

I will answer my own questions, but I think the overarching theme here is, alluding to Mr. Molyneux himself, that government is perverting the incentives in each of these realms at their inception.

First off, the reason someone leaving the company hurts the company so much is because every company is required to invest thousands of dollars into each individual employee in terms of unemployment insurance, medical coverage, retirement benefits and defined benefit plans, worker's compensation, employment taxes, etc., and these expenses are required, in come cases, up front.  Therefore, it's no longer profitable for a company to find someone who is the best at what they do. It's an optimization matrix where they need to be just good enough to actually do the job, but not so good that they can leverage their absence and end up costing the company dearly.

Therefore, a high performing individual with an entrepreneurial mindset is a priori undesirable because of the enormous risk involved with hiring an individual who cannot be coerced, but must be asked to cooperate, and can choose not to do so.

This leads to the second point, if I'm so smart and I'm so bright and I'm so talented, why am I not choosing not to play the game? Why am I not being entrepreneurial? (well, I am, on a small scale, doing independent tax and bookkeeping work on the side, parallel to my impending employment, but that's beside the point.)

"Unfortunately, California (and actually every state in the US) requires that every CPA candidate clock 1,000 hours under the direct supervision of another CPA, so it's one of those things where no one is allowed into the industry other than "Amici Nostri" among the CPAs already in the profession."

I am quite literally barred by the government from doing the kind of work that I can do at my highest capacity (fraud analysis, forensic accounting, tracing money, finding stolen assets, gauging purchasing and income patterns to determine certain kinds of activity, etc.) at the threat of a gun. if I do the work without a license, I get fined and possibly barred from getting the license. if I continue to do the work unlicensed, I get imprisoned, and then I resist arrest and get some holes in my chest, etc.

To get that license, I have to pass test designed to be impassable (which I've done), I have to be indoctrinated (university education, done), I have to pass an ethics exam (uuughhh, gag me; but it will be done soon), and I need 1,000 hours of supervised work under another CPA in good standing. In other words, I need to be approved by the establishment before I can be allowed to do what I'm best at.

So, given that almost impenetrable barrier, why not just do something else I can do on my own terms? I guess that's a more existential question that I'm not prepared to answer at the moment save for an inner drive that just won't be satisfied getting by to get by. The near identical but possible and attainable outcome simply doesn't exist on this side of that barrier. All I can do now (without the threat of violent government retribution) is basically bookkeeping and filing taxes, which isn't unrewarding or bad in any regard, but it's so far from that of which I'm truly capable.

I suppose the extreme alternative is to use these skills in favor of an outlaw enterprise where my licensing doesn't matter, but, then I just trade one violent oppressor for another, and the same rules apply, except that I can't file paperwork to appeal my execution order with the latter.

Plus, when I posted an ad on backpage.com advertising bookkeeping and compliance work for escorts and sex workers, I got 0 responses. I don't quite know how to penetrate (HA!) that market anyway... :).