Olorinus wrote:
Don't forget this valuable lesson:
7) The more someone gets paid the less likely they are to do any real work
7) The more someone gets paid the less likely they are to do any real work
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Occupy Wall Street
Occupy Wall StreetFollow
Want to qualify what "real work" is?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Don't forget this valuable lesson:
7) The more someone gets paid the less likely they are to do any real work
7) The more someone gets paid the less likely they are to do any real work
Lol! He clearly means hard manual labor. Cause that's the most valuable thing anyone can do!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Don't forget this valuable lesson:
7) The more someone gets paid the less likely they are to do any real work
7) The more someone gets paid the less likely they are to do any real work
real work: actually doing or producing something (whether that is cleaning a toilet or writing a press release)
Not real work: drinking cocktails and doing "lunch meeting", golfing with "important people," hosting parties, putting your hand up when told (board meetings), telling other people what to do while doing nothing of substance, standing around watching other people work, etc.
By that definition I don't do real work.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Olorinus wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Don't forget this valuable lesson:
7) The more someone gets paid the less likely they are to do any real work
7) The more someone gets paid the less likely they are to do any real work
real work: actually doing or producing something (whether that is cleaning a toilet or writing a press release)
Not real work: drinking cocktails and doing "lunch meeting", golfing with "important people," hosting parties, putting your hand up when told (board meetings), telling other people what to do while doing nothing of substance, standing around watching other people work, etc.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
IMO, it's a matter of definition. People's pay is related to the value others place on what they do, not how hard they work, or whether it meets some random poster on the internet's definition of "real work".
The only person who's qualified to judge whether someone's labor is worth what they are paid is the person who's paying them. Seems somewhat absurd for some third party to insist that there's something wrong because a corporation is willing to pay some guy who just goes to meetings all day a 6 figure salary. Maybe they know something you don't?
Edited, Oct 12th 2011 3:29pm by gbaji
The only person who's qualified to judge whether someone's labor is worth what they are paid is the person who's paying them. Seems somewhat absurd for some third party to insist that there's something wrong because a corporation is willing to pay some guy who just goes to meetings all day a 6 figure salary. Maybe they know something you don't?
Edited, Oct 12th 2011 3:29pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
lolgaxe wrote:
By that definition I don't do real work.
Are you getting paid more or less than you were getting paid at jobs where you were doing real work?
gbaji wrote:
The only person who's qualified to judge whether someone's labor is worth what they are paid is the person who's paying them.
Olorinus wrote:
Are you getting paid more or less than you were getting paid at jobs where you were doing real work?
Edited, Oct 12th 2011 6:34pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Are you getting paid more or less than you were getting paid at jobs where you were doing real work?
Edited, Oct 12th 2011 6:34pm by lolgaxe
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
lolgaxe wrote:
By your own definitions of what is and isn't hard work, I'm paid substantially more at my "not hard work" job.
Ditto. Learned from experience. The easier, less horrible, more awesome, higher status jobs are less difficult and better paying.
Seems a bit backwards to me.
Edited, Oct 12th 2011 4:04pm by Olorinus
Olorinus wrote:
Ditto. Learned from experience.
Experienced intelligent people eventually learn how to make more money for less work; both for themselves and their employer. Seems natural to me. I'm more useful at this computer than I ever was mowing lawns.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Olorinus wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
By your own definitions of what is and isn't hard work, I'm paid substantially more at my "not hard work" job.
Ditto. Learned from experience. The easier, less horrible, more awesome, higher status jobs are less difficult and better paying.
Generally, yes.
Quote:
Seems a bit backwards to me.
Why? Methinks you're not grasping the whole "your labors worth what someone else will pay for it and not how hard it is for you to do" bit.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Olorinus wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
By your own definitions of what is and isn't hard work, I'm paid substantially more at my "not hard work" job.
Ditto. Learned from experience. The easier, less horrible, more awesome, higher status jobs are less difficult and better paying.
Seems a bit backwards to me.
Edited, Oct 12th 2011 4:04pm by Olorinus
Wow, don't you just reek of bottom rung management.
So the monkeys with the shovels make bank, while the ringleaders orchestrating the show make peanuts. That's how you think it should work?
Here's a hint. Grunt work =/= difficult. Hence the reason it's grunt work.
Edited, Oct 12th 2011 1:56pm by Raolan
gbaji wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Ditto. Learned from experience. The easier, less horrible, more awesome, higher status jobs are less difficult and better paying.
Generally, yes.
I put in more hours, have far more responsibility and stress and take home work on a regular basis. I'm on call 24/7 and when things go south, it's my *** on the line. I suppose my situation could be the exception, but I doubt that.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
Ditto. Learned from experience. The easier, less horrible, more awesome, higher status jobs are less difficult and better paying.
Generally, yes.
/shrug. I ignored the "less difficult" part of the sentence, primarily because it's a given in the sentence itself and therefore meaningless. By definition the "easier .... jobs" are "less difficult".
What's funny is that my brain just automatically discounted that part of the sentence as meaningless words and read the rest as: "The less horrible, more awesome, higher status jobs are better paying". Then I agreed that this is generally true. I honestly didn't even realize I'd done that until you pointed it out. Automated logic parsing. Go figure!
Quote:
I put in more hours, have far more responsibility and stress and take home work on a regular basis. I'm on call 24/7 and when things go south, it's my *** on the line. I suppose my situation could be the exception, but I doubt that.
I absolutely agree that usually those jobs are not actually easier at all. They look so to those who only see their bosses standing around watching people work, or going to meetings, or going to lunch with clients/vendors, or taking business trips. It all must look glamorous to those who don't realize that it actually is a hell of a lot of work and results are expected and the stress level is usually much much higher than a guy who's most difficult decision is whether to push a button or not.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Also, you kinda left out the part about opposition to government intervening in the free market. Obviously, the government should be directly involved in managing our nations military. It should not be so directly involved in managing our markets.
Why? I think it should be actively involved in dampening the business cycle, to create more continuous economic functions, and thus more correctly correlate good ideas and profit, and bad ideas with loss, as well as muting the social strife associated with preventable market disturbances.
Just as Planned.
Just remembering the paper routes...
My parents "owned" a paper route. Once a week, they'd go to the printers, pick up boxes of papers, and bring them home for processing on Wednesday night. There were usually about 25-50 bundles of papers and matching inserts. My parents would pay me and my sisters as well as the neighborhood kids 25 cents a bundle, to add in the inserts and roll them up into their plastic sheathes. I was quite young but I managed to usually get my four bundles in for a dollar, whereas my sisters and the other neighborhood kids would compete to see who could get things done the fastest. The rolled up papers would be boxed up in good, waxed cardboard boxes (liberated from a local chicken processing plant and sanitized), and then stuffed into the trunk of the car for delivery.
Delivery took about 2-3 hours for the route. One of us (usually my older sisters, but in a pinch me) would be the "thrower" while my dad drove the car slowly along the street. Since it was a free weekly, every house got one along our route so we didn't have to keep track of who paid for the subscription or anything like that. To this day, my right arm is a bit overdeveloped compared to my left arm because of throwing all those papers. (My oldest sister also had a wicked tennis serve because of that paper route.)
By the time she was in high school, the oldest sister had taken over driver duties, leaving the rest of us to fold. Then she left for college, and the third oldest took over for a bit. (Second oldest, the one with mental health problems, preferred to throw and not drive.)
For all this work, from the folding and the boxing and the throwing of the papers, my family was paid about $200 a week. Now, since that was the 1980s, that was not an insignificant amount of money, especially since gasoline was cheap and most of the annoying labor of stuffing, folding, and rolling was handled by the under ten crowd for pocket change.
Now that is how you do a goddamn paper route.
Edit: The downside, I just remembered, was that all the paper ink turned our living room floor a rather ugly gray. So my mother had our carpet dyed brown at some point, "to hide the dirt."
Edited, Oct 12th 2011 9:33pm by catwho
My parents "owned" a paper route. Once a week, they'd go to the printers, pick up boxes of papers, and bring them home for processing on Wednesday night. There were usually about 25-50 bundles of papers and matching inserts. My parents would pay me and my sisters as well as the neighborhood kids 25 cents a bundle, to add in the inserts and roll them up into their plastic sheathes. I was quite young but I managed to usually get my four bundles in for a dollar, whereas my sisters and the other neighborhood kids would compete to see who could get things done the fastest. The rolled up papers would be boxed up in good, waxed cardboard boxes (liberated from a local chicken processing plant and sanitized), and then stuffed into the trunk of the car for delivery.
Delivery took about 2-3 hours for the route. One of us (usually my older sisters, but in a pinch me) would be the "thrower" while my dad drove the car slowly along the street. Since it was a free weekly, every house got one along our route so we didn't have to keep track of who paid for the subscription or anything like that. To this day, my right arm is a bit overdeveloped compared to my left arm because of throwing all those papers. (My oldest sister also had a wicked tennis serve because of that paper route.)
By the time she was in high school, the oldest sister had taken over driver duties, leaving the rest of us to fold. Then she left for college, and the third oldest took over for a bit. (Second oldest, the one with mental health problems, preferred to throw and not drive.)
For all this work, from the folding and the boxing and the throwing of the papers, my family was paid about $200 a week. Now, since that was the 1980s, that was not an insignificant amount of money, especially since gasoline was cheap and most of the annoying labor of stuffing, folding, and rolling was handled by the under ten crowd for pocket change.
Now that is how you do a goddamn paper route.
Edit: The downside, I just remembered, was that all the paper ink turned our living room floor a rather ugly gray. So my mother had our carpet dyed brown at some point, "to hide the dirt."
Edited, Oct 12th 2011 9:33pm by catwho
Never worked a paper route but I have had a position in the paper media delivery business.
In an old post, I wrote:
My worst job was for a delivery distributor for the Chicago Tribune Sunday edition back when I was 14 years old. It wasn't a paper route or anything, but rather I worked collating the sections at some warehouse. You had to take all the Comics/Advertising sections and tuck them into the Real Estate sections which went into the Food sections, etc. The crappy parts were the hours and the wages. The hours were (keeping in mind that we were 14) Friday afternoons from 5pm-2am, Saturday morning from 8am-2pm and then 1am-4am on Sunday morning for the actual news sections that couldn't be printed in advance.
For this, we were paid piecemeal. They would assign a value to a package of Food sections and tell us that, per package of fifty copies of Food we filled, we'd make a set amount. Usually something under a dollar, often under seventy-five cents. It's wasn't ******** but it was probably about as close as you got in 1980's mid-America.
Anyway, it pales to a lot of work I could have been doing (gutting fish, cleaning out sewer pipes, fighting wildebeest, etc) and wasn't as emotionally exhausting as a lot of jobs but, for a 14 year old, it sure did blow chunks.
For this, we were paid piecemeal. They would assign a value to a package of Food sections and tell us that, per package of fifty copies of Food we filled, we'd make a set amount. Usually something under a dollar, often under seventy-five cents. It's wasn't ******** but it was probably about as close as you got in 1980's mid-America.
Anyway, it pales to a lot of work I could have been doing (gutting fish, cleaning out sewer pipes, fighting wildebeest, etc) and wasn't as emotionally exhausting as a lot of jobs but, for a 14 year old, it sure did blow chunks.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Yep, pretty similar.
Ours was The Augusta Shopper, a coupon/advertisement paper that no longer exists.
I was too young to really feel exploited over the thing (a dollar is a lot of money to a five year old), so I don't consider it my worst job ever. That was the Summer of Hell when I was a Girl Scout camp counselor.
I've said it before, but that summer is the reason I'm not having children. *shudder*
Edited, Oct 12th 2011 9:48pm by catwho
Ours was The Augusta Shopper, a coupon/advertisement paper that no longer exists.
I was too young to really feel exploited over the thing (a dollar is a lot of money to a five year old), so I don't consider it my worst job ever. That was the Summer of Hell when I was a Girl Scout camp counselor.
I've said it before, but that summer is the reason I'm not having children. *shudder*
Edited, Oct 12th 2011 9:48pm by catwho
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Also, you kinda left out the part about opposition to government intervening in the free market. Obviously, the government should be directly involved in managing our nations military. It should not be so directly involved in managing our markets.
Why? I think it should be actively involved in dampening the business cycle, to create more continuous economic functions, and thus more correctly correlate good ideas and profit, and bad ideas with loss, as well as muting the social strife associated with preventable market disturbances.
It's degrees though, hence my statement about being "so directly involved" (as it is in the military for example). Passing legislation to prevent market failures is one thing. Adjusting lending rates and monetary supply is as well (hence why I don't get all flustered about the Fed). The danger is when the government goes beyond the broad strokes of macro economics and starts directly meddling in individual industries. When it decides that it knows what a "good idea" is and decides to artificially manipulate the market to make those good ideas pay off, while those it dislikes it calls "bad ideas" and makes them less profitable.
This is why conservatives have so much trouble with the whole "Green energy/jobs" deal. If those jobs are good jobs, they should be good whether the government intervenes or not. The deal with Solyndra is a classic example, but it just the most obvious case. In all cases, we're losing money because somewhat by definition, if those companies were the best investments for our market to put capital into, it would. The very fact that the government has to step in and shuffle money around means that those *aren't* good investments.
They may be good for other reasons having nothing to do with economics, but that's a different argument. I've always said that if you can convince people that the cost of subsidizing green energy jobs is worth paying for the cleaner environment you get then that's all great. But when you try to sell those sorts of things on the ground of it being a "good investment", or somehow helping our economy or creating more jobs, you're lying.
And that's what we mean by keeping government out of business. It's not about broadly defined and applied regulations to all business, but the process of (at the risk of repeating a phrase of rhetoric) "picking winners and losers" in the market. Government is *not* supposed to do that. It's not government's job to decide that Solyndra's product is the best way to produce solar power, or that GE's wind turbines should be more profitable than they would otherwise be. The free market does one thing incredibly well: It determines the relative values of things. It sucks at keeping the environment clean. It sucks at ensuring our borders are secure. It sucks at ensuring that no one is discriminated against.
But it is by far the best way to determine what things are the best relative investment. We should be using that instead of trying to fight against it. We should hail those who succeed in the market and attempt to emulate them, rather than castigate them and attempt to punish them for their success. I just see the sorts of protests going on with the Occupy folks as a grand example of exactly the wrong thing to do for the wrong reasons and at the wrong time. We need to embrace success, not punish it.
Edited, Oct 12th 2011 7:12pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Hm. I get paid...decently, for not a whole lot of work, and simple shit at that. I'm on call during business hours, and have work sites up to three hours away, though I don't always have calls every day. Sometimes only one or two jobs a week. But they're willing to pay me for every day, and compensate for mileage since they won't give me a car.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Then why spend so much subsidizing massively profitable oil companies?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
That's totally different!
One is trying to help a new industry get started, the other is pay-offs to a massively successful industry so they'll continue funneling millions and millions of dollars into GOP war chests
One is trying to help a new industry get started, the other is pay-offs to a massively successful industry so they'll continue funneling millions and millions of dollars into GOP war chests
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Debalic wrote:
Then why spend so much subsidizing massively profitable oil companies?
Why do you think? Clearly the oil companies don't need the subsidies to make money, right? The subsidies are very very tiny relative to their total revenue. So why do you suppose they exist?
Apply some Holmes like logic. I don't think it's hard to grasp that they subsidize behavior, not the whole business. The government uses the subsidies to get the oil industry to do things the government wants them to do. It's the same reason we subsidize farming (well, similar reason anyway).
As I explained the last time someone asked this question, there are two different types of subsidies. Those which exist to make something that isn't profitable profitable, and those which exist to get someone engaged in existing profitable work to do things differently. When the government hands a company 1/3rd of its entire operating capital for the entire life of the company, it's the first type of subsidy. When the government pays oil companies a subsidy to explore for oil in certain areas/ways, or car manufacturers to make certain types of cars, or corporations to buy new jets, it's the second type of subsidy.
You should not compare them directly, yet it's funny how the exact response you gave occurs with Pavlovian frequency whenever green energy subsidies are mentioned.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
So, it's okay for the government to directly control one industry, but not another?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Recent Visitors: 322
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (322)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Occupy Wall Street
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC