|
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... You lost, Chuck. Better than being lost. Any day. But you apparently are. I finally figured you out, JimH. You're a put-on. It's been obvious for a while, but since you began using it as your email address you have revealed the essence of the canard: Everytime somebody makes a snide remark, you jump in to reinforce it. All this time I thought it was a personality defect, but it turns out to be a game played by a guy with the email address "me2@......" Nicely done. BTW: I see you conveniently cut off your initial insult when you responded to me. I put it back for you Chuck. See what a nice guy I am. ;-) |
Doh! It should say "You *threw* out an insult.."
I committed a Bassy. LOL! You can't ackowledge your own typo without tossing in an insult directed against a third party not even involved in the discussion? Now that I know you're all bluff, it's not so serious. Otherwise, I'd suggest you seek help for nemesis obsession. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... I love it...thanks... Canada is looking attractive as a safe haven for skipping out on the failing fascist United States... Once W. gets rid of welfare, it will also look attractive to millions of lazy, Section 8 living welfare bums. They will come, with their demands of government handouts because it is their 'right.' They will also bring their drug dealing and their guns. Canada will be a blood bath as too many folks know don't own guns and can't because they really don't need them up there. Once you start seeing the urban ghettos of Canada grow...then you will see the violence. |
BTW: I see you conveniently cut off your initial insult when you responded
to me. Somebody accused me of losing. I said it was better to lose than to be lost. How is that an insult, me2? |
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... BTW: I see you conveniently cut off your initial insult when you responded to me. Somebody accused me of losing. I said it was better to lose than to be lost. How is that an insult, me2? You just don't get it. It is always the other person and never you. |
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Doh! It should say "You *threw* out an insult.." I committed a Bassy. LOL! You can't ackowledge your own typo without tossing in an insult directed against a third party not even involved in the discussion? Chuck, I will use your usual response so you can best understand: Me? What....I did not insult anyone. But yes, I should not have said that. I should have said ....committed a "Chuckie." LOL! |
It looks like we agree on this completely. If you hire an unskilled worker
at minimum wage and give him the opportunity to increase his value by being more productive or learning a skill that is in demand, it will be beneficial to both you and the employee. Any successful company does this today, if not, his competition will eat him alive and he will lose all of his good people and very soon be out of business. Now, what if a person does not want, or does not have the ability to learn a skill that will increase his value, should he be given salary increases automatically. Suppose he has a drinking or drug problem can not do a skilled job, but is able to carry bricks or mortar. Should you refuse to hire this person, because you know he will never be worth more than a minimum wage worker? Or should you except the fact, that there are some people who will never be able to do a job that pays more than minimum wage, and accept the fact that you will need someone to do that job. If he becomes more productive at doing the unskilled labor, it will be worth it to pay him more, because you want him to work for you and not someone else. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... What do you recommend doing for unskilled people working for such low pay? If you just keep raising the minimum wage, they will not have any reason to learn a skill. A recommendation based on experience: When I ran businesses where I had a lot of employees, (well sort of "a lot"- had about 65 once), there were always a few entry level jobs that paid minimum wage. I guaranteed my commission sales people minimum wage, but they also understood I guaranteed they'd be putting their desk in a cardboard box if they didn't nearly always exceed mini-wage by a substantial amount. A business organization thrives as it brings its people up, not as it holds them down. The kid that hires on as a mini-wage lot boy shuffling cars around and picking up trash will hopefully prove to be a good employee that you train to become a higher-wage detailer or lube rack technician. If not, you dismiss him and replace him with somebody that can help the organization grow. No reasonable business person wants an employee who is so marginally productive that it makes no sense to pay more than $7.15 (current mniwage in our state) per hour. When a guy says, "I can't afford to pay my help more than $7.15 an hour", he's really stating, (IMO) that he's a lousy manager and unable to motivate his people to be productive. Business is all about getting rich, but in its best form it is also about enriching others along the way. The guy who thinks he's got the world dicked because his $7 an hour employees produce $30 an hour gross profit is usually lucky to rise above lower middle class himself. Give me a $15-25 an hour guy who can produce $100 an hour any day over a miniwager who can barely justify his nothing salary. I'll take as many hundred dollar bills (that I can buy for $25@) as I can get, and thank you very much. :-) |
Now, what if a person does not want, or does not have the ability to learn a
skill that will increase his value, should he be given salary increases automatically. He should be shown the door. An entry level job is a way to introduce unskilled people with a lot of potential to a workplace. You make a lot more money off the skilled help than off the unskilled. Why should the other workers have to "carry' a mini-wager? The lower corporate profits that result from employees producing marginally or inefficiently tend to be reflected in less generous wages and benefits across the board. Get the guy or gal into a position where he or she can make a good wage and make some serious money for the company at the same time- and if they cannot rise or will not rise to the opportunity a good manager will replace them as soon as possible. The most expensive position to a progressively managed company is probably the one that only justifies a minimum wage. |
But yes, I should not have said that. I should have said ....committed a
"Chuckie." There's hope for you. Yes, if you needed to add an insult to your acknowledgement of typo, you *should* restrict that insult to persons involved in the discussion. |
OK, so when you hire the person to sweep the floor, take out the trash, move
the dirt, dig the hole, carry the bricks or whatever other non skilled job you can think of. You hire the guy because he looks like he has the ability to do the job. After 6 months it becomes obvious that this person is not going to be able to do any job except the one you hired him for, do you recommend he be fired even though he is able to do the job you hired him for? Now what if you hire a salesman and he is able to do the job, and is able to sell the average number of cars that is sold on your lot. After 2 years it becomes obvious that he is never going to become a manager, and 50% of your employees will always sell more than he does. You know in your heart that he will always be an average performer, do you fire him? "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Now, what if a person does not want, or does not have the ability to learn a skill that will increase his value, should he be given salary increases automatically. He should be shown the door. An entry level job is a way to introduce unskilled people with a lot of potential to a workplace. You make a lot more money off the skilled help than off the unskilled. Why should the other workers have to "carry' a mini-wager? The lower corporate profits that result from employees producing marginally or inefficiently tend to be reflected in less generous wages and benefits across the board. Get the guy or gal into a position where he or she can make a good wage and make some serious money for the company at the same time- and if they cannot rise or will not rise to the opportunity a good manager will replace them as soon as possible. The most expensive position to a progressively managed company is probably the one that only justifies a minimum wage. |
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... But yes, I should not have said that. I should have said ....committed a "Chuckie." There's hope for you. Yes, if you needed to add an insult to your acknowledgement of typo, you *should* restrict that insult to persons involved in the discussion. Thanks for the tip. You are, after all, the master. |
OK, so when you hire the person to sweep the floor, take out the trash, move
the dirt, dig the hole, carry the bricks or whatever other non skilled job you can think of. You hire the guy because he looks like he has the ability to do the job. After 6 months it becomes obvious that this person is not going to be able to do any job except the one you hired him for, do you recommend he be fired even though he is able to do the job you hired him for? I would never hire anybody simply to do the most menial job in the joint forever. (Maybe a charity case, a person with some sort of mild disability or what not- different story). Part of the job is to grow out of it- if a guy or gal can't do that, he or she would not being doing what I had hired them to do. You always need somebody to sweep the floor, dump the trash, etc- but that should be a person just passing through on the way to something more rewarding in the company as soon as they are able. I never hired anybody without a vision of their first promotion or two already in mind, and a commitment to outline a path by which they could achieve advancement. You don't make serious money on the cheap help. Now what if you hire a salesman and he is able to do the job, and is able to sell the average number of cars that is sold on your lot. After 2 years it becomes obvious that he is never going to become a manager, and 50% of your employees will always sell more than he does. You know in your heart that he will always be an average performer, do you fire him? When it comes to a commission salesperson, it's a lot like employing an athlete. Some guys are going to sell anything that isn't nailed down- every Eskimo in town is going to order *two* icemakers, and be grateful. Those guys are the Pedro Martinez, Alex Rodriguez sort of people that exist in any field, and you can't count on having an entire sales crew made up of people at that level. Aren't enough to go around, and they tend to get bitchy with each other if there are too many "stars" on the floor at any one time. Do you fire the average performer? Depends on what average is. Is that average guy closing every second or third decent prospect and making $90,000 a year? I'd say that average was acceptable in most fields and leave him or her well enough alone, unless they are some sort of high maintenance character creating trouble elsewhere. If the average salesperson is closing at a 15 or 20 percent ratio and making $35,000 a year, the problem most likely isn't with the salesman at all. There are more likely some serious problems with the business model, the sales training and supervision, or maybe the corporate atmosphere isn't sufficiently motivating. You want your commission structure to be competitive, and you want your commission salespeople to make boatloads of money. Step one: Create a business atmosphere with a positive charge and genuine opportunity. Step two: Hire managers who can hire salespeople able to capitalize on the opportunity. Step three: Examine results of step two. Repeat if necessary. |
I am glad that most employers do not follow you recommendations, since there
are millions of people who either because of lack of motivation, medical problems, mental health problems, mentally challenged with extremely low IQ's would never get a job. Also most of our produce would not be harvested, ditches would not get dug, etc, because the people we hired for those jobs would all eventually be promoted out of the job. Our economy would suffer, millions more people would be on welfare, and unemployed. This would be a lose lose situation for the non skilled worker and the country. I have seen supermarkets chains who deliberately hire mentally challenged people (retards) to bag groceries. These people are dependable, enjoy what they are doing and are able to do the job with a little extra training. They love being able to chat with the shoppers, it is the ideal job. They will never get beyond an entry level job, but it is a win win for everyone, the company, the employee and the country. The company also gets a tax break because the government is trying to encourage hiring people who once were considered unhireable. While your recommendations might be very advantageous for an individual company, if it was used a model for all people employed in the US, you would see millions more people living on the streets and millions of jobs not being done. I personally can not imagine the quality of the salesman you hired to sweep the floors or pick up the trash until he was ready to sell cars. I can not imagine the quality of the mechanic who was willing to park and wash cars till he was able to learn how to be a mechanic. There are millions of people in the US who want a simple minded job, they want to work their 8 hrs, go home drink a beer, eat dinner and screw their wife. The fact that you do not understand this means you have lived a very sheltered life. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... OK, so when you hire the person to sweep the floor, take out the trash, move the dirt, dig the hole, carry the bricks or whatever other non skilled job you can think of. You hire the guy because he looks like he has the ability to do the job. After 6 months it becomes obvious that this person is not going to be able to do any job except the one you hired him for, do you recommend he be fired even though he is able to do the job you hired him for? I would never hire anybody simply to do the most menial job in the joint forever. (Maybe a charity case, a person with some sort of mild disability or what not- different story). Part of the job is to grow out of it- if a guy or gal can't do that, he or she would not being doing what I had hired them to do. You always need somebody to sweep the floor, dump the trash, etc- but that should be a person just passing through on the way to something more rewarding in the company as soon as they are able. I never hired anybody without a vision of their first promotion or two already in mind, and a commitment to outline a path by which they could achieve advancement. You don't make serious money on the cheap help. Now what if you hire a salesman and he is able to do the job, and is able to sell the average number of cars that is sold on your lot. After 2 years it becomes obvious that he is never going to become a manager, and 50% of your employees will always sell more than he does. You know in your heart that he will always be an average performer, do you fire him? When it comes to a commission salesperson, it's a lot like employing an athlete. Some guys are going to sell anything that isn't nailed down- every Eskimo in town is going to order *two* icemakers, and be grateful. Those guys are the Pedro Martinez, Alex Rodriguez sort of people that exist in any field, and you can't count on having an entire sales crew made up of people at that level. Aren't enough to go around, and they tend to get bitchy with each other if there are too many "stars" on the floor at any one time. Do you fire the average performer? Depends on what average is. Is that average guy closing every second or third decent prospect and making $90,000 a year? I'd say that average was acceptable in most fields and leave him or her well enough alone, unless they are some sort of high maintenance character creating trouble elsewhere. If the average salesperson is closing at a 15 or 20 percent ratio and making $35,000 a year, the problem most likely isn't with the salesman at all. There are more likely some serious problems with the business model, the sales training and supervision, or maybe the corporate atmosphere isn't sufficiently motivating. You want your commission structure to be competitive, and you want your commission salespeople to make boatloads of money. Step one: Create a business atmosphere with a positive charge and genuine opportunity. Step two: Hire managers who can hire salespeople able to capitalize on the opportunity. Step three: Examine results of step two. Repeat if necessary. |
I personally can not imagine the quality of the salesman you hired to sweep
the floors or pick up the trash until he was ready to sell cars. You missed the point. I would hire guys who were only able to do menial jobs when they came aboard and give them opportunities to become more skilled and capable. As far as the quality of my salespeople went, we were top dealer in five states with one major franchise several years in a row and consistently in the top three nationally with another. Most of the guys have gone on to become GM's and dealers in their own right. Hiring the right guys makes a huge difference. I am glad that most employers do not follow you recommendations, since there are millions of people who either because of lack of motivation, medical problems, mental health problems, mentally challenged with extremely low IQ's would never get a job. Nor is any business required to offer employment to the undermotivated, the physically incapable, the emotionally unstable, or the mentally inept. Also most of our produce would not be harvested, ditches would not get dug, etc, because the people we hired for those jobs would all eventually be promoted out of the job. Our economy would suffer, millions more people would be on welfare, and unemployed. Not at all. Promoting the capable energizes the economy and creates even more opportunity for everybody. If you have a ditch digger who should be working as a leadman, it's inefficient to keep him stuck in the ditch digger job. Promote him. Build a second crew around him, and you'll need even more ditch diggers (which will reduce unemployment). Your company will also be able to do more work, increasing profits. This would be a lose lose situation for the non skilled worker and the country. There is nothing that says a company must allow an unskilled worker to remain unskilled. It makes sense to provide a path for workers to grow. A company cannot prosper when most of the employees are being held back. A guy or gal who has no desire to rise above the lowest possible level would not be the sort of person I would hire. That's not heartless, IMO. Deliberately staffing up with undermotivated people who have no desire to get up to a higher rung, in order to keep wages depressed, is heartless, as well as short-sighted. I have seen supermarkets chains who deliberately hire mentally challenged people (retards) to bag groceries. These people are dependable, enjoy what they are doing and are able to do the job with a little extra training. And every one of those people is a little human success story. Some of them could never rise above bagging groceries under any circumstance. That charity comes at a real cost to the business, however. With all the grunt level jobs filled by folks who *cannot* advance to a position where they create more value for the company, there are fewer opportunities for bright and eager youngsters who might prove, through experience, to be darn good grocers and an asset to the firm. While your recommendations might be very advantageous for an individual company, if it was used a model for all people employed in the US, you would see millions more people living on the streets and millions of jobs not being done. See my comment about promoting the ditch digger to leadman. I can not imagine the quality of the mechanic who was willing to park and wash cars till he was able to learn how to be a mechanic. He wasn't a mechanic when he was washing cars. but you want to find a "dream" employee? Look for the guy or gal who walks in and says, "I'll take any job you've got, just to get in the door. I'm confident I'll demonstrate enough value to your firm that I will be promoted very quickly, no matter where I start." The challenge with managing that type of person is that you do need to be able to move them up as they legitimately earn it- or else they will be working for the guy down the street. There are millions of people in the US who want a simple minded job, they want to work their 8 hrs, go home drink a beer, eat dinner and screw their wife. The fact that you do not understand this means you have lived a very sheltered life. The fact that you would make such a presumptive statement indicates you don't know a damn thing about my life- but don't worry, I won't bore you with all the gory, boring details. We're discussing the efficiency of hiring capable people for a decent wage vs. hiring the incapable for the legal minimum, not my biography. :-) |
We have gotten so far from where this discussion started I think we need to
go back to the beginning. You stated that the businessmen in San Diego who were hiring unskilled workers were crooks for not paying a living wage. I asked you what you thought was the solution for these unskilled workers earning minimum wage. You solution was to only hire those who have the ability to be promoted 2 or 3 levels in your company and as their skills increase you pay them accordingly. If they do not have the ability to move up in your organization you should not hire them. Companies should not hire anyone who does not want to move up. What should we as a society do for those people who do not have the desire or the ability to move up? What should we do when an honest hard working immigrant (either legal or illegal) wants to work picking produce or digging ditches. In construction and farming, 2 or 3 levels promotion is middle management. If we don't believe they can move up to middle management we just don't hire them? In your car dealership when you hired a janitor, what jobs were you planning to promote him to? What do we do for all these people who can not meet your requirements for employment. . "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... I personally can not imagine the quality of the salesman you hired to sweep the floors or pick up the trash until he was ready to sell cars. You missed the point. I would hire guys who were only able to do menial jobs when they came aboard and give them opportunities to become more skilled and capable. As far as the quality of my salespeople went, we were top dealer in five states with one major franchise several years in a row and consistently in the top three nationally with another. Most of the guys have gone on to become GM's and dealers in their own right. Hiring the right guys makes a huge difference. I am glad that most employers do not follow you recommendations, since there are millions of people who either because of lack of motivation, medical problems, mental health problems, mentally challenged with extremely low IQ's would never get a job. Nor is any business required to offer employment to the undermotivated, the physically incapable, the emotionally unstable, or the mentally inept. Also most of our produce would not be harvested, ditches would not get dug, etc, because the people we hired for those jobs would all eventually be promoted out of the job. Our economy would suffer, millions more people would be on welfare, and unemployed. Not at all. Promoting the capable energizes the economy and creates even more opportunity for everybody. If you have a ditch digger who should be working as a leadman, it's inefficient to keep him stuck in the ditch digger job. Promote him. Build a second crew around him, and you'll need even more ditch diggers (which will reduce unemployment). Your company will also be able to do more work, increasing profits. This would be a lose lose situation for the non skilled worker and the country. There is nothing that says a company must allow an unskilled worker to remain unskilled. It makes sense to provide a path for workers to grow. A company cannot prosper when most of the employees are being held back. A guy or gal who has no desire to rise above the lowest possible level would not be the sort of person I would hire. That's not heartless, IMO. Deliberately staffing up with undermotivated people who have no desire to get up to a higher rung, in order to keep wages depressed, is heartless, as well as short-sighted. I have seen supermarkets chains who deliberately hire mentally challenged people (retards) to bag groceries. These people are dependable, enjoy what they are doing and are able to do the job with a little extra training. And every one of those people is a little human success story. Some of them could never rise above bagging groceries under any circumstance. That charity comes at a real cost to the business, however. With all the grunt level jobs filled by folks who *cannot* advance to a position where they create more value for the company, there are fewer opportunities for bright and eager youngsters who might prove, through experience, to be darn good grocers and an asset to the firm. While your recommendations might be very advantageous for an individual company, if it was used a model for all people employed in the US, you would see millions more people living on the streets and millions of jobs not being done. See my comment about promoting the ditch digger to leadman. I can not imagine the quality of the mechanic who was willing to park and wash cars till he was able to learn how to be a mechanic. He wasn't a mechanic when he was washing cars. but you want to find a "dream" employee? Look for the guy or gal who walks in and says, "I'll take any job you've got, just to get in the door. I'm confident I'll demonstrate enough value to your firm that I will be promoted very quickly, no matter where I start." The challenge with managing that type of person is that you do need to be able to move them up as they legitimately earn it- or else they will be working for the guy down the street. There are millions of people in the US who want a simple minded job, they want to work their 8 hrs, go home drink a beer, eat dinner and screw their wife. The fact that you do not understand this means you have lived a very sheltered life. The fact that you would make such a presumptive statement indicates you don't know a damn thing about my life- but don't worry, I won't bore you with all the gory, boring details. We're discussing the efficiency of hiring capable people for a decent wage vs. hiring the incapable for the legal minimum, not my biography. :-) |
Can someone pass the popcorn?
Any cold ones in the fridge? |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: Was it not all you lefties that were against any controls on illegal immigration to the USA? Nice sentence, fella. George W. Bush...Armed, Dangerous, and Stupid... Just What the Terrorists Want & America Deserves Better than yours. And was it not you lefties that wanted all the illegals signed up to vote? |
What should we as a society do for those people who do not have the desire
or the ability to move up? Employment is not a contract between a worker and "society", but rather between a worker and an employer. What society should do is prevent the unequal status of the applicant/supplicant desperate for work and the potential employer with the job from becoming an abusive situation. The lower the wages paid to an employee, the greater the dependence that employee will have on the public trough. Mini-wage sets a realistic standard that says, "you will pay at least this pittance, to offset at least some of the living expenses and keep your people out of the trough as much as possible." It shouldn't be the taxpayer's responsibility to provide virtually all the basic needs for a family just so an employer can get by with paying a predatory wage. What should we do when an honest hard working immigrant (either legal or illegal) wants to work picking produce or digging ditches. See above. Asking society to provde food, shelter, and other basic services to an employee so that you, the employer, can work that person on the double cheap is just plain wrong. It's just a surely a raid on the public treasury for the benefit of a private individual (the employer) as the stereotypical welfare woman cranking out 15 kids to stay on the dole most of her life. In construction and farming, 2 or 3 levels promotion is middle management. If we don't believe they can move up to middle management we just don't hire them? You don't oridnarily hire a lot of permanent workers in farming. When you have a crop to pick, you take all willing and capable hands. You don't worry about 30 days down the road, harvest will be over by then. When you do hire those willing and capable hands, it should be done legally and at a rate equal to or above the state minimum. In your car dealership when you hired a janitor, what jobs were you planning to promote him to? Janitors were outside contractors. I would imagine a beginning janitor would be able to work up to crew chief, or what not, before long- but I never direclty hired janitors. Menial laborers were typically "lot boys." Good ones could work up to slightly less menial jobs in the shop, take some technical classes and buy some tools, and eventually make a decent middle class income as a technician. Those proving unworthy of promotion typically didn't last long- chronic absenteeism, showing up to drunk to work, burning a phat one out behind the detail shop, etc. "Next!" What do we do for all these people who can not meet your requirements for employment. We don't do anything for them. No need. There are plenty of guys who believe that hiring as cheaply as possible is the only way to go, and they can't be too picky about what they get. The guys who don't want to pay anything and those who don't want to work very hard deserve each other, and they do seem to find one another more often than not. All we do is be sure that the employer doesn't take such extreme advantage of his superior economic power that his sick, starving, homeless workers create a huge drain on everybody else. An employer with a growing business is always in a position to provide opportunities to bright, energetic, talented people who will grow along with the business and make everybody in sight richer along the way. It isn't the employers responsibilty to waste those opportunities on the dull, the undermotivated, or the unqualified. The culls should go to the guys who run a business so badly that a worker isn't empowered to produce enough wealth for both himself and his employer. Ever notice that it is usually the same guys who call for the elimination of minimum wage laws who also call for an end to all public assistance for food, shelter, or medical care? You might ask some of them what should be done with the working poor..... "better they should die, and decrease the surplus population" Ebenezer Scrooge, "A Christmas Carol", by Charles Dickens Anyone lacking a close up perspective might enjoy reading a book called "Nickled and Dimed, on Not Getting By in America." |
John S wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:15:33 -0500, "JimH" wrote: Though I supported Bush, I wrote that I would accept and support Kerry as President. That is the American way. So how are you supporting your favorite BabyBush? Pay up when he raises the taxes to pay for the next war? Enlist in your great army so you can kill 'the enemy' in a conflict you (and BabyBush with you) know nothing about, but think you can solve with violence? Or will you send your children (actually I would prefer that, much better darwinist selection). Face it, you can't do anything when BabyBush starts the next war, you cant even vote against him when the next election comes. That is what a Democracy is all about. I am 57 years old. I have come to learn that above all, I am an American and fully trust and believe in the electoral process and a representative form of government. Well believing is all that is left to you, because knowing is out of the question. You can believe that the world turns around your fasisct state, that some guy in the sky determines your life, that there is life on mars or that the world is flat actually. And best of all you are free to believe so, for now. I have traveled the world (much on business) and there is no place I would rather live than the good old USA. When others come of age, they too will share my views. And another brilliant argument! You are right because you know you are right! And you know that it is right to show off your patriotism, and to make your neighbors do the same. Did you do your marching 'for freedom' yet? [...please learn to quote...] -- Kind regards, Jelle Back to boating please. Your political view will not convince anybody, nor will mine. |
JimH wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... BTW: I see you conveniently cut off your initial insult when you responded to me. Somebody accused me of losing. I said it was better to lose than to be lost. How is that an insult, me2? You just don't get it. It is always the other person and never you. He got it very well. That is exactly the game you are playing. You jump on it anytime you can blame somebody else. -- kind regards, Jelle |
Gould 0738 wrote:
The guy who thinks he's got the world dicked because his $7 an hour employees produce $30 an hour gross profit is usually lucky to rise above lower middle class himself. Give me a $15-25 an hour guy who can produce $100 an hour any day over a miniwager who can barely justify his nothing salary. I'll take as many hundred dollar bills (that I can buy for $25@) as I can get, and thank you very much. :-) Geeze, Chuck. And to think I had you written off as a left wing liberal. Now I can see that you are really a hard-core Capitalist! :-) Eisboch |
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:33:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:40:55 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Hmmm..... First you say: I never said I was leaving. .... set off dirty nukes in the top 20 markets on the same day. And that would do it. Sounds like you've got it all planned. Then you say: My plan is to be outa here before that happens. Which one is the lie? Dave Neither. I never said I was leaving. But you are thinking about it? But I do plan to be outa here before the nukes hit the fan. That implies at least a preliminary timetable. Your brain cannot parse that? Sure. I just parse it for the doubletalk that it is. Saying I am leaving implies I have a definite plan...a destination... Saying I plan to be outa here implies I am thinking about it. Thinking is the first step of a "plan". I know you have problems with nuance. It isn't my fault. The only "problem" I have with nuances is resisting the temptation to illustrate just how skilled spinmeisters use them to make the claim they mean something totally different than what they actually said, or how they deliberately remain vague enough so as to claim to support either side of an issue depending on how future events unfold. Dave |
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:13:16 GMT, "Don White"
wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Indeed, and as you know, Canada is one of my favorite places, but... it's a tad cool for my taste. I have a retired buddy who moved to Costa Rica a few years ago, bought himself a small coffee plantation for under $100,000, and plays at farmer and fishing guide. Costa Rica is pretty stable and the weather is great. snip.. A buddy of mine, who has pretty well lived in the Caribbean since 1979 always said Costs Rica would be a good place to move to. At one time, all you needed to immigrate was to show an income of $ 1000.00 per month. That figure might be $2500./month or so now but still reasonable. Whether or not that figure is reasonable depends on what your source of income is. If the best job you get there only pays $300/week, you might have a problem. It's all relative. Dave |
"Jelle" wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... BTW: I see you conveniently cut off your initial insult when you responded to me. Somebody accused me of losing. I said it was better to lose than to be lost. How is that an insult, me2? You just don't get it. It is always the other person and never you. He got it very well. That is exactly the game you are playing. You jump on it anytime you can blame somebody else. -- kind regards, Jelle As you just did? |
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:48:43 -0500, P.Fritz wrote:
I a fully aware of the minimum wage, my point being that having a minimum wage is simply wrong.....If a worker is willing to work for $4.00 an hour, why is it the guvmint position to say, no he can't. Why stop there? http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NG3J8UE1U1.DTL |
"Dr. Dr. Smithers" wrote in message news:hQCid.297078$wV.284572@attbi_s54... [OT garbage snipped] The doctor is out! Goodbye for ever a**hole... *ploink* -- -Netsock "It's just about going fast...that's all..." http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/ |
"JimH" wrote in message ... As you just did? Posting off topic... Feeding the trolls... Contributing nothing about boating... Strike three...you're out! *ploink* -- -Netsock "It's just about going fast...that's all..." http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/ |
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:38:01 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: ~~ snippity snip ~~ You have lots of problems with nuance. Life while you're living it is conditional at best, with lots of "If-Thens." Well, at least it is if you are driven by intellect. If you are Pavlovian, then I suppose you don't have to concern yourself with nuance. I don't see it that way. In my world, everything is pretty much black and white. And I don't see that as Pavlovian as much as I see it as a rational look at how the world works. I think it comes from being a mathematician by education and a engineer by profession. Remember the French language wars of the early '70s? French good, English bad? Then they discovered that the France French they'd been speaking for the past 200 or so years isn't French at all but an amalgation of Basque, Spanish and English leading to purifying the language by, and I loved this bit, sending French teachers to rural Louisiana to learn "true" French. Now that's pretty black and white in terms of culture isn't it? :) Anything that "defiles" the language is purged in favor of non-inclusion of terms from other languages and cultures. That's not nuance - that's pure simple arrogance and, if you wanted to use the term, bigotry. I think way to much emphasis is placed on nuance as being an intellectual trait. Nuance certainly does have it's place in philosophy, psychiatry/psychology and other medical professions that are not based on pure science, but as a practical trait, a factor in daily decision making, it's counter productive. Later, Tom |
Let me try this another way, let's assume you owned a construction company
who needed unskilled labor for short periods of time. Your needs would vary, from needing no unskilled labor to needing 50 short term unskilled employees. Do you think society/government should mandate that you keep these people on the payroll for the full 52 weeks and pay them a respectable income, even if their services is not needed? Society/government also mandates that we just increase the minimum wages so that all an employees earn a living wage. This living wage would pay for food, health care, clothes, transportation and all basic needs. Should we pay them $15/hr, $20 hr. $30/hr? What should we pay them? The income an individual needs to live on is less than a 6 person family, should we make the minimum wage based upon the number of people the person needs to support? How about the 16 yr old kid working at McDonalds, since he lives with his family, his needs are substantially less, should he earn enough the same amount as a 6 person family or should be provide a tiered system of minimum wage? What about the short term employees such as the produce pickers, should we insist that the company providing these services pay them for 52 weeks? Should we make sure we do not allow temporary work permits for Mexican's to work these short term jobs? If we allow the temp. workers to come in the US for the harvest season in the US, after the harvest is over they go back to Mexico. Should we pay these people enough to live comfortable in Mexico or the US? Remember, if we increase the money supply without a corresponding increase in productivity we end up with the kind of inflation we saw in the south during the civil war and Germany saw during WW2. Unfortunately, anytime you increase the money supply without an increase in production, you have more money chasing after the same amount of good and services and you will have inflation. My point is there is no easy solution. While the marketplace is a very brutal way to determine the value of goods and services, no one has found a better way to do it. Communism was an attempt to solve the problems you and many of us are concerned about, but it is a failed experiment. Socialism was tried by in Great Britain after the war. This was another attempt to correct these inequities in the marketplace. Their economy suffered as the result, causing many industries to fail, and a larger segment of the population to lose their jobs and end up on the dole. GB ended up dismantling much of their government corporations so society as a whole would benefit. I wish there was a better way to spread the wealth, but in the last 6000 years, society has never found a better way, even though many have tried. Economists would tell you that laws to have employers provide the safety net now provided by the government is the most inefficient way to provide these services. The average citizen would still be paying for these services by paying more for all goods and services. Instead of paying taxes to the government, we would be paying the tax to companies via higher prices. It would transfer the cost/tax from the government now provided this safety net, to the private sector. As crazy as it sounds, economists would tell you, the cheapest way to provide this safety net, is to give it to them. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... What should we as a society do for those people who do not have the desire or the ability to move up? Employment is not a contract between a worker and "society", but rather between a worker and an employer. What society should do is prevent the unequal status of the applicant/supplicant desperate for work and the potential employer with the job from becoming an abusive situation. The lower the wages paid to an employee, the greater the dependence that employee will have on the public trough. Mini-wage sets a realistic standard that says, "you will pay at least this pittance, to offset at least some of the living expenses and keep your people out of the trough as much as possible." It shouldn't be the taxpayer's responsibility to provide virtually all the basic needs for a family just so an employer can get by with paying a predatory wage. What should we do when an honest hard working immigrant (either legal or illegal) wants to work picking produce or digging ditches. See above. Asking society to provde food, shelter, and other basic services to an employee so that you, the employer, can work that person on the double cheap is just plain wrong. It's just a surely a raid on the public treasury for the benefit of a private individual (the employer) as the stereotypical welfare woman cranking out 15 kids to stay on the dole most of her life. In construction and farming, 2 or 3 levels promotion is middle management. If we don't believe they can move up to middle management we just don't hire them? You don't oridnarily hire a lot of permanent workers in farming. When you have a crop to pick, you take all willing and capable hands. You don't worry about 30 days down the road, harvest will be over by then. When you do hire those willing and capable hands, it should be done legally and at a rate equal to or above the state minimum. In your car dealership when you hired a janitor, what jobs were you planning to promote him to? Janitors were outside contractors. I would imagine a beginning janitor would be able to work up to crew chief, or what not, before long- but I never direclty hired janitors. Menial laborers were typically "lot boys." Good ones could work up to slightly less menial jobs in the shop, take some technical classes and buy some tools, and eventually make a decent middle class income as a technician. Those proving unworthy of promotion typically didn't last long- chronic absenteeism, showing up to drunk to work, burning a phat one out behind the detail shop, etc. "Next!" What do we do for all these people who can not meet your requirements for employment. We don't do anything for them. No need. There are plenty of guys who believe that hiring as cheaply as possible is the only way to go, and they can't be too picky about what they get. The guys who don't want to pay anything and those who don't want to work very hard deserve each other, and they do seem to find one another more often than not. All we do is be sure that the employer doesn't take such extreme advantage of his superior economic power that his sick, starving, homeless workers create a huge drain on everybody else. An employer with a growing business is always in a position to provide opportunities to bright, energetic, talented people who will grow along with the business and make everybody in sight richer along the way. It isn't the employers responsibilty to waste those opportunities on the dull, the undermotivated, or the unqualified. The culls should go to the guys who run a business so badly that a worker isn't empowered to produce enough wealth for both himself and his employer. Ever notice that it is usually the same guys who call for the elimination of minimum wage laws who also call for an end to all public assistance for food, shelter, or medical care? You might ask some of them what should be done with the working poor..... "better they should die, and decrease the surplus population" Ebenezer Scrooge, "A Christmas Carol", by Charles Dickens Anyone lacking a close up perspective might enjoy reading a book called "Nickled and Dimed, on Not Getting By in America." |
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:38:01 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
There are a number of attractive places in the world where the Bushtapo isn't...I suspect there will be a significant and increasing outflow of some of our really best and brightest to those locations as the United States of Jesus slides back into the primordial ooze. Geez Harry, we aren't there yet. While I found the election results *very* discouraging, I have faith in the resilience of this great country. We will survive this administration. Also, don't forget, that since Eisenhower, the Republicans haven't been able to run this country without shooting themselves. I'm sure with all the zealots, the DeLays, history will repeat itself. |
Eisboch,
Gould showed us that when it is his company or his money, he is a brutal Capitalist. The strong survive and prosper, the weak get thrown to the side and leave it up to the government to provide the safety net. I thought I was a Capitalist, but I would have keep an employee if was able to do the job he was paid to do. I would not fire him or leave him in the roles of unemployable just because I did not believe he could move up in the corporation. I guess I must be a moderate. "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Gould 0738 wrote: The guy who thinks he's got the world dicked because his $7 an hour employees produce $30 an hour gross profit is usually lucky to rise above lower middle class himself. Give me a $15-25 an hour guy who can produce $100 an hour any day over a miniwager who can barely justify his nothing salary. I'll take as many hundred dollar bills (that I can buy for $25@) as I can get, and thank you very much. :-) Geeze, Chuck. And to think I had you written off as a left wing liberal. Now I can see that you are really a hard-core Capitalist! :-) Eisboch |
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 09:10:59 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Eisboch wrote: http://letsriot.com/stuff/new_map.jpg Eisboch I love it...thanks... Canada is looking attractive as a safe haven for skipping out on the failing fascist United States... He he: history repeats itself... My ancestors on my Mother's side were United Empire Loyalists - fled the US when they didn't like the politics there. Now there's a flood coming north after the election (and not just for our flu vaccine!) Lloyd Sumpter, Canadian. |
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:25:07 +0000, Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... http://letsriot.com/stuff/new_map.jpg Neat map.. Sure would be great to have New England 'back in the fold'! Yeah...and the "proper" Vancouver ;) Lloyd |
Gould,
Do you have something against unskilled Mexicans who are willing to work for minimum wage? No. I have a problem with guys who scream for a society with overwhelming enforcement of most laws, but who personally profit by entering into illegal employment contracts with people so incredibly poor that *anything*, even $2-3/hour, is better than stavation. |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Whether or not that figure is reasonable depends on what your source of income is. If the best job you get there only pays $300/week, you might have a problem. It's all relative. Dave Probably best geared towards retirees with a reasonable pension..., the almost wealthy who can show healthy income from investments.....or those who could set up a business there. |
Eisboch,
Gould showed us that when it is his company or his money, he is a brutal Capitalist. It's written somewhere that a liberal must be poor? You and Eisboch both fail to see the fundamental liberalism in the hiring philosophy. An employer has an obligation to create an atmosphere of opportunity, where employees can grow and prosper. This serves fiscal and social ends at the same time. Judge a business not merely on how well the owner prospers, but how the employees grow and prosper as well. I thought I was a Capitalist, but I would have keep an employee if was able to do the job he was paid to do. Sounds like a government job. That sort of attitude will put a private company in the tank, especially a small one. The guy merely doing the job he was hired to do was either mishired, (as he has no capacity to grow and therefore help the company at an increased level of responsibility), is undermotivated, or works in an environment that is not interested in the future and well-being of the employee and does not provide opportunity and training for advancement. Those are all management failures. Show me an enterprise filled with folks merely doing "the job I was hired to do" and we'll see a stagnant or failing business. I would not fire him or leave him in the roles of unemployable just because I did not believe he could move up in the corporation. Ever hire anybody? That process always involves a decision to leave people in the ranks of the unemployed. Do you recommend that when a firm has a job opening it should be filled with the first warm body to appear with an application? Failure to do so will probably leave somebody among the ranks of the unemployed. |
|
Gould 0738 wrote:
You and Eisboch both fail to see the fundamental liberalism in the hiring philosophy. Lighten up Chuck ... it was just a joke (notice smiley face?) I also had a brick and mortar company, started from scratch, and to be honest I was more focused on staying in business than I was on philosophy. However, despite my lack of deep philosophical thinking, the company finally succeeded and every employee shared in the financial reward. Eisboch |
I went to the local labor emporium and got some Brazilians who did it
for $7.00/hr. I didn't even ask - I just said to the guy at the employment desk I needed four people, explained what I wanted and there they were. Now, when I have to get the hay off the field or some other task like stacking wood for the winter, I just make the call and presto, more people to help at the state minimum which I believe now is $7.25. You're (presumably) hiring legal workers and paying a legal wage. No problemo. Casual, manual, short term jobs don't require great social sensitivity to fill- but the hiring practices shouldn't be predatory or illegal and yours would not seem to be. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com