"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.