It's called proportionality. Amazon sends millions of packages, but were caught out breaking safety rules about 24 times.
You don't want to kill Amazon, just make it comply. I'd say that 350 K for a single transgression will get their attention. If not, the next penalty will be higher.
What those 24 caught events (clearly only the tip of the iceberg) tell us is that Amazon clearly does not have in place a good process for vetting the shipability of stock items. The risk analysis group at Amazon must be shitting bricks. While 350 K$ is nothing to Amazon - bring down a plane with 300 passengers and the liability (~ a billion) will get even Amazon's attention.
You suck at math. Amazon shipped 1 billion packages in 2015. So you can estimate that it sends about that much a year (and probably more so by the end of 2016.)
24 incidents / 1,000,000,000 = 0.000000024
That's 7 zeroes to the left of the most significant digit, or 99.9999976% or 7 degrees of reliable testing.
I'm not defending Amazon. A lapse is a lapse, and good that the feds are suing them, which will make the company improve a track record that is already good.
The numbers suggest that they indeed have a good vetting system, one that can always be improved upon, but ones that most companies can only dream to attain.
It certainly would have helped if he'd published it a couple of months ago.
My thoughts exactly. To me, Assange is an asshole. If he has the goods, and if he really cares about truth, he should deliver them now without so much fanfare. Otherwise, he ought to STFU.
Yeah, no input at all. Aside from 16,000,000 democratic primary voters.
Of which a significant amount voted not for her, but as a vote against Trump because they don't think Sanders could mount enough of a challenge. Whether that is right or wrong, that's the reality. But who cares about nuisance?
While many financial analysts will be inspecting the details more closely, a lot of onlookers simply want to know... why? Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has sent an internal memo to staff about the LinkedIn acquisition, and it attempts to answer why the company is interested in the social networking giant.
Nadella hints that LinkedIn will help play into its Office software in the future. One feature will be LinkedIn's newsfeed "that serves up articles based on the project you are working on and Office suggesting an expert to connect with via LinkedIn to help with a task you're trying to complete." Nadella sees a future where LinkedIn can be more intelligent and feed into Office 365. "New opportunities will be created for monetization through individual and organization subscriptions and targeted advertising," says Nadella.
I was thinking that M$ perhaps was divining some untapped big-data potential with this acquisition. But after reading this, that's one fucked up boondoggle. A newsfeed? Really? M&A has jumped the shark on this one. Either that, or Nadella is hoping for some good karma out of this one.
The father of the shooter is a bit curious also. He has a string of YouTube videos mostly discussing politics in Afghanistan, and according to the Washington Post
Seddique Mateen, who has been referred to as Mir Seddique in early news reports, hosted the “Durand Jirga Show” on a channel called Payam-e-Afghan, which broadcasts from California. In it, the elder Mateen speaks in the Dari language on a variety of political subjects. He doesn't always make much sense. Dozens of videos are posted on a channel under Seddique Mateen's name on YouTube. A phone number and post office box that are displayed on the show were traced back to the Mateen home in Florida. Mateen also owns a nonprofit organization under the name Durand Jirga, which is registered in Port St. Lucie, Fla.
In one video, Mateen expresses gratitude toward the Afghan Taliban, while denouncing the Pakistani government.
“Our brothers in Waziristan, our warrior brothers in [the] Taliban movement and national Afghan Taliban are rising up,” he said. “Inshallah the Durand Line issue will be solved soon.”
Gosh, you're right. Cowering on the floor and hoping that the attacker will leave you alone is a much better plan. What was I thinking?
-jcr
Life is not a GI Joe strip. Sometimes shit goes bad. And yes, every fucking LEO will tell you to drop to the floor, take cover and/or run.
I typically believe that more guns can help (I don't oppose teachers carrying guns in school, for instance.) But guns at an alcohol establishment? Are you fucking insane? We know exactly what happens when we mix those two.
One guy with a rifle and a pistol, and over a hundred unarmed civilians, and one armed defender, ended up as some pretty stupid shit.
Adding in SWAT guys (more guns) to the situation, didn't create more stupid shit, it *ended* it.
If there had been even *one* more good guy with a gun at the beginning of the carnage, we'd have had *less* stupid shit.
Now, I'm fully okay with making it illegal to drink and carry concealed, but if you can have a designated driver, then you should be able to have a designated CCW too.
We sacrificed 50 people in a "gun free zone", in addition to the hundreds of others killed over the years with the same situation.
SWAT guys with more guns =/= patrons with guns at a booze place. I'm sorry, but guns at an entertainment establishment that sells alcohol? That's fucking stupid. I own guns, and carry wherever I can legally. But common sense tells me where to draw the line. With that suggestion of yours, you are not looking for a solution, you are shoehorning a very dangerous proposition.
In a way, I agree that more guns would have helped. But these have to be carried by specific people (LEOs or bouncers), not just the average Joe drinking booze and trying to score. Booze and alcohol? Horrible mix.
I'd say that shows very clearly that depending on the cops for protection is a losing strategy. If you want to protect yourself, your friends and loved ones, and innocent people around you, you should carry at all times.
-jcr
I am a CCW holder, and I believe in the 2nd amendment. With that said, what you are suggesting is fucking lunatic. This was a club that serves alcohol (and like any club, a place where people go to hook up or do drugs)? Nothing absolutely wrong with any - if you are not hurting anyone, you should be free to do whatever pleases you. But do you really want people carrying weapons while drinking booze?
More guns wouldn't have helped significantly in this particular case And if you add more guns, all you need is a perp carrying several pipe bombs. What is the solution? I don't know. But if a solution exist, chances are it would be far more complex than just bringing more guns to the OK corral.
I mean, seriously, bringing guns to an establishment that sells alcohol? Very dumb idea.
What you could do is have armed bouncers. Not armed patrons, but armed bouncers. That could tilt things in our favor. But the general population? No. We are too fucking savage and aggressive and stupid for that. If ISIS is not shooting at us, we are shooting at each other. Fact!
Can't vouch for this, but various sites are reporting...
...that what set him off was seeing two men kissing in public.
...that in an apparently unrelated case a man has been arrested for suspicious behavior and found to have a carload of weapons and bomb-making matierials, apparently in LA from Indiana for the Gay Pride parade. Police are looking for an associate he mentioned. The parade is going ahead, with heightened security.
TFA mentions that Mateen was interviewed by the FBI in 2013 and 2014, but not deemed dangerous. This reinforces my doubts that background checks will ever be very effective in general, whether for terrorism or any other type of bad behavior.
Correct. The NY Times and others are reporting that the perp's father commented to that fact. Not that the father is explaining or justifying what the asshole son did, but simply stating the idiot's state of mind. The perp not only brought murder to his victims, but a tide of shit soon to hit his own family who are going to have to live with the aftermath. SMFH.
Yes, but that is not how China will treat that lab. Their take over of the S. China Sea is only preparation for assaulting Taiwan with bad governance and the PLA. They figure it is not too dissimilar to when they discovered they owned Tibet because their ancestors use to go potty there several centuries ago. Their discovery of Taiwan is based on the grounds the Taiwanese are really Chinese, even the natives. They have not yet been able to get Taiwan to fork over their country to the Muppets in Beijing, so they'll have to do a Tibet on them. Preparations are already being made across the Taiwanese straits. The Muppets just have to wait long enough to remove the U.S.'s ability to fulfill their treat obligations to Taiwan. I give it another 10 years before China will take Taiwan and do for it what they are doing to Hong Kong.
I wish there was a multi-choice voting system to mark this post as insightful, funny and depressing.
The poor and disadvantaged don't have relatives that have made it through college. They don't know anyone to encourage them generally because the people they know have no experience with university. Many won't even realize the kids they think are doing great are struggling as hard as they are. Study groups can help this if they join them and most don't but it's better to be told by someone that's done it that it was hard for everyone, not just them.
Sometimes productivity actually drops once filtering "fun" sites is implemented. Instead of 10 seconds to check facebook and 2 minutes to glance through a few news articles on a computer, it now takes 5 minutes on Facebook and 10 minutes on news sites to do the same thing on a phone.
It is all a matter of balance and requirements. For a company doing "enterprisey" stuff, who cares about access to the internet. If you are working with a defense-related company (as in the example I alluded to), you cannot play with that shit.
And let's think about the context of this story. Singapore. Government agencies in Singapore are getting flooded by attacks from China, like you would not believe. They are being forced into implementing this policy. So I don't blame them, and that's what I would if I were in their shoes (and so would you.)
This process is expensive and there are better ways to do it. CO2 can be used for enhanced oil recovery which can sequester carbon while also helping improve yield. Since it has positive economic value, it is much more likely to actually happen.
Technologies and solutions are not mutually exclusive. And operating costs tend to decrease with scale or better technology. If the only reason to deter use of a technology is the up-front operational cost of a pilot program, we wouldn't have a lot of the shit we take for granted nowadays.
how in hell are they going to be able to do the work they're paid for ? printing thousands of pages of paper documentation ?
Whitelist selected sites like stackoverflow. That's what I've seen done. It doesn't impair development productivity. After all, you do not need wholesome access to the internet, do you?
Why not? Why not get everyone laptops and let them use WiFi? Your company sucks.
Dude, if you have laptops connected with wi-fi, you are opening the same attack surface (if not a greater surface) than when you were connected directly to a LAN. There are legitimate reasons to only allow whitelisted sites (stackoverflow for example.) Why would you need access to CNN or youtube when ON THE CLOCK, clicking random websites loading trojans?
You know what would be even more secure? No printers or photocopiers. If someone wants to write a document, they have to do it longhand. If someone wants a copy, they have to copy it longhand as well. That will really slow down the leakage of information!
Of course a truly secure society would get rid of writing altogether. Important secrets will be passed down using special people with trained memory (often called "bards"). They use song and rhyme to help with the large amounts of memorization required. Ever heard of anyone running off with the vital military secrets of an Amazonian or Pigmy tribe? No? That's why.
Efficient dissemination of information is for suckers.
Why would you need to have access to, say, CNN or youtube when you are on the clock? You are on the clock. You work. You want to do some leisure media consumption, do it with your smartphone on a coffee break or when you get home.
Couldn't you just ask them to unblock stackoverflow so you could keep copy pasting your work?
That's what we did at a previous company (defense contractor). We requested things like infoq, stackoverflow/stackexcange, acm and ieee.org for being unblocked, and voila. It kinda sucked not to have access to cnn, dilbert and slashdot, but that's the whole point (to limit dicking around.) Besides, if we really wanted to browse, we simply used our smartphones during coffee breaks.
My last job hop was almost a 60% raise...I suppose that is what you get for being faithful to a company for 7 years.
To get almost 60% raise from an initial baseline for seven year, that is the equivalent of religiously getting around 7% of a raise every one of those years (or a promotion to management.)
Either way congratulation. And that was not just for being faithful, but because you worked at a good company. Most companies do not give more than 3% yearly raises. 4% or 5% is almost unheard off, and anything above that we are talking about major promotions above teach lead and into middle management.
Ask around. There are plenty of people that are faithful for that long and still never get more than 20% of a total raise (either through promotion or cumulative.)
Also, what is faithful? In corporate America, what is that? If you were in Japan or Germany where companies will cut a finger before laying off people, I can understand. But here?
You are faithful when you do your job and go above and beyond while you are there. Faithful is not sticking around. I've seen plenty of dinosaurs sticking around in defense contracting companies, sticking around via red tape rather than adding value.
I'm sorry bro, but to me the only type of "faithfulness" is to deliver value for the paychecks we get, not for sticking around for X amount of years. This is not a marriage, but a business transaction. Corporate America has made sure that this is the case, and if you, the generic you, don't see it the same and watch yourself, you will eventually end up playing Russian roulette with your job and/or income.
To expound, my threshold to live is typically 5% up my current income if I have enough reason to believe I won't get there in my current job within the next two years. Or if I'm doing a lateral move, I might go for less if the technical changes will prove advantageous for my future. I would still try to get more, but if I can't I would negotiate for more vacation or personal holiday time.
And ass-holes like you don't understand the job market. How easy is it for someone to change jobs.
It all depends on where you chose to put roots. If you made the choice to put roots in Buttholeklahomabraska where you work for the one and only employer, well, yeah. Which is why I've always avoided living anywhere but metropolitan areas with enough employers to lessen the risk of change (a risk that will fucking happen at some point.)
Yeah because it's really easy to sell your house and pull your kids out of school and move to a new location just to get a 2% raise.
I wouldn't leave a current job for a 2% raise. And the question is, if shit is not working for you, what do you do. Yes, shit is not easy, but when you have to make choices, what do you? Stay put or move?
Or how about this? Work as a contractor going to different cities while you leave your house and kids put? Does it suck? You bet. But if things aren't working, you gotta do what you gotta do.
Life is not about making choices from a set of choices you like. It's about choosing from what life is giving you, and life ain't gonna give you perfect choices taylor-made for your own fucking comfort, specially if you, for whatever reason, you live in the middle of nowhere.
I got a few nice raises - due to doing some good work, and deserving them, really - a number of years ago. Ever since, I've been told that "I'm already at the top of the pay range for my position" which they determine based on analysis of other companies in the area.
May be true, may not. But I haven't had a raise to speak of since. Every year my buying power goes down and my bills stay the same or increase.
And now they're talking "involuntary separations" in a few months. Isn't that a charming way to say "layoffs." "Involuntary separations." I'd like to voluntarily connect my foot wit their ass.
No offense, but shouldn't you have jumped ship already? When I mention about the ability to trade salary increases for benefits, I didn't mean to do that shit forever. You do that for as long as it is financially and personally convenient and/or advantageous.
Otherwise, jump ship. It is not something I though needed to be broken down Barnie style. SMH.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called proportionality. Amazon sends millions of packages, but were caught out breaking safety rules about 24 times.
You don't want to kill Amazon, just make it comply. I'd say that 350 K for a single transgression will get their attention. If not, the next penalty will be higher.
What those 24 caught events (clearly only the tip of the iceberg) tell us is that Amazon clearly does not have in place a good process for vetting the shipability of stock items. The risk analysis group at Amazon must be shitting bricks. While 350 K$ is nothing to Amazon - bring down a plane with 300 passengers and the liability (~ a billion) will get even Amazon's attention.
You suck at math. Amazon shipped 1 billion packages in 2015. So you can estimate that it sends about that much a year (and probably more so by the end of 2016.)
24 incidents / 1,000,000,000 = 0.000000024
That's 7 zeroes to the left of the most significant digit, or 99.9999976% or 7 degrees of reliable testing.
I'm not defending Amazon. A lapse is a lapse, and good that the feds are suing them, which will make the company improve a track record that is already good.
The numbers suggest that they indeed have a good vetting system, one that can always be improved upon, but ones that most companies can only dream to attain.
It certainly would have helped if he'd published it a couple of months ago.
My thoughts exactly. To me, Assange is an asshole. If he has the goods, and if he really cares about truth, he should deliver them now without so much fanfare. Otherwise, he ought to STFU.
But they're all dead nonetheless. Curiosity must not be strong here.
What is the point of curiosity if it lacks the intelligence to discern correlation from causation?
Yeah, no input at all. Aside from 16,000,000 democratic primary voters.
Of which a significant amount voted not for her, but as a vote against Trump because they don't think Sanders could mount enough of a challenge. Whether that is right or wrong, that's the reality. But who cares about nuisance?
Clearly, people whose primary job output is not open-source code do not deserve new jobs.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
https://www.logicallyfallaciou...
From an article on The Verge:
While many financial analysts will be inspecting the details more closely, a lot of onlookers simply want to know... why? Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has sent an internal memo to staff about the LinkedIn acquisition, and it attempts to answer why the company is interested in the social networking giant.
Nadella hints that LinkedIn will help play into its Office software in the future. One feature will be LinkedIn's newsfeed "that serves up articles based on the project you are working on and Office suggesting an expert to connect with via LinkedIn to help with a task you're trying to complete." Nadella sees a future where LinkedIn can be more intelligent and feed into Office 365. "New opportunities will be created for monetization through individual and organization subscriptions and targeted advertising," says Nadella.
I was thinking that M$ perhaps was divining some untapped big-data potential with this acquisition. But after reading this, that's one fucked up boondoggle. A newsfeed? Really? M&A has jumped the shark on this one. Either that, or Nadella is hoping for some good karma out of this one.
The father of the shooter is a bit curious also. He has a string of YouTube videos mostly discussing politics in Afghanistan, and according to the Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-shooting-suspects-father-hosted-a-political-tv-show-and-even-tried-to-run-for-the-afghan-presidency
Oh shit, this is getting into the realm of the surreal. WTF is going on with this family? :/
Gosh, you're right. Cowering on the floor and hoping that the attacker will leave you alone is a much better plan. What was I thinking?
-jcr
Life is not a GI Joe strip. Sometimes shit goes bad. And yes, every fucking LEO will tell you to drop to the floor, take cover and/or run.
I typically believe that more guns can help (I don't oppose teachers carrying guns in school, for instance.) But guns at an alcohol establishment? Are you fucking insane? We know exactly what happens when we mix those two.
One guy with a rifle and a pistol, and over a hundred unarmed civilians, and one armed defender, ended up as some pretty stupid shit.
Adding in SWAT guys (more guns) to the situation, didn't create more stupid shit, it *ended* it.
If there had been even *one* more good guy with a gun at the beginning of the carnage, we'd have had *less* stupid shit.
Now, I'm fully okay with making it illegal to drink and carry concealed, but if you can have a designated driver, then you should be able to have a designated CCW too.
We sacrificed 50 people in a "gun free zone", in addition to the hundreds of others killed over the years with the same situation.
SWAT guys with more guns =/= patrons with guns at a booze place. I'm sorry, but guns at an entertainment establishment that sells alcohol? That's fucking stupid. I own guns, and carry wherever I can legally. But common sense tells me where to draw the line. With that suggestion of yours, you are not looking for a solution, you are shoehorning a very dangerous proposition.
In a way, I agree that more guns would have helped. But these have to be carried by specific people (LEOs or bouncers), not just the average Joe drinking booze and trying to score. Booze and alcohol? Horrible mix.
I'd say that shows very clearly that depending on the cops for protection is a losing strategy. If you want to protect yourself, your friends and loved ones, and innocent people around you, you should carry at all times.
-jcr
I am a CCW holder, and I believe in the 2nd amendment. With that said, what you are suggesting is fucking lunatic. This was a club that serves alcohol (and like any club, a place where people go to hook up or do drugs)? Nothing absolutely wrong with any - if you are not hurting anyone, you should be free to do whatever pleases you. But do you really want people carrying weapons while drinking booze?
More guns wouldn't have helped significantly in this particular case And if you add more guns, all you need is a perp carrying several pipe bombs. What is the solution? I don't know. But if a solution exist, chances are it would be far more complex than just bringing more guns to the OK corral.
I mean, seriously, bringing guns to an establishment that sells alcohol? Very dumb idea.
What you could do is have armed bouncers. Not armed patrons, but armed bouncers. That could tilt things in our favor. But the general population? No. We are too fucking savage and aggressive and stupid for that. If ISIS is not shooting at us, we are shooting at each other. Fact!
Can't vouch for this, but various sites are reporting...
TFA mentions that Mateen was interviewed by the FBI in 2013 and 2014, but not deemed dangerous. This reinforces my doubts that background checks will ever be very effective in general, whether for terrorism or any other type of bad behavior.
Correct. The NY Times and others are reporting that the perp's father commented to that fact. Not that the father is explaining or justifying what the asshole son did, but simply stating the idiot's state of mind. The perp not only brought murder to his victims, but a tide of shit soon to hit his own family who are going to have to live with the aftermath. SMFH.
Yes, but that is not how China will treat that lab. Their take over of the S. China Sea is only preparation for assaulting Taiwan with bad governance and the PLA. They figure it is not too dissimilar to when they discovered they owned Tibet because their ancestors use to go potty there several centuries ago. Their discovery of Taiwan is based on the grounds the Taiwanese are really Chinese, even the natives. They have not yet been able to get Taiwan to fork over their country to the Muppets in Beijing, so they'll have to do a Tibet on them. Preparations are already being made across the Taiwanese straits. The Muppets just have to wait long enough to remove the U.S.'s ability to fulfill their treat obligations to Taiwan. I give it another 10 years before China will take Taiwan and do for it what they are doing to Hong Kong.
I wish there was a multi-choice voting system to mark this post as insightful, funny and depressing.
The poor and disadvantaged don't have relatives that have made it through college. They don't know anyone to encourage them generally because the people they know have no experience with university. Many won't even realize the kids they think are doing great are struggling as hard as they are. Study groups can help this if they join them and most don't but it's better to be told by someone that's done it that it was hard for everyone, not just them.
Exactly! Finally someone who gets it.
Sometimes productivity actually drops once filtering "fun" sites is implemented. Instead of 10 seconds to check facebook and 2 minutes to glance through a few news articles on a computer, it now takes 5 minutes on Facebook and 10 minutes on news sites to do the same thing on a phone.
It is all a matter of balance and requirements. For a company doing "enterprisey" stuff, who cares about access to the internet. If you are working with a defense-related company (as in the example I alluded to), you cannot play with that shit.
And let's think about the context of this story. Singapore. Government agencies in Singapore are getting flooded by attacks from China, like you would not believe. They are being forced into implementing this policy. So I don't blame them, and that's what I would if I were in their shoes (and so would you.)
Then you did it wrong, and missed something.
This process is expensive and there are better ways to do it. CO2 can be used for enhanced oil recovery which can sequester carbon while also helping improve yield. Since it has positive economic value, it is much more likely to actually happen.
Technologies and solutions are not mutually exclusive. And operating costs tend to decrease with scale or better technology. If the only reason to deter use of a technology is the up-front operational cost of a pilot program, we wouldn't have a lot of the shit we take for granted nowadays.
You've never taken any undergraduate science classes, have you ? At the orbital velocities of planets the effects of time dilation are miniscule.
No, there is no significant (or probably even noticeable) time differences between Mercury and Uranus.
My thoughts exactly. When I saw the OP's comment about time dilation between planets around the same start, I'm like WTF?
do they employ any developers there ?
how in hell are they going to be able to do the work they're paid for ? printing thousands of pages of paper documentation ?
Whitelist selected sites like stackoverflow. That's what I've seen done. It doesn't impair development productivity. After all, you do not need wholesome access to the internet, do you?
"However not at your desk"
Why not? Why not get everyone laptops and let them use WiFi? Your company sucks.
Dude, if you have laptops connected with wi-fi, you are opening the same attack surface (if not a greater surface) than when you were connected directly to a LAN. There are legitimate reasons to only allow whitelisted sites (stackoverflow for example.) Why would you need access to CNN or youtube when ON THE CLOCK, clicking random websites loading trojans?
You know what would be even more secure? No printers or photocopiers. If someone wants to write a document, they have to do it longhand. If someone wants a copy, they have to copy it longhand as well. That will really slow down the leakage of information!
Of course a truly secure society would get rid of writing altogether. Important secrets will be passed down using special people with trained memory (often called "bards"). They use song and rhyme to help with the large amounts of memorization required. Ever heard of anyone running off with the vital military secrets of an Amazonian or Pigmy tribe? No? That's why.
Efficient dissemination of information is for suckers.
Why would you need to have access to, say, CNN or youtube when you are on the clock? You are on the clock. You work. You want to do some leisure media consumption, do it with your smartphone on a coffee break or when you get home.
Couldn't you just ask them to unblock stackoverflow so you could keep copy pasting your work?
That's what we did at a previous company (defense contractor). We requested things like infoq, stackoverflow/stackexcange, acm and ieee.org for being unblocked, and voila. It kinda sucked not to have access to cnn, dilbert and slashdot, but that's the whole point (to limit dicking around.) Besides, if we really wanted to browse, we simply used our smartphones during coffee breaks.
I can totally see the reasoning behind it.
My last job hop was almost a 60% raise...I suppose that is what you get for being faithful to a company for 7 years.
To get almost 60% raise from an initial baseline for seven year, that is the equivalent of religiously getting around 7% of a raise every one of those years (or a promotion to management.)
Either way congratulation. And that was not just for being faithful, but because you worked at a good company. Most companies do not give more than 3% yearly raises. 4% or 5% is almost unheard off, and anything above that we are talking about major promotions above teach lead and into middle management.
Ask around. There are plenty of people that are faithful for that long and still never get more than 20% of a total raise (either through promotion or cumulative.)
Also, what is faithful? In corporate America, what is that? If you were in Japan or Germany where companies will cut a finger before laying off people, I can understand. But here?
You are faithful when you do your job and go above and beyond while you are there. Faithful is not sticking around. I've seen plenty of dinosaurs sticking around in defense contracting companies, sticking around via red tape rather than adding value.
I'm sorry bro, but to me the only type of "faithfulness" is to deliver value for the paychecks we get, not for sticking around for X amount of years. This is not a marriage, but a business transaction. Corporate America has made sure that this is the case, and if you, the generic you, don't see it the same and watch yourself, you will eventually end up playing Russian roulette with your job and/or income.
To expound, my threshold to live is typically 5% up my current income if I have enough reason to believe I won't get there in my current job within the next two years. Or if I'm doing a lateral move, I might go for less if the technical changes will prove advantageous for my future. I would still try to get more, but if I can't I would negotiate for more vacation or personal holiday time.
And ass-holes like you don't understand the job market. How easy is it for someone to change jobs.
It all depends on where you chose to put roots. If you made the choice to put roots in Buttholeklahomabraska where you work for the one and only employer, well, yeah. Which is why I've always avoided living anywhere but metropolitan areas with enough employers to lessen the risk of change (a risk that will fucking happen at some point.)
Yeah because it's really easy to sell your house and pull your kids out of school and move to a new location just to get a 2% raise.
I wouldn't leave a current job for a 2% raise. And the question is, if shit is not working for you, what do you do. Yes, shit is not easy, but when you have to make choices, what do you? Stay put or move?
Or how about this? Work as a contractor going to different cities while you leave your house and kids put? Does it suck? You bet. But if things aren't working, you gotta do what you gotta do.
Life is not about making choices from a set of choices you like. It's about choosing from what life is giving you, and life ain't gonna give you perfect choices taylor-made for your own fucking comfort, specially if you, for whatever reason, you live in the middle of nowhere.
Think before you post moron.
Would you do it for a 3% raise? You already put a value on it, so where does it end?
That all depends on the circumstances unique to each household.
I'm apparently Bob.
I got a few nice raises - due to doing some good work, and deserving them, really - a number of years ago. Ever since, I've been told that "I'm already at the top of the pay range for my position" which they determine based on analysis of other companies in the area.
May be true, may not. But I haven't had a raise to speak of since. Every year my buying power goes down and my bills stay the same or increase.
And now they're talking "involuntary separations" in a few months. Isn't that a charming way to say "layoffs." "Involuntary separations." I'd like to voluntarily connect my foot wit their ass.
No offense, but shouldn't you have jumped ship already? When I mention about the ability to trade salary increases for benefits, I didn't mean to do that shit forever. You do that for as long as it is financially and personally convenient and/or advantageous.
Otherwise, jump ship. It is not something I though needed to be broken down Barnie style. SMH.