You assertion is that "every company has to pay its employees enough to buy its products" is
* True
* Is a rule of economics that appears in every text
* Is taught in every economics class
* Has been part of basic economic theory for centuries
Is that your assertion?
Yes. Because it is what was taught to me, as part of a 2 semester gen ed requirement, by a tenured professor, when I earned *my* degree, which is not in economics.
If you truly have a degree in economics, then you already recognize this rule, and there is no further need to prove it.
The assertion is not true in the limited sense in which you first asserted it
Well, I can't speak to what "sense" in which it was first asserted. The assertion stands on its own. If employees cannot afford to buy what they produce, the economy fails.
Now, if that definition needs to be expanded, then: if (the prices of) supply exceeds (the income of) demand then prices must fall to meet demand or the economy fails.
If necessary, I'll cite a text:
In classical economic theory, Say's Law states that in order to consume, one must first produce. Put another way, consumption increases with production...
In 1913, Henry Ford decided to pay autoworkers $5 for an eight-hour day. This decision resulted in Ford workers being paid more than double the average wage in the U.S. and a wage equivalent to the weekly earnings for an English industrial worker. Ford's decision is often interpreted as being made in order to create a market for the Model T, by paying workers enough to afford one.
Now, economists will disagree on this, but it is a valid interpretation from the demand side of the economy. If you disagree, that's fine. It doesn't mean the rule is false.
That's not an exception, nor is it a "red herring"
It is a red herring.
Red herring argument: Intentionally digressing from the real issue being discussed, introducing a side issue that has nothing to do with the real issue under discussion--in an attempt to remove attention from the real issue. This is often very subtle and the new issue can often seem closely related to the real issue.
Citing an exception to a rule by changing the scope of what is being discussed is a black-letter red herring.
Again, I have no interest in arguing economics, and I am not going to address the exception as it is an invalid argument in itself.
No--the point you defend wasn't stated. The point made was that every company had to pay their employees enough to buy their products--otherwise ("like gravity," he wrote) the economy will collapse.
It was stated, as it was repeated. Your response was to cite the obvious literal exception (which is itself a red herring) to a rule of economics that appears in every text, is taught in every class, and which has been part of basic economic theory for centuries. I am not going to argue a red herring. The point stands.
If your wages are zero, you're not in the middle class.
Once again, this is a red herring. And once again, the point stands. If a family of four has a house, two cars and a dog, and it's the day after the career parent has been laid off, they are still middle class. They may not be middle income, but they are still middle class.
Neither of these arguments are valid. In both cases, the response has been to seek a literal exception to an obvious axiom (which itself does not need to be proven), producing nothing except argumentative red herrings.
Um, no. Software development experience is software development experience.
ROFL. That'd last about 12 seconds in an interview. And if that were accepted by the incompetent HR departments and hiring managers, we'd all have been back to work months ago.
First, you have a dubious statistic (5.7% unemployment among American members of IEEE) put forth by a clearly-biased source.
According to a Federal agency study, this is the highest sustained unemployment in four recessions (10-15 years). I'm not sure those statistics are dubious.
In fact, it would appear to spell doom for any company making a "luxury" good or any kind of capital equipment.
Oh, look, a big blinking red herring. What a surprise.
Citing an exception doesn't make an argument. The point stands as stated. If the cost of living exceeds the wages of the middle class (which isn't hard when wages are zero), businesses will either fail or lower their prices, and since companies could care less if they fail (since senior management all walk out the door in a solid gold tuxedos), well, there you go.
Some people recognize this...and learn new skills.
Then they start over with no experience (according to HR) at half their salary, sell their house and move into a small apartment and slowly watch their savings absorbed by taxes and inflation while they hurriedly fill out financial aid forms so their kids can go to college and learn...new skills.
Of course, there's always plenty of apologists for the status quo, so business can just go ahead and do whatever they want. They have no responsibility. They're just in it to make money, right? Hey, why should they care? The only people complaining are the ones in foreclosure and bankruptcy.
I'm fairly certain that the "explanation" is necessary.
I'll quote myself:
These same managers advertise for self-starters: highly intelligent, well-educated, motivated people with sparkling resumes, advanced degrees and years of huge achievements and experience who *once they are hired* are expected to shut up, sit down and do as they are told (just like Junior High School). If they open their mouths, they get fired.
People with all those achievements and education are rarely (if ever) people who don't have some fairly well-ingrained ideas of how things should be done. They wouldn't *have* those resumes if it were otherwise. Yet management expects them to just do as they are told and *refrain from offering any input or contribution* or pack up and leave.
Now, this has just shifted to the interview, where candidates are treated to cynical, skeptical and in some cases, outright hostile interviews by incompetent, greedy managers who want it all for free, and have no intention whatsoever of actually *managing* anyone, because that would require *effort* and it would take time away from the donuts and whiteboards. They don't care if a person is qualified. Either they have the supplicative, friendly, step-and-fetch personality required, or they don't get the job. Simple as that.
See, management is getting the most out of people. People are not perfect little drones who do everything right. People make mistakes. People sometimes have abrasive personalities, and usually for good reason: They are sick and tired of being stomped on by incompetent managers 60 hours a week.
Managing is getting spectacular results from the most abrasive personality on the team. Find out what motivates them. WHY do they feel that the project is a pile of crap. ASK THEM. TALK TO THEM. DON'T shut them down in meetings. LISTEN. LEARN SOMETHING.
Management wouldn't DREAM of doing something like this, because they can't admit to anyone that their employees know more than they do.
Yet, managers who don't do these things are INCOMPETENT by definition.
So they end up with a team of people who spend all day congratulating and agreeing with each other. Nothing gets done. Nothing is produced. Nothing is sold, and the company goes out of business. Happens all the time.
Incompetent management has made W-4 employment a farce. Being qualified is totally irrelevant to these people. I know this for a fact, because I've been passed over for hundreds of jobs for which, based on the job description, I was *perfectly* qualified.
They don't even believe resumes any more, and they assume you are lying in the interview anyway. And all this to get a job it is very likely will be downsized again in six months anyway? What was the point again?
Lemme guess, - you are the rogue programmer who can do it all, and the other guys on the team are a bunch of slackers who just don't get it. Am I right?
No, I'm a very competent and capable programmer who could do a lot, but I'm prevented from doing so by management who are concerned that my ideas are non-standard and that my offering so many alternatives makes them feel I'm not enough of a "team player." (Team Player: n. A phrase recently invented by corporate management which means "someone who will agree with us even when we are wrong.")
As to whether the other guys on the team are slackers: I'd ask them, but they've all been fired.
Basically, if the world functioned as a single economic unit, there might be some truth in that.
There is truth in it, because it is the truth. It is an unavoidable, immutable, absolute law of economics. Period. End of story.
And I made no assertion that the world functions as a single economic unit, although all this talk of a "global marketplace" would seem to indicate that many do.
But it doesn't: restrictions on availability of goods (shipping), language, plus governments, get in the way.
Ok, so what we have, basically, is a restriction on the availability of a living wage for a larger and larger portion of a population. There are a lot of people out there who should have no trouble at all finding work who can't get a part-time job straightening clothes racks.
A recent government study (no I don't remember the name of the agency) stated that the current sustained umemployment levels were the highest in the last four recessions (about 10-15 years).
It's a global market, folks - if you want to keep your jobs and their 80K salaries,
You need to maintain profit margins, which means a higher top line overall. When nobody can afford your product because they are all making $20K a year, paying $10K in taxes and $11K in rent, then what?
OOPS.
Someone earlier said something about basic economics. Well, that's about as basic as it gets. A company MUST PAY their employees enough to afford to buy their product or THEY WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS. PERIOD. It's like gravity, fellas. Can't get around it no matter how many accountants and lawyers you hire.
And while I could write a four page explanation, I'm fairly certain it isn't necessary.
or the inter-personal skills that almost all jobs require.
Oh, wait a minute now, what about that blanket statement earlier? Now we need "inter-personal skills?" Sounds like corporate-speak for "if we *like* you, you can have a job." I detect the words "team player" drifting about...
It's nice when my argument is made for me.
W-4 employment is pointless. Being qualified has nothing to do with getting a job.
And I've seen people fired because they can't get over themselves
Well, there you go. They don't give management their proper respect by supplicating their own confidence, so the wheels turn them out in the street along with all their knowledge and ability so management can go back to meetings and donuts without being interrupted by competence and initiative.
These same managers advertise for self-starters: highly intelligent, well-educated, motivated people with sparkling resumes, advanced degrees and years of huge achievements and experience who *once they are hired* are expected to shut up, sit down and do as they are told (just like Junior High School). If they open their mouths, they get fired.
People with all those achievements and education are rarely (if ever) people who don't have some fairly well-ingrained ideas of how things should be done. They wouldn't *have* those resumes if it were otherwise. Yet management expects them to just do as they are told and *refrain from offering any input or contribution* or pack up and leave.
That's not the right way to run a company. Hire, delegate and MOVE ON.
And once again, you just don't seem credible on this. I have a feeling that there is a LOT more to the story and this person's historical pattern of behavior.
You mean prior to being hired? (Note: I don't really care if I "seem credible")
He had been working there about as long as I had, say four to five months. They hired him (and me and several others) *specifically* because of his knowledge of software development.
He was fired because he disagreed. Period. He was told in the week prior (during a project status meeting, what a surprise) that management "felt" he wasn't being enough of a "team player."
I quit three weeks after he was fired. Of the 10 people hired for our team, all had left (or been fired) within six months. The company was out of business within a year, when 200 more lost their jobs.
if you went for an interview, and some guy talks to you for 10 minutes, and then says "Sorry, your resume is fine, but based on this interview I just don't get the feeling you can handle this job"
I'd throw a party to celebrate the return of honesty to the job market.
Don't think that JUST MAYBE if you are disagreeing with someone 100% of the time, then you have severe problems with authority?
Well, aside from the fact that you misread the sentence, yes, I have problems with self-appointed "authority" who is far more concerned with reminding people of the power vested in them by the power vested in them than they are with supporting the people who work hard for them and earning their respect.
That you don't really have any opinions of your own; you only have opinions contrary to whomever you interpret as an authority figure?
I have many opinions of my own. I am very well educated and have a lot of experience. Most companies I have worked for have actively and vigorously discouraged the application of that knowledge to my job, and done the exact same thing to EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON I KNOW OR HAVE EVER WORKED WITH.
Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. That whole rant is so divorced from reality, I doubt that you have very much experience in the real world.
No idea what I'm talking about. lol I have seven years of experience as a senior engineer.
I have seen people with five years of seniority FIRED because they disagreed passionately about a "flippant" management decision. They stood up for what they believed in, and it cost them their careers. That's reality in "corporate" business these days, and it's a crying tragic shame.
I know one person in particular who was labeled a "troublemaker" because they offered a dissenting opinion in front of senior managment during a "standards process" presentation. Two months later, the three middle managers (who were shown to be wrong at that presentation by the way) had that person fired. One year later, he, his wife and their three small children lost their house. It took him 15 months to find another job. Why? He disagreed.
If you are judging someone in 10 minutes, then by definition it's a flippant decision.
I'm not "judging" anyone. I'm making a *decision* as to whether they can do the work and if they are motivated.
Well, I congratulate you on your psychic abilities to figure out someone's intelligence in 10 minutes.
It doesn't take psychic abilities. After 10 minutes, I can tell if someone has the motivation and ability to do a job. Anything more than that, and the interviewer is luxuriating in their self-important "more-senior-than-thou" role. Those kinds of interviews are not tolerated in my company.
This is just absurd. If you actually hired someone very valuable off the street this way, then you either 1) got lucky, 2) trusted the resume (and got lucky), or 3) have pretty low standards.
Yeah. That must be it. I've got low standards. It's got to be *something* other than "I think this person can do the job."
Why do you think I administer a test of someone's thinking ability, rather than just quiz them on their "qualifications" for 10 minutes and then roll the dice?
I have no idea. It's a roll of the dice anyway.
I like putting qualifications in quotes. So every candidate is lying and really isn't qualified, right? They're all slick con-artists who don't know anything. The degree and the years of experience? All skate-through half-baked lies, right?
Hey, I already knew this is what is going through an interviewers mind. Every candidate starts from their own 10 yard line. Of course, this is also why companies can fire thousands at the slightest whim.
W-4 employment is pointless.
No wonder we have the highest unemployment in over 10 years.
Sorry, but if you're flippantly judging people in 10 minutes, you're not impressing me with your intelligent hiring process.
Yes, it's got to be flippant. That must be it.
Maybe your managers really are smarter than you, and you just have an attitude problem.
I don't have a manager, but if I did, I'm sure they would think I have an attitude problem, mainly because I probably wouldn't agree with them 100% of the time. No, I know I wouldn't agree with them 100% of the time.
Modern business has no tolerance for any contrary views, no tolerance for discussion and debate, and no tolerance for real, responsible decision making from management.
Middle management's ONLY JOB is to make decisions, and they abrogate that role by drenching everything in backtracking documentation and self-important committee-think "initiatives" which accomplish nothing except to provide the illusion that something is happening when in reality they aren't doing their job.
When these managers make mistakes, they then proceed to make excuse after excuse: "well, the resume said.." or "well, the interview committee standards are..." or whatever. What they SHOULD do is say "Yeah, I made the call, and I screwed up." and MOVE ON.
It is for this reason that modern business cannot a) produce anything of value or b) stay in business very long. The entire business day is voice mail, meetings, coffee rooms, talking to "Bob" and donut lists. Actually *producing* anything is left to the cubicle drones, if they ever hire any.
Yes I have, as a matter of fact. It took me all of 10 minutes to determine whether someone was qualified, and they were working in 11. I don't have time for all the esoteric middle management seminar strategies.
If they don't know all the details, they can learn. Just hiring good *people* solves all the other problems, and saves a ton of time in the process.
your own biases into the interview process, and hire based on whether you like them or not.
This is exactly what most companies do, and it is exactly why they a) can't produce anything of value and b) go out of business. The empire-building middle managers don't have the foggiest idea how to build or lead a team, and they most certainly aren't going to listen to anyone's advice, because they are *so* much smarter than everyone else.
If only it was as easy as "hire the bright people".
It is that easy. The reason the workplace is so screwed up is because companies make things far more complicated than they need to be. Hire the right person and MOVE ON. It doesn't have to become a major six-week CYA production.
So, what's the point again? Proving people aren't as bright as they think? Making people sit there and squirm because they really need a job, are nervous anyway, and have some "three cups and a white marble" puzzle standing between them and feeding their kids?
I don't get it. My first question would be "why don't we just hire the bright people and get back to work?"
Asking questions like this during an interview makes a mockery of the interview process, patronizes the candidate and is usually suggested by a career middle-manager seeking to assert their importance at the expense of the dignity of the candidate.
People's careers should not depend on the last five pages of a 99 cent brain teaser book.
The answer to all of them (in an interview) is "thanks for the coffee."
One with a server on each subnet, who would then be e-mailed a bill for about $12M for bandwidth overages, even though the server was dropped from the routing table after 72 hours because nothing else would ping.
Since the word "purchase" appeared in the story, don't forget to use the important phrases when talking about paying a small amount of money for something:
1. Plunk down 2. Cough up 3. Lay down 4. Fork over 5. Shell out
Then again, also remember to use the term "snap up" (a term normally used when discussing finger sandwiches or donuts) if discussing a nine-figure purchase, like all the we're-so-much-hipper-than-you journalists do. For example:
"After meeting for eight months, the committee decided to make the purchase, snapping up the 1200 acre shopping mall, entertainment center and theme park (which employ some 18,000 people) for an agreed price of $412,349,293.12, payable over 20 years."
I'm with you. I keep hearing about the "outdated business model" that the RIAA are using. Ok, I'll stipulate that, so what's a model that works?
A comprehensive, searchable database of freely downloadable mp3s, recorded at multiple bitrates and including all the relevant song information in the file. Price: $29/year.
It would take one weekend to have a million subscribers.
If this succedes too well, it could start a dangerous prescident.
Yeah, it might create a market and jobs.
they saw this as a way to pay off their debts right?
The horror!
Open it up, but say you can't make money off it.
Yeah. Let's all keep our minimum-wage jobs at McCompany. We certainly wouldn't want software to have any *value* or anything, because, well, that might mean someone, somewhere might be making *money* and well, that would mean more jobs, and well, that's just not acceptable.
Critisizing how they got where they are is one thing, but at this point keeping people on to the detriment of the company would not help those people (they might have a few weeks or months more employment at most).
Mass chronic layoffs are rarely, if ever, used to keep a company afloat. More likely they are used, like most other "strategies," to benefit the quarterly earnings reports. Fortune 500 companies are not going to go out of business by keeping the people *they hired.* They're always re-hiring in two years anyway.
AOL makes $48M a month in subscription revenue. They laid off 2000 people at one point last year. Why? Their combined monthly salaries are pocket change to a company with 23 million subscribers?
Well, we all know why.
Laying people off and/or selling non-profitable business units is the best thing that can be done for the company and the employees that are left at the end.
Employees who will be shown the door next, no doubt.
Destroying careers is bad business
Dow's off 3000 points. NASDAQ's off 4000. Highest unemployment in the last FOUR recessions.
Plaintiff rests.
(Wow. If posting the comment doesn't go exactly the site's way, it becomes a REAL CHORE to re-submit... this is attempt NINE)
Critisizing how they got where they are is one thing, but at this point keeping people on to the detriment of the company would not help those people (they might have a few weeks or months more employment at most).
Mass chronic layoffs are rarely, if ever, used to keep a company afloat. More likely they are used, like most other "strategies," to benefit the quarterly earnings reports. Fortune 500 companies are not going to go out of business by keeping the people *they hired.* They're always re-hiring in two years anyway.
AOL makes $48M a month in subscription revenue. They laid off 2000 people at one point last year. Why? Their combined monthly salaries are pocket change to a company with 23 million subscribers?
Well, we all know why.
Laying people off and/or selling non-profitable business units is the best thing that can be done for the company and the employees that are left at the end.
Employees who will be shown the door next, no doubt.
Destroying careers is bad business
Dow's off 3000 points. NASDAQ's off 4000. Highest unemployment in the last FOUR recessions.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say the ad campaign worked.
You assertion is that "every company has to pay its employees enough to buy its products" is
...
* True
* Is a rule of economics that appears in every text
* Is taught in every economics class
* Has been part of basic economic theory for centuries
Is that your assertion?
Yes. Because it is what was taught to me, as part of a 2 semester gen ed requirement, by a tenured professor, when I earned *my* degree, which is not in economics.
If you truly have a degree in economics, then you already recognize this rule, and there is no further need to prove it.
The assertion is not true in the limited sense in which you first asserted it
Well, I can't speak to what "sense" in which it was first asserted. The assertion stands on its own. If employees cannot afford to buy what they produce, the economy fails.
Now, if that definition needs to be expanded, then: if (the prices of) supply exceeds (the income of) demand then prices must fall to meet demand or the economy fails.
If necessary, I'll cite a text:
In classical economic theory, Say's Law states that in order to consume, one must first produce. Put another way, consumption increases with production
In 1913, Henry Ford decided to pay autoworkers $5 for an eight-hour day. This decision resulted in Ford workers being paid more than double the average wage in the U.S. and a wage equivalent to the weekly earnings for an English industrial worker. Ford's decision is often interpreted as being made in order to create a market for the Model T, by paying workers enough to afford one.
Now, economists will disagree on this, but it is a valid interpretation from the demand side of the economy. If you disagree, that's fine. It doesn't mean the rule is false.
That's not an exception, nor is it a "red herring"
It is a red herring.
Red herring argument: Intentionally digressing from the real issue being discussed, introducing a side issue that has nothing to do with the real issue under discussion--in an attempt to remove attention from the real issue. This is often very subtle and the new issue can often seem closely related to the real issue.
Citing an exception to a rule by changing the scope of what is being discussed is a black-letter red herring.
Again, I have no interest in arguing economics, and I am not going to address the exception as it is an invalid argument in itself.
No--the point you defend wasn't stated. The point made was that every company had to pay their employees enough to buy their products--otherwise ("like gravity," he wrote) the economy will collapse.
It was stated, as it was repeated. Your response was to cite the obvious literal exception (which is itself a red herring) to a rule of economics that appears in every text, is taught in every class, and which has been part of basic economic theory for centuries. I am not going to argue a red herring. The point stands.
If your wages are zero, you're not in the middle class.
Once again, this is a red herring. And once again, the point stands. If a family of four has a house, two cars and a dog, and it's the day after the career parent has been laid off, they are still middle class. They may not be middle income, but they are still middle class.
Neither of these arguments are valid. In both cases, the response has been to seek a literal exception to an obvious axiom (which itself does not need to be proven), producing nothing except argumentative red herrings.
Um, no. Software development experience is software development experience.
ROFL. That'd last about 12 seconds in an interview. And if that were accepted by the incompetent HR departments and hiring managers, we'd all have been back to work months ago.
First, you have a dubious statistic (5.7% unemployment among American members of IEEE) put forth by a clearly-biased source.
According to a Federal agency study, this is the highest sustained unemployment in four recessions (10-15 years). I'm not sure those statistics are dubious.
In fact, it would appear to spell doom for any company making a "luxury" good or any kind of capital equipment.
Oh, look, a big blinking red herring. What a surprise.
Citing an exception doesn't make an argument. The point stands as stated. If the cost of living exceeds the wages of the middle class (which isn't hard when wages are zero), businesses will either fail or lower their prices, and since companies could care less if they fail (since senior management all walk out the door in a solid gold tuxedos), well, there you go.
Some people recognize this...and learn new skills.
Then they start over with no experience (according to HR) at half their salary, sell their house and move into a small apartment and slowly watch their savings absorbed by taxes and inflation while they hurriedly fill out financial aid forms so their kids can go to college and learn...new skills.
Of course, there's always plenty of apologists for the status quo, so business can just go ahead and do whatever they want. They have no responsibility. They're just in it to make money, right? Hey, why should they care? The only people complaining are the ones in foreclosure and bankruptcy.
I'm fairly certain that the "explanation" is necessary.
I'll quote myself:
These same managers advertise for self-starters: highly intelligent, well-educated, motivated people with sparkling resumes, advanced degrees and years of huge achievements and experience who *once they are hired* are expected to shut up, sit down and do as they are told (just like Junior High School). If they open their mouths, they get fired.
People with all those achievements and education are rarely (if ever) people who don't have some fairly well-ingrained ideas of how things should be done. They wouldn't *have* those resumes if it were otherwise. Yet management expects them to just do as they are told and *refrain from offering any input or contribution* or pack up and leave.
Now, this has just shifted to the interview, where candidates are treated to cynical, skeptical and in some cases, outright hostile interviews by incompetent, greedy managers who want it all for free, and have no intention whatsoever of actually *managing* anyone, because that would require *effort* and it would take time away from the donuts and whiteboards. They don't care if a person is qualified. Either they have the supplicative, friendly, step-and-fetch personality required, or they don't get the job. Simple as that.
See, management is getting the most out of people. People are not perfect little drones who do everything right. People make mistakes. People sometimes have abrasive personalities, and usually for good reason: They are sick and tired of being stomped on by incompetent managers 60 hours a week.
Managing is getting spectacular results from the most abrasive personality on the team. Find out what motivates them. WHY do they feel that the project is a pile of crap. ASK THEM. TALK TO THEM. DON'T shut them down in meetings. LISTEN. LEARN SOMETHING.
Management wouldn't DREAM of doing something like this, because they can't admit to anyone that their employees know more than they do.
Yet, managers who don't do these things are INCOMPETENT by definition.
So they end up with a team of people who spend all day congratulating and agreeing with each other. Nothing gets done. Nothing is produced. Nothing is sold, and the company goes out of business. Happens all the time.
Incompetent management has made W-4 employment a farce. Being qualified is totally irrelevant to these people. I know this for a fact, because I've been passed over for hundreds of jobs for which, based on the job description, I was *perfectly* qualified.
They don't even believe resumes any more, and they assume you are lying in the interview anyway. And all this to get a job it is very likely will be downsized again in six months anyway? What was the point again?
Lemme guess, - you are the rogue programmer who can do it all, and the other guys on the team are a bunch of slackers who just don't get it. Am I right?
No, I'm a very competent and capable programmer who could do a lot, but I'm prevented from doing so by management who are concerned that my ideas are non-standard and that my offering so many alternatives makes them feel I'm not enough of a "team player." (Team Player: n. A phrase recently invented by corporate management which means "someone who will agree with us even when we are wrong.")
As to whether the other guys on the team are slackers: I'd ask them, but they've all been fired.
Basically, if the world functioned as a single economic unit, there might be some truth in that.
There is truth in it, because it is the truth. It is an unavoidable, immutable, absolute law of economics. Period. End of story.
And I made no assertion that the world functions as a single economic unit, although all this talk of a "global marketplace" would seem to indicate that many do.
But it doesn't: restrictions on availability of goods (shipping), language, plus governments, get in the way.
Ok, so what we have, basically, is a restriction on the availability of a living wage for a larger and larger portion of a population. There are a lot of people out there who should have no trouble at all finding work who can't get a part-time job straightening clothes racks.
A recent government study (no I don't remember the name of the agency) stated that the current sustained umemployment levels were the highest in the last four recessions (about 10-15 years).
I'd say that is significant.
It's a global market, folks - if you want to keep your jobs and their 80K salaries,
You need to maintain profit margins, which means a higher top line overall. When nobody can afford your product because they are all making $20K a year, paying $10K in taxes and $11K in rent, then what?
OOPS.
Someone earlier said something about basic economics. Well, that's about as basic as it gets. A company MUST PAY their employees enough to afford to buy their product or THEY WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS. PERIOD. It's like gravity, fellas. Can't get around it no matter how many accountants and lawyers you hire.
If you have the skills you will be employed.
WRONG.
And while I could write a four page explanation, I'm fairly certain it isn't necessary.
or the inter-personal skills that almost all jobs require.
Oh, wait a minute now, what about that blanket statement earlier? Now we need "inter-personal skills?" Sounds like corporate-speak for "if we *like* you, you can have a job." I detect the words "team player" drifting about...
It's nice when my argument is made for me.
W-4 employment is pointless. Being qualified has nothing to do with getting a job.
The people it hurts are those who cannot remain economically competitive.
$2800/month mortgages
'nuff said
(No, I don't own a house, and this is why)
is now locked in competition
Ever notice how poor journalists always over-dramatize verbs into phrases?
"Microsoft is now trapped in an epic struggle with dozens of aggressive, desperate companies, all of which seek the same distant goal..."
Bleh. How about something simple like:
"Microsoft is now competing with small start-up companies..."
Save the hyperbole.
And I've seen people fired because they can't get over themselves
Well, there you go. They don't give management their proper respect by supplicating their own confidence, so the wheels turn them out in the street along with all their knowledge and ability so management can go back to meetings and donuts without being interrupted by competence and initiative.
These same managers advertise for self-starters: highly intelligent, well-educated, motivated people with sparkling resumes, advanced degrees and years of huge achievements and experience who *once they are hired* are expected to shut up, sit down and do as they are told (just like Junior High School). If they open their mouths, they get fired.
People with all those achievements and education are rarely (if ever) people who don't have some fairly well-ingrained ideas of how things should be done. They wouldn't *have* those resumes if it were otherwise. Yet management expects them to just do as they are told and *refrain from offering any input or contribution* or pack up and leave.
That's not the right way to run a company. Hire, delegate and MOVE ON.
And once again, you just don't seem credible on this. I have a feeling that there is a LOT more to the story and this person's historical pattern of behavior.
You mean prior to being hired? (Note: I don't really care if I "seem credible")
He had been working there about as long as I had, say four to five months. They hired him (and me and several others) *specifically* because of his knowledge of software development.
He was fired because he disagreed. Period. He was told in the week prior (during a project status meeting, what a surprise) that management "felt" he wasn't being enough of a "team player."
I quit three weeks after he was fired. Of the 10 people hired for our team, all had left (or been fired) within six months. The company was out of business within a year, when 200 more lost their jobs.
if you went for an interview, and some guy talks to you for 10 minutes, and then says "Sorry, your resume is fine, but based on this interview I just don't get the feeling you can handle this job"
I'd throw a party to celebrate the return of honesty to the job market.
Don't think that JUST MAYBE if you are disagreeing with someone 100% of the time, then you have severe problems with authority?
Well, aside from the fact that you misread the sentence, yes, I have problems with self-appointed "authority" who is far more concerned with reminding people of the power vested in them by the power vested in them than they are with supporting the people who work hard for them and earning their respect.
That you don't really have any opinions of your own; you only have opinions contrary to whomever you interpret as an authority figure?
I have many opinions of my own. I am very well educated and have a lot of experience. Most companies I have worked for have actively and vigorously discouraged the application of that knowledge to my job, and done the exact same thing to EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON I KNOW OR HAVE EVER WORKED WITH.
Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. That whole rant is so divorced from reality, I doubt that you have very much experience in the real world.
No idea what I'm talking about. lol I have seven years of experience as a senior engineer.
I have seen people with five years of seniority FIRED because they disagreed passionately about a "flippant" management decision. They stood up for what they believed in, and it cost them their careers. That's reality in "corporate" business these days, and it's a crying tragic shame.
I know one person in particular who was labeled a "troublemaker" because they offered a dissenting opinion in front of senior managment during a "standards process" presentation. Two months later, the three middle managers (who were shown to be wrong at that presentation by the way) had that person fired. One year later, he, his wife and their three small children lost their house. It took him 15 months to find another job. Why? He disagreed.
If you are judging someone in 10 minutes, then by definition it's a flippant decision.
I'm not "judging" anyone. I'm making a *decision* as to whether they can do the work and if they are motivated.
Well, I congratulate you on your psychic abilities to figure out someone's intelligence in 10 minutes.
It doesn't take psychic abilities. After 10 minutes, I can tell if someone has the motivation and ability to do a job. Anything more than that, and the interviewer is luxuriating in their self-important "more-senior-than-thou" role. Those kinds of interviews are not tolerated in my company.
This is just absurd. If you actually hired someone very valuable off the street this way, then you either 1) got lucky, 2) trusted the resume (and got lucky), or 3) have pretty low standards.
Yeah. That must be it. I've got low standards. It's got to be *something* other than "I think this person can do the job."
Why do you think I administer a test of someone's thinking ability, rather than just quiz them on their "qualifications" for 10 minutes and then roll the dice?
I have no idea. It's a roll of the dice anyway.
I like putting qualifications in quotes. So every candidate is lying and really isn't qualified, right? They're all slick con-artists who don't know anything. The degree and the years of experience? All skate-through half-baked lies, right?
Hey, I already knew this is what is going through an interviewers mind. Every candidate starts from their own 10 yard line. Of course, this is also why companies can fire thousands at the slightest whim.
W-4 employment is pointless.
No wonder we have the highest unemployment in over 10 years.
Sorry, but if you're flippantly judging people in 10 minutes, you're not impressing me with your intelligent hiring process.
Yes, it's got to be flippant. That must be it.
Maybe your managers really are smarter than you, and you just have an attitude problem.
I don't have a manager, but if I did, I'm sure they would think I have an attitude problem, mainly because I probably wouldn't agree with them 100% of the time. No, I know I wouldn't agree with them 100% of the time.
Modern business has no tolerance for any contrary views, no tolerance for discussion and debate, and no tolerance for real, responsible decision making from management.
Middle management's ONLY JOB is to make decisions, and they abrogate that role by drenching everything in backtracking documentation and self-important committee-think "initiatives" which accomplish nothing except to provide the illusion that something is happening when in reality they aren't doing their job.
When these managers make mistakes, they then proceed to make excuse after excuse: "well, the resume said.." or "well, the interview committee standards are..." or whatever. What they SHOULD do is say "Yeah, I made the call, and I screwed up." and MOVE ON.
It is for this reason that modern business cannot a) produce anything of value or b) stay in business very long. The entire business day is voice mail, meetings, coffee rooms, talking to "Bob" and donut lists. Actually *producing* anything is left to the cubicle drones, if they ever hire any.
"Come on everybody!" (clap clap) "There's cake in the conference room!"
"So, what are we celebrating?"
"It's System Administrator Appreciation Day! Look, we've got 'Have you hugged your geek today?' buttons and everything!"
"Uhhh, we fired all the IT people six months ago."
"Oh. That's a shame. More cake?"
Have you ever actually hired anyone before?
Yes I have, as a matter of fact. It took me all of 10 minutes to determine whether someone was qualified, and they were working in 11. I don't have time for all the esoteric middle management seminar strategies.
If they don't know all the details, they can learn. Just hiring good *people* solves all the other problems, and saves a ton of time in the process.
your own biases into the interview process, and hire based on whether you like them or not.
This is exactly what most companies do, and it is exactly why they a) can't produce anything of value and b) go out of business. The empire-building middle managers don't have the foggiest idea how to build or lead a team, and they most certainly aren't going to listen to anyone's advice, because they are *so* much smarter than everyone else.
If only it was as easy as "hire the bright people".
It is that easy. The reason the workplace is so screwed up is because companies make things far more complicated than they need to be. Hire the right person and MOVE ON. It doesn't have to become a major six-week CYA production.
Those points are true if you're hiring a contractor to come in, do a job, and get out.
That's all employees now.
I've caught some really bright people with it.
So, what's the point again? Proving people aren't as bright as they think? Making people sit there and squirm because they really need a job, are nervous anyway, and have some "three cups and a white marble" puzzle standing between them and feeding their kids?
I don't get it. My first question would be "why don't we just hire the bright people and get back to work?"
Asking questions like this during an interview makes a mockery of the interview process, patronizes the candidate and is usually suggested by a career middle-manager seeking to assert their importance at the expense of the dignity of the candidate.
People's careers should not depend on the last five pages of a 99 cent brain teaser book.
The answer to all of them (in an interview) is "thanks for the coffee."
One with a server on each subnet, who would then be e-mailed a bill for about $12M for bandwidth overages, even though the server was dropped from the routing table after 72 hours because nothing else would ping.
But thanks for playing.
GOODNIGHT EVERYBODY!!
Since the word "purchase" appeared in the story, don't forget to use the important phrases when talking about paying a small amount of money for something:
1. Plunk down
2. Cough up
3. Lay down
4. Fork over
5. Shell out
Then again, also remember to use the term "snap up" (a term normally used when discussing finger sandwiches or donuts) if discussing a nine-figure purchase, like all the we're-so-much-hipper-than-you
journalists do. For example:
"After meeting for eight months, the committee decided to make the purchase, snapping up the 1200 acre shopping mall, entertainment center and theme park (which employ some 18,000 people) for an agreed price of $412,349,293.12, payable over 20 years."
I'm with you. I keep hearing about the "outdated business model" that the RIAA are using. Ok, I'll stipulate that, so what's a model that works?
A comprehensive, searchable database of freely downloadable mp3s, recorded at multiple bitrates and including all the relevant song information in the file. Price: $29/year.
It would take one weekend to have a million subscribers.
If this succedes too well, it could start a dangerous prescident.
Yeah, it might create a market and jobs.
they saw this as a way to pay off their debts right?
The horror!
Open it up, but say you can't make money off it.
Yeah. Let's all keep our minimum-wage jobs at McCompany. We certainly wouldn't want software to have any *value* or anything, because, well, that might mean someone, somewhere might be making *money* and well, that would mean more jobs, and well, that's just not acceptable.
(Yes, this is exactly what it sounds like)
Critisizing how they got where they are is one thing, but at this point keeping people on to the detriment of the company would not help those people (they might have a few weeks or months more employment at most).
Mass chronic layoffs are rarely, if ever, used to
keep a company afloat. More likely they are used, like most other "strategies," to benefit the quarterly earnings reports. Fortune 500 companies are not going to go out of business by keeping the people *they hired.* They're always re-hiring in two years anyway.
AOL makes $48M a month in subscription revenue. They laid off 2000 people at one point last year. Why? Their combined monthly salaries are pocket change to a company with 23 million subscribers?
Well, we all know why.
Laying people off and/or selling non-profitable business units is the best thing that can be done for the company and the employees that are left at the end.
Employees who will be shown the door next, no doubt.
Destroying careers is bad business
Dow's off 3000 points. NASDAQ's off 4000. Highest unemployment in the last FOUR recessions.
Plaintiff rests.
(Wow. If posting the comment doesn't go exactly the site's way, it becomes a REAL CHORE to re-submit... this is attempt NINE)
Critisizing how they got where they are is one thing, but at this point keeping people on to the detriment of the company would not help those people (they might have a few weeks or months more employment at most).
Mass chronic layoffs are rarely, if ever, used to
keep a company afloat. More likely they are used, like most other "strategies," to benefit the quarterly earnings reports. Fortune 500 companies are not going to go out of business by keeping the people *they hired.* They're always re-hiring in two years anyway.
AOL makes $48M a month in subscription revenue. They laid off 2000 people at one point last year. Why? Their combined monthly salaries are pocket change to a company with 23 million subscribers?
Well, we all know why.
Laying people off and/or selling non-profitable business units is the best thing that can be done for the company and the employees that are left at the end.
Employees who will be shown the door next, no doubt.
Destroying careers is bad business
Dow's off 3000 points. NASDAQ's off 4000. Highest unemployment in the last FOUR recessions.
Plaintiff rests.