When labor laws are being violated, you need a union that can draw support from and build upon an established base
No. You just need a pair of balls, so you can stand up for yourself instead of immediately drawing back into your crowd of buddies for support. Stop being a coward.
I agree with your assessment that the banking industry is in a pretty sorry state caused in part by treating their employees like shit. I'm trying to refinance my mortgage with Bank of America (believe me, if I had another option, I would take it) and the level of incompetence I've encountered is beyond anything I expected, and I was pretty cynical about it going in.
As far as finding better employers goes, well, in my experience one is just as bad as another; it's an example of parallel evolution, where similar environments lead to similar characteristics.
And no apology needed, you wouldn't be the first one to mistake extreme cynicism for a psychopathy.
I can see how you might get there (the idea that I may be a psychopath) but I don't think so. It's not that I lack empathy for others (otherwise I wouldn't be concerned enough with others' working situations to have a opinion with regard to how typical employers treat their workers), it's that I've had enough experience as an employee to understand how the average employer views their workers: As a parasite to be loathed instead of an asset.
You're probably right about the portable reactors being a better idea than the big plants (insofar as any nuclear plant is a good idea). But I'd rather see the money that would be spent tooling up to mass produce reactors spent on research into other forms of energy.
This. A nuclear power plant isn't something you want someone cutting corners on. As long as there's a profit motive in nuclear energy production, corners will be cut to lower costs, regulation be damned.
Personally, I'd rather see us continue to be dependent on oil than pursue nuclear power as a solution to all our energy problems. In theory, yes, it's safe and efficient. In practice, people are idiots and if lowering safety standards means you save $500, they're going to do it.
Am I the only one who doesn't find the TSA process all that outrageous? If you're getting PTSD from a patdown... well, I think your issues are greater than what the TSA has control over. I mean it's not that great that you get whacked (lightly) in the crotch if you forget to take some change out of your pocket (this happened to me the last time I flew) but it's not like they're cutting your hands off or raping you with a baseball bat.
You could argue that it's unnecessary and intrusive, but if you're polite and follow their instructions when given, you're not going to have a problem.
It's just not a big deal to me. You may feel different (and that's your right), but personally, I'm more concerned about getting food poisoning from the restaurant in the terminal (that has a captive audience) than I am about putting up with the TSA.
Absolutely not. I can do a lot more than hope. I can use every opportunity available to me to crowbar open the company wallet to line my own pockets, and I have zero qualms or ethics about doing it, past getting caught doing something that they can fire me for. If a typical employer had their way, employee pay would be enough to keep them from starving to death, and not one penny more. (And they never believe you when you tell them how much Ramen costs, you're obviously lying to get more money out of them.)
Your employer and you are natural enemies. They want to pay you nothing, you want them to pay you everything. They want you to spend every second of your life making them money, your health or sanity be damned. If you're completely miserable, then they know they're doing it right. If you're not, then clearly they haven't fed you enough shit.
One of us doesn't know any better, and I don't think it's me.
Money is quantifiable. Everything else is subjective and therefore has no real meaning. In the abscence of any other objective measure of worth, that's what we have to go with. You can demonstrate exactly what someone is worth as a human being in terms of money. Once you start talking about bullshit touchy-feely nonsense like "happiness", you've abandoned any notion of describing reality.
If you'd rather "enjoy yourself" than get your priorities straight, well, it's your time to waste. More money for me, I guess.
And those co-workers you're so fond of? Yeah, they'll throw you under the bus at the drop of a hat if it means they get ahead (read: make more money).
Like I said above, if you can't see who the sucker is, it's you. You've been fooled into thinking that "enjoying yourself" is a good use of your time. Those beers you're drinking with your competitors at the company you work for? Driven by huge marketing machines designed to subconsciously implant a relationship between consuming their product and pleasure. That car you're having fun driving around? Built by a huge multinational conglomerate that puts a price tag on your life when deciding how safe to make your car. Like video games? Hope you like an always-on Internet connection that you have to pay for in order to access the content that's ON THE DISC you bought. So that game you paid $60 for? Add another $50 a month if you want to actually, you know, PLAY it. Everything you do, everywhere you go, things exist for the sole purpose of separating you from your money. Not providing value, not improving your life (or that bullshit "enjoyment" you're referring to), just getting your money by any means necessary. You are a walking ATM to the rest of the world. The only way to survive is by making GOD DAMN SURE that 1) nobody rips you off, and 2) you get every penny you can possibly acquire.
Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong.
Like the movie says, "Life is pain... Anyone that tells you different is selling something."
Used as the phrase may be, money actually is NOT everything!
It's the ONLY thing.
Money is means to control your own life. If you can achieve those goals reasonably quickly with the amount of money you earn that's ideal. If you can't, you will constantly be at the mercy of those who have more than you.
Fixed that for you.
There are people that kill themselves to earn more, than they would otherwise (like the parent, above) but they don't like how they live their life.
Again, 'like' is irrelevant. If you're not killing yourself to earn more, you're doing yourself and your family a disservice. Money is the most important thing; everything else is secondary. If you like how you live your life WHILE making pantloads of money, then bully for you. If you hate how you live your life while making pantloads of money, well, suck it up, you're making money, and that's the most important thing.
My main criteria for a job is like this: if I wake up every day in a week and think "why do I have to go to THIS job", then it's time to think about switching employers. It's as simple as that.
And if you can find an employer that's willing to pay you more, then go for it. Chances are that you'll be just as miserable there as you are now, but you're making more money, so nothing else matters.
Absolute nonsense. The point of money is to buy a better quality of life. Money has no value by itself, the only value is in the things it can buy. If you don't have the time to enjoy the things that money can buy, then it does you no good. If you're too stressed or too tired to enjoy the things that money can buy, then it does you no good.
No, the point of money is to have MORE THAN THE OTHER GUY. The more you have, the more control you have over your own and your family's lives. Your concept of "doing you no good" is irrelevant. You have more money. That's all that matters. Not if you can enjoy it, not if you make yourself miserable making it, GETTING CASH MONEY.
Once you have enough money to afford a comfortable home, good food, and a reasonable selection of luxuries, the benefits from increasing your income drop off rapidly.
No they don't. The more money you have, the more control you have, and that doesn't hit diminishing returns. Look at Donald Trump for an example. The man is an idiot, except for one thing: Promoting himself so that he can make more money. For pete's sake, he (briefly) ran for President and people actually took him seriously, even though his sole qualification for the position is that he can buy a lot of political advertising.
If I made more, I'd pay off my mortgage more quickly,
THEN DO IT. Paying off the mortgage faster means more money in your pocket, less money going to the bank. More money = good.
but then I'm already on track to pay it off in a third of the time the bank demands, so there's no massive benefit there.
So let's do the math here. Assuming a $250,000 mortgage and a 30 year mortgage at 3.5% that you're going to pay off in ten, the total amount of payments is $334,157.60. If you extend that to 30 years, all things being equal, the total of payments is $516,640.22, for a savings over 10 years of $182,482.62. If you were making enough to pay it off in, say, 5 years, your payments would total $291,626.17, for a savings versus 10 years of $42,531.43, and a savings over 30 years of $225,014.05. So, if you made enough to pay it off in 5 years instead of 10, you'd save $42,531.43. You could save FORTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS if you paid it off quicker, because you made more money. I'd call saving over $42,000 a 'massive benefit'. Plus, you get to screw the bank out of money they'd otherwise get.
On the other hand, spending my days doing interesting, challenging, and fun things with intelligent people is of clear value to me.
The obvious example is that if you take 10% more money and end up having to spend 20% more time at work then you've made a net loss.
No you haven't. You're making 10% more than you were before. That's money you couldn't have made at your previous employer even if you worked 100% more time.
Similarly, if you take 10% more money for a job where you'll be working with technologies that are obsolete then you've stunted future career growth
I never said you didn't have to take a look at the big picture when making the decision. But, that future 'career growth' is not a sure-fire path to increased compensation. There's no guarantee that adding to your skills or gaining experience will lead to more compensation in the future, whereas the 10% is concrete. I'm not saying ignore potential career growth when deciding to take a job or not, just take into account that nobody can predict the future whereas the present is more concrete.
when your employer 3 months down the line was going to promote you and increase wage by 20%, then you're going to be worse off overall. There are things like bonuses too, 10% and a 5% bonus is going to be worse than staying where you are if you get a 20% bonus each year for example.
How do you know that your current employer isn't just telling you what you want to hear in order to keep you? Unless you have, in writing, a guarantee that you'll get a raise and a promotion in X months (and even then it's pretty much worthless), you have to assume that it won't happen. Those bonuses are a 'it was a tough year' bullshit speech from the boss away from evaporating.
But of course, some people value job satisfaction, some people prefer a bigger pension pot, some people prefer more leave, some people prefer shares and stock options, some people prefer potential future career growth, some people prefer learning potential.
Anyone that values anything other than money to the point where they would consider any of the above more important than CASH MONEY IN YOUR POCKET, needs a punch.
If you think a mediocre increase in wage is worth jumping ship for no matter what you must either be used to working shit jobs, be really desperate for money, or have simply not worked much in your life.
It's still an increase in wage, no matter how 'mediocre' you consider it. I've had a ton of shit jobs, that's true. But they were paying shit jobs. At most of those I was just staying there until I could find something else, but the fact that people have been fired for looking for another job hindered my search somewhat. Yes, I'm desperate for money. Everyone is, or at least they should be. The correct attitude to have towards compensation is that whatever you're getting paid isn't enough, and that your employer will pay you the bare minimum that they can possibly get away with. They would pay you 5 cents an hour if they could get away with it.
You joke, but that attitude has put him in the position of 1) being ridiculously wealthy and 2) having a chance to be President of the United States, where he can support efforts to make the rich richer, and therefore himself after he leaves office.
You can't fault him for exploiting the system. It's easier than working for a living.
If a job allows you 'more life outside work' then that company has its priorities screwed up. The less 'life outside work' you have, the more 'life at work' you have, and the more money you can make for the company.
If you've changed jobs 'several times' based on a shorter commute or some (irrational) concept of 'fun', congratulations. When your current job goes away (and it will, if it's 'fun') prospective new employers will look at that and conclude that 1) you're a job hopper, 2) your priorities are fucked up, and 3) they shouldn't hire you because you'll expect them to treat you like a human being instead of a cash machine.
Slashdot Mirror
When labor laws are being violated, you need a union that can draw support from and build upon an established base
No. You just need a pair of balls, so you can stand up for yourself instead of immediately drawing back into your crowd of buddies for support. Stop being a coward.
"You're fired."
I agree with your assessment that the banking industry is in a pretty sorry state caused in part by treating their employees like shit. I'm trying to refinance my mortgage with Bank of America (believe me, if I had another option, I would take it) and the level of incompetence I've encountered is beyond anything I expected, and I was pretty cynical about it going in.
As far as finding better employers goes, well, in my experience one is just as bad as another; it's an example of parallel evolution, where similar environments lead to similar characteristics.
And no apology needed, you wouldn't be the first one to mistake extreme cynicism for a psychopathy.
I can see how you might get there (the idea that I may be a psychopath) but I don't think so. It's not that I lack empathy for others (otherwise I wouldn't be concerned enough with others' working situations to have a opinion with regard to how typical employers treat their workers), it's that I've had enough experience as an employee to understand how the average employer views their workers: As a parasite to be loathed instead of an asset.
You're probably right about the portable reactors being a better idea than the big plants (insofar as any nuclear plant is a good idea). But I'd rather see the money that would be spent tooling up to mass produce reactors spent on research into other forms of energy.
Sadly, there are people who actually believe that.
This. A nuclear power plant isn't something you want someone cutting corners on. As long as there's a profit motive in nuclear energy production, corners will be cut to lower costs, regulation be damned.
Personally, I'd rather see us continue to be dependent on oil than pursue nuclear power as a solution to all our energy problems. In theory, yes, it's safe and efficient. In practice, people are idiots and if lowering safety standards means you save $500, they're going to do it.
Am I the only one who doesn't find the TSA process all that outrageous? If you're getting PTSD from a patdown... well, I think your issues are greater than what the TSA has control over. I mean it's not that great that you get whacked (lightly) in the crotch if you forget to take some change out of your pocket (this happened to me the last time I flew) but it's not like they're cutting your hands off or raping you with a baseball bat.
You could argue that it's unnecessary and intrusive, but if you're polite and follow their instructions when given, you're not going to have a problem.
It's just not a big deal to me. You may feel different (and that's your right), but personally, I'm more concerned about getting food poisoning from the restaurant in the terminal (that has a captive audience) than I am about putting up with the TSA.
Absolutely not. I can do a lot more than hope. I can use every opportunity available to me to crowbar open the company wallet to line my own pockets, and I have zero qualms or ethics about doing it, past getting caught doing something that they can fire me for. If a typical employer had their way, employee pay would be enough to keep them from starving to death, and not one penny more. (And they never believe you when you tell them how much Ramen costs, you're obviously lying to get more money out of them.)
Your employer and you are natural enemies. They want to pay you nothing, you want them to pay you everything. They want you to spend every second of your life making them money, your health or sanity be damned. If you're completely miserable, then they know they're doing it right. If you're not, then clearly they haven't fed you enough shit.
One of us doesn't know any better, and I don't think it's me.
Money is quantifiable. Everything else is subjective and therefore has no real meaning. In the abscence of any other objective measure of worth, that's what we have to go with. You can demonstrate exactly what someone is worth as a human being in terms of money. Once you start talking about bullshit touchy-feely nonsense like "happiness", you've abandoned any notion of describing reality.
If you'd rather "enjoy yourself" than get your priorities straight, well, it's your time to waste. More money for me, I guess.
And those co-workers you're so fond of? Yeah, they'll throw you under the bus at the drop of a hat if it means they get ahead (read: make more money).
Like I said above, if you can't see who the sucker is, it's you. You've been fooled into thinking that "enjoying yourself" is a good use of your time. Those beers you're drinking with your competitors at the company you work for? Driven by huge marketing machines designed to subconsciously implant a relationship between consuming their product and pleasure. That car you're having fun driving around? Built by a huge multinational conglomerate that puts a price tag on your life when deciding how safe to make your car. Like video games? Hope you like an always-on Internet connection that you have to pay for in order to access the content that's ON THE DISC you bought. So that game you paid $60 for? Add another $50 a month if you want to actually, you know, PLAY it. Everything you do, everywhere you go, things exist for the sole purpose of separating you from your money. Not providing value, not improving your life (or that bullshit "enjoyment" you're referring to), just getting your money by any means necessary. You are a walking ATM to the rest of the world. The only way to survive is by making GOD DAMN SURE that 1) nobody rips you off, and 2) you get every penny you can possibly acquire.
Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong.
Like the movie says, "Life is pain... Anyone that tells you different is selling something."
It's the ONLY thing.
Fixed that for you.
Again, 'like' is irrelevant. If you're not killing yourself to earn more, you're doing yourself and your family a disservice. Money is the most important thing; everything else is secondary. If you like how you live your life WHILE making pantloads of money, then bully for you. If you hate how you live your life while making pantloads of money, well, suck it up, you're making money, and that's the most important thing.
And if you can find an employer that's willing to pay you more, then go for it. Chances are that you'll be just as miserable there as you are now, but you're making more money, so nothing else matters.
Hey, man, don't hate the player, hate the game. I'm just calling it like I see it.
No, the point of money is to have MORE THAN THE OTHER GUY. The more you have, the more control you have over your own and your family's lives. Your concept of "doing you no good" is irrelevant. You have more money. That's all that matters. Not if you can enjoy it, not if you make yourself miserable making it, GETTING CASH MONEY.
No they don't. The more money you have, the more control you have, and that doesn't hit diminishing returns. Look at Donald Trump for an example. The man is an idiot, except for one thing: Promoting himself so that he can make more money. For pete's sake, he (briefly) ran for President and people actually took him seriously, even though his sole qualification for the position is that he can buy a lot of political advertising.
THEN DO IT. Paying off the mortgage faster means more money in your pocket, less money going to the bank. More money = good.
So let's do the math here. Assuming a $250,000 mortgage and a 30 year mortgage at 3.5% that you're going to pay off in ten, the total amount of payments is $334,157.60. If you extend that to 30 years, all things being equal, the total of payments is $516,640.22, for a savings over 10 years of $182,482.62. If you were making enough to pay it off in, say, 5 years, your payments would total $291,626.17, for a savings versus 10 years of $42,531.43, and a savings over 30 years of $225,014.05. So, if you made enough to pay it off in 5 years instead of 10, you'd save $42,531.43. You could save FORTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS if you paid it off quicker, because you made more money. I'd call saving over $42,000 a 'massive benefit'. Plus, you get to screw the bank out of money they'd otherwise get.
And of zero value to anyone else.
This.
Slow day today. I'm not actively looking for a new job because the odds that I could get a raise somewhere else are low.
No it isn't, $90,000 is more than $60,000. You could not have made $90,000 on your current job even if you worked 100 hours a week.
No you haven't. You're making 10% more than you were before. That's money you couldn't have made at your previous employer even if you worked 100% more time.
I never said you didn't have to take a look at the big picture when making the decision. But, that future 'career growth' is not a sure-fire path to increased compensation. There's no guarantee that adding to your skills or gaining experience will lead to more compensation in the future, whereas the 10% is concrete. I'm not saying ignore potential career growth when deciding to take a job or not, just take into account that nobody can predict the future whereas the present is more concrete.
How do you know that your current employer isn't just telling you what you want to hear in order to keep you? Unless you have, in writing, a guarantee that you'll get a raise and a promotion in X months (and even then it's pretty much worthless), you have to assume that it won't happen. Those bonuses are a 'it was a tough year' bullshit speech from the boss away from evaporating.
Anyone that values anything other than money to the point where they would consider any of the above more important than CASH MONEY IN YOUR POCKET, needs a punch.
It's still an increase in wage, no matter how 'mediocre' you consider it. I've had a ton of shit jobs, that's true. But they were paying shit jobs. At most of those I was just staying there until I could find something else, but the fact that people have been fired for looking for another job hindered my search somewhat. Yes, I'm desperate for money. Everyone is, or at least they should be. The correct attitude to have towards compensation is that whatever you're getting paid isn't enough, and that your employer will pay you the bare minimum that they can possibly get away with. They would pay you 5 cents an hour if they could get away with it.
And I've been working since I was 14 years old.
You joke, but that attitude has put him in the position of 1) being ridiculously wealthy and 2) having a chance to be President of the United States, where he can support efforts to make the rich richer, and therefore himself after he leaves office.
You can't fault him for exploiting the system. It's easier than working for a living.
Money is far more important. 'Fun' is totally irrelevant. You can't pay your mortgage with 'fun'.
If a job allows you 'more life outside work' then that company has its priorities screwed up. The less 'life outside work' you have, the more 'life at work' you have, and the more money you can make for the company.
It's more money. It doesn't matter if it's 20% or 10% or even 1%. That makes your decision for you.
Fixed the subject for you.
If you've changed jobs 'several times' based on a shorter commute or some (irrational) concept of 'fun', congratulations. When your current job goes away (and it will, if it's 'fun') prospective new employers will look at that and conclude that 1) you're a job hopper, 2) your priorities are fucked up, and 3) they shouldn't hire you because you'll expect them to treat you like a human being instead of a cash machine.
Fun is irrelevant. Money isn't.
Fixed that for you.
You're crazy.
To other readers: If you ever find yourself tempted to do something similar, stop. The answer is to not do that. Ever.
This. I like the Beatles, but John, were he alive, would deserve a punch for that "All you need is love" malarkey.