So, if you wanted to be technical, you were stuck - you couldn't get another job at a reduced salary because everyone else was scared off by your current pay
So just lie, sorry, be creative about your current pay.
'He did not know what happened on the workfloor, he did not need to know and he did not want to know.
This is the second half of the peter principle: Managers who think their job is hitting the "jobs completed" numbers and ticking the boxes. They're usually the ones who have been promoted on seniority alone. It hypocritical that businesses demand a five-page resume to qualify as their employee but promote someone to greater responsibility because he punched a time-clock more times.
You seem to be living in the Nineteenth Century. No one gets promoted just through seniority any more. They're far more likely to be let go before they start being too expensive to sack.
I have had a manager like that, in a computer repair firm. Before he was thrust upon us by IBM (Incredible Bureaucratic Machine), morale on the workfloor was excellent, but he managed to get it down to far below zero in no time. He literally told us that 'He did not know what happened on the workfloor, he did not need to know and he did not want to know.' All he looked at was figures: the more repairs one wrote up, the better.
So, someone who just slammed the parts of a laptop together, had a few screws left and just looked if it did switch on after that, got a better qualification than someone who carefully reassembled one and tested the machine before sending it back to the customer. The first did more 'repairs' on a day (but most of those came back because the machines were still broken), the last hardly ever had a re-repair, but trying to explain that on a performance review was totally useless.
Needless to say that every competent repair engineer in the shop hated the guy's guts...
I find it hard to believe that a business based on repairing computers didn't care about how well you repaired computers.
I've also seen nontechnical people try to manage IT departments only to find their employees ready to drive them off with pitch forks
Something I learned 20 years ago, is that you never, never have a non-tech directly manage techs. They will have no idea what their people are doing, will be incapable of distinguishing good workers from self-promoters, and will quickly lose the respect of their subordinates. It just doesn't work.
"Techs" are not special snowflakes, they're people like everyone else.
There are plenty of other difficult groups to manage - doctors, lawyers, dancers, journalists, bankers, teachers, musicians, salesmen, engineers, and many others. But they get managed one way or another.
What I really don't understand is why anyone would let themselves get promoted to a role they weren't interested in. Promotion is your own choice, no one gets forced to. Is it just a money thing?
To be fair as an engineer; if you are not learning on the job you are being left behind.....I assume it is the same for doctors; I can't comment on generals though.
You are confusing "learning on the job" with "learning, on the job".
Most managers don't start with the equivalent of an engineering or medical degree.
How could a glorified cab dispatch could be valued at $40+ billions?
Am I totally clueless or is it just a bunch of VCs barking at the mountain-side and thinking the world is cheering them on?!
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more money the VCs chuck at young, exciting, disruptive etc companies, the more people think there must be something behind it all. It's a wonderful combination of Ponzi scheme and the Emperor's New Clothes.
Inarguable fact: day traders, and HFTs, are making and selling stocks at a rapid pace.
Even if what they do is harmful, and even if it makes stock prices fluxuate even more randomly than they otherwise would, and even if their whole strategy is essentially based on luck....they are still buying and selling real stakes in real companies.
"Gambling" is when you buy a lottery ticket.....a lottery ticket is not a real stake in anything...it is a chance to win money and nothing more. Same goes for other gambling game types.
That is the difference that makes one legal in places where the other is illegal. And it is a perfectly reasonable difference if you don't try to play bullshit semantic games.
The real point is that being able to buy and sell and buy and sell and...in microseconds does absolutely nothing to help the real companies involved. It does not increase their liquidity, or ability to borrow money to make real things, or anything else that stock markets are supposed to do..
You can compare them this way. If you have 100 times overvalued company, your stock has a 1% chance of winning, 99% of the owners are just playing a ponzi scheme and will never cash out.
Value is based on profit. Profit is disclosed each quarter. This tweet didn't cost $8B; the title is grossly misleading. The quarterly earnings cost $8B in valuation, and the tweet just pushed the loss up an hour or so.
No, the theory is that value is based on discounted future cash flows (profits), but the reality is that a company like Amazon has a huge market valuation despite making effectively no profit ever, and a company like Apple appears to be valued on the basis that its profits can go on increasing year on year to infinity.
"Slut" is a term liberals use on conservative women
If someone uses "slut" as a sexist insult, they're not what I would call a liberal, but I know the US has its own interpretations of the English language when it comes to politics.
The point is that avoiding artificial sweeteners will certainly not do you any harm, and unless you have a very weird diet it's unlikely you won't be getting enough sugar naturally in your food.
So unless you feel you have some sort of moral obligation to support the Pepsi and Coca Cola corporations, stick to water.
Slashdot Mirror
This is how societal norms distort what economists like to imagine is the free market.
A pure free market is impossible in practice. Thank God.
Even during a company wide wage freeze, I still managed a 10% increase.
Sure you did. You are obviously the single most important person in the organisation, despite having that confusing "office gofer" job title.
So, if you wanted to be technical, you were stuck - you couldn't get another job at a reduced salary because everyone else was scared off by your current pay
So just lie, sorry, be creative about your current pay.
This seems a total non-problem to me.
'He did not know what happened on the workfloor, he did not need to know and he did not want to know.
This is the second half of the peter principle: Managers who think their job is hitting the "jobs completed" numbers and ticking the boxes. They're usually the ones who have been promoted on seniority alone. It hypocritical that businesses demand a five-page resume to qualify as their employee but promote someone to greater responsibility because he punched a time-clock more times.
You seem to be living in the Nineteenth Century. No one gets promoted just through seniority any more. They're far more likely to be let go before they start being too expensive to sack.
I have had a manager like that, in a computer repair firm. Before he was thrust upon us by IBM (Incredible Bureaucratic Machine), morale on the workfloor was excellent, but he managed to get it down to far below zero in no time. He literally told us that 'He did not know what happened on the workfloor, he did not need to know and he did not want to know.' All he looked at was figures: the more repairs one wrote up, the better. So, someone who just slammed the parts of a laptop together, had a few screws left and just looked if it did switch on after that, got a better qualification than someone who carefully reassembled one and tested the machine before sending it back to the customer. The first did more 'repairs' on a day (but most of those came back because the machines were still broken), the last hardly ever had a re-repair, but trying to explain that on a performance review was totally useless. Needless to say that every competent repair engineer in the shop hated the guy's guts...
I find it hard to believe that a business based on repairing computers didn't care about how well you repaired computers.
I've also seen nontechnical people try to manage IT departments only to find their employees ready to drive them off with pitch forks
Something I learned 20 years ago, is that you never, never have a non-tech directly manage techs. They will have no idea what their people are doing, will be incapable of distinguishing good workers from self-promoters, and will quickly lose the respect of their subordinates. It just doesn't work.
"Techs" are not special snowflakes, they're people like everyone else.
There are plenty of other difficult groups to manage - doctors, lawyers, dancers, journalists, bankers, teachers, musicians, salesmen, engineers, and many others. But they get managed one way or another.
What I really don't understand is why anyone would let themselves get promoted to a role they weren't interested in. Promotion is your own choice, no one gets forced to. Is it just a money thing?
To be fair as an engineer; if you are not learning on the job you are being left behind.....I assume it is the same for doctors; I can't comment on generals though.
You are confusing "learning on the job" with "learning, on the job".
Most managers don't start with the equivalent of an engineering or medical degree.
Is guessing a URL really a "hack"?
Quite. If you don't want someone to read your stuff, don't put it on the internet and hope no one notices.
How could a glorified cab dispatch could be valued at $40+ billions? Am I totally clueless or is it just a bunch of VCs barking at the mountain-side and thinking the world is cheering them on?!
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more money the VCs chuck at young, exciting, disruptive etc companies, the more people think there must be something behind it all. It's a wonderful combination of Ponzi scheme and the Emperor's New Clothes.
How is something as useless and stupid as Twitter be worth more than $8bn in the first place?
Ever hear of the Arab Spring? Aka the twitter revolution?
Even if that's true, it is no indication that Twitter can make a profit and therefore be worth anything in terms of stock market valuation.
I'm fine with non profit organisations, I'd just rather they didn't pretend to be businesses.
ffs, capital gains should be at least on par with income tax.
But then the truly rich would be paying tax at the same rate as the little people, and that's communism.
Inarguable fact: day traders, and HFTs, are making and selling stocks at a rapid pace.
Even if what they do is harmful, and even if it makes stock prices fluxuate even more randomly than they otherwise would, and even if their whole strategy is essentially based on luck....they are still buying and selling real stakes in real companies.
"Gambling" is when you buy a lottery ticket.....a lottery ticket is not a real stake in anything...it is a chance to win money and nothing more. Same goes for other gambling game types.
That is the difference that makes one legal in places where the other is illegal. And it is a perfectly reasonable difference if you don't try to play bullshit semantic games.
The real point is that being able to buy and sell and buy and sell and...in microseconds does absolutely nothing to help the real companies involved. It does not increase their liquidity, or ability to borrow money to make real things, or anything else that stock markets are supposed to do..
You can compare them this way. If you have 100 times overvalued company, your stock has a 1% chance of winning, 99% of the owners are just playing a ponzi scheme and will never cash out.
*cough* apple *cough*
Value is entirely based on perception.
Value is based on profit. Profit is disclosed each quarter. This tweet didn't cost $8B; the title is grossly misleading. The quarterly earnings cost $8B in valuation, and the tweet just pushed the loss up an hour or so.
No, the theory is that value is based on discounted future cash flows (profits), but the reality is that a company like Amazon has a huge market valuation despite making effectively no profit ever, and a company like Apple appears to be valued on the basis that its profits can go on increasing year on year to infinity.
So how come if I say "The Theory of creationism" on Slashdot I'll get crucified?
Prefixing "the theory of..." to something does not instantly promote it to the level of a sensible scientific idea.
As an exercise for the reader, look at "the theory of astrology" or "the theory of a flat Earth".
you don't know anything about logic at all do you? Apparently not.. because it is all latin and I don't see any latin here so you are a moron
Well, looks like I'm the only one who thought this was funny. If it was a bit shorter I'd borrow it for my sig.
She is a liberal communist no doubt.
I forget, are they better or worse than the illiberal communists?
ppppfffft!
Back in the old neighborhood, some of the bedrooms were SMALLER than that...
Eh, you were lucky to have a room! We used to have to live in t' corridor!
"Slut" is a term liberals use on conservative women
If someone uses "slut" as a sexist insult, they're not what I would call a liberal, but I know the US has its own interpretations of the English language when it comes to politics.
Bars are filled with adults who should know better.
You seem unaware of the fact that bars serve alcohol, which affects people's behaviour, sometimes for the worse.
Arsenic is actually having a sweet taste.
I bet there's not many people who can say that.
The alternative to drinking diet soda is not drinking ordinary soda, it's not drinking soda at all.
10,000,000 x .02 = $200,000
That is not insignificant when talking about profit.
That depends on whether your profit is $1 million or $1 billion a year.
So unless you feel you have some sort of moral obligation to support the Pepsi and Coca Cola corporations, stick to water.