Yes but in a way it is the fear (and cost) of losing that valuable employee that keeps a company inline. The contract, the research and so on and so on. Replacing any employee is expensive but that doesn't mean, for example, they won't underpay them as much as possible if they can. Companies know that it's also expensive for an employee to switch jobs and they will happily take advantage of that.
I've been through four rounds of layoffs at two companies, one thing I've learned is that no one is safe. If it's between digging a bit into the massive liquid assets and firing 20% of the workforce, companies will pick the second almost every single time. It'd be stupid for the company to do anything else and I don't fault them for it.
In IT it's actually even weirder than that since almost no one is promoted. Companies often hire people from outside instead of promoting from within and so you are expected to find a new job if you want a promotion. Which makes perfect sense in a way, you need new blood since otherwise it's too likely that you'll fall behind the industry. Cross-pollination of ideas and all that.
I don't actually see any of this as that cutthroat, if my employer is truly out to maximize every penny at my expense I won't work for them because that's pure masochism. You can't forget that your boss and their boss and so on are still people. That said you also can't forget that they are businessman whose goal is to make the company money. If you turn yourself into a carpet then don't be surprised if they walk all over you.
With employment there is an implied understanding that there is a long-term relationship,
No there isn't, employers will lay you off in a heartbeat if it's in their interest. They'll provide no raises and pay new hires 20% more. They'll do everything they can to pay you as little as possible.
The possibility of you leaving is what keep them inline, if they know you won't leave then they'll fuck you up the ass till you need wear an adult diaper. It's called capitalism and supply and demand. Look it up sometime.
I've been treated rather well by my employers and that's because they knew I could leave and find a new job within a week for probably more pay. I also know many people who don't have that luxury and they did not get the same treatment as me.
and the employee will not part for something as low as a 30% change in pay, and nor will the employer necessarily fire the employee just because they found someone willing and able to do the same job for 30% less.
30% is considered low for you? What are you smoking. In most places that's around 10 years worth of experience at least and there's no way in hell you'll get a raise like that from your employer. That's an extra 30k per year in decent IT jobs.
However, it would be best if the employer spelled that out with a contract. It would probably be best if such enterprises had their employees sign a "non-compete" for the industry their organization is in, effective in case the employee voluntarily chose to leave, and with a small salary continuing for the non-compete period to secure the employee from being hired by a competitor during that period. This is more fair to both employer and employee -- the employee cannot be poached, unless the employee is fired without cause; if the employee is released with cause, or chooses to leave the business, they continue to be paid a sustaining wage. The competitor can offer the 33% increase after the 2 or 3 year period.
Yeah, great idea. Hire people for pennies on the dollar during a recession and then lock them in even when the economy recovers. *rolls eyes*
Some companies love people like you, so easy to underpay you and make you their bitch.
It doesn't matter, if he says bad stuff about Oracle then likely Oracle won't keep paying him. It doesn't matter what they were paying him for. It could have been to walk the company dogs. You don't pay people who are hurting you unless you really need them.
In that same vein, you're more likely to get paid even more if you report favorably on Oracle even if you're not paid to do so.
All of this is basic human nature and companies are in the end run by humans.
So the very fact that Oracle was giving him money means he now has a monetary incentive to report favorably for Oracle.
Simple solution, parents should never ever opt-in and any who do are obviously unfit since, as you said, their children may sue their computers. So if they do then the parent will simply be brought up for child endangerment charges and have their children taken away. Problem solved.
Given the UK's famous bureaucracy, I give it two years before their version of the CPC starts using that line of argument.
And then the only people you'd end up with are unproductive desperate idiots and then your company will go bankrupt from a competitor who isn't as utterly stupid at dealing with people.
And those other people are also a liability because they may not be able to do the job. Even if they can do the job it'd take them 2-3 months to get up to full efficiency at doing their job.
Furthermore, every other employee, including the replacement, now knows that the company will fire them at the drop of a hat. In other words, they now have a signal that they may want to start sending out resumes before it happens to them. The fired person's social network will now also know that the employer is an asshole and to steer clear if possible.
So yes, caring does pay the bills if a company cares about anything but the short term balance sheet (not even short term productivity).
The cars in question, or at least some of them, have no key. Just a button. That you have to hold for 3 to 10 seconds. Which may turn off the engine if the computer cooperates. Oh and the gear shifter is asfaik designed in such a way that it's very easy to miss neutral and still think you got it.
In retrospect this person probably shouldn't have gotten into a mortgage like that, but should they really be legally prevented from doing so? Just because it's a bad decision does not mean that it's an unethical decision.
BS, this has nothing to do with ethics. This pure hard business and money. The point of a mortgages is for the bank to make money. If a mortgage will cause them to lose money then it should not be accepted. Nor should they take risky loans because the risks can tip rather quickly especially if you start playing tricks with the loans.
In the end someone has to pay for those loans and mortgages. Right now, it's me and you via Uncle Sam.
There is no god given right to own a house. If you can't afford it then either get a smaller house or save money till you can.
Are you saying that if in a proper democratic election it was voted to have you killed, say everyone decided that your race just should go away, you'd be fine with it?
Would you fight to defend a system that is trying to kill you? And would you still consider the system ethical when when it's doing that?
Wow, did a Visa executive make sweet love to your mother or something?
As others have already pointed out, it is just that easy. Visa and Co don't care at all since they don't eat the cost.
Last time I got hit with fraud, a single sale mind you, my card was suspended and I was called before the transaction was even finalized. New card was in my hands within two days and I even had thirty days to switch over any recurrent charges (as the old number stayed valid for those).
So starting provoked wars, invading nations, murdering and torturing tens of millions of people is the right (tm) way to be a first world nation but what China is doing isn't?
Anyways why does everyone paint eastern governments as entirely evil.
Because like all large governments they are self-serving and to outsiders that makes them effectively evil. Go look at what the US did during the Cold War. Same thing, except this time the US is on the receiving end. Actually, look at ACTA for a current example of how much the US fucks with other countries for it's own perceived gain.
The difference is that China has no desire to hide such actions too much and as such is able to take them to whole new levels. They want their economy and their companies to succeed and they will do anything to achieve that goal.
Does that makes them evil? If you say yes, consider this. They have over 1 billion people and an economy that is not self sustaining yet. Hundreds of millions of those people live in atrociousness conditions right now. Worst case, China fails to build itself into a proper first world economy. Then hundreds of millions will die and hundreds of millions more would probably have been better off if they had died.
If you think every American not being able to buy three Starbucks Latte's a day more of a sin than having hundreds of kids starve to death, maybe you should look long and hard in the mirror before deciding what is evil and what is not.
You're underestimating what technology is capable of.
All it takes is one self-replicating solar sail powered von neumann machine. In a half a century a high school student could probably make and launch one in a weekend. And that's technology we can easily imagine and conceive of. Can you imagine a dying humanity not spewing them out by the hundreds in a vain attempt at immortality?
Just one that survives and in the tick of the galactic clock the whole galaxy is filled with them. Remove any sanity checks and pretty much every rocky body would be turned into a factory creating more such machines.
That's why there being un-observable civilizations out there is such a conundrum. At least one should have pulled off that von neumann machine trick and you only need one a couple million years ago anywhere in the galaxy to crowd up our neck of the woods.
So you look dumb to people who are OCD driven idiots? This matters why again?
Actually scratch that, I hope people like you think I'm dumb. Saves me the effort of having to listen to you drivel on about some inane thing that no one else would ever care about but you're too socially inept to realize.
The transition has to be smooth. Otherwise people are stuck in poverty. If they get a better job they suddenly make less "actual income" despite being paid more. It's already an issue with various government programs in the US where if you decide to, gasp, save money so you don't live paycheck to paycheck you lose your benefits.
People upgrade because it costs less than $200 and they may as well get a deal with a new contract. In some cases the phone is nearly free with a new contract so there's no point in not upgrading. Plus years worth of wear and tear do take its toll on a phone. Not to mention the social pressure to be "up to date."
In Silicon Valley anyone decent offered $65k would laugh before walking out the door. Same for any company not paying for healthcare.
also, I work on flextime, so I can more or less come and go as I please (there is no clock to punch, you just book the time you did on a tool based on your own recalling) as long as business needs are fulfilled and we have the necessary staff on site at all times.
Unless you want to work after 8pm, or on weekends or on holidays.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but in a way it is the fear (and cost) of losing that valuable employee that keeps a company inline. The contract, the research and so on and so on. Replacing any employee is expensive but that doesn't mean, for example, they won't underpay them as much as possible if they can. Companies know that it's also expensive for an employee to switch jobs and they will happily take advantage of that.
I've been through four rounds of layoffs at two companies, one thing I've learned is that no one is safe. If it's between digging a bit into the massive liquid assets and firing 20% of the workforce, companies will pick the second almost every single time. It'd be stupid for the company to do anything else and I don't fault them for it.
In IT it's actually even weirder than that since almost no one is promoted. Companies often hire people from outside instead of promoting from within and so you are expected to find a new job if you want a promotion. Which makes perfect sense in a way, you need new blood since otherwise it's too likely that you'll fall behind the industry. Cross-pollination of ideas and all that.
I don't actually see any of this as that cutthroat, if my employer is truly out to maximize every penny at my expense I won't work for them because that's pure masochism. You can't forget that your boss and their boss and so on are still people. That said you also can't forget that they are businessman whose goal is to make the company money. If you turn yourself into a carpet then don't be surprised if they walk all over you.
Are you clinically delusional or just stupid?
With employment there is an implied understanding that there is a long-term relationship,
No there isn't, employers will lay you off in a heartbeat if it's in their interest. They'll provide no raises and pay new hires 20% more. They'll do everything they can to pay you as little as possible.
The possibility of you leaving is what keep them inline, if they know you won't leave then they'll fuck you up the ass till you need wear an adult diaper. It's called capitalism and supply and demand. Look it up sometime.
I've been treated rather well by my employers and that's because they knew I could leave and find a new job within a week for probably more pay. I also know many people who don't have that luxury and they did not get the same treatment as me.
and the employee will not part for something as low as a 30% change in pay, and nor will the employer necessarily fire the employee just because they found someone willing and able to do the same job for 30% less.
30% is considered low for you? What are you smoking. In most places that's around 10 years worth of experience at least and there's no way in hell you'll get a raise like that from your employer. That's an extra 30k per year in decent IT jobs.
However, it would be best if the employer spelled that out with a contract. It would probably be best if such enterprises had their employees sign a "non-compete" for the industry their organization is in, effective in case the employee voluntarily chose to leave, and with a small salary continuing for the non-compete period to secure the employee from being hired by a competitor during that period. This is more fair to both employer and employee -- the employee cannot be poached, unless the employee is fired without cause; if the employee is released with cause, or chooses to leave the business, they continue to be paid a sustaining wage. The competitor can offer the 33% increase after the 2 or 3 year period.
Yeah, great idea. Hire people for pennies on the dollar during a recession and then lock them in even when the economy recovers. *rolls eyes*
Some companies love people like you, so easy to underpay you and make you their bitch.
It doesn't matter, if he says bad stuff about Oracle then likely Oracle won't keep paying him. It doesn't matter what they were paying him for. It could have been to walk the company dogs. You don't pay people who are hurting you unless you really need them.
In that same vein, you're more likely to get paid even more if you report favorably on Oracle even if you're not paid to do so.
All of this is basic human nature and companies are in the end run by humans.
So the very fact that Oracle was giving him money means he now has a monetary incentive to report favorably for Oracle.
So you need to pick your hires by actual skills, not some bullet points on their resumes. Big deal.
You've never had to hire someone, have you?
Simple solution, parents should never ever opt-in and any who do are obviously unfit since, as you said, their children may sue their computers. So if they do then the parent will simply be brought up for child endangerment charges and have their children taken away. Problem solved.
Given the UK's famous bureaucracy, I give it two years before their version of the CPC starts using that line of argument.
And then the only people you'd end up with are unproductive desperate idiots and then your company will go bankrupt from a competitor who isn't as utterly stupid at dealing with people.
And those other people are also a liability because they may not be able to do the job. Even if they can do the job it'd take them 2-3 months to get up to full efficiency at doing their job.
Furthermore, every other employee, including the replacement, now knows that the company will fire them at the drop of a hat. In other words, they now have a signal that they may want to start sending out resumes before it happens to them. The fired person's social network will now also know that the employer is an asshole and to steer clear if possible.
So yes, caring does pay the bills if a company cares about anything but the short term balance sheet (not even short term productivity).
The cars in question, or at least some of them, have no key. Just a button. That you have to hold for 3 to 10 seconds. Which may turn off the engine if the computer cooperates. Oh and the gear shifter is asfaik designed in such a way that it's very easy to miss neutral and still think you got it.
The car in question has no ignition. No key. Just a button. Oh and you have to hold it for 3 to 10 seconds, firmly. Then it may turn off the engine.
So what was your point about transparency again?
In retrospect this person probably shouldn't have gotten into a mortgage like that, but should they really be legally prevented from doing so? Just because it's a bad decision does not mean that it's an unethical decision.
BS, this has nothing to do with ethics. This pure hard business and money. The point of a mortgages is for the bank to make money. If a mortgage will cause them to lose money then it should not be accepted. Nor should they take risky loans because the risks can tip rather quickly especially if you start playing tricks with the loans.
In the end someone has to pay for those loans and mortgages. Right now, it's me and you via Uncle Sam.
There is no god given right to own a house. If you can't afford it then either get a smaller house or save money till you can.
Your examples are not what's he's talking about.
Are you saying that if in a proper democratic election it was voted to have you killed, say everyone decided that your race just should go away, you'd be fine with it?
Would you fight to defend a system that is trying to kill you? And would you still consider the system ethical when when it's doing that?
What is the Supreme Court explicitly said it was constitutional 50 years ago but finds it unconstitutional in 2 years?
Wow, did a Visa executive make sweet love to your mother or something?
As others have already pointed out, it is just that easy. Visa and Co don't care at all since they don't eat the cost.
Last time I got hit with fraud, a single sale mind you, my card was suspended and I was called before the transaction was even finalized. New card was in my hands within two days and I even had thirty days to switch over any recurrent charges (as the old number stayed valid for those).
Debit != Credit.
Learn the difference and learn to read before commenting next time.
Debit cards are stupid for just the reasons you listed, all of which credit cards are basically immune to.
So starting provoked wars, invading nations, murdering and torturing tens of millions of people is the right (tm) way to be a first world nation but what China is doing isn't?
Glad I'm not your psychiatrist.
Anyways why does everyone paint eastern governments as entirely evil.
Because like all large governments they are self-serving and to outsiders that makes them effectively evil. Go look at what the US did during the Cold War. Same thing, except this time the US is on the receiving end. Actually, look at ACTA for a current example of how much the US fucks with other countries for it's own perceived gain.
The difference is that China has no desire to hide such actions too much and as such is able to take them to whole new levels. They want their economy and their companies to succeed and they will do anything to achieve that goal.
Does that makes them evil? If you say yes, consider this. They have over 1 billion people and an economy that is not self sustaining yet. Hundreds of millions of those people live in atrociousness conditions right now. Worst case, China fails to build itself into a proper first world economy. Then hundreds of millions will die and hundreds of millions more would probably have been better off if they had died.
If you think every American not being able to buy three Starbucks Latte's a day more of a sin than having hundreds of kids starve to death, maybe you should look long and hard in the mirror before deciding what is evil and what is not.
So if you publish a best selling book and Warner Brothers makes a movie of it without paying you any royalties you'd be fine with that?
After all, you don't want to suppress the creation of art do you?
You're underestimating what technology is capable of.
All it takes is one self-replicating solar sail powered von neumann machine. In a half a century a high school student could probably make and launch one in a weekend. And that's technology we can easily imagine and conceive of. Can you imagine a dying humanity not spewing them out by the hundreds in a vain attempt at immortality?
Just one that survives and in the tick of the galactic clock the whole galaxy is filled with them. Remove any sanity checks and pretty much every rocky body would be turned into a factory creating more such machines.
That's why there being un-observable civilizations out there is such a conundrum. At least one should have pulled off that von neumann machine trick and you only need one a couple million years ago anywhere in the galaxy to crowd up our neck of the woods.
Yes, everyone is exactly like your brother. There's a giant global conspiracy that's replacing people with exact clones of your brother.
This info graphic sums it up pretty well I think:
http://i.imgur.com/GxzeV.jpg
Until you go broke, then you expect the bureaucrat to provide you with welfare, free healthcare, subsidized housing and so on and so on.
So you look dumb to people who are OCD driven idiots? This matters why again?
Actually scratch that, I hope people like you think I'm dumb. Saves me the effort of having to listen to you drivel on about some inane thing that no one else would ever care about but you're too socially inept to realize.
The transition has to be smooth. Otherwise people are stuck in poverty. If they get a better job they suddenly make less "actual income" despite being paid more. It's already an issue with various government programs in the US where if you decide to, gasp, save money so you don't live paycheck to paycheck you lose your benefits.
People upgrade because it costs less than $200 and they may as well get a deal with a new contract. In some cases the phone is nearly free with a new contract so there's no point in not upgrading. Plus years worth of wear and tear do take its toll on a phone. Not to mention the social pressure to be "up to date."
In Silicon Valley anyone decent offered $65k would laugh before walking out the door. Same for any company not paying for healthcare.
also, I work on flextime, so I can more or less come and go as I please (there is no clock to punch, you just book the time you did on a tool based on your own recalling) as long as business needs are fulfilled and we have the necessary staff on site at all times.
Unless you want to work after 8pm, or on weekends or on holidays.