There are plenty of otherwise intelligent people who don't communicate well or manage conflict well. A book on those topics would definitely be beneficial.
Stop right there. Means if you're not a schmoozer (like many of us in the software and IT fields are not), you're screwed. Yeah, we non-schmoozers already knew the path to success lay that way; the path is barred to us by our nature, and telling us to take it is just telling us to give up.
It's not hard, but with that attitude, you will never learn. Bummer for you.
Even being successfully in business for yourself isn't a dream job every day. You can still find yourself working 80-90 hour weeks, getting yelled at by customers who don't understand that the problem was their inability to spell check their engraving request (and you don't really have the option of just telling them "tough luck, spell check next time" because word of mouth brings in 80% of your new customers)...
I wish I hadn't commented, because I'd like to mod you up right now.
Being in business for yourself sucks ass until you can afford to hire someone else to do the shitwork. I hate quickbooks, and I hate chasing down receivables, and I hate taxes, and I hate business entity structure, and I hate filings, and I hate payroll, and I hate record-keeping. I'm sure there's more stuff that I hate, but it is all a distant memory now.
I don't envy my bookkeeper, CPA, or managers. But that's their bad career choices that got them doing my shitwork.;)
So where do I fit in? I do storage, backup, Linux, Unix, MS SQL, a tiny bit of Oracle and just about everything in between. Show me a certificate for that.
"Jack of all trades, master of none" doesn't make for a strong candidacy. That is a real hodgepodge of a resume, too. Have you thought of specializing?
What's the use of a "backup" person who knows "a tiny bit of Oracle"? If I want someone to create a backup policy and implement it, I'd hire someone with that experience. If I wanted an Oracle DBA, I'd hire an Oracle DBA. Not someone who knows "a tiny bit of Oracle", whatever the hell that is.
I suggest you pick an area that you enjoy and really market yourself there. Take an entry-level job if you have to, to build up depth of experience and knowledge. Really become an expert in that area. Write a book or publish online or something.
If you enjoy what you're doing and you're good at it, that's the closest you're going to get to your 'dream job'. If you don't like what you do, no amount of compensation will ever make up for that. You may like the money, but you'll never like the job.
I started with 15 vacation days + holidays + 2 floating holiday days. Sick time was unlimited (well, if I was going to use a lot of it, I had to actually be sick. My wife had roughly the same deal when she started.
Now my wife has 6 weeks vacation plus holidays plus floaters, and I have whatever I want because I own the company.
I don't know of any employers who make employees draw on their vacation time for sick leave. Anyway, it is stupid policy, and I certainly don't have it at my company. Why the hell would I want to incent employees to come to work sick and spread their germs? Then I have more sick employees. Dumb, dumb idea.
I started a business approximately one month before my youngest child was born.
A lot of people told me that was bad timing. A lot of people told me I would never succeed. A lot of people told me that small businesses tend to fail.
But some people really like to schlep buckets, and I respect that. I don't, however, tend to take much business advice from those people.
Funny story: A good friend of mine was doing her MBA with the intent of becoming an entrepreneur. She entered a business plan contest that was judged by tenured professors in her business school. Her business plan took last place.
Many people expressed sympathy--I took out my checkbook, because I knew that if a bunch of tenured academics hated her idea, she had a winner. (She didn't wind up taking my money, unfortunately; but needless to say, she is doing just fine.)
I already get five weeks paid leave and work 37 hour weeks. From what I understand of the US I'd probably be fired for not being present enough. Here, I just go promoted.
I work roughly as much or as little as I want. I can take vacation at any time. I doubt I'll ever get promoted because I am President of the company.
America - you're doing it wrong.
Not really. We have this thing here called "Small Business". I understand it's vastly more difficult to do in Europe what I did in the US.
When you're setting up your Sprint voicemail, it gives you the option to disable the reading of all those instructions and just play your outgoing message. Mine is set up that way.
I have no idea what's happening at my job, with my friends, or with my family. They have no idea what's up with me. And that's the way I like it.
I'm guessing you at least told them when you were leaving and when you were going to be home. If not, I think it's a little nutty.
Maybe your job, family, and friends don't have a good concept of boundaries. When I go on vacation, I leave my cell phone # for "emergencies". Never once been contacted. Maybe I'm just not that important.
That refers to over all earnings, not per job. Your original post was about paying women 33% less for the same job. The source you site refers to women having jobs that pay less more so then being paid less for the same job.
It is in the corporate world more so than the small business world. The gap in wages is not in the general workforce, but within the Executive jobs.
I'd like a citation for this, because I'm extremely skeptical that executive pay would be able to skew the statistics so heavily. There just aren't that many super-highly compensated executives out there to make a difference. They are mere outliers.
The wage gap opens when you lump people together into groups. "Programmer" is everything from someone who can slap together more-or-less stable php code for some low-load, low-security webpage to someone who can develop ring0 drivers.
That's definitely one of the reasons you see this weird statistic. It's actually worse than what you describe.
The statistics that say women earn 3/4 of what men earn are derived from average income based on workers who work 35+ hours per week. Since women are much more likely than men to value work/life balance over raw compensation numbers, it tends to skew the statistics.
That's why I framed my argument as I did. For anyone who thinks there is a wage gap, show me large groups of men who make 33% more than women who do the exact same job. I'll not hold my breath.
Does this mean that women are always doomed to earn less than men in the workplace?
Not if the laws of economics hold.
As a small-business owner, please allow me to assure you that if male employees cost me 33% more than female employees, I would have an all-female staff. I'd have to have rocks in my head not to. Obviously this demand for female employees would drive up their cost to parity with male employees.
Think back to every job you've ever had. Were you ever paid 33% more than women who were doing exactly the same thing you were? Probably not.
So I am very skeptical of this supposed "wage gap".
I wonder if, post women's lib, we'll see this change somewhat.
It used to be that women depended on men to provide for them and their children, so women selected men who had the most resources. Now, with women able to provide for themselves, will women start selecting men who are more visually pleasing?
As a fat, balding, middle-aged man, I sure as hell hope not, but as long as my wife stays with me, I guess it's OK. She certainly doesn't need to for financial reasons.
Then when she sued for divorce he hid all his money in some offshore company and pretended it was lost in a "bad investment". It was a blatant lie. This guy deserves to rot in prison until he decides to come clean. He held the keys to his release the entire 14 years. He was just a stubborn liar.
Whether or not he knows the whereabouts of the money is totally immaterial. Even the judge who freed Chadwick believes he knows where the money is.
The fact of the matter is, this is America pal. We don't have judges summarily meting out punishments to people. We have due process, and trials by juries of peers, and things of that nature.
Contempt of court is a special case where a person is detained, not as punishment for refusing to comply with a lawful court order, but as coercion to comply with said order. The new judge ruled that Chadwick's confinement was in fact a punishment, not coercion, because after 14 years, Chadwick was unlikely to be coerced to comply with the lawful court order.
If Chadwick ought to be punished, fine. But let's advocate doing it in a manner that is consistent with our ideals (and the US Constitution, Amendments 5 and 14).
The judge made the right decision. Chadwick was being held to coerce him into coughing up the money (or documentation of investment losses). After 14 years, it should be clear to anyone with 2 brain cells that Chadwick is not going to be coerced into coughing up the cash.
So if he's not being held in coercion, he is necessarily being held as punishment. I'm sorry, but as much as you'd like to, we do not deprive people of life, liberty, or property in the US without due process of law (see US Constitution, Amendments 5 and 14).
You seem to think he needs to be punished, and maybe you're right, but the fact of the matter is, if he is to face punishment, then he has the absolute right to a trial by a jury of his peers.
So you are sent to jail for not paying, but let out of jail if you can't pay.
He didn't go to jail for not paying. He went to jail for contempt of court.
He was getting divorced from his wife, and his wife alleged that he hid $2.5M in overseas accounts. He never contested the existence of the $2.5M, but claimed that he lost it all in bad business transactions.
The judge said, "OK, show me documentation of these bad business transactions or show me the money." He said, "No." So the judge held in in contempt of court, not as a punishment for not paying, but to coerce him into paying (or at least showing what happened to all that money).
The whole point of holding someone in contempt is not to punish that person--it is to coerce that person into complying with a lawful court order.
The new judge found that after 14 years, Chadwick was not going to be coerced into complying with the order by further confinement, so holding him in contempt could no longer be considered a form of coercion. At that point, holding him further would have to be considered punishment without a trial. And as you surely are aware, it is illegal to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property in the US without due process of law (see US Constitution, Amendments 5 and 14).
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of otherwise intelligent people who don't communicate well or manage conflict well. A book on those topics would definitely be beneficial.
$70k for a community college? Something doesn't add up.
Turns out there is a 4-year college and a community college. http://www.monroecollege.edu/ vs. http://www.monroecc.edu/.
The lady in the article got a bachelor's degree.
For a business major, a 2.7 is awful (grade inflation). You might as well not even have the degree.
And most people would have never heard of Monroe college if it were not for the lawsuit.
I can't believe your university actually guaranteed you'd find a job with your degree. Mind telling me which uni it was so I can view this guarantee?
So you saying it is impossible to be 100% so lets not try to improve colleges so kids get some real work experience?
Did you not do internships/coops in school? I did.
Stop right there. Means if you're not a schmoozer (like many of us in the software and IT fields are not), you're screwed. Yeah, we non-schmoozers already knew the path to success lay that way; the path is barred to us by our nature, and telling us to take it is just telling us to give up.
It's not hard, but with that attitude, you will never learn. Bummer for you.
Even being successfully in business for yourself isn't a dream job every day. You can still find yourself working 80-90 hour weeks, getting yelled at by customers who don't understand that the problem was their inability to spell check their engraving request (and you don't really have the option of just telling them "tough luck, spell check next time" because word of mouth brings in 80% of your new customers)...
I wish I hadn't commented, because I'd like to mod you up right now.
Being in business for yourself sucks ass until you can afford to hire someone else to do the shitwork. I hate quickbooks, and I hate chasing down receivables, and I hate taxes, and I hate business entity structure, and I hate filings, and I hate payroll, and I hate record-keeping. I'm sure there's more stuff that I hate, but it is all a distant memory now.
I don't envy my bookkeeper, CPA, or managers. But that's their bad career choices that got them doing my shitwork. ;)
So where do I fit in? I do storage, backup, Linux, Unix, MS SQL, a tiny bit of Oracle and just about everything in between. Show me a certificate for that.
"Jack of all trades, master of none" doesn't make for a strong candidacy. That is a real hodgepodge of a resume, too. Have you thought of specializing?
What's the use of a "backup" person who knows "a tiny bit of Oracle"? If I want someone to create a backup policy and implement it, I'd hire someone with that experience. If I wanted an Oracle DBA, I'd hire an Oracle DBA. Not someone who knows "a tiny bit of Oracle", whatever the hell that is.
I suggest you pick an area that you enjoy and really market yourself there. Take an entry-level job if you have to, to build up depth of experience and knowledge. Really become an expert in that area. Write a book or publish online or something.
If you enjoy what you're doing and you're good at it, that's the closest you're going to get to your 'dream job'. If you don't like what you do, no amount of compensation will ever make up for that. You may like the money, but you'll never like the job.
I started with 15 vacation days + holidays + 2 floating holiday days. Sick time was unlimited (well, if I was going to use a lot of it, I had to actually be sick. My wife had roughly the same deal when she started.
Now my wife has 6 weeks vacation plus holidays plus floaters, and I have whatever I want because I own the company.
I don't know of any employers who make employees draw on their vacation time for sick leave. Anyway, it is stupid policy, and I certainly don't have it at my company. Why the hell would I want to incent employees to come to work sick and spread their germs? Then I have more sick employees. Dumb, dumb idea.
I started a business approximately one month before my youngest child was born.
A lot of people told me that was bad timing. A lot of people told me I would never succeed. A lot of people told me that small businesses tend to fail.
But some people really like to schlep buckets, and I respect that. I don't, however, tend to take much business advice from those people.
Funny story: A good friend of mine was doing her MBA with the intent of becoming an entrepreneur. She entered a business plan contest that was judged by tenured professors in her business school. Her business plan took last place.
Many people expressed sympathy--I took out my checkbook, because I knew that if a bunch of tenured academics hated her idea, she had a winner. (She didn't wind up taking my money, unfortunately; but needless to say, she is doing just fine.)
I already get five weeks paid leave and work 37 hour weeks. From what I understand of the US I'd probably be fired for not being present enough. Here, I just go promoted.
I work roughly as much or as little as I want. I can take vacation at any time. I doubt I'll ever get promoted because I am President of the company.
America - you're doing it wrong.
Not really. We have this thing here called "Small Business". I understand it's vastly more difficult to do in Europe what I did in the US.
When you're setting up your Sprint voicemail, it gives you the option to disable the reading of all those instructions and just play your outgoing message. Mine is set up that way.
I don't know about the other carriers.
I think centos is a little different. He had several administrators helping him. He should have told them he was going to be on extended absence.
I have no idea what's happening at my job, with my friends, or with my family. They have no idea what's up with me. And that's the way I like it.
I'm guessing you at least told them when you were leaving and when you were going to be home. If not, I think it's a little nutty.
Maybe your job, family, and friends don't have a good concept of boundaries. When I go on vacation, I leave my cell phone # for "emergencies". Never once been contacted. Maybe I'm just not that important.
I have done so plenty of times when I was out hiking.
I'm guessing you probably told people where you were going to be and when to expect to hear from you.
If you didn't, then I guess you like living dangerously!
That refers to over all earnings, not per job. Your original post was about paying women 33% less for the same job. The source you site refers to women having jobs that pay less more so then being paid less for the same job.
Parse Error. Aborted.
Woman astride.
I obtained that information here. It does not mention executive compensation, and you have not supported your assertion.
I am going to assume that you made that explanation up, and it has no grounding in anything factual.
It is in the corporate world more so than the small business world. The gap in wages is not in the general workforce, but within the Executive jobs.
I'd like a citation for this, because I'm extremely skeptical that executive pay would be able to skew the statistics so heavily. There just aren't that many super-highly compensated executives out there to make a difference. They are mere outliers.
The wage gap opens when you lump people together into groups. "Programmer" is everything from someone who can slap together more-or-less stable php code for some low-load, low-security webpage to someone who can develop ring0 drivers.
That's definitely one of the reasons you see this weird statistic. It's actually worse than what you describe.
The statistics that say women earn 3/4 of what men earn are derived from average income based on workers who work 35+ hours per week. Since women are much more likely than men to value work/life balance over raw compensation numbers, it tends to skew the statistics.
That's why I framed my argument as I did. For anyone who thinks there is a wage gap, show me large groups of men who make 33% more than women who do the exact same job. I'll not hold my breath.
Does this mean that women are always doomed to earn less than men in the workplace?
Not if the laws of economics hold.
As a small-business owner, please allow me to assure you that if male employees cost me 33% more than female employees, I would have an all-female staff. I'd have to have rocks in my head not to. Obviously this demand for female employees would drive up their cost to parity with male employees.
Think back to every job you've ever had. Were you ever paid 33% more than women who were doing exactly the same thing you were? Probably not.
So I am very skeptical of this supposed "wage gap".
I wonder if, post women's lib, we'll see this change somewhat.
It used to be that women depended on men to provide for them and their children, so women selected men who had the most resources. Now, with women able to provide for themselves, will women start selecting men who are more visually pleasing?
As a fat, balding, middle-aged man, I sure as hell hope not, but as long as my wife stays with me, I guess it's OK. She certainly doesn't need to for financial reasons.
Then when she sued for divorce he hid all his money in some offshore company and pretended it was lost in a "bad investment". It was a blatant lie. This guy deserves to rot in prison until he decides to come clean. He held the keys to his release the entire 14 years. He was just a stubborn liar.
Whether or not he knows the whereabouts of the money is totally immaterial. Even the judge who freed Chadwick believes he knows where the money is.
The fact of the matter is, this is America pal. We don't have judges summarily meting out punishments to people. We have due process, and trials by juries of peers, and things of that nature.
Contempt of court is a special case where a person is detained, not as punishment for refusing to comply with a lawful court order, but as coercion to comply with said order. The new judge ruled that Chadwick's confinement was in fact a punishment, not coercion, because after 14 years, Chadwick was unlikely to be coerced to comply with the lawful court order.
If Chadwick ought to be punished, fine. But let's advocate doing it in a manner that is consistent with our ideals (and the US Constitution, Amendments 5 and 14).
The judge made the right decision. Chadwick was being held to coerce him into coughing up the money (or documentation of investment losses). After 14 years, it should be clear to anyone with 2 brain cells that Chadwick is not going to be coerced into coughing up the cash.
So if he's not being held in coercion, he is necessarily being held as punishment. I'm sorry, but as much as you'd like to, we do not deprive people of life, liberty, or property in the US without due process of law (see US Constitution, Amendments 5 and 14).
You seem to think he needs to be punished, and maybe you're right, but the fact of the matter is, if he is to face punishment, then he has the absolute right to a trial by a jury of his peers.
This is America, pal.
So you are sent to jail for not paying, but let out of jail if you can't pay.
He didn't go to jail for not paying. He went to jail for contempt of court.
He was getting divorced from his wife, and his wife alleged that he hid $2.5M in overseas accounts. He never contested the existence of the $2.5M, but claimed that he lost it all in bad business transactions.
The judge said, "OK, show me documentation of these bad business transactions or show me the money." He said, "No." So the judge held in in contempt of court, not as a punishment for not paying, but to coerce him into paying (or at least showing what happened to all that money).
The whole point of holding someone in contempt is not to punish that person--it is to coerce that person into complying with a lawful court order.
The new judge found that after 14 years, Chadwick was not going to be coerced into complying with the order by further confinement, so holding him in contempt could no longer be considered a form of coercion. At that point, holding him further would have to be considered punishment without a trial. And as you surely are aware, it is illegal to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property in the US without due process of law (see US Constitution, Amendments 5 and 14).