The Terrible Fear of Paying the Poor Too Much

a reply to: macman

Well, which is it. Does he have Cisco Network Certs, or is her a Software Engineer.
Cisco deals with the Network portion of IT. Software is something else.

And I know and deal with the "out sourced" Network guys in India. Not only is there a huge language barrier, but they typically suck.

He has BOTH, as well as sys-admin, several languages, and overarching knowledge that his managers revere and need.....and is the go-to guy for his company. He gets up at 4am to deal with the people in Taiwan and India.

You think you're just oh-so-special? You're the only one who's a veteran with a valuable skill set?
Whatever. Yeah, violence and brute force indeed.


Saying you need to fix the 'reply to [name]' is 'bossy'?
Really? You quoted things that I said, and Ordo is the one you attributed it to. It has nothing to do with anything except accuracy! Totally indifferent to your replies and attitude, but I doubt Ordo would appreciate your inaccuracy.

"Bossy."
*shakes head* You are a real piece of work, mac.

a reply to: defcon5

I agree with this as well. I'm a network engineer with over 17 years in the industry. I have a bachelor's degree from a respectable school along with the typical alphabet-soup of certifications from Cisco, Microsoft, CompTIA, ITIL, Novell, VMWare, etc. When I was laid off in 2009 I couldn't find work even close to what I was making before because the market was re-adjusting with cheaper labor. I took a much lower paying job and added another 3 certs to my resume but I'm still sitting about $30-40K less than I was previously in 2009 in a much more competitive and expensive market (San Diego). I can easily find work at what I'm currently making but it's very, very difficult to find jobs that pay more than the current market.

Companies are adjusting to things like Obamacare and minimum wage hikes by reducing staff and overloading current staff. As a example, I had 7 interviews with one company last year over the course of 3 months....eventually they just decided to eliminate the position altogether because it was cheaper to spread the workload over 4-5 people instead of bringing in a new employee. You will see much more of this when the employer mandate kicks in and minimum wages increase.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Thank you. I do however think luck is what you make of it. I was recruited by this company because they knew my reputation and paid to take me away from another company and frankly I was flattered that they did.

I have been in a similar boat in my career, and what I can tell you is that things change. In my instance the company that had once begged me to come work for them, with whom I worked for over 10 years, got a new bean counter, and I was the next high priced item on chopping block. Working 16 hour days, getting nothing but great reviews, doing extra things that weren't even part of my job, perfect attendance, working hurt, sick, no vacation or sick leave, none of this mattered. Only what my salary was vs what they could hire another lesser experienced PRN hourly person for, and how much they would save. Karma's a bitch, and the day will come when some of folks arguing on behalf of the rich, who think that their crap doesn't stink, that they are special, or that they are somehow protected, will learn how this system has become rigged by rich, hypocritical, greedy, scum.

a reply to: diggindirt

I am now seriously doubting a good bit of what you've posted about being a business owner if you consider a spread-sheet to be "stupid"---or perhaps I should say I doubt that you are a successful business owner.

I never said I was a 'business owner'. I have never been, and don't want to be.

I was a supervisor with 75 people who reported to me, and who from time to time needed to have a lighter workload in order to sustain their health. On one occasion, a senior worker came in with a doctor's note and asked if she could be switched to a lighter-duty situation for a few weeks; and the 'owners/managers/corporate bigwigs' said 'no'. They didn't give a crap that she might lose her baby. She had been there for nearly 15 years. Never missed a day.

She even had someone else on staff (in very good standing) who was willing to help her after finishing her (the friend's) own 'workload.' But still, "Corporate" said "NO."

That sucks. And yes, it was all about fractions of a percent on the STUPID spread-sheet.

Because, you know, the almighty DOLLAR; the PROFIT is far, far more important than whether this employee, a dedicated hard-working long-time employee might lose her baby.

*shakes head and rolls eyes*

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
A call to OSHA probably would have been in order at that point.

The government doesn't do crap if you call them. A slap on the wrist, a small fine (maybe), and you out of a job for being a “whistle blower”. Just as an example, lets say that you are discriminated against by your employer and you can prove it. You have to go to government arbitration first before you can even get permission to go to court, then only if your company is over so many employees. So for example, if you are discriminated against at somewhere that only employs 10 employees vs somewhere that has 50, you don't get the same protections. Lets say that your company is committing workman's comp fraud and tax evasion by calling you a contractor when you're not, chances are that they will get nothing more then a fine, even though they are supposed to get jail time for fraud. In other words the reason why they companies get away with crap is because no one seriously polices them anymore, there are no real punishment, and as they are in control of our politicians they lobby in the laws that allow this to happen.

I can go on and on with the abuses that I have seen, and how they are handled, but essentially the truth is that all the rules are now on their side, and there is little “realistic” recourse for an employee in many states. Enacting any of your “protections” will bring you more harm then just putting up with the abuse 99% of the time.

The fundamental problem is that humans no longer own their labor or the fruit thereof.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

I am surprised you are even asking this because the petulant and confiscatory reallocation scenario you advocate for my company's resources would destroy said company.

The owner of the company takes money out of his pocket every day to pay the entirety of his company's funds? Is it not autonomous, in the sense of the company and work dont by its parts create and provide the value, good and/or service, which is sold for money, and that money made is used to then pay for all the costs required for the workers to do the work to create the value and so on? And how much salary or profit do you think your owner has made in the past 5 years? Or additionally to him being a billionaire? You do not think the autonomy of the company could function without the owner taking out a hefty share weekly?

Say the owner makes in profit solely for himself of a million dollars a year (a conservative estimate), if the owner and all of his family were to die tomorrow, this would mean yearly a million extra dollars to use strictly for the company. Workers besides the owner knowing the ins and outs of the company would surely be able to run the company sufficiently.

Yeah, and? If I sat here and bemoaned every perceived 'injustice' I would never leave the house because life is stacked against you. When I entered the work place I had nothing, now I have more than nothing. I am very much ahead of the game.

Once again I am not arguing for myself and for you. I am arguing for everyone, and all future humans that will be born on the planet. This is not about one individual, this is about all individuals.

I would tell them the same thing I told myself. There is something (and probably more than one something) that you can excel at. Find it and drive to be the best.

If you want to be a doctor, be the best doctor.

If you want to be a janitor, be the best janitor.

If you want to be an musician, be the best musician.

When you have that approach people recognize your commitment and your life will begin to change.

I appreciate and respect your optimism, I know am aware things are as good as they get, there is nothing to complain about, people win, people lose, people live, people die, people have, people have not, people suffer, people cause suffering, its best to just worry about oneself and not think about anyone or anything else, as it has always and always will sort itself out.

a reply to: mahatche

Someone get this woman a stray jacket! We all know only dumb lazy people have no jobs! No CEO has ever felt greed and screwed over the people below them! Anyone criticizing any CEO must hate EVERY CEO! And it's cause they are jealous. Don't say Walmart sucks, cause look at Costco!

What?

I'm not sure what you're implying here. But sometimes I do think I need a 'strait jacket'.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I would tell them the same thing I told myself. There is something (and probably more than one something) that you can excel at. Find it and drive to be the best.

If you want to be a doctor, be the best doctor.

If you want to be a janitor, be the best janitor.

If you want to be an musician, be the best musician.

When you have that approach people recognize your commitment and your life will begin to change.

As I was saying, that doesn't work anymore.
There is a hypocritical double standard among the rich today, that we should “reward the successful”, as long as the “successful” means “them”. Anyone else that is successful at their job, they don't usually want to pay for them. Just ask the guys at NASA who got laid off how much fun they've had out there finding jobs. You'd think that to most, working for NASA would be a boon to getting a job just about anywhere, after all you've been proven that you can work among the best and brightest in the country. Yet that is not the case.

Interviewing ex-NASA Engineer says: “Yes, I was head of research and development for the engineering department for 10 years”...
Interviewer hears: “$BIG$ $BUCKS$”...

Would you pay double the price to have your tires changed on your car because your mechanic is the “best” in his field? No you wouldn't, not unless you're the pit crew on a racing team.

So success for you and I is punished, but for them to ask them to pay taxes, or pay fair wages, is punishing their success.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: mahatche

What?
I'm not sure what you're implying here. But sometimes I do think I need a 'strait jacket'.

Its sarcasm.
Costco is known for paying their employees on average $45K/year plus full benefits.

Everyone is missing the bigger picture.

Yep they sure are.

Since taxes in this country are PROGRESSIVE.

Which means the more we make the more they tax, and spend snip blow.

Hell even with the PROGRESSIVE minimum wage that has been continually increased for the last 20+ years.

I wonder why there are now MORE people on social engineering programs ?

If people really do support putting a band aid on a bloody hemorrage then those people are lacking fundamental critical thinking skills.

The problem among many is that money is fiat.

The next problem all this minimum wage CRAP is straight out of the communist manifesto that has been repackageed for the 'new' generation gullible enough to buy what they are selling.

Back to the poor mongering.

Because if those who cry about the minimum wage 'care' about the poor so effing much ?

Open up that wallet, and start writing your neighbor a check right now.

Instead of hiding behind government, and outsourcing 'personal' responsibility.

Oh wait never mind make employers shell out more money even after paying their employees, social security, and medicare contributions, their workman comp insurance, the employees unemployment insurance, the employees vacation times etc.

Makes perfect sense that people flipping burgers, and cleaning toilets, and bagging groceries should be making $20 bucks an hour !

originally posted by: diggindirt
And for the record, I never "farmed out" my children or elders to strangers. My children learned the value of working for what they wanted out of life. From the time they were 12 years old they had jobs that provided them with a bit of extra spending money and a savings account for their dreams. Begging money from the government or using the force of government to make an employer pay them what they deemed themselves worth would never occur to them or to me.

Then you taught your children wrong. You taught them to beg from the feudal lord (corporation) rather than from the king (government). In the end begging and dependence is still begging and dependence. These days, atleast in the US no corporation will pay you an appropriate wage for your work unless you happen to own the company. This also puts a size limitation on how large a corporation can grow because unless there's a policy of wage ratios between the highest and lowest earners, the owner if successful eventually turns into the very thing he was originally fighting against.

As for "regarded as PEOPLE and not fractions of percentage points on a stupid spread-sheet.", that "stupid spead-sheet" represents whether or not those PEOPLE will be employed at all. Unlike government, the local hotel can't print up money to pay people for cleaning toilets. I am now seriously doubting a good bit of what you've posted about being a business owner if you consider a spread-sheet to be "stupid"---or perhaps I should say I doubt that you are a successful business owner. Perhaps learning the value and usage of a spread-sheet would increase your income.

Spreadsheets are just tools to organize data, they were designed because most people are too stupid to interpret data on their own and instead need a machine to do it for them. Being proud you know how to use a spreadsheet is like calling yourself a good cook because you know how to microwave water.

Besides that where most people make the mistake is the business owner simply doesn't remember that those numbers represent people. Yes, finances are involved in hiring people, but people are still people. Paying someone 7.25/hour is the same thing as a plantation owner in the 1700's-1800's paying his staff with substandard food and shelter.

We are ALL outraged of course, because the seeds of violence are always
sewn by INEQUITY.

It's simple math really isn't it? How can the world support a thousand billionaires,
without millions going to bed hungry and poor - the math don't work!

I'm a neuroradiologist who earns hundreds of thousands, and my wife the eye surgeon (who coincidentally operated for no fee on the Boston Marathon bomber!!) also earns the same - but with only 1 income we could not afford a HOUSE in the immediate Boston suburbs!

I'm certainly not good enough to even TALK to Tom S, one of the dads who very infrequently shows up at our kids' bus stop, because HE OWNS STAPLES AND IS WORTH BILLION$ and I'm just a working class schlep. Hi little boy Mike won't even say hi to anyone, lol. So sad. so sad because my Malibu sister has noticed the same quality in some of her hollywood (and super rich) friends - they don't associate with "little people"...we are 'untouchables'.

The seeds of violence...dormant during the winter of inequity...waiting for the spring.

originally posted by: neo96
Hell even with the PROGRESSIVE minimum wage that has been continually increased for the last 20+ years.

I wonder why there are now MORE people on social engineering programs ?

Because federal minimum wage is now indexed to the official inflation numbers which come from CPI. The problem is that CPI isn't accurate, it's actually a joke. It excludes most necessities and only includes numbers which make inflation look low. Inflation is out of control, we are bordering on hyper inflation setting in. It's worse now than the late 70's. CPI however hides these statistics because it's the type of number that people would rightfully revolt from. In terms of purchasing power minimum wage is only about 60% as effective today as it was in 1980, and in the 50's and 60's when things were actually going well it's not even comparable. In the 50's and 60's one could pay college tuition out of pocket, own a home, own a car, afford health insurance and still have 10% of their wage left over. All from working a minimum wage job 40 hours per week. One can't even do that today on the median wage. Infact, the minimum wage of 1967 (considered the peak) was worth the same in terms of purchasing power as a $55k wage today.

People are on programs because 2008 happened and we didn't properly address it. The economy is still in shambles, the lack of legislation that lead to the collapse is still there, and we're on track for another collapse in the 2017-2019 range if historical records are anything to go by (about 1 collapse per decade without glass-steagall). The next one will bankrupt the nation and everyone in it.

The problem among many is that money is fiat.

All money is fiat, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I have a lot to say on this issue and it will sidetrack this thread. Based on the lack of responses my thread on the subject got not many really care to discuss the issue in detail but here's my thoughts on it, you can read if you're interested: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The next problem all this minimum wage CRAP is straight out of the communist manifesto that has been repackageed for the 'new' generation gullible enough to buy what they are selling.

Minimum wage is a good thing, there's a point where it becomes too high and stifles the economy however. What we do know from corporate CEO statements and real world examples such as Australia however is that in a western country $15/hour is perfectly sustainable and would result in barely any increase to the price of goods under free market principals. Corporations could still use it as an excuse to grab excess profit but there's nothing that can be done about that.

The wage itself is mostly irrelevant however. What actually matters is the price of goods. Henry Ford defined the rules of capitalism as: Making the highest quality of good possible, at the lowest cost possible, while paying the highest wages possible.

We have broken two of those three rules in the natural evolution of capitalism, and that's why capitalism is a failure of a system. The most profitable exchange in capitalism is to make a product that works for a time and must then be repurchased. Rather than one high quality blender at 100% price which lasts for 30 years you instead buy a low quality blender every 6 months at 33% price. Over the time span of the high quality device you've paid an additional 1900%. In the US we now call this good business. To the unbiased it represents an insane markup on the cost of living and results in low wages not paying enough.

The other rule we broke is paying the highest wages possible. We look at wages as a cost and as such have put them in the category of paying the lowest wage possible. Why pay someone $35 if they will work for $30? This is most visible in salary negotiations where companies won't provide a wage for a position. Instead they will ask each employee what they work for individually and pick the one who bids lowest. Without information as to bids there is no ability for anyone to price competitively. There are other examples of this at work of course, but a post can only be so long.

Today those three rules of capitalism are: Provide the lowest quality product possible, at the highest price possible, while paying the lowest wages possible.

Oh wait never mind make employers shell out more money even after paying their employees, social security, and medicare contributions, their workman comp insurance, the employees unemployment insurance, the employees vacation times etc.

Lol, you think the poor get medical coverage and vacation. Especially with vacation as that's an extra the employer agrees to pay as compensation to the employee.

originally posted by: neo96
Yep they sure are.
Since taxes in this country are PROGRESSIVE.
Which means the more we make the more they tax, and spend snip blow.

The more that the rich accumulate, and get tax breaks on, the less overall money there is to be taxed.
Lets take a $50 bill and see what I mean.

If I take that $50 and give it to a rich person, they get taxed on it once, then its put away in a bank and most likely never taxed again.

If I pay a poor person that $50 bill they are taxed when they get it, then it is spent and taxed again (sales tax). Then its used to pay the salary of someone at that company, taxed as income tax again, then spent and taxed again, ad infintum... That one $50 bill might be taxed 20 or 30 times a year vs being locked up in a bank and only ever taxed once. The problem is that we have to pay interest to the Fed for that rich person to sit on that $50 bill that is now not doing any work in the economy or paying any taxes.

Now add to that the fact that the rich are taxed less per dollar, the government is getting even less tax money then they would if those same dollars were distributed over 100 people who don't get all those tax breaks, and are in a higher tax bracket with less deductions. So in other words, 100 people all making 40K/year would pay more in taxes then someone getting the whole lump of 4 million, AND the money stays in circulation so its repeatedly taxed over and over in that same year.

originally posted by: neo96
The next problem all this minimum wage CRAP is straight out of the communist manifesto that has been repackageed for the 'new' generation gullible enough to buy what they are selling.

The whole “communism” thing is a scam. It was created by the capitalists to scare folks over what the soviets did in their police state. The truth is that you can have a police state under any financial system, and the USSR was not even a true communism. True communism is nothing more than what all true religions consider to be the “golden rule” of “Do unto others as you would do unto yourself”. That is why all true religions (not just Christianity) teach helping the poor, feeding the hungry, poverty among the cloth, and communal living. These are all true “communist” doctrines.

originally posted by: macman


People are paid what their skill is worth. If their skill is worth $8 an hour, then they should be paid accordingly.
If their skills are worth $10 gazillion a year, then they get it.

It is not about skill but about the supply and demand.
When you have job openings to fill in US markets but do not have any takers at the pay rate you are offering, the logical consequence is to up the compensation until you do.
But that is not what the Oligarchy that runs our government did.

They rigged the Supply / Demand equation in their favor by opening the borders wide open to cheap labor as well as trade pacts with other Commie and Dictatorship nations overseas to fatten their wallets at the expense to the citizens of this country.

All the while, playing the cute Liberal / Republican Hoax against the people as if they had any say in it, since we know quite well all policies that have been passed have been to benefit the elite and their cronies.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: benrl
We have become a nation OF the RICH, FOR the RICH, BY the RICH.

Well at least you're not socialists or communists........that's the main thing isn't it??

The elite and rich support them though when there are profits to be made while this "Free Market Capitalist" Nation suffers.

Socialism and Communism for the rich to collude and conspire together and individualism, personality responsibility and capitalism for everyone else here.

originally posted by: diggindirt

You can rail all you like about the banksters but as long as you hand your money over to them you are empowering them.
Now I must warn you that if you employ this very powerful technique, you will be considered weird, strange, and a member of the fringe! Take a good long look at your needs. Not the wants and wishes that today's media tell you are "needs" but your actual, physical needs. Then take a look at how you can go about fulfilling your needs without putting money in the pockets of people you believe are being evil.
It's not rocket science but it does take a bit of research, thought and planning.

I don't do business with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan or many of the other fascists Banks.
As an individual and the limited power an individual has, how would you propose we as citizens collude, conspire and congregate together like they do with our politicians to put them out of business?

How would the citizens have an effect on these banks when they have a direct line opened up with our government to prop them up?
Why am I paying taxes to prop them up?

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: jhn7537

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: jhn7537
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Minimum wage will always be relative to the times. They could raise minimum wage to $25 per hour, but people soon forget that those increased wages just get passed back onto the consumers with higher ticket prices for goods and services....

You can hardly live on 25 dollars an hour.

$52k per year for a single is quite easy to live on, but if you have 9 children it may be tricky...

That wouldn't be bad for a single person , you are correct, but not for a family now days.

well, the family would get more tax breaks than the single.

but the cost of raising kids would make it tough with 9 of them.

not like it's never been done, tho.

originally posted by: jacobe001
I don't do business with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan or many of the other fascists Banks.
As an individual and the limited power an individual has, how would you propose we as citizens collude, conspire and congregate together like they do with our politicians to put them out of business?

How would the citizens have an effect on these banks when they have a direct line opened up with our government to prop them up?
Why am I paying taxes to prop them up?

Pay congress more money. I am 100% serious here. Pay them each $10 million per year (or more if necessary). As individuals that costs each of us $10/year in taxes but it throws so much money their way as a collective that the corporations can't afford to compete. Essentially buy our congressmen back from the corporations.

It's not the solution anyone wants to hear because it means paying people a windfall essentially as a reward for creating a bad situation but it will fix the problem. The legislation written in our interest will more than offset that increased tax to cover wages.

I have more thoughts on it here (second post in the thread)
www.abovetopsecret.com...