It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When you say, "start at the bottom", what do you mean?

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
Everyone at the top makes that decision everyday for the entire world, get off your high horse.

Not only do they make that decision, but they'll always make that decision to give themselves more and more and everyone else less and less.

Except that that is not true.

If wages were that simple, life would be substantially easier. Wages are dictated by a considerable number of factors.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

Yes it's a simplified version of the truth. In reality it requires a bit more subtler manipulations. The proof is in the pudding though. The increasing wealth gap, and the rich becoming richer and getting a bigger piece of the pie per person on the top every year is proof.

That there can be an individual that controls more of the worlds wealth than the entire bottom .1% combined is proof of the height of their arrogance and machinations.
edit on 1/15/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
A real issue in this society is that people don't have a realistic idea of what to expect from life.

If people more honestly considered the difference between wants and needs they would find they may not even need to go into debt to do things, or as far into debt.

I worked for a cable company for a time and could not believe how many destitute people out there will get cable so they can sit around and watch TV instead of do something that doesn't cost them money and their health from the inactivity of just sitting there doing nothing and being entertained by others.

Unfortunately we are judged by our credit rating in many areas of our lives because the banks which rule this country, making it difficult to do anything sometimes at no real fault of our own.

Me?, I just don't care any more.

I guess one could say that I am not "fiscally viable".


edit on 15-1-2016 by MyHappyDogShiner because: no reason really, just cuz........................

edit on 15-1-2016 by MyHappyDogShiner because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
Yes it's a simplified version of the truth. In reality it requires a bit more subtler manipulations. The proof is in the pudding though. The increasing wealth gap, and the rich becoming richer and getting a bigger piece of the pie per person on the top every year is proof.

That there can be an individual that controls more of the worlds wealth than the entire bottom .1% combined is proof of the height of their arrogance and machinations.

No, it is not a simplified version of the truth. It isn't even in the same ballpark...not even playing the same sport.

My hire wage is driven by market supply and demand. If I offer too little, I don't get employees (or employees of the caliber I want), if I offer too much, I am wasting money (or can get over qualified employees, which can be good or bad). Once hired, my employees pay growth is driven by their individual productivity, process advancement, and...for lack of a better term...their balls. At no point do I ever get to forcefully lower their wage, I can only increase it. If I lower it, they are gone. At no point do I get to dictate or control it, while staying in business.

As for controlling more wealth than the bottom .1%...I'm pretty sure that both of us, by nature of using computers, are in that category. I assume you mean control more than the 99.9%...it is a myth. The top ten percent (global) control approximately 42% of the global income...if you are a Westerner...you are most likely one of this top 10%.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

It is a fantasy land "truth". A child's view of the world IMO.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

What constitutes too much and wasting money? The issue here is companies choosing excessive profits over the pay of their employees. The less you can pay the better where profits are concerned, and this is where the problem lies. Employers do everything they can to maximize profit, which is often done by paying as little as they possibly can to maintain their work force. Which since there are so many desperate people out there, they can do for next to nothing.

The only reason we aren't with our global population getting paid 1 dollar an hour if they could get away with it is things like the minimum wage. If they weren't forced to pay us, they'd happily bring out the whips and chains if they could get away with it. As time goes on, employers move work to nations that don't protect their workers, fight things like increased minimum wages tooth and nail, and do everything in their power to shift things around so they can maintain a work force for as little as possible at the expense of those workers and to their benefit.

And no I did mean a single individual controlling more wealth than the entire bottom .1%. There are people out there with so much money they have more than the entire .1 % of the entire human population added together, and It's probably even more than that. What that's saying is that they deserved to profit so much from their ventures that they are worth more than millions of people combined.

The problem isn't business profiting, it's a system where profit and the worship of the all mighty dollar is more important than anything else. There's nothing wrong with a business profiting, there is something wrong with a business taking advantage of nations with few human rights, and a large world population to artificially allow them to pay people less of the profits than they deserve for their contributions.

Businesses pay their employees as little as they can get away with.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

That's not in "most demand". There are more bottom positions, but plenty of average minds to fill them. The most demanded positions are very high skill level in the US and most qualified. They can't fill these positions adequately with US citizens.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

That's not even close to true. That demand is artificially controlled. Is why higher and higher degrees are needed for the same positions. If they were having trouble filling those positions, they'd go back to paying for the education themselves. They aren't suffering for not having enough people to fill those positions at all. They have plenty capable, but they only want the best of the best, so every year they raise the bar to keep that competition as extreme as possible. Meanwhile people to just be in that competition of which few will get it have to spend thousands of dollars and end up in debt.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Are they trying to convince you that there isn't enough workers for a certain position?

That's a joke.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: pl3bscheese

That's not even close to true.


It absolutely is.



That demand is artificially controlled.


No boogey man, sorry.


Is why higher and higher degrees are needed for the same positions.


PHD in computer science or Electrical Engineering. It's necessary. We're not talking entry-level jobs that no longer accept GED or high school graduates.



If they were having trouble filling those positions, they'd go back to paying for the education themselves.


That's not the issue. There are too few people willing to go through the hard work, who have the capacity to fill the position.


They aren't suffering for not having enough people to fill those positions at all.


That's true, they outsource the position, or find a means to sponsor the individual so they can immigrate here.



They have plenty capable, but they only want the best of the best, so every year they raise the bar to keep that competition as extreme as possible.


Sorry, this isn't the case.


Meanwhile people to just be in that competition of which few will get it have to spend thousands of dollars and end up in debt.


I guess you have no clue the difference between a worthy degree plan and a worthless piece of paper.

The exact opposite of your claim is actually true. The least demanded position is the no skill / entry-level position. They are too easy to fill to be in high demand.
edit on 15-1-2016 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Puppylove

That's not in "most demand". There are more bottom positions, but plenty of average minds to fill them. The most demanded positions are very high skill level in the US and most qualified. They can't fill these positions adequately with US citizens.


Total nonsense show me evidence that support your claim or I absolutely do not believe it.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
What constitutes too much and wasting money? The issue here is companies choosing excessive profits over the pay of their employees. The less you can pay the better where profits are concerned, and this is where the problem lies. Employers do everything they can to maximize profit, which is often done by paying as little as they possibly can to maintain their work force. Which since there are so many desperate people out there, they can do for next to nothing.

This is incorrect. I maximize profits by maximizing productivity, not by minimizing labour costs. This holds true for every single business. Most are quite shocked to hear what I am about to tell you, and it is mathematically correct. Most employees make more per hour worked than the company that employs them, for that employee. Large corporations make extremely large profits because they have large volume, not because employees are paid poorly. Employees are paid what a job is worth, unless artificial controls are in place.


The only reason we aren't with our global population getting paid 1 dollar an hour if they could get away with it is things like the minimum wage. If they weren't forced to pay us, they'd happily bring out the whips and chains if they could get away with it. As time goes on, employers move work to nations that don't protect their workers, fight things like increased minimum wages tooth and nail, and do everything in their power to shift things around so they can maintain a work force for as little as possible at the expense of those workers and to their benefit.

This is asinine to the point of not meriting a response.


And no I did mean a single individual controlling more wealth than the entire bottom .1%. There are people out there with so much money they have more than the entire .1 % of the entire human population added together, and It's probably even more than that. What that's saying is that they deserved to profit so much from their ventures that they are worth more than millions of people combined.

Great...I'm one of them. Having more money than .1% of the global populace is really not hard for any Westerner to do.


The problem isn't business profiting, it's a system where profit and the worship of the all mighty dollar is more important than anything else. There's nothing wrong with a business profiting, there is something wrong with a business taking advantage of nations with few human rights, and a large world population to artificially allow them to pay people less of the profits than they deserve for their contributions.

This is laughable. Do you know who is worshiping money? The primary market....the average Joe/Jane. They are the ones that dictate prices, but they seem to have forgotten that they are the most powerful force in the economic model. You can blame that on big business if you would like. They won't care. As long as the market is more concerned with chasing material wealth and goods, they will continue to grow.

As for human rights. That is not a business' concern. Unless of course you wish to accept business' as 'people'. Yes, 'people'. If you wish to be a humanitarian, contact the governments in question, or, even better, go to these countries and start some grass roots movements.

I find it rather humorous that so many want business to be philanthropists, but in the next breath denounce the idea of corporate 'personhood'. They are one or the other, not both. Pick one, and stick to it. If you wish for business to push philanthropy, accept that 'mega persons' are going to exist. They will have power and control well on excess of what any one person will ever achieve.


Businesses pay their employees as little as they can get away with.

No matter how many times you state this, it still won't be true. Business' want to maximize profits. That is the end. The most effective way to do this is through maximizing productivity and efficiency...which you can't do by minimizing wages.

I do admire your quest for utopia, but you do need to accept that your utopia is another's hell. Unfortunate nature of the beast.
edit on 15-1-2016 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Great, don't believe me.... go talk to an IT recruiting manager and learn for yourself.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

Don't fool yourself employee cost is typically in the top 3 for business expense.

Make money in the margins.

I don't think you've worked in the modern market have you?

Minimizing employee cost is huge what are you talking about? Did you read that out of a book?
edit on 1/15/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: onequestion

Great, don't believe me.... go talk to an IT recruiting manager and learn for yourself.


How do you find an IT recruiting manager and I will.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Don't fool yourself employee cost is typically in the top 3 for business expense.

Make money in the margins.

So what?

You pay John $5/hr to make you widgets. He is unhappy and makes you 3 widgets per day. You sell each widget for $2.50 and make $7.50. You pay John his wage and take home your $2.50.

I pay Timmy $8.50/hr to make widgets. He is content because he makes more than his good buddy John, for the same job and makes me 5 widgets per day. I sell each widget for $2.50 and make $12.50. I pay Timmy his wage and take home my $4.00.

Isn't that strange...I just made more than you AND paid my employee better. I chased productivity and you minimized wages for a marginal gain...sweet!

This is what everyone claims business' do, yet we can scientifically prove how much better focusing on productivity is than focusing on minimizing labour. Do you honestly think business does not know this? Who do you think funded the studies? They want profits, and they figured out the most effective way to obtain those profits.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

In my area I go to the local pub lol. They're all around we have quite a few tech headquarters within a couple of miles. I'd suggest looking for a tech area and... going to the local pub lol, seriously the tech managers seem to often be bigshots and can even be loose-cannons after buying a ton of drinks for everyone around them. It's pretty funny to witness.

Here, I'll dig up a few links...

Tech Jobs take twice as long to fill

Job Vacancies and STEM skills

So basically, the more aptitude and skills you need, the more real demand there is in the US. India has the opposite problem... they have the discipline and parental reinforcement to be doctors, engineers, and scientists so there's far too many of them!



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Regardless of how many tech jobs there are out there that doesn't change the debate in any fashion.

The entire planet cannot do tech jobs. Unless a horse of robots take over everything else it's just not feasible.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Regardless of how many tech jobs there are out there that doesn't change the debate in any fashion.


Of course it does, you just aren't ready to accept what that connection entails.


The entire planet cannot do tech jobs. Unless a horse of robots take over everything else it's just not feasible.


Of course they can't! Now you're getting it! Go back to the prior thread where I asked you 3 questions... do you remember?



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Puppylove

Where should people start?

I think starting at a level equal to your skill/experience level is reasonable.


Nobody disagrees with that.

We're trying to get you to engage in a conversation covering a more diverse range of topics.


But he has told you that and you have disagreed with that ... repeatedly.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join