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.

 

Brace Yourselves, Jobs are Coming!

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

I've yet to find someone to pay me to sit on a beach sucking down fruity umbrella drinks! What may be soul grinding meaningless tasks to you may provide clothes, housing and food to someone else.




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


You said it like it is!

Some people are heartless, and I am glad to see there are people here who care about others.

Rock On!



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

That was back when companies paid fair wages so your everyday worker could provide for the family. We've had about 30 years now where the wages of the average worker have remained stagnant while the salaries of executives and CEOs have skyrocketed.

In 1918 the average salary ratio of 'CEO:Avg. Employee' was 7:1. In 2010 it reached 319:1.

You would probably have a hard time convincing many that a CEO does 320% "more work" than an average employee does, let alone trying to convince them that a CEO does 31,900% more work. Yup, you read that right. To actually convert 319:1 into a percentage you have to add two decimal places which gives you... 31,900%. Suddenly even claiming "700% more work" (based off the 7:1 ratio from 1918) looks reasonable.

The average executive salary was 2,300,000 in 1998. By 2005 it had already ballooned to 11,800,000, and kept on climbing while the wages of the average employee have basically remained stagnant throughout those years up to today (and often "reduced" once inflation is taken into account).

I'm all for people "up the chain" being further rewarded for their accomplishments, but if a company does well, then shouldn't all those who made it happen be rewarded? Not necessarily 1:1, but the ratios have skewed to levels of absolute absurdity in today's business world, and it's destroying the middle class which made America so great.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

You keep repeating this in different threads. Please....please...

Don't ever stop!!



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

Seeing as how the infrastructure here in America is generally in fairly bad shape...this is nothing but a good thing. I hope your workplace gets lots of orders, y'know?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Yeah, this would be thread #2, but thanks for the exaggeration.

The fact of the matter is that "more jobs" won't restore the middle class.

We've had the longest streak of job growth of any President in our history under Obama (75 consecutive months), but it means nothing when it comes to restoring the middle class while the wages of the average worker remain stagnant.
edit on 1/25/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

are you kidding or just dense?

The amount of DEBT under Obama is Astronomical.

Clear your head and repost.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: LuXTeN

Do you understand the difference between debt, and job growth?

They are very different things that go up and down independently.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

My mistake, I thought I seen it more often.

No, you're right, more jobs will not revitalize the middle class. What will is skilled trade jobs, as found in the steel and metals industry. I'm a CNC Machinist and there is a drought of talent where I am at. This includes millers, welders, fabricators, grinders, burners, lathe operators and the like. That is just in this specific industry.

Food for thought: How come we aren't seeing people hit the streets under the emphasis that CEO's make 320% more?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Keep in mind the EO only covered the DAPL. I'm just hopeful that it will expand or set the precedent for things going forward.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
Food for thought: How come we aren't seeing people hit the streets under the emphasis that CEO's make 320% more?


The figure above is actually 31,900% more, and we did see it. It was called Occupy Wall Street.

Then everyone got distracted by idiotic identity politics.

And yes, skilled trade jobs are definitely out there which need filling. As the wages go up the fields will naturally attract more workers, and there is already some money to be made there.
edit on 1/25/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

I thought it was because it got cold. I didn't hear much from that from under my rock. I mean I knew about it but not what it was about.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

OWS took issue with the 1%ers' practices; however, Soros, and his ilk, didn't like people joining together to stand up against the class warfare being waged against the middle class.

That's why all this identity politics BS (bathroom usage, BLM, etc.) started to get massive funding in order to divide the populace (bickering amongst themselves) instead of focusing on the continual financial-war being waged against the middle class.
edit on 1/25/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

But isn't that the beauty of America?

It kind of sounds like you want to impose some sort of limit on how successful you are allowed to become.

No, if I want to start or run a business and never give my employees raises and keep increasing my take home pay, that is my right. I may find it hard to keep good employees, but depending on the business model it may work or it may not.

If anything this should encourage workers to better themselves to be more successful. In fact it has worked for many years already. If you don't agree with the way your company treats you, go somewhere else. It's simple.

Problem being now that the only jobs are low paying, low hours, usually service related work.

The pipeline project, if approved, will put more than just the builders to work on both ends of the pipeline. Manufacturing steel and more here will produce jobs all the way across the board based on the resource needs of the factory. From the low level workers all the way to administration, not to mention outside business that will be stimulated also by the factory's increased economic contribution.

I do miss the days of the excellent companies to work for. The ones that shower you with benefits and give room for advancement, even encourage it. I hope that those times come back though I think the attitude of the workforce has dramatically changed over the years. So many people nowadays think that they deserve some kind of equal share of what the CEO makes. Calculating what percentage of work you think a CEO should do for their money is a childish argument and shows a lack of business understanding. Let's say you interview for CEO and have a company offer you $10M per year plus a $75M bonus if you hit your numbers and see if you are all of a sudden worried about what the lowest paid workers make. I'll bet you're more worried about those numbers. Become the CEO if you want to make that kind of money. Otherwise, it's a job, if it doesn't suit you, find another.

The American dream is to be what you want to be, sky's the limit. Heck, you can even be president if you want! Why would anyone want to stifle success?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Interesting. I'll check into it abit. I wonder why I never bothered before.

I wonder if that was the beginning of the tear in the Dem party.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
a reply to: JinMI

We've had the longest streak of job growth of any President in our history under Obama (75 consecutive months), but it means nothing when it comes to restoring the middle class while the wages of the average worker remain stagnant.

Yeah, there have been a whole lot of Dollar stores opened up over the last 8 years.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: OrganizedChaos

Correct, quantity doesn't mean quality. Also the labor participation rate as dropped exponentially. Sources on the previous page.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Just want to chime in here.. Totally agree with the social identity stuff being used to divide us completely.

Obama capturing the hearts and minds of the LGBT community best psy-op of the decade 10/10.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I concur. Sources not needed but appreciated!


I personally like shadowstats satistics. He burns through the doctored gov numbers and shows the real levels.

edit on 1/25/2017 by OrganizedChaos because: spelling

edit on 1/25/2017 by OrganizedChaos because: spelling



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: OrganizedChaos

I don't think the beauty of America is in destroying the middle class.

As for imposing some sort of limit on how successful you are allowed to become? Nah, but reigning-in/capping that ratio above would be a good start. Such a cap would still allow one to become as successful as they'd like, and it would incentivize companies to raise wages on their own. The more your workers are compensated, the more you're free to take home at the top. It's a win/win situation, and "the sky's the limit".

Right now, if you want to start or run a business and never give your employees raises and keep increasing your take home pay, that is your right, but why would you find it hard to keep employees? As you already stated, "now the only jobs are low paying, low hours, usually service related work". So where would they go when you have 'em by the short and curlys?

Basically, if you don't agree with the way your company treats you, then there's countless other companies that will treat you the exact same way. As you said "I do miss the days of the excellent companies to work for.". Now, it largely doesn't matter if you work for company A, B, C, or D. Class warfare against the middle class has become endemic in today's corporate world.

I agree that the attitude of the workforce has dramatically changed over the years, but I think it's rooted in people feeling (even if they're not outright-recognizing) the pinch of the war being waged against the middle class.

Companies used to care about their workers. After all, happy and healthy workers are more productive, but as you pointed out "Let's say you interview for CEO and have a company offer you $10M per year plus a $75M bonus if you hit your numbers and see if you are all of a sudden worried about what the lowest paid workers make.". The current structure incentivizes a lack of caring.

As for me, I couldn't take marketing any longer, so I took a large cut to go work with one of the most successful (and very few) employee-owned companies in the nation. It's much less pay, but not nearly as soul-sucking as marketing was.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join