Would you accept a no-raise promotion?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Whoisjohngalt
"Family" looks out for you. Strangers dont. You take care of the people that will take care of you.

So Quid Pro Quo is how your ideal world should run?

Lets say you are in a situation where you, a stranger, and your closest friend/relative are isolated somewhere. Your friend/relative and the stranger are both sick but you only have enough medicine to treat one of them. You are telling me that you are going to say to someone that cares about you"hey, i know youve been there for me helped me but i cant just save your life. I value that stranger just as much as you"?

I took a promotion with no pay increase to align up future positions. Worked well for me, but when you look at places like WalMart where they hire managers on salary and work them more hours the end result is they are under minimum wage many times. At least in my case I was still making over 100k.

a reply to: ClovenSky

I was hurdles (100m and 400m - 300m in high school), high jump, 4x400 anchor in high school, and I did some pentathlon/heptathlon in college.

I had a problem developing stamina, so I never got very comfortable with any distance beyond 400m. It's why I didn't do much multi-event.

a reply to: Aazadan

I am really starting to warm to the idea of company training and education. Education for a work contract. Then, if the employee is talented and shows aptitude, the company can 'show them the money' at the end to retain that talent. If the money isn't good, the employee can walk and find a better paying job. If the company can't afford those salaries or wages they had better make up for it by having an honest working environment or full disclosure on their balance sheet and why they are just barely making it.

With the upcoming millennial and especially gen z work attitudes, I think corporations will be forced down this path sooner than later.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Is coding an outlier?

In some ways, yes. In other ways, no.

For example, there's a lot more to computer science and software engineering than just knowing how to code. Programming is nothing more than setting a machine to run. Writing code isn't overly difficult, and that's why pure programmer roles tend to be rather low paying. The real work in the process comes in algorithm design, constructing proper data structures, choosing the right tools for the right task, and so on.

The big issue that bootcamps have, is that they teach languages rather than approaches. They do this out of necessity. You can teach someone to use a currently popular Javascript framework that a few local businesses use in a 500 hour class. You cannot teach them in that time the fundamentals behind that framework that make someone language agnostic.

So if it takes 10 years of on the job experience to become proficient, why wouldn't you want to get school out of the way as quick as possible so your real learning can finally begin, on the job?

Because learning is a necessity to proficency. If you don't learn the proper way to do things, and outline the correct way to improve, you will have 10 years worth of first year experience rather than 10 years of steadily increasing experience. Employers care about tasks, they want things done. 10 years of making minor tweaks on the same process over and over again to meet your employers goals is not 10 years of experience.

2 year vo techs for my industry is about the only thing out there. What about welding or electricians? 2 year vo techs are perfect for them as well. I guess to become a better electrician, you need to get some humanities under your belt?

Yes actually. Humanities are important. You cannot be a well rounded person without them, and that's part of being properly educated (note the distinction between education and job training). University should be for education. Job training should come from some other system. But, it's not reasonable to expect an employer to provide that system. It goes against an employers interests to accept the risk of training an employee on anything that's not proprietary.

a reply to: ClovenSky

It may happen simply because I think the education bubble is about to burst.

a reply to: ketsuko

Ha, I loved me some track and field. In my opinion the 300m hurdles was about as painful as 800/1600. The true slackers were the straight 100/200ers. I loved the open 400 which slotted me into 4x4 & medley as well. God the pain was delicious. I never got nervous of the competition, I got nervous of being able to feel my body again after crossing the finish line. Everything was whitewashed. oxygen was in short supply and you could feel ever fiber on fire. glorious. Tried it in college and discovered that white guys are slow, switched to soccer and never looked back.

sorry for the off topic

originally posted by: ketsuko
Imagine how much cheaper it would be if most of the filler requirements were dropped and you could head straight into your degree work? Further imagine if you took the same number of hours for your degree but it was all degree work, meaning that you might be able to pack both Bachelor and Master level coursework into one degree program?

Ohio just increased gen ed requirements for all universities in the state. Previously a bachelors was supposed to require somewhere between 120 and 130 credit hours with approximately 45 of that being gen ed requirements. They just bumped it up to 60 credit hours. Which means we went from 15 gen ed's and 25 major classes to 20 and 20. The program I recently finished decided that they couldn't do that. So they simply dropped a bunch of lower level material from the program, and added a test in function (that no one can reasonably pass without having taken those classes). If you fail the test, you now take the "remedial" classes to catch up. So in effect, the program went from 130 hours to 145.

Consolidating classes really isn't viable. In the case of this major specifically, there's not even many gen ed's to remove because you need to take 11 math classes, which are counted under the gen ed's.

Teaching people less isn't a good option.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: ketsuko

That's not a good deal for the company. Why should the company assume the risks and costs of training potential employees that will take those skills elsewhere in the future? If the potential employee wants the job, shouldn't they take the responsibility and bear the cost for learning how to perform it?

That's where the years of service on the flip side come in. Most employees aren't giving most companies loyalty and service these days anyhow. This would at least legally lock employees in for a guaranteed period of time.

We tried that with indentured servitude and it didn't work out all that well.

Worse yet, what happens when most of the company knowledge is proprietary and you can't easily transfer from one company to another without going through yet another training program. It takes too much freedom of movement away from the employee because it gives companies the ability to demand x years of work to accept someone rather than having a free market where people can choose to quit and work for a competitor at any point.

originally posted by: Whoisjohngalt
Lets say you are in a situation where you, a stranger, and your closest friend/relative are isolated somewhere. Your friend/relative and the stranger are both sick but you only have enough medicine to treat one of them. You are telling me that you are going to say to someone that cares about you"hey, i know youve been there for me helped me but i cant just save your life. I value that stranger just as much as you"?

Doesn't the stranger have a right to live too?

I'm not saying I would choose them, but it would be a consideration.

a reply to: Aazadan

Your experience is probably far superior to mine in this area. I was just a coding money with a little bit of GUI design for customized customer software packages. I tried some of those higher logic courses and gate design, it about killed me. I just don't have the intelligence or aptitude for the high end stuff.

I will bow to your experience in this area and respectfully disagree with the other parts that I think I understand. Thank you very much for the education.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Aazadan

I am really starting to warm to the idea of company training and education. Education for a work contract. Then, if the employee is talented and shows aptitude, the company can 'show them the money' at the end to retain that talent. If the money isn't good, the employee can walk and find a better paying job. If the company can't afford those salaries or wages they had better make up for it by having an honest working environment or full disclosure on their balance sheet and why they are just barely making it.

With the upcoming millennial and especially gen z work attitudes, I think corporations will be forced down this path sooner than later.

Corporations have actually evolved away from this path. It used to be very common, which was part of why a university education was unnecessary. From a business standpoint though, if you have two candidates, one who personally sacrificed to develop a skill, and already has that skill, and another who is a blank slate that expects you to train them to develop that skill... who is going to get the job?

Competition dictates that the potential employee learns on their own. It reduces risk to the company, reduces costs, and improves results.

a reply to: Aazadan

Once again, I will simply agree to disagree. I believe we are looking at this from different sides of the fence. From what I have seen so far, I wouldn't judge them on their knowledge. My meager job is diversified enough that we can't afford to enmesh ourselves to far down into issues, we have to stay vigilant of the larger picture. Our supervisor thought it would be a great idea to hire people with 'education' & 'titles/certs'. What a fricken disaster. I will take a good rounded individual with a good attitude and train them all day long compared to rolling the dice on a 'specialist'. Usually their educational brainwashing and their full eagerness to point out said education and expertise results in a pain in the ass to work with, especially in close quarters.

From what I have seen of the successfully educated, you can have them. There seems to be an air about them. But I am just a grunt, unable to appreciate the finer things in life. I know I am generalizing and stereotyping here, but I am ok with that.

a reply to: Whoisjohngalt

Talk about a complete false equivelence.

a reply to: Aazadan

I'd save the life of someone I love before a stranger every time.
I'm not ashamed to admit it, my tribe is important to me, and yep I'll do everything I can to save strangers, but straight choice between loved one or stranger, stranger will always lose.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Ok you all like extreme examples. If you had a choice to live your life with a luxery car so your family could drive in comfort but in exchange your grandchildren would have to use public transportation and work twice as long as you. Would you take the car? Or would you keep the beat up piece of crap you have if it ensures your grandchildren will be better off?

Cause every time someone accepts less then they deserve from these predatory companies it makes them demanding more for less easier and easier thus harming our future generations who will need to work longer hours doing harder work for less.

You all talk about puting your family first but you aren't you're puting yourself first and screw whoever else suffers for it and making excuses and finding ways to try and lie to yourselves to make yourselves feel better.

It's ok though because that's reality as few people are enlightened enough to see the big picture. Unfortunately it means nothing I say matters as there will always be too many short sighted small minded people to truly make a difference so you might as well sell out as if you don't the unenlightened slub next to you probably will.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Aazadan

I'd save the life of someone I love before a stranger every time.
I'm not ashamed to admit it, my tribe is important to me, and yep I'll do everything I can to save strangers, but straight choice between loved one or stranger, stranger will always lose.

That's a very popular viewpoint. I just don't agree. Everything in life is temporary and humans have an innate desire to try and make the temporary permanent. That extends to relationships. If it's time for someone to die, it's immoral, greedy, and self centered to sacrifice another in order to extend that relationship.

People should seek to rise above their own biases and preferences when making decisions.

a reply to: Puppylove

Well thats some delicious pie in the sky. Unfortunately me taking a stand in the workplace isnt going to change anything for the better and would in fact probably hurt my loved ones. And unless you are going to pay MY bills or some how give me extra time, its not your business

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Ok you all like extreme examples. If you had a choice to live your life with a luxery car so your family could drive in comfort but in exchange your grandchildren would have to use public transportation and work twice as long as you. Would you take the car? Or would you keep the beat up piece of crap you have if it ensures your grandchildren will be better off?

Cause every time someone accepts less then they deserve from these predatory companies it makes them demanding more for less easier and easier thus harming our future generations who will need to work longer hours doing harder work for less.

You all talk about puting your family first but you aren't you're puting yourself first and screw whoever else suffers for it and making excuses and finding ways to try and lie to yourselves to make yourselves feel better.

It's ok though because that's reality as few people are enlightened enough to see the big picture. Unfortunately it means nothing I say matters as there will always be too many short sighted small minded people to truly make a difference so you might as well sell out as if you don't the unenlightened slub next to you probably will.

By all means, please start your own company and pay people what you think they deserve... no one is stopping you.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Aazadan

I'd save the life of someone I love before a stranger every time.
I'm not ashamed to admit it, my tribe is important to me, and yep I'll do everything I can to save strangers, but straight choice between loved one or stranger, stranger will always lose.

That's a very popular viewpoint. I just don't agree. Everything in life is temporary and humans have an innate desire to try and make the temporary permanent. That extends to relationships. If it's time for someone to die, it's immoral, greedy, and self centered to sacrifice another in order to extend that relationship.

People should seek to rise above their own biases and preferences when making decisions.

Quite a .... different... view point you have there. Flies in the face of millions of years of evolution. And a bit insulting to your loved ones. Alas, its your life. Live it your way