On May 16, 12:01 pm, BobR <re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > So now lets change the view for a moment and YOU have a business and
> > > you are the employer. Should YOU be forced to hire without the
> > > ability to determine who and without having a choice of how much to
> > > pay? Is every employer a Robber-Baron
>
> > Examples include: all the companies that did mass layoffs to offshore
> > their jobs, all the companies that did employee "replacement" projects
> > (local guy trains cheap immigrants), all of the companies that did
> > arbitrary wage reductions (this happened in the 1870s in the USA and
> > caused mass strikes...its in the history books). And, all the
> > companies that do bad things to employees not because they are having
> > difficulties but to increase an already adequate net profit bottom
> > line (one WSJ article listed many companies that had good profit
> > re****ts but the executives were only interested in more and so
> > initiated draconian further pressures on employees).
>
> Hey, I was working at one of those cor****ations that did mass layoffs
> and outsourced a substantial amount of work. I didn't like it one bit
> and still don't, but I can also understand the business decisions that
> made it almost impossible for the company to do anything else. They
> are in competition on a global basis and in order to survive, they
> must remain competitive on a global basis. I am not so naive as to
> believe that my job, no matter how good I might be at it, can't be
> done by someone else far cheaper. It might take two or three Indians
> to do it but when they earn less than 10% of what I earned, it still
> remains a huge bargain for the cor****ation.
>
> > No, not every cor****ation is a robber-baron, but a lot of them are,
> > and a lot of them do as much bad as they do good and it would have to
> > be a separate discussion to go into this tangent in detail.
>
> > and if so what would you do if
>
> > > there were no employers?
>
> > We'd be in the hunter-gatherer days.
>
> We really still are, we are just hunting a different game. The
> problem is that the vast majority of people would starve to death if
> we returned to the "hunter-gatherer" days of the past.
>
>
>
>
>
> > deleted some
>
> > > > > What you describe is text book theory, that is the way it should
> > > > > work, but that is if everyone competes on a level playing field.
> > > > > I am concerned that the many will want to deregulate to the
> > > > > point that the US regulations are like Mexico's. in order to
help
> > > > > the economy. People will justify children working because 3
> > > > > incomes is better than 2. The downside is an eroded standard
> > > > > of living.
>
> > > The standard of living that you desire is your choice but that
choice
> > > brings requirements. If your standard requires a 3500sf house
instead
> > > of a 1800sf house it might also require two incomes. Could you live
> > > and be comfortable in the smaller house? Probably but the reality
is
> > > that you don't want to and thus a requirement for two incomes. Your
> > > choice.
>
> > Too much of that choice is controlled NOT by you but by the income
> > associated with your resources and not that many people can control
> > that. The ones that can are the ones in the Forbes "400 richest
> > Americans" lists.
>
> That just simply isn't true, none of it.
Well, we are in disagreement. The guy with more money has that much
more options. When we're talking millions to billions, its infinitely
more options.
> We all have choices but few
> of us really take advantage of those choices.
You use the word choice as if behind every choice is a viable job. In
fact, the only thing behind every choice is nothing more than a
strategy for a job-hunting operation. Like the hunter-gatherer days,
if there was no saber-toothed tiger to bring down that day, nobody ate
dinner that night.
It is far easier for
> most to head to the local ice house for a cold beer than to attend
> classes at the local Jr. College.
>
Sure, I agree that there are a lot of lazy, unresourceful people
around.
>
> > Yeah, but here is my gripe: the executives get a better "safety net"
> > and have a better deal in general than the underlings and the
> > underlings have zero control over anything. Cor****ations are,
> > basically, dictator****ps with a guy basically no different than
> > _kings_ or emperors in earlier history except that the wars are
> > economic rather than military.
>
> I agree with you completely on the golden parachute bull **** but that
> is really making a super issue out of the tip of the tip of the
> iceburg. The problems in all cor****ate environments isn't just with
> the top but from every level top to bottom. The CEO's are simply the
> most visible element but many of the decisions that most effect the
> rank and file workers are made at various levels throughout the
> organization often without the knowledge of the CEO's. The decision
> to layoff and outsource where I was working was made by a mid-level
> manager.
Yeah, but its all part of the same problem:too much of your life is
NOT under YOUR control. AND, its YOU that is inconvenienced by the
unemployment dumped on your head not because you did anything wrong.
>
> > deleted some b/c no new material
>
> > > Got laid off 5 years ago as a result of the huge movement of IT jobs
> > > offshore and the cutbacks following Y2K. Whined about it for a
while
> > > but realized that is was a total waste of time and found a new
field.
> > > Took an initial cut in income but it has been short term and I have
> > > recovered.
>
> > Good for you, congratulations. But, you might consider telling the
> > rest of the guys here more about what you're doing and give some
> > tips.
>
> Took a tem****ary position as a Project Manager that led to a position
> as Senior Billing Analyst. Both were total departures from my Lead
> Systems Designer position that I had been working for years. Found
> that the IT field had totally collapsed following the Y2K and dot.com
> bust. I could complain that I ran into a lot of age discrimination as
> well but the reality was that I had ridden my experience for several
> years instead of staying on top of current trends.
>
> The worst part of being out of work in your late 50's or early 60's is
> that your network of associates is mostly retired or worse, dead.
Yes, true, but I'll go beyond that. Worst part is having a hundred
other applications for that one job and ten of those guys are as good
as you, or better, and they are younger, too.
The
> second worst part is that you will find yourself interviewing with
> people half your age who don't want to hire you because they are
> insecure having someone older and more experienced working for them.
So, they do hire the younger guys for a second reason: they can be
paid less than you.
> My only choice was to fully exploit my network of former clients and
> associates with an open attitude and promote my business experience as
> well as my IT experience. I got the position because I was willing to
> use my experience, to learn and most im****tant, I was willing to take
> responsibility.
But it does not work for everyone.
> > Oh yes, I am not some twenty-something grad from Harvard
>
> > > but a non-degreed 61 year old fart.
>
> > I would say you were lucky. Out of dozens of stories like yours, most
> > of the guys are doing worse than before. Me, I'm 64 and retired and my
> > resources cover my expenses.
>
> Hell, during the time I was out of work I spent three months working
> for $11 per hour shoveling sand in the heat and humidity of Houston to
> set the floor in a giant oil storage facility.
Hey, I'm proud of you. Seriously. You did good.
When not doing that, I
> was beating the bushes for something else and taking SAP Training.
> (Talk about a waste) There was no luck involved, just plain hard
> work.
I wish I could talk to the guys who hired you to see what they saw (or
didn't see) in the guys they didn't hire.
And, I've hired guys to work for me, too. Most had degrees, too, and I
myself have two degrees. I was even incor****ated for 12 years, made
myself president, hired my wife as vice-president. Sent in my IRS form
1120-A every year with net earnings, too. Did not use a CPA and saved
money. Disolved the cor****ation this year (IRS form 966) to go farther
into retirement.
> > And, some of those 20-somethings from Harvard are having a hard time,
> > too.
>
> Too many of them think that the only thing they had to do was get that
> degree and everyone would just automatically beat a path to their
> door. Its not what you have but what you do with it.
Not altogether. If you have ten guys around a fi****ng pond with five
fish in it, then five guys (maybe more) are going to have no dinner
that night).
> > > > And, I'm sorry, but re-training is not the answer because we're
back
> > > > to the applicant-to-job ratio. It does no good to have ten guys
> > > > fighting for one job; nine guys are going to go hungry.
>
> > > That is a totally pathetic view. I almost fell into the same
mindset
> > > but that is the view of a loser who wants to blame everyone else for
> > > their own failures.
>
> > You really have no answer, do you, for the fact that when the number
> > of applicants exceed the number of jobs that there will be real losers
> > and not because they want to be losers. And, this is why we are seeing
> > a lot of programmer/IT guys in the USA ending up bagging groceries at
> > Walmart for $8/hour.
>
> If those programmer/IT guys were really smart enough to be good at
> their jobs, they have the same smarts to learn something new.
I have to ask WHY is it OK for CEOs to _force_ innocent underlings to
learn something new when, at least up to the time they were laid off,
they were working and getting paid what they were due, and the CEOs
did not have to do anything except put their signature on a memorandum
(which does not require any learning or time or money or anything).
And, the other part of the question is WHY do we just forget the
underlings, among which there will be a failure rate in getting a job
in alternative training, and that will be because there are less jobs
in the new field and more guys chasing those jobs, so the losers will
be greater than before.
So, the CEOs get the guarantees (golden parachutes, bonuses, packages)
and the underlings get the shaft. Where is the justice in that?
We are
> like the blacksmiths of a hundred years ago, the jobs moved on and we
> didn't. Instead we believed all the hype that our profession would
> continue to grow and that we were all safe.
>
> > And, that is also an elitist view. You look at the vast majority of
> > people anywhere in the world who are born in poverty and ignorance and
> > all of the demographic studies will show that your _chances_ of
> > getting out of that are near zero, or very low. Most of the kids that
> > really do have a _chance_ are the ones coming out of typically middle
> > class backgrounds or above.
>
> I am not talking about those people, they don't have the options that
> we have and that is clear.
Well, then, are they just going to be victims and you have no answers
for them?
What is also clear is that they are
> starting to climb the ecnomic ladder and as they do, they are
> threatening those of us who chose to climb up a few rungs on the
> ladder and then rest for the remainder of our life.
And, I'm asking why is it that we have a mindset that says "OK, some
are going to be winners (and everything is OK) and some are going to
be losers (and we're going to not talk about them at all, or care
about what happened to them)?
Its the same moral problem as in wars over all of history: the guys
with the swords kill the guys without, and we don't ask whether this
is good or bad, and even more, don't even talk about whether it might
be good to prevent this from happening in the future.
Swords? How about just plain crooks and criminals that take guns into
banks and shoot the tellers and customers and take the money?
> > Most of us would still be crawling on our hands
>
> > > and knees if we had taken the same attitude when learning to walk.
>
> > The fact of the matter is that out of a clutch of young birds just out
> > of the egg, a few will fall out of the nest before they learn to fly,
> > and a few of those will fall into the mouths of predators waiting on
> > the ground for them with their mouths open.
>
> If not for that, the predators would starve. Its called natural
> selection.
So, then, its OK with you if people get kicked into the sewer,
involuntarily, and its OK if predators live by this method? Or, did
you just mean to say "**** happens and so what?"
> > > Why is it that as adults we suddenly believe that we can no longer
> > > learn something new?
>
> > It takes more than ability to learn something new to actually learn
> > something new.-
>
> You are right about that, it takes a willing attitude as well. The
> real problem is that most of us really don't want to be forced to
> learn something new.
Fine, I see two aspects of this: Yes, people need to be willing to
learn something new, but, No, why should a bunch of people (the
underlings) be forced to learn something new by a few (CEOs) simply
because the net result might be to make a few (CEOs and stockholders)
richer and a bunch of guye (the underlings) poorer?
|
