It comes as a shock to many of my younger students when they realize all that time they spent screwing off in public school has severely limited their career opportunities as an adult.

And college! :haha: Somehow, texting in class instead of taking notes and listening to the lecture is not helpful in passing the exams.

I have several group projects coming due in a few days and guess who did 90% of the work?

It's a problem with your reference to that holy and all-healing "freedom" of people to just pick a better job if they do not like the current one. The freedom to chose another job means not much if that other job is not available - because it got killed by splitting it into several low-wage- jobs, for example. ;)

No company and no economy works and functions in a vacuum, disconnected from the social context that raised it, that funded it, built it and supported it. Total freedom of institutions or individuals only exist if said individuals or institutions exist all alone on a planet that they have all for themselves, with nobody else being there.

Or in other words, this often made demand for total freedom - often is just a foul excuse for total egoism.

The one who won't be stocking shelves at the local Walmart? :DL

You know what's funny? Not "ha ha" funny, mind you, but when I was in high school, when I had a lab partner of a certain demographic, they expected me to do all the work because I was in another demographic.

I wonder where they are, today? They could only play a certain card so much.

No one has a "natural right" to some arbitrary hourly wage. If you don;t make enough at $10/hr, get another job (a 2d job). Everyone I know who makes more substantial wages also works a helluva lot more than 40 hours a week.

It has been stated that WalMart or other companies took higher paying jobs and split them into lower paying jobs. Is there any basis for that statement? I've known many small business owners over the years, and aside from the owners, and the high-level employees, they paid pretty normal wages.

The only small businesses that pretty much universally pay good wages and provide benefits in my experience have been healthcare providers.

BTW, do we really want a permanent structural unemployment rate on par with Europe, anyway?

Anyone looking for work should consider going into nursing, lol, always a shortage. As an aside, we were talking last night, and my wife said she realized that a bunch of the techs and nurses she operates with are eastern european DOCTORS. No kidding, she was scrubbed in and her anesthesiologist was talking in Russian (he was a linguist in the US Army before med school) with the tech and the nurse—both of whom were physicians in their home countries (she said all of a sudden she realized they were all talking and she didn't understand them—they switched to German as a joke, but my wife is fluent, so much of the rest of the case was in German, lol).

[QUOTE=tater;1353568]Net result of this idea is that you have one stock boy rather than several. It's already difficult to find a clerk when you need one and Skybird wants to cut their numbers? :roll:

Exactly. I just love getting advice from those whose system is worse than ours.

Yep we're running three Medical Assistant classes atm each one full and all have a great placement rate. All our competitor schools are doing the same thing.

>>holy and all-healing "freedom" of people to just pick a better job

Not sure where you got the hyperbole from, but what do you suggest is the solution? Govt mandated business? You suggesting someone needs to step in and create jobs that pay more but generate less revenue? I love how you like to "educate" me. I know a little about business. :)

You know who is allowing--indeed, promoting-- Wal-mart's job splitting and powerful business model? The people who "vote with their wallets". You may try arguing with them.

I've been thinking about that fact for awhile, and I've drawn a couple of conclusions. Whenever I hear people complain about "overpaid sports figures" I'm always reminded of the book and movie Eight Men Out. Back in the day athletes were the slaves of the team owners. If they wanted to play they took what they were payed, and they were screwed so often that in 1919 the "couldn't be beat" Chicago White Sox threw the world series because a consortium of gamblers offered them enough money to make it worth their while. Today if a team wants a certain player they have to give him what he wants or look elsewhere. Is he "overpaid"? The people who actually pay him don't think so.

It's the same with a CEO. They pay him what he thinks he's worth because he's the one who can actually make things happen, and bring money into the business. If he doesn't do the job then they find somebody who can.

On another tack, I got to thinking about that $29,700,000, and I did a little research of my own. This is from Walmart's own website:

If we lower the CEO's salary to match that of the lowest-paid employe, and distribute the money fairly, every single Walmart associate will pick up an extra $14.15. A year. If we do that to every ranking officer all the way down to store managers, i.e. they all make the same wage, they might pick up as much as $500 per year. And then they'll go out of business because no qualified CEO is going to work for that amount.

Want more money? Go to school. I wish I had.

We can do that. At that opportunity we could ask them if they earn enough money so that they could afford to buy in a more expensive supermarket instead of a discounter.

There is a reason why cheap discounters are booming. ;) At the same time these discounters can only be cheaper, because they offer less service and pay their employees worse. Which leaves you with employed but exploited consumers having less money - and thus many cannot afford to buy in more expensive supermarkets - where the workers get payed fairer wages.

The minimum criterion for a fair wage is that if somebody works fulltime a week in a given job, he needs to be able to make a living by his income that funds his family, pays for raising and educating his children, and secure his life's evening when he has become old and does not work anymore. Else there would be no point in working fulltime.

Steve,

your math is all nice and well, but I say there is no business job in the world that justifies somebody earns 2000 times as much as his workers in the storehouse that also work full time. I also doubt that these overpayed supermen deliver a stressload and workload and workload that is 2000 times above that of a single worker.

Also, highranking CEOs usually are not held responsible if they exploit their position to maximise their profits, if they mess up and bring havoc over their company, if they fail. They do not have to compensate the losses they have caused, and they are not held responsible with their private money. This is hilarious! Every toilet cleaner gets ounsihed wose for incredibly minor failings! We have had many court cases thgat made it to the headlines over the past 12 months. Those at the top can keep all the money, and eventually even get payed more money if they agree to let their contract rest and do NOT work. What a lovely way to get punished for failure! What must I do to get punished like that? Many economy insiders and analysts will confirm that this is a huge problem, it leads to many managers working without having any link and personal interest in the company and it's business branch they work for, they just want to rip it off, and then move on to the next.

early this week I read a report that says that even within almost all of the banks that have messed up completely and took taxpayer's bailout money, the mean income of top bankers whose greed already made us all bleed - in the past 5 years raised by 400% in mean. At the same time their banks were struggling, where firing staff, costed the taxpayer hundreds of billions, caused millions of people being pushed into an existential abyss - becasue of decisions and policies made by those irresponsible gangster at the top.

what you also completely seem to ignore is that within a business, men tend to form what in german is called "Seilschaften", cliques of people knowing each other, supoorting and protecting each other, not hurting each other (dog don't eat dog), and conpirate to maximise their incomes mutually. This is possible becasue there is so much lack of transparency and independant monitoring, and becasue of a very interwoven network of mutual relations and interests. You make decisions that allows the additonal million for this guy, and he makes that decision that allows you your own additional million. It is not only banks. You see it in every major economy branch. Sometimes the profit interest of the whole company - for the benfit of those at it's top - gets mutually pushed like this, then you are dealing with cartels that prevent market regulation of prices. Oil, and energy suppliers as well as coffee importers and pharmaceutical companies are known to practice like this in very extreme ways.

I said it before and I say it again, true capitalism is not interested in free open markets, but in establishing monopolies and cartels. It is not interested in leaving consumers the choice, but in preventing them to have a choice. It wants no competition, but seeks to prevent competition. It wants to dictate the prices, and where it is given the chance and freedom to do so, it does. Gasoline is the most obvious - but by far not the only - example.

Are you sure? Enron Execs?

Exceptions from the rule, like Madoff. But the vast majority of failing offenders at the top get away with it - and keep all the gold and take it with them. That's what makes getting away with it the rule, and Madoff and Enron the exceptions.

A free market is the only "natural" economy for any population larger than an extended family group (small tribe?).

"Black Markets" are 100% unfettered, market economies, and they crop up whenever any population reaches some critical mass, and/or when they are prevented from engaging in free markets by force (governments).

Anything that is made illegal by law exists as a free-market commodity. Guns, drugs, whatever.

"Fair wage" laws are BS. It's arbitrary. What you claim is required to raise a family is arbitrary. Look at housing in the US (we all did with the bubble, didn;t we). Americans live in bigger houses than they did when I was a kid. People seem to have nicer cars, too. Expectations are higher. My family growing up was well off. We lived in an expensive town in Connecticut near NY. My dad was a very high-level executive in the publishing industry. Our house was big—big enough—but guess what, my house now is bigger. We had pretty normal cars growing up. My family now has expensive euro-cars. My family as a kid took vacations that were either sort of low-key (driving trips, motels, etc), or rarely flew places. My kids have never stayed in a hotel without a concierge and turn down service, LOL.

My family may not be entirely typical, but guess what, average square footage of houses is absolutely way up. My dad's house as president of a major publishing company in the 70s and 80s was no bigger than the standard decent neighborhood tract home here in ABQ now—and unlike new homes never had central AC, granite counters, or all kind of other cool perks.

So again, what is the standard for "fair?" Living a frugal lifestyle of someone in the 1970s? Should a "fair wage" allow you to have broadband? Cable TV? heck, TV at all?

Bottom line is people are worth exactly what they are paid in a free market, no more. If you want to make 60 grand a year instead of 30 grand, get another 30k job and work nights—as I said, most people I know that make good wages work well over 60 hours a week, and many might only work 60 now, but did their time working 80+ hours for years (I did for around 10 years).

I've applied for work at all the supermarkets in town. They all pay about the same.

As pointed out by others, those wages are expected to be earned by young people just starting out, or by older folks like myself, whose families are grown and gone. Someone with a family of four should already be in a position to demand and recieve more. Walmart assistant managers make more than the rank-and-file, and managers make more still. Walmart also has a policy of promoting from within, so most of the higher-ups started at the bottom.

Does he bring in 2000 times as much revenue as the single worker? Even if he doesn't, my point was that that is a decision to be made by the people who pay him. If they think he is worth it, it's not my place, or yours, to say what is right or wrong. My effort was merely to point out that even if we could force him to take less, it's not going to affect everyone else in the least.

Also true, but again if the Board Of Directors don't like it they can replace him. And if they are all ripping off the company then it will fail, and the situation will be investigated, as happened with Enron. In the mean time, it's still not my job to force them to be the way I want them to be.

And that's why I was against the bailout.

And you want to use the government to regulate this. The problem there is that the same thing goes on in the government. Who watches the watchmen? Elected officials have ever-growing staffs, while they do ever less actual work. They get taken to expensive dinners by lobbyists, have taxpayer-provided jets take them on taxpayer-provided vacations. But you want these jerks to 'fix' the evil corporations, and if they don't, complain that they are bought and sold by private interests.

Again, someplace like Walmart is a private concern, and they pay well for people who will maximize profits for the company. And they give a lot of the excess to charities. And provide education programs for employees so they can better themselves within the organization. And you want to put them out of business? Then we can have 2.1 million more people looking for work. And on the government dole. And not paying taxes to support the ever-growing government dole.

True capitalism is concerned with making money. Yes, we do need enough regulation to keep monopolies from forming, and enough power to break them up. Walmart has competition, and if the government regulators think they have a monopoly they'll look into it.

If you feel so strongly about this, why aren't you a prominent crusader and in the government, instead of posting on a small website in the middle of nowhere?

I always thought it to be a good idea to have some kind of a legally fixed relation between the lowest income of a worker at the top, and the most senior and responsible leader at the top of a company. Let there be a span of - just as an example - a factor of 25. the man on top earns 20 times as much, at maximum! - than the man at the bottom. All other jobs in that company gets scaled according to how much qualification you need, how much responsibility you have to take, how exgausting and time-intensive and how ridden with certain stress factors the job in question is. that means the worker at the bottom of the hierarchy gets let'S say 3000, and the man at the top gets 60000. . If the work of the worker is worth only 1000 for that company, the boss also gets scaled down and still gets 20000.

Something like that, with the relation between the upper and lower limit being legally binding.

what the company has left in profits after paying out it's staff, is money free for modernisation, education, insurrances, expansion. but more improtant than this fixiated insane idea of endless expansion and endless growth is to manage the core business of the company that way that the customers are satisfied and stay with it, and the jobs are safe and are fair, and keeping away foreign desinterested investors who do not know the busines and are not interested in it, only are interested in making quick money. If this balance would be acchieved, what else could there be to wish for? This is the most dominant priority for any responsible management there could be - not this megalomaniac craving for more and more profits for those at the top.

Say, in how many palaces can walk around at the same time? How many private jets are the one jet too much? how many Ferraris can you drive simultaneously?

Or get a job that pays you 60 grand and work the same amount of hours.
Be it through getting additional education\certification.

When I was younger I worked a job 80 + hours a week. In the short term it was ok, but long term no thanks.

I see it excactly the opposite way, as I have repeatedly pointed out in discussions with Lance. a capitalistic market theory and a truly democratic democracy can only work as intended within relativel small community sizes. The bigger the community, the more complex it becomes, the more "unüberschaubar" (unmanagable, uncheckable, nonfunctional) it becomes, and the more corruption pushes back the original intention behodn the idea. Beyond a critical community size democracy gets turned into right it's own opposite, and free capitalistic market becomes an unfree market driven by monopolies and cartels.

the community must be of that size that every member can fully overwatch it'S expanse and thus witnesses and is aware of any chnage there is taking place, so that no individual can escape accepting responsibility for his/her own deeds and actions, because it is eveident for everybody in how far these actions have effected the community's assets for ther worse or the better.

and that means we talk or relatively small communities. small towns a best.rural places where farmers and family know each other and have personal contact to each other. We talk of small idylls, a fairy-tale world that is unrealistic nowadays. And that'S why I reject the classic anglosaxon economy theory. In a way it describes an utopia, like communism does.

the corruption and degeneration of western democracies and economies for me is directly linked to gian society constructions we have formed. And that leads me to thinking that a truly dmeoicratic global society and globalised economy driven by free market ideas and constuctive capitalistic ideas, is an illusion that is impossible to work. The scaling simply is FUBAR.

And how exactly to you propose to enforce this?

How many big brothers does it take to make that decision?

But that is also true of governments.

Again, that is true of every facet of society, not just the economy. How do you propose to change it?

No defending SB but there are plenty of SUBSIM Bloggers here :yep::doh::doh:
It's called General Topics :)

I know you just turned 60 SS, but you're slipping.....

j\k

I know, but I don't think posting here is going to change the world.
Sometimes with a General Attitude.:rock:

No, I've always been this way. "Getting Old" is a great excuse for not being able to do the things you couldn't do anyway.:D