pmoney25;948957 wrote:Banks need IT workers also?? The point being, he just wanted to get into a work enviroment and start working. He did look for quite awhile to find a job in his degree but when nothing was available immediately, he took an entry level position, then after working somewhere for six months to a year, he can show that he is a valuable commodity to the company, it will be easier for him to apply for jobs within the company and get the job he wanted.

I will also mention that a lot of people have no clue how to interview. I interview people for manager jobs, banker jobs, teller jobs, sales job ..etc. and a lot of kids just out of college, to put it mildly do not know how to sell themselves in an interview.

I get that people want to work in a field they studied in college but sometimes you may have to take a detour to get your final destination.

True. I read it as a "he's just working this job to show he can hold a job" which is what I see a lot of people doing thinking it's going to help them a lot. But it won't.

And people are terrible at interviews because they don't know how to talk to people or read people.

stlouiedipalma;948921 wrote:What really attracts a candidate to an employer is the willingness to work for next to nothing. It's all about maximizing profits and minimizing expenses. If you think hard work means anything these days you are only fooling yourself. Why do you think companies ship operations overseas? It has little to do with work ethic. It has everything to do with the lowest pay scale possible. Get real.

You get the prize for bullshit post of the day. Have you ever run your own business? Do I try to get someone to work at the lowest pay scale possible?. Yes. But not to the point that it hurts business. I will gladly pay someone with a solid work ethic that I can count on good money. Shit bag employees will kill your business.

This is what I have learned in my business. Hire competent people with a solid work ethic and compensate them at a reasonable rate. Hiring an employee at minimum wage with little work ethic is far more costly. Training, quality, returned product, etc... It all bites you in the ass.

stlouiedipalma;948921 wrote:What really attracts a candidate to an employer is the willingness to work for next to nothing. It's all about maximizing profits and minimizing expenses. If you think hard work means anything these days you are only fooling yourself. Why do you think companies ship operations overseas? It has little to do with work ethic. It has everything to do with the lowest pay scale possible. Get real.

Actually, I do some hiring and I can tell you that work ethic has a LOT to do with profitability.

Pay does come into play, sure, but if you think it's the only factor, then you've never hired anyone.

The other day, I had two people bidding on a job. One was going to do it for $450. The other was asking $2,500.

I hired the latter. His work is much better, and so it is worth the higher pay.

Companies look at employees much the same way. They're cool with paying more if you're worth it because it's actually profitable for them to be.

I Wear Pants;948968 wrote:

Rep'd. I lulz'd a lot.

pmoney25;948957 wrote:Banks need IT workers also?? The point being, he just wanted to get into a work enviroment and start working. He did look for quite awhile to find a job in his degree but when nothing was available immediately, he took an entry level position, then after working somewhere for six months to a year, he can show that he is a valuable commodity to the company, it will be easier for him to apply for jobs within the company and get the job he wanted.

While I was in school I cleaned shitters. Worked midnights in a factory. I eventually took a dirty job painting trim for $8/hr. I worked in that department less than a year when a position in the engineering department opened up. My academic experience and solid performance painting trim on the shop floor landed me the job with the same company. By taking those jobs on the shop floor I gained valuable experience. It created an inroad into my engineering career as well as a valuable experience in managing my own business. Though I will say this managing your own business comes only with experience. I keep mine narrow, custom, and profitable. Its not my only source of income but when I provide a service I have learned to bank money. Not just get sales. And in this particular business paying someone more that I can depend on pays dividends. Or I do it myself. But I am getting to old for that. But on occasion step up and get in the shit. Like the old days.

Major and OTrap pretty much nailed it. If you can add value, you will be treated well by your employer (or you should find someone who will). People with no marketable skills and no ability to add value are complaining that their jobs are going overseas, or in some cases even just another part of the country where the cost of living is lower and so people are happy with a lower wage. Is that really unfair? Depending on your particular outcome and perspective, the "winner" here thinks it's plenty good and fair while the "loser" cries foul. Most actions/decisions create winners and losers, and it doesn't make that choice inherently "evil" or "greedy".

I see these sorts of decisions. It's not remotely fun or enjoyable to put people out of jobs. But the way I look at it is we're creating jobs in the new locale, and improving the company's competitive position is good for the long-run employment and stability of the hundreds of other workers we provide a living for.

Can someone explain to me why, if I outsource some jobs to China, I should feel guilty about creating a better life for those people? I'm only being fair or altruistic if I create jobs in the US (and apparently not just any job, but good payings jobs where people get lots of vacation and 37.5 hr work weeks).?

It's also worth mentioning that people like Gates, Jobs and the Google guys made a lot of people who worked for them rich, and not just key employees, either. But as a shareholder, if they want to pay above average market wages it better be justified. And there isn't a person on this board who, if they're being honest, wouldn't be irate if their 401k mutual funds were invested in companies that gave all its profits to the workers..

Just to reinforce my point with a real world example. When I started my business I hired lower wage workers. Not bad just average($9/$11phr). The shit I had to deal with. Whining, rework, and yes drug use. Missed work. Hopping in the truck myself to make a delivery because people did not show up. Delivering a job late while Union employees were sitting on their ass in wait. Having your ass ripped by the super as to how much money he lost. Firing employees that later reported me to the EPA for an anal exam. Not worth the cost.

I made serious cuts. Profits above sales. Paid good money for labor. Switched pay to piece work instead of hourly. I had people begging me for more work. I don't have to double check their work and bank money. Sales were down but profit increased. To this day I am still mopping up for when I paid less skilled employees less. It just does not pay in the long run. They knew rebar had to be 2"+ from an exposed surface. Did not take the time to secure it so years later I have to grind it out and patch it at my expense. Paying an employee well that can avoid me this added expense. My pleasure.

Sometimes you also need to be willing to follow the money trail.

I've been working for the same company for 28 years. At my 17th year my company was purchased by a competitor.

Fortunately the competitor offered me a transfer. Because I was willing to tear up roots and all the pain and turmoil that goes with it, my financial situation improved dramatically. I was far more willing to "go the extra mile" under those circumstances.

Now my new company is downsizing from 5 plants to 3 because of lagging sales in a crap economy. Unfortunately they are closing the plant in my current location because Pennsylvania's tax code and property values are too high to justify keeping our plant open.

Out of 300 employees here in Pennsylvania, only 30 of the top employees were offered transfers to our new Tennessee plant.

Guess what? Yes, I'm following the money trail.

Why am I saying all of this? The OWS whiners are asking the gubmint to give them a boatload of free unearned shit. They are losers; pinheads who will not succeed. The kind of employees Major had to deal with.

The winners demonstrate their value by hard work and perseverance. They do not need the gubmint to help them survive.

I Wear Pants;948815 wrote:I don't see how working as a bank teller helps to further his career in the IT field. I mean sure, it shoes that the dude is able to act like an adult and do a job, but so will any other candidates that an IT employer will be looking at. How does that really further his career?

If you can't see how two IT guys interviewing for a job with similar qualifications but one has been working as a bank teller since college and the other has been unemployed are different ....then you have never been on the interviewer side of an interview.

I Wear Pants;948968 wrote:

i already rep'd you or i would do it again. you found my next avatar.

jmog;949052 wrote:If you can't see how two IT guys interviewing for a job with similar qualifications but one has been working as a bank teller since college and the other has been unemployed are different ....then you have never been on the interviewer side of an interview.

What part of "shoes that the dude is able to act like an adult and do a job, but so will any other candidates that an IT employer will be looking at" doesn't imply that I thought the other candidates would have had jobs as well. Of course I realize that given the same degree and such a person who's been working will be much more likely to impress an employer than the guy that's been sitting at home.

But it's also true that the dude working in his field, even if it's on his own or freelance probably has more potential to grab the interest of an employer. The person who's passionate enough about their subject to deal with the difficulty and uncertainty of self employment/freelance work just so that they can work in their field rather than just getting whatever steady job comes their way is someone likely to make an impact on and interviewer.

And yes, I know I spelled "shows" "shoes".

gut;949007 wrote:Major and OTrap pretty much nailed it. If you can add value, you will be treated well by your employer (or you should find someone who will). People with no marketable skills and no ability to add value are complaining that their jobs are going overseas, or in some cases even just another part of the country where the cost of living is lower and so people are happy with a lower wage. Is that really unfair? Depending on your particular outcome and perspective, the "winner" here thinks it's plenty good and fair while the "loser" cries foul. Most actions/decisions create winners and losers, and it doesn't make that choice inherently "evil" or "greedy".

I see these sorts of decisions. It's not remotely fun or enjoyable to put people out of jobs. But the way I look at it is we're creating jobs in the new locale, and improving the company's competitive position is good for the long-run employment and stability of the hundreds of other workers we provide a living for.

Can someone explain to me why, if I outsource some jobs to China, I should feel guilty about creating a better life for those people? I'm only being fair or altruistic if I create jobs in the US (and apparently not just any job, but good payings jobs where people get lots of vacation and 37.5 hr work weeks).?

It's also worth mentioning that people like Gates, Jobs and the Google guys made a lot of people who worked for them rich, and not just key employees, either. But as a shareholder, if they want to pay above average market wages it better be justified. And there isn't a person on this board who, if they're being honest, wouldn't be irate if their 401k mutual funds were invested in companies that gave all its profits to the workers..

In a job market like this as a employer I can get 100 people willing to work for lower wages then I am paying anyone who is a top wage earner now.

gut;949007 wrote:Major and OTrap pretty much nailed it. If you can add value, you will be treated well by your employer (or you should find someone who will). People with no marketable skills and no ability to add value are complaining that their jobs are going overseas, or in some cases even just another part of the country where the cost of living is lower and so people are happy with a lower wage. Is that really unfair? Depending on your particular outcome and perspective, the "winner" here thinks it's plenty good and fair while the "loser" cries foul. Most actions/decisions create winners and losers, and it doesn't make that choice inherently "evil" or "greedy".

I see these sorts of decisions. It's not remotely fun or enjoyable to put people out of jobs. But the way I look at it is we're creating jobs in the new locale, and improving the company's competitive position is good for the long-run employment and stability of the hundreds of other workers we provide a living for.

Can someone explain to me why, if I outsource some jobs to China, I should feel guilty about creating a better life for those people? I'm only being fair or altruistic if I create jobs in the US (and apparently not just any job, but good payings jobs where people get lots of vacation and 37.5 hr work weeks).?

It's also worth mentioning that people like Gates, Jobs and the Google guys made a lot of people who worked for them rich, and not just key employees, either. But as a shareholder, if they want to pay above average market wages it better be justified. And there isn't a person on this board who, if they're being honest, wouldn't be irate if their 401k mutual funds were invested in companies that gave all its profits to the workers..

So you would agree that the "buy American" is a pretty silly sentiment to be spread by people who would have you believe they are capitalists? If they truly were such then they'd say "buy the best at the best cost".

The degree debate reminds me of the scene in good will hunting when matt damon tells the guy he spent all that money on a degree he could have got for $1.50 for a library card. Just my opinion but a lot of colleges are turning into degree factories instead of actually preparing people for work/real life.

pmoney25;949141 wrote:The degree debate reminds me of the scene in good will hunting when matt damon tells the guy he spent all that money on a degree he could have got for $1.50 for a library card. Just my opinion but a lot of colleges are turning into degree factories instead of actually preparing people for work/real life.

Universities want to make money so they turn into factories because they see factories making money. Don't see a lot of libraries rolling in profit.

I Wear Pants;949106 wrote:So you would agree that the "buy American" is a pretty silly sentiment to be spread by people who would have you believe they are capitalists? If they truly were such then they'd say "buy the best at the best cost".

Yeah, what's your point? The "buy American" is pushed mostly by unions and govt, two entities which would not be widely considered to espouse the fundamentals of capitalism. That's the result of uncompetitive wages - "buy American or nobody will buy my overpriced products and my company goes under putting these people out of work".

I think the business owner is fairly indifferent, outside of the pain to transition. He would love for you to subsidize wages via higher prices, but if you choose not to he can just move his factory to China or Mexico.

And obviously most people choose lower prices over "buy American" so it's hypocritical to expect any less from businesses providing those products. But it speaks to the obvious reality that people are far looser with money when it's not theirs.

gut;949218 wrote:Yeah, what's your point? The "buy American" is pushed mostly by unions and govt, two entities which would not be widely considered to espouse the fundamentals of capitalism. That's the result of uncompetitive wages - "buy American or nobody will buy my overpriced products and my company goes under putting these people out of work".

I think the business owner is fairly indifferent, outside of the pain to transition. He would love for you to subsidize wages via higher prices, but if you choose not to he can just move his factory to China or Mexico.

And obviously most people choose lower prices over "buy American" so it's hypocritical to expect any less from businesses providing those products. But it speaks to the obvious reality that people are far looser with money when it's not theirs.

Agreed.

Now "buy sustainable/local" I think is a better argument because there are real benefits for doing so. Doesn't mean I always do that or think it's always the best idea but at least it makes a bit of sense.

Buying American to buy American is ridiculous but what I was getting at was that I see a whole bunch of people I know to be Republican/conservative in my area who have bumper stickers or say that people should buy American. Of course most of them probably don't understand that their two positions "buy American" and their support of free market economics don't really coexist well.

Besides in a globalized economy it's harder to say buying "American" is even really a benefit because companies like Toyata, etc have many thousands of workers in the US.

You're certainly right that the Unions push this and it's stupid, though I personally haven't seen much of the government pushing that agenda.

Bigdogg;949101 wrote:In a job market like this as a employer I can get 100 people willing to work for lower wages then I am paying anyone who is a top wage earner now.

Demand is low, so competition is high. Pretty much how competition works.

Are these skilled labor positions? Personally, I would rather be self-employed than work for terrible pay (or maybe both ), and I would likely have an employer willing to pay me more elsewhere, given my skill set. If not, meh, I'll take what I can get, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I Wear Pants;949106 wrote:So you would agree that the "buy American" is a pretty silly sentiment to be spread by people who would have you believe they are capitalists? If they truly were such then they'd say "buy the best at the best cost".

The "buy American" people are dunces. It sounds patriotic when you say "buy American," but it's more accurate to say "buy the over-priced, likely low quality product made by Union workers who are likely making more than you do."

pmoney25;949141 wrote:The degree debate reminds me of the scene in good will hunting when matt damon tells the guy he spent all that money on a degree he could have got for $1.50 for a library card. Just my opinion but a lot of colleges are turning into degree factories instead of actually preparing people for work/real life.

He's got a point. The ACTUAL value of an education, lost on most, can indeed be achieved through self-education as much as it can through the academic system, sans healthy debate or discussion.

I Wear Pants;949204 wrote:Universities want to make money so they turn into factories because they see factories making money. Don't see a lot of libraries rolling in profit.

This is, unfortunately, very accurate.

gut;949218 wrote:But it speaks to the obvious reality that people are far looser with money when it's not theirs.

This is a truth that applies to everyone if they aren't paying attention.

Its interesting to watch the worlds richest 10% of people demand more. Are you the 99% or the 1%. If you make over $47,500 you are the 1%. Those who have fallen on hard times in this country still maintain a standard of living in the top 10%. How shameful and hypocritical is it for a student that attended Harvard and racked up $80,000 student loan debt. The 1% has loaned them money to attend one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in the world. Regardless of their economic background. Deferred any payment on that loan until their eduction is complete.

$80,000. Think of how many pot bellied kids struggling to survive on fly infested gruel that would feed. Yet these selfish arrogant kids demand their debt be forgiven. These protesters are fools. They are not the 99% they are the 10%.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

You don't think we should give foreign aid though don't you?

I Wear Pants;950201 wrote:You don't think we should give foreign aid though don't you?

No the federal government has no authority to engage in charity. Not at home and not abroad. The more they take from the 1% the less the 1% has to give to those in true poverty abroad. Many of the 1% pay no federal income tax. Some of the 1% actually receive tax "payments" from the federal government. The we are the 10% protesters are clueless.

I Wear Pants;950201 wrote:You don't think we should give foreign aid though don't you?

Not through federal channels, no. I do think we "should" give aid privately, as many companies and individuals do.

Moral responsibility, however, ought not be legislated. Think of the precedent set for the "Moral Majority."

majorspark;950308 wrote:No the federal government has no authority to engage in charity. Not at home and not abroad. The more they take from the 1% the less the 1% has to give to those in true poverty abroad. Many of the 1% pay no federal income tax. Some of the 1% actually receive tax "payments" from the federal government. The we are the 10% protesters are clueless.

We are 10% protesters?

If you're trying to use that as a "clever" name for the OWS/99% protesters then you should realize that they are protesting those same payments and things you're talking about.

O-Trap;950353 wrote:Not through federal channels, no. I do think we "should" give aid privately, as many companies and individuals do.

Moral responsibility, however, ought not be legislated. Think of the precedent set for the "Moral Majority."

I really wasn't suggesting that I believe it should be legislated. Was trying to better understand majorspark's opinion so I could formulate either an argument or supportive post to it.

I Wear Pants;950412 wrote:We are 10% protesters?

If you're trying to use that as a "clever" name for the OWS/99% protesters then you should realize that they are protesting those same payments and things you're talking about.

Its not a clever name. Its a fact on the worlds scale. They are the 10%.

You mean to tell me the 10% protesters are protesting that a family of 5 gets $1,000/child tax credit? $800 in putting America to work credit. When those credits exceed their federal tax liability they receive "payment" for the difference. If that is what the 10% is protesting I might just join them.