|
|
Wages in the US
 Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-02-19 08:55:48
And before the usual round of harpies chime in, I'm the guy who interviews people to determine if their skill sets are valuable to the company and whether they are a cert monkey or not. I know lots of successful people, and not a single of them was "lucky", they all worked their ***'s off for it.
I was unaware the world had only one manager interviewing people for positions and that manager was you.
 Lakshmi.Saevel
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-02-19 08:57:48
They need to raise the min. wage to 20 dollars an hour so the people at McDonald's stop messing up my cheeseburger! (they still will no matter how much they make)
How about instead of raising min wage make it cheaper to go to college.
My degree in music theory is going to waste. I was going to be a rock star! Now I'm giving guitar lessons to kids.
Dude you should be able to feed a family of four by just dreaming about your music aspirations. You shouldn't be penalized for not being lucky enough to trip and fall into a pile of success on your way to your music class's.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-19 09:02:53
The only people I see in this thread linking empircal data or studies are those horrible "liberals" (everyone who disagrees with Saevel, KN, Fonewear, etc).
The self-proclaimed "This is how the economy works because....I said so" presents no studies, no data, but seems to be going off of talking points and 'common sense' with the expectation that everyone "take their word for it because they live in the 'real world'". Sorry if textbooks don't count as these so-called "empirical studies" of yours. I know you don't have a business degree, so you wouldn't know what is common sense to us with business degrees. But you know what, it is not my place to educate you if you refuse to learn.
Minimum wage and labor economics have been written about for a hundred years~ (minimum wage was enacted in the late 1800's in other parts of the world).
In recent years (10~) economists have had greater access:
-to more data sets
-which allows more in-depth studies
-programming/programs which allows this greater amount of data to be processed faster, more efficiently, and the ability to test more complex hypothesis.
It is also more than 2-3 studies. 600 or so economists are not even 1% of 1% of the total economists out there. If these "economists" say one thing, but the rest of the profession says another, who's word are you going to take? Apparently the minority.
Plus, it is so easy to skew the numbers to reflect your agenda. Which is what these studies obviously do. I'm surprised that somebody who claims to do a little research on the topics you defend wouldn't see that at all.
I suggest taking a course in economics. Then come back to apologize that you were wrong all these years.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-02-19 09:03:01
Laughing at the people who have zero idea how management works.
Being "bossy" and / or a bully is how bad managers act because they don't know how to motivate people otherwise and thus resort to heavy handed tactics.
In actuality, junior and middle management is about receiving a task or set of tasks from senior management, breaking those tasks into smaller supporting tasks then farming them out to your minions and reporting the results back to higher up, all the while being on the lookout for ways to make those tasks more efficient while still being in compliance with company policy's. Each team member has their own set of skills & capabilities and team leaders need to know them in order to farm out tasks appropriately. This is where interpersonal skills come into play, not "talking" bullsh!t but actually knowing how to recognize valuable skill sets and motivate your minions to trust in your leadership skills.
This is where skilled / semi-skilled and unskilled labor comes into play. Someone with skill sets and experience that are easy to find and easy to replace isn't going to ever make much money, they are simply not valuable. Someone with more developed skill sets and experience can seek out more demanding positions and expect a higher level of compensation. Someone with a highly developed skill set that's in demand and experience to back it up can practically write their own check. They key to understanding all of this is that skill sets are not random. You don't find yourself walking down the street, suddenly tripping on your own d*ck and land in a pile of success. You have to build those skill sets, meaning people need to put effort, focus and dedication into practicing those skill sets until they are a marketable commodity. That in turn means devoting a lot of personal, non-work time into them, which is something that vast majority of people don't do. If someone believes success is random, or successful people are "lucky", then they are lazy and have never put hard time into developing their own skill sets.
And before the usual round of harpies chime in, I'm the guy who interviews people to determine if their skill sets are valuable to the company and whether they are a cert monkey or not. I know lots of successful people, and not a single of them was "lucky", they all worked their ***'s off for it.
Not going to go into most of this as some of it's accurate, some is anecdotal crap, but the part I will really comment on is the part in bold:
I know some cert monkey's, honestly the only people I've ever met who could watch CBT nuggets and not fall asleep and start drooling on themselves. I personally have my hobby as a career right now, and I'm trying to turn what I went to school for into a money maker, but need more time with it. I'll probably stick with what I'm doing for the long term, as it's rather steady money, but I realized for the area I'm in I'll need to increase my skillset to maintain a job, the area is horrible for it. But I've never worked my *** off for it, that's for sure. I have talent in it, and I'm efficient, but that's about it.
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-02-19 09:08:23
Plus, it is so easy to skew the numbers to reflect your agenda. Not taking a side on this one but if you claim it's so easy to skew the numbers to fit one's agenda what do you put forward to prove that the numbers aren't being skewed on your side as well other than your alleged business degree and how we should just trust you on this?
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-02-19 09:10:19
Sorry if textbooks don't count as these so-called "empirical studies" of yours. I know you don't have a business degree, so you wouldn't know what is common sense to us with business degrees. But you know what, it is not my place to educate you if you refuse to learn.
I have a bachelors in economics and business administration. I'm completing a masters in finance.
Textbooks do not count as empirical studies. If you had ever read an empirical study let alone conducted one you would know this.
Quote: 600 or so economists are not even 1% of 1% of the total economists out there. If these "economists" say one thing, but the rest of the profession says another, who's word are you going to take? Apparently the minority.
Plus, it is so easy to skew the numbers to reflect your agenda. Which is what these studies obviously do. I'm surprised that somebody who claims to do a little research on the topics you defend wouldn't see that at all.
I suggest taking a course in economics. Then come back to apologize that you were wrong all these years. You missed the point, which is frankly not surprising.
Apparantly I'm supposed to take the word of someone who doesn't know what an empirical study is.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 74
By Shiva.Ladyofhonor 2014-02-19 09:11:40
The statistics behind minimum wage are actually quite staggering. I'll take some quotes directly from Forbes.com, but the story seems to be the same across all sites that I visit.
"Only .66 percent of full-time workers and 1.7 percent of full-time hourly wage employees earn the minimum. Just four percent of minimum wage earners are heads of households working full-time attempting to raise a family, less than the percentage for all workers. Most employees collecting the minimum are teens or young adults or are working part-time. As a result, a 2007 study by the Congressional Budget Office figured that just one-seventh of minimum wage increases went to employees in poor families."
"The minimum wage is no weapon against poverty. Explained Wilson: 'Since 1995, eight studies have examined the income and poverty effects of minimum wage increases, and all but one have found that past minimum wage hikes had no effect on poverty.'"
Who would be affected the most by a minimum wage hike? Not down-on-their-luck heads of households, but rather teens, young adults, and unions. Why unions? Because unions often negotiate pay based on a percentage above whatever the minimum wage happens to be.
What happens to teens when the minimum wage rises? That's right, teen umemployment rates skyrocket, especially for minorities, even in good economies.
Yeah, the other people cite as being helped by raising the minimum wage are the millions of adults working for a quarter more than minimum wage. They're still in poverty at that wage and the minimum wage helps them out. But hey let us cite the exact number of people at only $7.25/hour to make it look like it's only a few teenagers that are effected by this! Nevermind that the only people making true exact minimum wage are teenagers because even the crappiest of companies give out a raise once a year (my company has done $0.03/hr, and then a nickel the next two years while I've been with them, so our 3 year veterans are making $7.38/hour!) so the millions of people cited to be helped by raising the minimum wage get to be ignored by this "data" and the person against raising the minimum wage can feel good since they're only aiming to screw over a couple million teenagers as opposed to millions of adults.
Also, job losses will not come directly from raising the minimum wage. No employer currently hires or fires just to have someone be sitting around. They hire because that body is NEEDED for the business to function, whether that person gets $7 or $10/hr won't change the fact that business will crumble without that body. Job losses would only stem from companies getting rid of (more) jobs and automating them. But you know what? They're already working on that. I was told my company had been aiming to make online ordering THE way to order from now on so they can have less people in the store to answer phones.
Now, minimum wage itself isn't really the solution to all of this. The only solution is for government to "redistribute the wealth". This is because the big companies ALREADY distribute the wealth all to them, so the government, on behalf of the people, need to work against the power big corporations have and give out a more fair distribution. That is the correct way for government to function in our current world.
Lakshmi.Saevel
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-02-19 11:06:20
Laughing at the people who have zero idea how management works.
Being "bossy" and / or a bully is how bad managers act because they don't know how to motivate people otherwise and thus resort to heavy handed tactics.
In actuality, junior and middle management is about receiving a task or set of tasks from senior management, breaking those tasks into smaller supporting tasks then farming them out to your minions and reporting the results back to higher up, all the while being on the lookout for ways to make those tasks more efficient while still being in compliance with company policy's. Each team member has their own set of skills & capabilities and team leaders need to know them in order to farm out tasks appropriately. This is where interpersonal skills come into play, not "talking" bullsh!t but actually knowing how to recognize valuable skill sets and motivate your minions to trust in your leadership skills.
This is where skilled / semi-skilled and unskilled labor comes into play. Someone with skill sets and experience that are easy to find and easy to replace isn't going to ever make much money, they are simply not valuable. Someone with more developed skill sets and experience can seek out more demanding positions and expect a higher level of compensation. Someone with a highly developed skill set that's in demand and experience to back it up can practically write their own check. They key to understanding all of this is that skill sets are not random. You don't find yourself walking down the street, suddenly tripping on your own d*ck and land in a pile of success. You have to build those skill sets, meaning people need to put effort, focus and dedication into practicing those skill sets until they are a marketable commodity. That in turn means devoting a lot of personal, non-work time into them, which is something that vast majority of people don't do. If someone believes success is random, or successful people are "lucky", then they are lazy and have never put hard time into developing their own skill sets.
And before the usual round of harpies chime in, I'm the guy who interviews people to determine if their skill sets are valuable to the company and whether they are a cert monkey or not. I know lots of successful people, and not a single of them was "lucky", they all worked their ***'s off for it.
Not going to go into most of this as some of it's accurate, some is anecdotal crap, but the part I will really comment on is the part in bold:
I know some cert monkey's, honestly the only people I've ever met who could watch CBT nuggets and not fall asleep and start drooling on themselves. I personally have my hobby as a career right now, and I'm trying to turn what I went to school for into a money maker, but need more time with it. I'll probably stick with what I'm doing for the long term, as it's rather steady money, but I realized for the area I'm in I'll need to increase my skillset to maintain a job, the area is horrible for it. But I've never worked my *** off for it, that's for sure. I have talent in it, and I'm efficient, but that's about it.
For higher level positions you will need to know your ***and have some sort of practical experience. That means knowledge gained from actually working on something, either in an enterprise or in a private home lab (really cheap these days) not from a course of a book. What's correct by the book / test isn't correct in actual practice as the books / tests assume near perfect scenarios that favor the vender that's providing the cert. MS stuff assumes your running 100% MS, Oracle assumes 100% Oracle, Cisco assumes 100% Cisco, same with VMWare and EMC. In practice environments will contain a mixture of several vendor's equipment and it's the system engineers job to make it all work together. Also nothing can replace work done on your own at the house during spare time. The most important question you'll get asked is what projects you work on, often it'll be phrased like an open question about your hobbies but is really seeing if you spend private time keeping up with current technology.
Anyhow everything I said was 100% accurate. You can't stumble into success, doesn't happen. Someone could give you $100,000,000 USD right now and you'd completely waste the opportunity as you have zero idea what to do with it. That discredits the whole "silver spoon is requirement for success" bullsh!t that gets passed around liberal circles. A rich fool is soon a poor fool. Giving an idiot lots of money will only have them waste it, the more the money the longer it'll take them to waste it, but waste it they will. Wealthy people are wealthy because they, or their family patriarch / ancestor, were smart and accumulated wealth over the course of a lifetime, sometimes several, through careful investments and business's. They took calculated risks and didn't waste their time bemoaning how the cruel world was holding them down. They educated themselves in the ways of power and influence and sought to ensure their family's future instead of crying that someone else has more resources then them and that's why they shouldn't even try.
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-19 11:08:42
Sorry if textbooks don't count as these so-called "empirical studies" of yours. Holy crap.
Textbooks are there to talk about the concepts of a field/topic. They are there to educate.
Empirical studies are to test whether for not concepts are actually valid, and if so, under what conditions they are valid. They are there to validate.
That's a pretty fundamental difference.
By fonewear 2014-02-19 11:23:37
With that extra money you get from min. wage you can invest them in lottery tickets and Bud Light. That is a win for everyone.
[+]
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 74
By Shiva.Ladyofhonor 2014-02-19 11:38:17
With that extra money you get from min. wage you can invest them in lottery tickets and Bud Light. That is a win for everyone.
This is actually a principle important to the discussion. Poor people spend all of their money, that's why they're poor. So them having more money leads directly into more spending, so that's more taxes being paid, more goods being purchased/consumed, etc. Which is exactly what our economy needs at the moment. We're in such a rut overall because all the money has been siphoned to the top, and those with all the money don't need to spend it, they're just hoarding it. The money needs to go back into the hands of everyday people.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-02-19 12:22:24
Not taking a side on this one but if you claim it's so easy to skew the numbers to fit one's agenda what do you put forward to prove that the numbers aren't being skewed on your side as well other than your alleged business degree and how we should just trust you on this? Just don't make assumptions that the study was performed correctly or accurately.
I have a bachelors in economics and business administration. I'm completing a masters in finance.
Textbooks do not count as empirical studies. If you had ever read an empirical study let alone conducted one you would know this. I know, but they provide the basis of understanding the concept of any topic. You have to understand the basics before moving on to the advanced. And I highly doubt you have that business degree.
Textbooks are there to talk about the concepts of a field/topic. They are there to educate.
Empirical studies are to test whether for not concepts are actually valid, and if so, under what conditions they are valid. They are there to validate.
That's a pretty fundamental difference. In order to do/understand an empirical study, one must have to understand the basics of the topic at hand. To throw out these studies and profess your expertise without first understanding the study just shows how idiotic you are. Which is what is happening a lot here.
Shiva.Ladyofhonor said: »This is actually a principle important to the discussion. Poor people spend all of their money, that's why they're poor. So them having more money leads directly into more spending, so that's more taxes being paid, more goods being purchased/consumed, etc. Which is exactly what our economy needs at the moment. We're in such a rut overall because all the money has been siphoned to the top, and those with all the money don't need to spend it, they're just hoarding it. The money needs to go back into the hands of everyday people. Having more money doesn't mean anything if the cost of the products they are trying to purchase increases at the same rate as their nominal income. That is a (rather crude) definition of real income. Raising minimum wage does not raise real income because the buying power does not change (buying power = # of hours to work to buy an item) thanks to the increase in price in proportion to the increase in wages. In fact, it would hurt those making over minimum wage the most because they see their buying power decreased from what their old wage is to the new wage at minimum or slightly higher. Their income isn't going to increase at the same rate as those who was working at minimum wage beforehand.
That's common sense.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-02-19 12:27:15
I know a few college know it all hippies. They have been in college for one semester and are already experts.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-02-19 12:28:09
YouTube Video Placeholder
 Ragnarok.Yatenkou
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 319
By Ragnarok.Yatenkou 2014-02-19 12:29:50
And this is why I don't like to talk about politics, if I say anything, I'll just be told (In a polite-ish way) that I'm stupid ._.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-02-19 12:30:43
It's the corporations man! They will come in your house at night and force you to work for them.
[+]
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-19 12:35:57
Having more money doesn't mean anything if the cost of the products they are trying to purchase increases at the same rate as their nominal income. That is a (rather crude) definition of real income. Raising minimum wage does not raise real income because the buying power does not change (buying power = # of hours to work to buy an item) thanks to the increase in price in proportion to the increase in wages. In fact, it would hurt those making over minimum wage the most because they see their buying power decreased from what their old wage is to the new wage at minimum or slightly higher. Their income isn't going to increase at the same rate as those who was working at minimum wage beforehand.
That's common sense. So, now explain by what mechanism the underlined above section actually occurs.
Increase of a labor cost by a value does not cause a straight price increase of a certain value, unless the only cost is the labor whose cost increased.
Other than that case, those fordo not scale linearly.
*edit goddamn keyboard
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-02-19 12:55:53
Sorry if textbooks don't count as these so-called "empirical studies" of yours. Textbooks are there to talk about the concepts of a field/topic. They are there to educate.
Empirical studies are to test whether for not concepts are actually valid, and if so, under what conditions they are valid. They are there to validate.
That's a pretty fundamental difference. In order to do/understand an empirical study, one must have to understand the basics of the topic at hand. To throw out these studies and profess your expertise without first understanding the study just shows how idiotic you are. Which is what is happening a lot here.Yep, we're definitely showing how idiotic I am.
You claim to have the understanding; dissect the study, and point out the flaws.
Somewhat similar to people having to point out to a certain someone that empirical studies and textbooks are very different things.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-02-19 12:58:24
Just don't make assumptions that the study was performed correctly or accurately.
That's why you read the study. The methodology and data sections are there for a reason.
Quote: I know, but they provide the basis of understanding the concept of any topic. You have to understand the basics before moving on to the advanced. And I highly doubt you have that business degree. Yeah, you did not demonstrate an even remote understanding of empirical studies vs. textbooks by posting this:
Sorry if textbooks don't count as these so-called "empirical studies" of yours.
Micro/macro 101 textbooks introduce basic concepts and theories to students on a very low level in order for someone to have a slight overview of significant concepts and to bring all students onto the same page. Intro level textbooks rarely mention how to test these theories, set-up methodology sections, or even find the damn data.
Higher level textbooks are usually heavily supplemented by empirical papers or seriously specialized. Graduate textbooks are there to give an overview of more advanced topics and then, shockingly, heavily supplemented by more empirical papers.
Have you taken advanced economics courses? Have you tested any economic hypothesis with data? Have you even written a descriptive economics paper? Hell, did you even have to take a business statistics course let alone an econometrics course?
Every time you open your mouth and spew about bubbles, derivatives, LIBOR, and now empirical studies makes me seriously think your educational institute was severely lacking in requiring you to take any economic courses beyond the 101 requirement, let alone advanced math courses.
FYI: your belief, disbelief, or doubt about my educational background really doesn't mean jack ***as it doesn't in any way affect reality.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2014-02-19 13:13:31
Ragnarok.Yatenkou said: »And this is why I don't like to talk about politics, if I say anything, I'll just be told (In a polite-ish way) that I'm stupid ._.
you smell bad and your mom dresses you funny!
Ragnarok.Yatenkou
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 319
By Ragnarok.Yatenkou 2014-02-19 13:22:41
Ragnarok.Yatenkou said: »And this is why I don't like to talk about politics, if I say anything, I'll just be told (In a polite-ish way) that I'm stupid ._.
you smell bad and your mom dresses you funny! 
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2014-02-19 13:47:35
Abe Lincoln once said "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." but I bet he wishes he would of said something when he thought he saw the curtains moving behind him in the theater...
So... Come on in the water is fine!
[+]
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-02-19 16:01:49
Shiva.Ladyofhonor said: »With that extra money you get from min. wage you can invest them in lottery tickets and Bud Light. That is a win for everyone.
This is actually a principle important to the discussion. Poor people spend all of their money, that's why they're poor. Although fonewear's comment is apposite and does give me pause on the subject of raising the minimum wage, spending all one's money is not unique to the impoverished. I have a bunch of friends who are making considerably more than me, sufficient to at least pretend to be middle class (especially given two of them are a cohabiting, child-less couple, so two hourly wages just shy of $20 adds up fast) and who still bemoan never having any money. Their cost-of-living is identical to mine, too (within $1,000/year, anyhow).
Related note, I'm pretty sure this is the thread where some people debated what the function of business was. I was working on a construction site today that is spending an inordinate amount of cash to build a fancy chain restaurant. They're starting out deep in debt and need to make a considerable profit over the next 3-5 years just to break even. The evil person in me who had to suffer listening to some of the stuffed shirts say some of the dumbest things I've ever heard* made me seriously hope the damned place fails. However, it occurs to me that as I've grown pragmatic with time and poverty, I can't fathom opening a business that won't at least break even, if not turn a profit. Yet many people do, especially restaurants and boutique shops, all because it's their "passion" or some such. I suspect the best route is to combine passion and profit, but I do think it'd be insane to suggest that profit isn't a necessary aspect of business.
* Dumbest thing said by a corporate stuffed shirt in my hearing today: the exec or marketing *** or whatever she was made a big deal over the course of 20 solid minutes that customers would need a sign to know to talk to the host who is positioned immediately in front of the door. As someone who has worked in the restaurant industry... who the *** seats themselves at a sit-down restaurant? Other than drunks in a 24-hour diner around 4 AM.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-02-19 16:02:20
Abe Lincoln once said "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." but I bet he wishes he would of said something when he thought he saw the curtains moving behind him in the theater...
So... Come on in the water is fine! Wasn't that Mark Twain? It sounds more like Mark Twain.
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2014-02-19 16:14:14
Ragnarok.Yatenkou said: »Ragnarok.Yatenkou said: »And this is why I don't like to talk about politics, if I say anything, I'll just be told (In a polite-ish way) that I'm stupid ._.
you smell bad and your mom dresses you funny! Least he didn't get fired.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-02-19 17:21:38
Laughing at the people who have zero idea how management works.
Being "bossy" and / or a bully is how bad managers act because they don't know how to motivate people otherwise and thus resort to heavy handed tactics.
In actuality, junior and middle management is about receiving a task or set of tasks from senior management, breaking those tasks into smaller supporting tasks then farming them out to your minions and reporting the results back to higher up, all the while being on the lookout for ways to make those tasks more efficient while still being in compliance with company policy's. Each team member has their own set of skills & capabilities and team leaders need to know them in order to farm out tasks appropriately. This is where interpersonal skills come into play, not "talking" bullsh!t but actually knowing how to recognize valuable skill sets and motivate your minions to trust in your leadership skills.
This is where skilled / semi-skilled and unskilled labor comes into play. Someone with skill sets and experience that are easy to find and easy to replace isn't going to ever make much money, they are simply not valuable. Someone with more developed skill sets and experience can seek out more demanding positions and expect a higher level of compensation. Someone with a highly developed skill set that's in demand and experience to back it up can practically write their own check. They key to understanding all of this is that skill sets are not random. You don't find yourself walking down the street, suddenly tripping on your own d*ck and land in a pile of success. You have to build those skill sets, meaning people need to put effort, focus and dedication into practicing those skill sets until they are a marketable commodity. That in turn means devoting a lot of personal, non-work time into them, which is something that vast majority of people don't do. If someone believes success is random, or successful people are "lucky", then they are lazy and have never put hard time into developing their own skill sets.
And before the usual round of harpies chime in, I'm the guy who interviews people to determine if their skill sets are valuable to the company and whether they are a cert monkey or not. I know lots of successful people, and not a single of them was "lucky", they all worked their ***'s off for it.
Not going to go into most of this as some of it's accurate, some is anecdotal crap, but the part I will really comment on is the part in bold:
I know some cert monkey's, honestly the only people I've ever met who could watch CBT nuggets and not fall asleep and start drooling on themselves. I personally have my hobby as a career right now, and I'm trying to turn what I went to school for into a money maker, but need more time with it. I'll probably stick with what I'm doing for the long term, as it's rather steady money, but I realized for the area I'm in I'll need to increase my skillset to maintain a job, the area is horrible for it. But I've never worked my *** off for it, that's for sure. I have talent in it, and I'm efficient, but that's about it. For higher level positions you will need to know your ***and have some sort of practical experience. That means knowledge gained from actually working on something, either in an enterprise or in a private home lab (really cheap these days) not from a course of a book. What's correct by the book / test isn't correct in actual practice as the books / tests assume near perfect scenarios that favor the vender that's providing the cert. MS stuff assumes your running 100% MS, Oracle assumes 100% Oracle, Cisco assumes 100% Cisco, same with VMWare and EMC. In practice environments will contain a mixture of several vendor's equipment and it's the system engineers job to make it all work together. Also nothing can replace work done on your own at the house during spare time. The most important question you'll get asked is what projects you work on, often it'll be phrased like an open question about your hobbies but is really seeing if you spend private time keeping up with current technology. You can't stumble into success, doesn't happen. Someone could give you $100,000,000 USD right now and you'd completely waste the opportunity as you have zero idea what to do with it. That discredits the whole "silver spoon is requirement for success" bullsh!t that gets passed around liberal circles. A rich fool is soon a poor fool. Giving an idiot lots of money will only have them waste it, the more the money the longer it'll take them to waste it, but waste it they will. Wealthy people are wealthy because they, or their family patriarch / ancestor, were smart and accumulated wealth over the course of a lifetime, sometimes several, through careful investments and business's. They took calculated risks and didn't waste their time bemoaning how the cruel world was holding them down. They educated themselves in the ways of power and influence and sought to ensure their family's future instead of crying that someone else has more resources then them and that's why they shouldn't even try.
You're going to need to prove some sort of evidence for this ludicrous claim, as just your assertion that "you can't stumble into success" isn't true. Just some of the complete morons I've met in management is evidence enough of that.
Siren.Mosin
By Siren.Mosin 2014-02-19 17:44:26
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-02-19 17:56:23
that actually is rather funny, and sad.
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-02-19 17:57:09
Laughing at the people who have zero idea how management works.
Being "bossy" and / or a bully is how bad managers act because they don't know how to motivate people otherwise and thus resort to heavy handed tactics.
In actuality, junior and middle management is about receiving a task or set of tasks from senior management, breaking those tasks into smaller supporting tasks then farming them out to your minions and reporting the results back to higher up, all the while being on the lookout for ways to make those tasks more efficient while still being in compliance with company policy's. Each team member has their own set of skills & capabilities and team leaders need to know them in order to farm out tasks appropriately. This is where interpersonal skills come into play, not "talking" bullsh!t but actually knowing how to recognize valuable skill sets and motivate your minions to trust in your leadership skills.
This is where skilled / semi-skilled and unskilled labor comes into play. Someone with skill sets and experience that are easy to find and easy to replace isn't going to ever make much money, they are simply not valuable. Someone with more developed skill sets and experience can seek out more demanding positions and expect a higher level of compensation. Someone with a highly developed skill set that's in demand and experience to back it up can practically write their own check. They key to understanding all of this is that skill sets are not random. You don't find yourself walking down the street, suddenly tripping on your own d*ck and land in a pile of success. You have to build those skill sets, meaning people need to put effort, focus and dedication into practicing those skill sets until they are a marketable commodity. That in turn means devoting a lot of personal, non-work time into them, which is something that vast majority of people don't do. If someone believes success is random, or successful people are "lucky", then they are lazy and have never put hard time into developing their own skill sets.
And before the usual round of harpies chime in, I'm the guy who interviews people to determine if their skill sets are valuable to the company and whether they are a cert monkey or not. I know lots of successful people, and not a single of them was "lucky", they all worked their ***'s off for it.
Not going to go into most of this as some of it's accurate, some is anecdotal crap, but the part I will really comment on is the part in bold:
I know some cert monkey's, honestly the only people I've ever met who could watch CBT nuggets and not fall asleep and start drooling on themselves. I personally have my hobby as a career right now, and I'm trying to turn what I went to school for into a money maker, but need more time with it. I'll probably stick with what I'm doing for the long term, as it's rather steady money, but I realized for the area I'm in I'll need to increase my skillset to maintain a job, the area is horrible for it. But I've never worked my *** off for it, that's for sure. I have talent in it, and I'm efficient, but that's about it. For higher level positions you will need to know your ***and have some sort of practical experience. That means knowledge gained from actually working on something, either in an enterprise or in a private home lab (really cheap these days) not from a course of a book. What's correct by the book / test isn't correct in actual practice as the books / tests assume near perfect scenarios that favor the vender that's providing the cert. MS stuff assumes your running 100% MS, Oracle assumes 100% Oracle, Cisco assumes 100% Cisco, same with VMWare and EMC. In practice environments will contain a mixture of several vendor's equipment and it's the system engineers job to make it all work together. Also nothing can replace work done on your own at the house during spare time. The most important question you'll get asked is what projects you work on, often it'll be phrased like an open question about your hobbies but is really seeing if you spend private time keeping up with current technology. You can't stumble into success, doesn't happen. Someone could give you $100,000,000 USD right now and you'd completely waste the opportunity as you have zero idea what to do with it. That discredits the whole "silver spoon is requirement for success" bullsh!t that gets passed around liberal circles. A rich fool is soon a poor fool. Giving an idiot lots of money will only have them waste it, the more the money the longer it'll take them to waste it, but waste it they will. Wealthy people are wealthy because they, or their family patriarch / ancestor, were smart and accumulated wealth over the course of a lifetime, sometimes several, through careful investments and business's. They took calculated risks and didn't waste their time bemoaning how the cruel world was holding them down. They educated themselves in the ways of power and influence and sought to ensure their family's future instead of crying that someone else has more resources then them and that's why they shouldn't even try.
You're going to need to prove some sort of evidence for this ludicrous claim, as just your assertion that "you can't stumble into success" isn't true. Just some of the complete morons I've met in management is evidence enough of that.
First you need to explain how you can stumble into success since it is quite impossible. Otherwise you just sound bitter that others are successful and you are not.
Now this is when your going to try to use a single act of a single person that resulted in that person being successful (lottery / hired for job they weren't qualified for / ect.). Which to someone who had never done a damn thing would be reasonable. Unfortunately in the real world you can't be successful just once, it needs to be a repeatable situation. You aren't just successful today, or next week, but over the course of time. A result that can be consciously repeated is a skill set not blind luck. As for the incoming "but opportunities!!!" argument, you create opportunities, you don't it around waiting for them to fall on your head.
Probably the single hardest concept for someone like you to understand is that opportunities don't magically happen to people. Instead those people build networks around themselves that include people that bring those opportunities to them. There are opportunities happening every day but if you don't have the required skill sets and experience then you'll never see them. You'll sit there in your middle class home staring at the TV wondering why you can't be rich and successful like all those "idiots" you see while being too lazy to do something about it.
By Jetackuu 2014-02-19 18:01:38
No, it's something you don't understand: it doesn't work that way for everyone.
I don't need to explain ***as I'm not the one making a ridiculous claim, you are.
That's your personal view on life, and that works for you, but it doesn't work that way for everyone.
But go ahead, and keep personally attacking me, when I'm not even talking about myself, or really disgruntled for myself, but for others.
Grow up and realize the world doesn't revolve around you.
[+]
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/371175/federal-minimum-wage-too-high-long-term-unemployed-reihan-salam
Wealthy suggest a training wage under minimum wage to "stimulate" hiring and training of long term unemployed...
The real issue on bottom line profits are that consumer spending is flat-lined. This leads to business growing profits on the backs of employees with lower wages, less or no benefits, and only offering part time work. If a business is suffering from a lack of business caused by a lack of consumer spending, lowering the wage to $4 (training wage) an hour won't create any more jobs because business still isn't experience any increase in consumer spending. Where is the money coming from to hire new workers ? Instead business would just exploit this, replacing good paying existing jobs with lower paying jobs to streamline their profit margin. On the flip side, if the basic cost of living is $14 an hour for a single person working a full-time job as it is in most states, raising the minimum wage to anything less than this basic cost of living will also result in only negative consequences, ie. jobs cuts, reducing of hours, higher consumer prices, because still there is no increase in consumer spending for business to afford that. It is only after wage is higher than the basic cost of living that there would be an increase in business through consumer spending which could offset such a raise in wage. To be clear .... if it costs $14 an hour working a full-time job just for the basics in cost of living, they can raise the wage to $13 an hour and the only business that will benefit from that wage increase are landlords, banks, utility companies, transportation, and the tax man. The rest of the businesses out there are SOL because consumers still won't have one penny to spend stimulating the economy. This issue at hand is not an issue of class inequality, ie. rich vs. poor, it is an issue of inequality in wage vs. cost of living. Minimum wage is as counter-productive as the cost of living and they have no problem with the cost of living rising every year. They have allowed this problem to occur and have let it get out of hand. You can't fix this with education so everyone has a college degree because the payoff on that after a person pays off the debt of that education and is actually contributing to economy growth won't have results for decades. You also can't fix this problem with subsidies and bailouts, the ONLY solution is for wage to be higher than the cost of living so the result is massive consumer spending and real economic growth.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2013USpn_13ps2n_400010
Reason for using "~" is these figures (%) change quarterly and this is for general ideal.
The US government spends (Not including Medical, since my personal belief is everyone should have medical care) ~2.6% of the ~$16 Trillion (2.1% GDP impoverish family medical welfare, to make a point) ~416 Billion/yr (2.6%) & 336 Billion/yr. (2.1%). Also which is not listed under welfare spending but rather "Agriculture" spending are the food stamp programs which amount to ~80 billion/yr. totaling ~832 Billion/yr.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/federal-food-stamp-program-spent-record-804b-fy-2012
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm
The poverty guidelines in the US. are roughly $12k/yr. Single +4k/yr. per additional household member. This is the equivalent to having a part time job(32 hours a week) with no benefits at minimum wage. Consider ~15% of the US lives in poverty, with a population of 314 Million, nearly 47 million people live in poverty which in turn creates the need and dependency of social welfare. 22% of these citizens are children who have no recourse for their situation. Leaving ~36.5 million working age Americans in the pits - dependency.The government spends nearly $17-18k/yr. per individual person in poverty. This does not include tax subsidies for programs like EIC which pays out about 1.2 Billion a year to low income families with dependent children. This is small dent in the big picture. Link for reading.
http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/a-renewed-push-for-earned-income-tax-credit-in-states-85899539729
Getting to the point, if we where to take the over 22k/yr. spent in welfare services and divert them into a living wage subsidy supporting a higher base minimum wage of nearly 2x ($14.5) the current minimum wage for persons who are working age (18+) [maybe keep lower minimum wage($7.25) for ages 15-17 who are restricted to part time and often live as a dependent]. we would in turn begin to nullify the need for such large social welfare. as this wage would create independent earning as well as stimulate economic growth via increased purchasing power.
Why should this be a government subsidy? Look, the government is already paying this money out. We know we can not trust corporate America to care for the well being of their country and those who work for them. A subsidy would both benefit employees and lesson the bottom-line of the employer.
I truly feel the original intent of social welfare has long been lost to the stepping stone it was meant to be. It has become a crutch for generational poverty and a means to create social apathy and dependency in the impoverished and working class of America.
If we can start to take the right steps now on matters like this as well as clean up some other issues in our country and government we may be able to set forth a bright and lucrative future for our children.
|
|
