On Friday, June 15, 2012 10:12:32 AM UTC-4, JustWait wrote:
On 6/15/2012 9:40 AM, wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2012 8:46:37 AM UTC-4, X ` Man wrote:
On 6/15/12 8:22 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message ...

On 6/15/12 6:21 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"jps" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:49:35 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

...income inequality among nations and the society havoc caused by
massive inequality.

TED is an interesting presentation of talks on a number of subjects by
recognized experts in many fields.


http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

For those who can actually think, it's an eye opener.


Harry, look for the one with Nick Hanauer. A venture capitalist "job
creator" admitting the truth about hiring and the disparity between
rich and poor.

Mobility is near dead in the US. Dozens of countries offer more
mobility to those willing to work hard and risk.

----------------------------------------------------------

Risk what? Most people who ultimately achieve some level of achievement
or what we used to call
"success" don't view working hard at it as a "risk". They view it as an
opportunity.

Our culture has become overly influenced by the "instant gratification"
mentality. "If I exist, I deserve" type
of thinking. I have seen it exhibited often by newly hatched graduates.
The ink isn't even dry on their
sheepskin and they can't understand why employers aren't beating their
door down with offers of high
paying jobs or positions.

Ya hafta pay your dues in life and you only fail when you give up trying.

Eisboch


The most important thing a new grad can do these days is get a job, any
decent job, keep updating the resume, network like crazy, and jump to
better jobs as they come along. There's little reason these days to be
any more "loyal" to a "for=profit" corporation than it will be to an
employee. *Never* trust a "for-profit" employer, not these days, not
since the death of the social compact in the Reagan Administration.

----------------------------------------------------------

I don't disagree with that. I think it's the result of a double-edged
sword however,
with both employees and employers contributing to the demise of mutual
loyalty.

I also think there are other influences as well. Job functions and skill
requirements used to be much more static over a career than they are now.
Technology has accelerated obsoleteness. An ambitious employee in a
go-nowhere
job is alert to new job opportunities elsewhere, either for increased
income or
new challenges. Employers with moving targets in terms of rapidly
changing markets for products or services can't carry those who aren't
willing to learn
new skills or accept changes in their routine.

The secret to job security for an employee is to make themselves
valuable to the employer.
It's just the way it works. A for-profit corporation is just that. It's
not a social security
organization.

Eisboch




I know of and have read of too many instances where really hard-working
people who were immensely valuable to their employers were dumped for
all sorts of reasons, and virtually none of them were related to their
job performance.

I know of and have read of too many instances where lazy, unproductive assholes were protected by the union and kept their fat, cushy union jobs even though they were lazy, unproductive assholes with no values to the company and deserved to be dumped.

Oh hell yeah, the teamsters were bad with that... Guys that sat in the
bathroom getting drunk all night were protected, another guy who ate a
grape lost his job...

I know someone that worked at the Lordstown, Ohio GM plant back in the '70s. She intentionally shut down the assembly line, and the union protected her job. She told me many stories about how bad it was there, the UAW was screwed up.

In article , says...

On 6/15/2012 9:40 AM, wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2012 8:46:37 AM UTC-4, X ` Man wrote:
On 6/15/12 8:22 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message ...

On 6/15/12 6:21 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"jps" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:49:35 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

...income inequality among nations and the society havoc caused by
massive inequality.

TED is an interesting presentation of talks on a number of subjects by
recognized experts in many fields.


http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

For those who can actually think, it's an eye opener.


Harry, look for the one with Nick Hanauer. A venture capitalist "job
creator" admitting the truth about hiring and the disparity between
rich and poor.

Mobility is near dead in the US. Dozens of countries offer more
mobility to those willing to work hard and risk.

----------------------------------------------------------

Risk what? Most people who ultimately achieve some level of achievement
or what we used to call
"success" don't view working hard at it as a "risk". They view it as an
opportunity.

Our culture has become overly influenced by the "instant gratification"
mentality. "If I exist, I deserve" type
of thinking. I have seen it exhibited often by newly hatched graduates.
The ink isn't even dry on their
sheepskin and they can't understand why employers aren't beating their
door down with offers of high
paying jobs or positions.

Ya hafta pay your dues in life and you only fail when you give up trying.

Eisboch


The most important thing a new grad can do these days is get a job, any
decent job, keep updating the resume, network like crazy, and jump to
better jobs as they come along. There's little reason these days to be
any more "loyal" to a "for=profit" corporation than it will be to an
employee. *Never* trust a "for-profit" employer, not these days, not
since the death of the social compact in the Reagan Administration.

----------------------------------------------------------

I don't disagree with that. I think it's the result of a double-edged
sword however,
with both employees and employers contributing to the demise of mutual
loyalty.

I also think there are other influences as well. Job functions and skill
requirements used to be much more static over a career than they are now.
Technology has accelerated obsoleteness. An ambitious employee in a
go-nowhere
job is alert to new job opportunities elsewhere, either for increased
income or
new challenges. Employers with moving targets in terms of rapidly
changing markets for products or services can't carry those who aren't
willing to learn
new skills or accept changes in their routine.

The secret to job security for an employee is to make themselves
valuable to the employer.
It's just the way it works. A for-profit corporation is just that. It's
not a social security
organization.

Eisboch




I know of and have read of too many instances where really hard-working
people who were immensely valuable to their employers were dumped for
all sorts of reasons, and virtually none of them were related to their
job performance.

I know of and have read of too many instances where lazy, unproductive assholes were protected by the union and kept their fat, cushy union jobs even though they were lazy, unproductive assholes with no values to the company and deserved to be dumped.

Oh hell yeah, the teamsters were bad with that... Guys that sat in the
bathroom getting drunk all night were protected, another guy who ate a
grape lost his job...

Yeah, sure....

On 6/15/12 10:37 AM, wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2012 10:12:32 AM UTC-4, JustWait wrote:
On 6/15/2012 9:40 AM, wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2012 8:46:37 AM UTC-4, X ` Man wrote:
On 6/15/12 8:22 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message ...

On 6/15/12 6:21 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"jps" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:49:35 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

...income inequality among nations and the society havoc caused by
massive inequality.

TED is an interesting presentation of talks on a number of subjects by
recognized experts in many fields.


http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

For those who can actually think, it's an eye opener.


Harry, look for the one with Nick Hanauer. A venture capitalist "job
creator" admitting the truth about hiring and the disparity between
rich and poor.

Mobility is near dead in the US. Dozens of countries offer more
mobility to those willing to work hard and risk.

----------------------------------------------------------

Risk what? Most people who ultimately achieve some level of achievement
or what we used to call
"success" don't view working hard at it as a "risk". They view it as an
opportunity.

Our culture has become overly influenced by the "instant gratification"
mentality. "If I exist, I deserve" type
of thinking. I have seen it exhibited often by newly hatched graduates.
The ink isn't even dry on their
sheepskin and they can't understand why employers aren't beating their
door down with offers of high
paying jobs or positions.

Ya hafta pay your dues in life and you only fail when you give up trying.

Eisboch


The most important thing a new grad can do these days is get a job, any
decent job, keep updating the resume, network like crazy, and jump to
better jobs as they come along. There's little reason these days to be
any more "loyal" to a "for=profit" corporation than it will be to an
employee. *Never* trust a "for-profit" employer, not these days, not
since the death of the social compact in the Reagan Administration.

----------------------------------------------------------

I don't disagree with that. I think it's the result of a double-edged
sword however,
with both employees and employers contributing to the demise of mutual
loyalty.

I also think there are other influences as well. Job functions and skill
requirements used to be much more static over a career than they are now.
Technology has accelerated obsoleteness. An ambitious employee in a
go-nowhere
job is alert to new job opportunities elsewhere, either for increased
income or
new challenges. Employers with moving targets in terms of rapidly
changing markets for products or services can't carry those who aren't
willing to learn
new skills or accept changes in their routine.

The secret to job security for an employee is to make themselves
valuable to the employer.
It's just the way it works. A for-profit corporation is just that. It's
not a social security
organization.

Eisboch




I know of and have read of too many instances where really hard-working
people who were immensely valuable to their employers were dumped for
all sorts of reasons, and virtually none of them were related to their
job performance.

I know of and have read of too many instances where lazy, unproductive assholes were protected by the union and kept their fat, cushy union jobs even though they were lazy, unproductive assholes with no values to the company and deserved to be dumped.

Oh hell yeah, the teamsters were bad with that... Guys that sat in the
bathroom getting drunk all night were protected, another guy who ate a
grape lost his job...

I know someone that worked at the Lordstown, Ohio GM plant back in the '70s. She intentionally shut down the assembly line, and the union protected her job. She told me many stories about how bad it was there, the UAW was screwed up.


snerk

I know someone who shut down the automated cart line at a USPS bulk mail
facility in order to save the life of a worker who had collapsed. The
autocart emergency shut off bumpers were not working properly, so the
employee jumped up and pulled the safety shut off rope. She received
commendations from the union and the USPS.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:40:18 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

*Never* trust a "for-profit" employer, not these days, not
since the death of the social compact in the Reagan Administration.

===

So in your fantasy dream world all employers would be non-profit?

That of course begs the question of who would provide the initial
funding for such an organization, and how would future expansion be
funded, not to mention research and development?

The answer is that no one would since there is no motivation.

Your entirely predictable answer will be to tax the rich. How long
would there be "rich" to tax in such a scenario? Investment capital
would vanish from this country in the blink of an eye.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:40:18 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

*Never* trust a "for-profit" employer, not these days, not
since the death of the social compact in the Reagan Administration.

===

So in your fantasy dream world all employers would be non-profit?

That of course begs the question of who would provide the initial
funding for such an organization, and how would future expansion be
funded, not to mention research and development?

The answer is that no one would since there is no motivation.

Your entirely predictable answer will be to tax the rich. How long
would there be "rich" to tax in such a scenario? Investment capital
would vanish from this country in the blink of an eye.

Man, he's a strange dude! I guess he doesn't understand how the U.S. AND
World economy works!

On 6/15/12 11:25 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:40:18 -0400, X `
wrote:

*Never* trust a "for-profit" employer, not these days, not
since the death of the social compact in the Reagan Administration.

===

So in your fantasy dream world all employers would be non-profit?


No, whine, I don't believe all employers should be non-profit.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:21:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"jps" wrote in message
.. .

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:49:35 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

...income inequality among nations and the society havoc caused by
massive inequality.

TED is an interesting presentation of talks on a number of subjects
by
recognized experts in many fields.


http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

For those who can actually think, it's an eye opener.


Harry, look for the one with Nick Hanauer. A venture capitalist "job
creator" admitting the truth about hiring and the disparity between
rich and poor.

Mobility is near dead in the US. Dozens of countries offer more
mobility to those willing to work hard and risk.

----------------------------------------------------------

Risk what? Most people who ultimately achieve some level of
achievement or what we used to call
"success" don't view working hard at it as a "risk". They view it
as an opportunity.

Our culture has become overly influenced by the "instant
gratification" mentality. "If I exist, I deserve" type
of thinking. I have seen it exhibited often by newly hatched
graduates. The ink isn't even dry on their
sheepskin and they can't understand why employers aren't beating their
door down with offers of high
paying jobs or positions.

Ya hafta pay your dues in life and you only fail when you give up
trying.

Eisboch

Methinks you've missed the point, Richard. Did you look up the talk
that I referenced?

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:40:40 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 6/15/12 11:25 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:40:18 -0400, X `
wrote:

*Never* trust a "for-profit" employer, not these days, not
since the death of the social compact in the Reagan Administration.

===

So in your fantasy dream world all employers would be non-profit?


No, whine, I don't believe all employers should be non-profit.

===

Your juvenile name calling is just so cute, and a sure sign that
you've lost the discussion.

On 6/15/12 12:58 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:40:40 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 6/15/12 11:25 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:40:18 -0400, X `
wrote:

*Never* trust a "for-profit" employer, not these days, not
since the death of the social compact in the Reagan Administration.

===

So in your fantasy dream world all employers would be non-profit?


No, whine, I don't believe all employers should be non-profit.

===

Your juvenile name calling is just so cute, and a sure sign that
you've lost the discussion.


The reality is, whine, I never said or even implied "all employers
should be non-profit." That's something you made up. I said "never
trust" a "for-profit" employer. I know language is not your forte, but
did assume you could read and understand relatively simple sentences.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:40:40 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 6/15/12 11:25 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:40:18 -0400, X `
wrote:

*Never* trust a "for-profit" employer, not these days, not
since the death of the social compact in the Reagan Administration.

===

So in your fantasy dream world all employers would be non-profit?


No, whine, I don't believe all employers should be non-profit.

===

Your juvenile name calling is just so cute, and a sure sign that
you've lost the discussion.

Yep!