- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Healthcare Rationing has begun
Healthcare Rationing has begunFollow
Quitting your job is not as easy as all that. Also the people who are most likely to be taken advantage of are the ones who can least afford to quit their job, which is really why they're being taken advantage of in the first place.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
varusword75 wrote:
Xarus,
This is such a b*llsh*t myth it's sickening. Any person who doesn't like their job CAN quit, get a second or third job until they can quit. This lie about it not being easy to find a job is such a copout. Nothing in life that's worth anything comes easy.
Quote:
Quitting your job is not as easy as all that. Also the people who are most likely to be taken advantage of are the ones who can least afford to quit their job,
This is such a b*llsh*t myth it's sickening. Any person who doesn't like their job CAN quit, get a second or third job until they can quit. This lie about it not being easy to find a job is such a copout. Nothing in life that's worth anything comes easy.
I thought we were at 243% unemployment or something crazy like that?
'Cause everyone is lazy!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
If there are 20 companies and the one I work for is treating me poorly I can quit and try and get on with another company. If there's only one govn and it's doing a sh*tty job where can I go?
Canada?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Finding a job is easy - if you like asking "Would you like fries with that?"
Oh, except not where I live. Even the restaurants have stopped hiring, it seems.
The only jobs available in local paper today all ask for
- 3-5 years experience in the field OR
- Obscure technical certifications OR
- $500 cash up front (read: not a real job.)
Oh, except not where I live. Even the restaurants have stopped hiring, it seems.
The only jobs available in local paper today all ask for
- 3-5 years experience in the field OR
- Obscure technical certifications OR
- $500 cash up front (read: not a real job.)
According to the cholorplast signs on the exit ramps on my way to work, I can earn $12,000 a month with a recession proof job from home!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Nadenu wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Xarus,
This is such a b*llsh*t myth it's sickening. Any person who doesn't like their job CAN quit, get a second or third job until they can quit. This lie about it not being easy to find a job is such a copout. Nothing in life that's worth anything comes easy.
Quote:
Quitting your job is not as easy as all that. Also the people who are most likely to be taken advantage of are the ones who can least afford to quit their job,
This is such a b*llsh*t myth it's sickening. Any person who doesn't like their job CAN quit, get a second or third job until they can quit. This lie about it not being easy to find a job is such a copout. Nothing in life that's worth anything comes easy.
I thought we were at 243% unemployment or something crazy like that?
Debalic wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
If there are 20 companies and the one I work for is treating me poorly I can quit and try and get on with another company. If there's only one govn and it's doing a sh*tty job where can I go?
Canada?
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quitting your job is not as easy as all that. Also the people who are most likely to be taken advantage of are the ones who can least afford to quit their job, which is really why they're being taken advantage of in the first place.
The power of the worker is based on his value to his employer (or any employer) being greater than what he's costing his employer *and* being on parity (at least!) with the value a replacement employee might bring. If you can be easily replaced by someone off the street who can do as good a job as you, then your value is low and your bargaining power is low. We can either accept that and use it as an incentive for employees to increase their relative value *or* we can fight against it and create special protections for low value employees so that they are harder to replace and more expensive to maintain.
The trap of labor movements is that they support the latter methods and sell it to the workers as a way to gain them power in the workplace. But they don't actually gain any power. They just shift the power to another boss (the labor leader). The worker actually becomes less able to move jobs and thus becomes powerless in the job market. That's how people get into the condition you describe btw. In a free labor market, no employee should find himself in a position where he can't reasonably be able to change employment and retain a similar pay rate. If your employer values you for your skills, then his competitor will as well. If not, then it's likely that you're actually overpaid.
Edited, Oct 14th 2010 1:20pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
In a free labor market, no employee should find himself in a position where he can't reasonably be able to change employment and retain a similar pay rate. If your employer values you for your skills, then his competitor will as well. If not, then it's likely that you're actually overpaid.
Edited, Oct 14th 2010 1:20pm by gbaji
Edited, Oct 14th 2010 1:20pm by gbaji
Except, you know, when no one is hiring...
varusword75 wrote:
Never said, or implied, that.
Not that I'm interested in pursuing this matter beyond this one post, but you do so constantly.
varusword75 wrote:
Aside from work safety and child labor laws yes.
There, you just did it again in the very post you denied having ever done it.
Allegory,
This is what you said I said. I've never said or implied anything close to this.
Obviously there are variety of ways companies can increase their profits.
Quote:
the only method for a company to grab market share or increase their profit is to provide consumers with a better product
This is what you said I said. I've never said or implied anything close to this.
Obviously there are variety of ways companies can increase their profits.
Quote:
In a free labor market, no employee should find himself in a position where he can't reasonably be able to change employment and retain a similar pay rate.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
In a free labor market, no employee should find himself in a position where he can't reasonably be able to change employment and retain a similar pay rate. If your employer values you for your skills, then his competitor will as well. If not, then it's likely that you're actually overpaid.
Edited, Oct 14th 2010 1:20pm by gbaji
Edited, Oct 14th 2010 1:20pm by gbaji
Except, you know, when no one is hiring...
And there's a better alternative when no one is hiring? If no one is hiring, it's because the value to the employer gained from hiring someone is less than the cost of hiring that person. That's going to be true no matter what other sorts of government interventions you've got going on. You can't magically make that employee more valuable to the employer.
But, if the system employs a more free labor market model, more employees *will* be more valuable because they'll have to in order to compete in that market. Ergo, they are better off. Or at least more in charge of their own destiny.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Professor shintasama wrote:
Quote:
In a free labor market, no employee should find himself in a position where he can't reasonably be able to change employment and retain a similar pay rate.
Not as much as you might think. The specialized skills you are talking about normally derive from process specific aspects of a job at a specific company. Each company will have such things, but it's part of the learning curve when changing jobs. And it's not really any different at different levels. A skilled bartender will have to learn the layout of a new bar at a new job, but that doesn't change his value that much. It might take him some time to learn where the limes and stirstraws are, but once he's past that he's good.
It's not much different the higher you go. Skillsets and knowledge in a field do tend to transfer over.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quitting your job is not as easy as all that. Also the people who are most likely to be taken advantage of are the ones who can least afford to quit their job, which is really why they're being taken advantage of in the first place.
The power of the worker is based on his value to his employer (or any employer) being greater than what he's costing his employer *and* being on parity (at least!) with the value a replacement employee might bring. If you can be easily replaced by someone off the street who can do as good a job as you, then your value is low and your bargaining power is low. We can either accept that and use it as an incentive for employees to increase their relative value *or* we can fight against it and create special protections for low value employees so that they are harder to replace and more expensive to maintain.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Quote:
A skilled bartender
I'm talking more along the lines of "personal submersible rotor buoyancy control engineer". If you've spent 10 years working on very specific problems revolving around specific machinery for one field of nautical device and said machinery is replaced by some new innovation, you're not going to be able to go out and find something else where that developed skill set is in high demand. You can always fall back to basic engineering and try to move into another area of expertise using the pre-career knowledge you got in college, but you're actually at a disadvantage against younger applicants who don't have the same pay expectations, are more flexible, have more up to date general skills, and are expected to be with the company longer.
Edited, Oct 14th 2010 6:07pm by shintasama
Sir Xsarus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quitting your job is not as easy as all that. Also the people who are most likely to be taken advantage of are the ones who can least afford to quit their job, which is really why they're being taken advantage of in the first place.
The power of the worker is based on his value to his employer (or any employer) being greater than what he's costing his employer *and* being on parity (at least!) with the value a replacement employee might bring. If you can be easily replaced by someone off the street who can do as good a job as you, then your value is low and your bargaining power is low. We can either accept that and use it as an incentive for employees to increase their relative value *or* we can fight against it and create special protections for low value employees so that they are harder to replace and more expensive to maintain.
Certainly, there's a range in terms of the whole set of rules, regulations, laws, etc regarding employment. However, within that set we can broadly state that each act either operates on a principle of a free labor market, or a controlled labor market. The end result will always be a mix, of course.
An analogy I like in terms of employment (which is relevant to what's going on right now in fact), is that it's like a wave. A wave isn't a high spot of water moving along, but a series of actions in which the water level rises up at the front of the wave and falls at the back. This can be seen as how employment works. The action which raises the water at the front of the wave is new jobs being created/taken, and the action which drops the water level at the back is jobs being lost/left. The total average level of the water (volume above zero I suppose), is "employment".
Within this analogy, we can see two broad approaches. One seeks to maintain high employment by preventing water levels from falling off the back end of the wave, while the other seeks to do so by increasing the rate at which water levels rise at the front. The left tends to favor the former, while the right tends to favor the latter. I think the latter is better because new jobs are often required anyway. Old jobs will become obsolete over time just due to changing technology and market demands. Unless we want to stagnate ourselves, we can't just protect jobs, but must also focus on creating them. Otherwise, even without any adverse economic downturns, we're going to eventually lose jobs and employment rates will drop.
What we're seeing going on right now is that the Dems in power have chosen to spend vast amounts of money trying to keep the backside of the wave from falling (saving jobs). But the cost of this is a slower rate of new jobs being created. The net effect is that a lot of money is spent and we don't have more jobs than we did when we started (we actually have fewer today than when the stimulus bill was passed). We can speculate that perhaps it might not have been any different putting those resources into the front, but that would just be speculation. I happen to believe (duh!) that it's vastly easier and more efficient to create new jobs than to try to save old ones. This is because new jobs are usually "new" because they do something different, or better, or more efficiently in some way. Old jobs that are going away are usually being lost because they are *not* as good, or efficient, or productive. That's why they are the first to go. If they were productive (and that's not necessarily the fault of the worker at all), they wouldn't be lost.
Dunno. That's just how I look at it. YMMV.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Professor shintasama wrote:
Quote:
A skilled bartender
You take that back or Gbaji will hit you with his Tom Cruise dreams diary.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Professor shintasama wrote:
Quote:
A skilled bartender
You take that back or Gbaji will hit you with his Tom Cruise dreams diary.
Professor shintasama wrote:
Quote:
A skilled bartender
Yes. My point was that the need to adapt your skills to a new job isn't limited to highly specialized upper level positions.
Quote:
I'm talking more along the lines of "personal submersible rotor buoyancy control engineer". If you've spent 10 years working on very specific problems revolving around specific machinery for one field of nautical device and said machinery is replaced by some new innovation, you're not going to be able to go out and find something else where that developed skill set is in high demand.
The difference between doing that kind of work and a hundred other engineering jobs is similar to that of a bartender having to learn where the limes and stirsticks are in a new bar. Seriously. It's not like you can be an expert in that sort of job without having skills which spill over into a whole host of others. He'd have to understand pressure systems, weight distribution, stress tolerances of different materials, etc. All of which apply to tons of other mechanical engineering jobs.
Quote:
You can always fall back to basic engineering and try to move into another area of expertise using the pre-career knowledge you got in college, but you're actually at a disadvantage against younger applicants who don't have the same pay expectations, are more flexible, have more up to date general skills, and are expected to be with the company longer.
No, you're not. The fact that you have 10+ years experience in the field will land you a job at a higher salary than some kid just out of school. Trust me. The only cases where I've seen this not be true are very long term government/union work where the guys have been doing nothing but maintaining systems which were abandoned by the rest of the modern world 30 years ago and have never once bothered to update their skills.
Um... Which is a great argument for *not* expending efforts to protect jobs that are no longer doing things in a modern or cost effective manner. If the work site in question had upgraded 30 years earlier, the workers would have had to adjust their skill set and thus would be marketable going forward. When you intercede to protect people's jobs, you really only end out hurting them in the long run. It helps them today, but eliminates their ability to compete for wages on their own terms down the line.
Edited, Oct 14th 2010 3:34pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
The difference between doing that kind of work and a hundred other engineering jobs is similar to that of a bartender having to learn where the limes and stirsticks are in a new bar.
Professor shintasama wrote:
Quote:
The difference between doing that kind of work and a hundred other engineering jobs is similar to that of a bartender having to learn where the limes and stirsticks are in a new bar.
I suppose we could get into a "Yes it is! No it isn't!" fight, but that's a bit silly and unproductive.
I can only speak from direct experience (actually from information passed on from one of our principle engineers who gathered the statistics on this). By far the longest learning curve for new engineers starting work here is not adapting their engineering knowledge to the specific tasks they are being asked to perform, but rather learning the environment itself. How our data is managed, what tools we use for revision control, how our workflows work, what forms do I fill out to order equipment, where is the maintenance room, what's the policy on tool use, etc. This is all process stuff which will vary from workplace to workplace, but is pretty directly analogous to "What order do we keep the liquor on the shelf here?". It's the same kind of thing.
Maybe your experience is different. I'd love to hear about it though because I've *never* heard of specializations within an engineering field being such an obstacle to fitting into a new job. We have people shifting from one task to another only semi related one all the time, so it's just surprising to me that you'd think this is such a huge deal.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 289
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (289)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Healthcare Rationing has begun
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC