Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-13-2010, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Seattle
1,369 posts, read 3,302,601 times
Reputation: 1499

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
This is just gibberish, almost every management method puts stress on getting the right people in the right positions. These sorts of "intangibles" are things businesses think about all the time.
The problem is that everyone assumes "intangibles" are an advantage for them. Businesses absolutely think about them all the time...but if you ask people if "intangibles" are good for them, they will almost always say yes. Just like if you ask someone if they believe they are above average intelligence, something like 97% will say yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2010, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Seattle
1,369 posts, read 3,302,601 times
Reputation: 1499
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett View Post
The message from those firms is pretty clear: We don't really want to provide highly skilled support to you over the phone...

Does goggle even do support???
Yeah, but a lot of the customers who call the support lines frequently aren't even profitable customers, for the very reason that they are calling the support lines (cost per inquiry is really high and for many businesses a couple support inquiries will exceed the margin they get on that customer). Most big businesses will segment the really profitable, "premium" customers from the low level/normal people who are forced to call India, and give the premium types higher level, specialized support in the US. Most support inquiries are made by a very small percentage of customers, who quite frankly, a lot of these big businesses can afford to lose. Obviously this depends on the industry at hand but to a certain degree this logic applies to most industries, although the detailed numbers will depend on the specific business at hand.

That said, I agree with you, they are sending a message they don't really care to give you highly skilled support. But that said, it may not make business sense to do that. Economics can really be a sad field.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2010, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,522 posts, read 10,174,703 times
Reputation: 2572
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
This is just gibberish, almost every management method puts stress on getting the right people in the right positions. These sorts of "intangibles" are things businesses think about all the time.
Bull****, every job Ive ever gotten was mostly because I accepted a low ball offer for my skill set out of desperation, and I knew it.

The "right people" are usually always the "cheapest people", in almost every position that isnt a sales or management job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2010, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,460 posts, read 20,019,887 times
Reputation: 4365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
Bull****, every job Ive ever gotten was mostly because I accepted a low ball offer for my skill set out of desperation, and I knew it.
Have you ever thought that perhaps you are overvaluing your skill set?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
The "right people" are usually always the "cheapest people", in almost every position that isnt a sales or management job.
No they are not and corporations think about things in much greater depth than this. Picking the "cheapest people" in general is just not good management and is not advocated by any management method.

But corporations do have to weigh short term and long term issues against each other. For example, though it may hurt the long term viability a company may have to cut labor costs as a matter of necessity. There are also cases where the long term viability does not matter, the goal literally is to strip the company of as much as wealth as possible within a few years. This sort of thing is somewhat common when a private equity does a leveraged buy out of some company.

Anyhow, a company is not going to pay more for labor than what it needs to though. They are not charities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2010, 11:15 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,759 posts, read 40,861,775 times
Reputation: 62051
Quote:
Originally Posted by k374 View Post
Thinking of spending thousands in student loans for your degree, then you may want to avoid IT...unless you want to relocate to India

IT hiring in India outpaces U.S.

part that I found interesting:

But they may also be betting that when U.S. companies start building out new IT projects, they may turn to outsourcers rather than add or rehire permanent employees.
I called McAfee today and got both a salesman and a technical assistance female from India. I had excellent assistance, by the way. I was just surprised.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2010, 06:57 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,522 posts, read 10,174,703 times
Reputation: 2572
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Have you ever thought that perhaps you are overvaluing your skill set?
Nope. There is no way in hell either of my past two employers could find any body who would bring what I do to the table for what Im making. In fact, theyd probably have to hire two or three people, all making more then me, to do the job I do. There are several people in my office right now making 20k more then me at least, that come to ME for answers about things theyre getting paid more then me to do. In addition, I have top shelf skills in other areas that just get taken advantage of. For instance, there is not another accountant in my office that negotiates contracts, develops budgets, or fixes computers, I do all three of those in the same day, along with being a full charge accountant A/P through financial review. I am an accountant/IT/financial analyst/administrative assistant. You find someone who will, or even CAN do that and will work for 35k a year. There is not a person outside of the CFO of my company that has my accounting skills, and there is not an accountant in my office that could double as an IT guy, or handle the level of financial analysis that I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
No they are not and corporations think about things in much greater depth than this. Picking the "cheapest people" in general is just not good management and is not advocated by any management method.
Who said it was good management?


Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Anyhow, a company is not going to pay more for labor than what it needs to though. They are not charities.
And there it is.....they are not going to pay more for labor then it needs to. If they can find someone dirt cheap who will meet their minimum requirements or "need", they will hire them 9 times out of 10 over someone a little more qualified that demands more money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2010, 07:21 AM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,460 posts, read 20,019,887 times
Reputation: 4365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
Nope. There is no way in hell either of my past two employers could find any body who would bring what I do to the table for what Im making.
Why is that? They found you didn't they? Obviously there is a disconnect between what you think about your skills and what the market thinks about you. Why in the world would your employer pay others more to supposedly do less?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
Who said it was good management?
Large companies are interested in good management as they realize good management results in higher revenue and/or profit. Getting the right people in the right positions is important, keeping them there is likewise important. Of course some jobs are more commodity like than others.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
If they can find someone dirt cheap who will meet their minimum requirements or "need", they will hire them 9 times out of 10 over someone a little more qualified that demands more money.
Why in the world would a company pay more than it has to for labor? If a company can get someone that meets their requirements for $20/hour why would they pay $25/hour for someone that has more qualifications? That would be stupid. This is much different than seeking the cheapest labor for the sake of finding cheap labor, it is the costs in relation to what you are getting that matter.

If a company needs someone that is skilled in X and Y, they are not going to pay extra for someone that is skilled in X, Y and Z.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2010, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,522 posts, read 10,174,703 times
Reputation: 2572
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Why is that? They found you didn't they? Obviously there is a disconnect between what you think about your skills and what the market thinks about you.
They found me and hired me almost immediatley. Obviously I was either the most qualified candidate for the job, or I was one of very few or possibly the only who would work for what they were paying, and possessed their minimum skill requirements. Hell, I got this accounting job, as the sole accountant for a multi entity company with millions of dollars in revenue, with ONE year of real accounting experience. Who would do that? Either I talked such as huge game in the interview, or they were low balling and they knew it. Truthfully, it was probably a combination.

Under duress I accepted the low ball offer. Then again, thats the way it goes when you will be homeless if you dont get the job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Why in the world would your employer pay others more to supposedly do less?
If they didnt find me, thats what theyd have to do in order to get all the jobs they expect out of me. How many people are walking around with a finance degree, who have CPA level accounting skills, are computer repair and network certified, AND can still find time to negotiate thousands of dollars in contracts?

Sure, you might find a handful, but they damn sure arent working for what Im making.

Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Large companies are interested in good management as they realize good management results in higher revenue and/or profit. Getting the right people in the right positions is important, keeping them there is likewise important. Of course some jobs are more commodity like than others.
Good management I agree with. Yes, when considering management or sales positions, companies go the extra mile, and will spend the extra buck. I said as much earlier.

However, most jobs are not these. They are commodities. Nobody really cares who is sitting on the assembly line, washing the tables, serving food, cleaning the toilets, or pushing paper in most jobs. You simply just have to have a minimum skill set, and then they take the lowest wage guy out of that pool.


Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Why in the world would a company pay more than it has to for labor? If a company can get someone that meets their requirements for $20/hour why would they pay $25/hour for someone that has more qualifications?
They wouldnt, thats my EXACT argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
That would be stupid. This is much different than seeking the cheapest labor for the sake of finding cheap labor, it is the costs in relation to what you are getting that matter.

If a company needs someone that is skilled in X and Y, they are not going to pay extra for someone that is skilled in X, Y and Z.
However, do you agree that if they are taking advantage of Z, that they should pay them more for that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 05:39 AM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,460 posts, read 20,019,887 times
Reputation: 4365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
Under duress I accepted the low ball offer. Then again, thats the way it goes when you will be homeless if you dont get the job.
If your wage was truly well below your skill set than it would not be too difficult to find another employer that is willing to pay more.

The market determines what your skills are worth, not what you want to think they are worth.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
Yes, when considering management or sales positions, companies go the extra mile, and will spend the extra buck.
When I say "management" I'm not referring to people. Only a marketing led company would care more about sales than say product development. There are tons of product led companies in this country (like almost every technology company) that care most about their engineers and researchers.

Low skill staff on the other hand are easy to replace and the market for this sort of labor is very commodity like. Even a place that is willing to fork out a bit extra money to get better employees still has no trouble replacing someone if they happen to think they are worth more money. That is the nature of low skill work, always has been.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
They wouldnt, thats my EXACT argument.
That is not an argument, that is how business has always been done. Companies are not being evil for paying for what they need and nothing more.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
However, do you agree that if they are taking advantage of Z, that they should pay them more for that?
And why should they? What do they gain by doing so? If there person with Z is willing to work at the current wage...then why in the world would they pay extra? Do you pay extra when you go shopping if you think you got a good deal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,278 posts, read 2,306,297 times
Reputation: 929
The market DOES determine what you're worth (and that's not necessarily a bad thing). But, unfortunately, the market is a crapshoot right now. So, you should probably expect crap wages, bennies, etc., regardless of how unfair it may be to you and your qualifications. At this point, we can only rely on the hope that things turn around and wages begin to go up. That will happen if and when more jobs exist than qualified workers.

When labor supply > job supply, wages are likely to be low. In the mid-90s, during the Internet boom, we saw the contrary. Labor supply was in fact < job supply. So you could literally not know what an ISP or http was and work for Yahoo! making $60k/yr + bonuses and other perks as long as you could turn on a computer and type more than 30 wpm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top