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.
Sorry for the big grin, but this was my genuine reaction to your post Moose. Not only do we have people advocating health insurance rights, but we now have vacation rights. How about a-television-in-every-room rights? Or Lexus rights where everyone is entitled to drive a Lexus?
Seriously now, the benefits associated with a job is in the hands of the potential employee. If that person is marketable enough, then the employer will be willing to compensate him/her according to his/her potential value to the company. If the applicant doesn't like the benefits, one has at least two options, make oneself more marketable or apply at a different company. Of course, another option would be to accept the company's offer. Why do so many people put the responsibility of the individual's lifestyle onto the employer? If the employer is willing to offer these benefits, he/she will attract better employees. Remember, the job belongs to the employer/owner who created the job by, in most cases, working hard and investing resources to make the job available.
Most of the jobs you described as "menial" aren't taken by those "willing" to do them. They are usually taken by those who have no choice, usually either because they aren't marketable or they just settle for something that will provide them spending money. These jobs don't "enable" white collar jobs, they are a RESULT of white collar jobs and those achievers who invest time and money to create them. And, yes, its socialistic/fascist and anti-American to have the federal government mandate wages, time off, health insurance, and other benefits.
Again, materialism is not quality in life.
Yes, employers create jobs. They also can regulate your lifestyle; drug screen, background checks.
It seems that basically you think the average worker is a possession of the company, to be used as the boss decides...or it's "socialistic/fascist and anti-American". That's the way it is. When the worker is used up, he/she is merely thrown away and a replacement is quickly found. Just like any machine that requires new parts now and then. It sounds like your opinion is the American way in the 1930s, when companies hired goons (and police) to disperse and beat on protesting workers.
The number of TVs per room, or luxury cars in the garage do not indicate a quality of life. Materialism is not necessarily quality in life. It may be interesting to note the percentage of the cars on the road today that are being paid for by the month. The use of credit cards in the 70s is nothing like it is today. Judging by media commercials, a whole lot of people have many things, but are way over their heads in debt.
Capitalism is a good tool to use in life, but, unfortunately, it has been elevated to a scared religion.
Whoa, I was with your line of thinking until the last paragraph. Nobody makes folks buy expensive video game systems, cell phones, i-pods, HDTVs or upscale/large vehicles. Nobody makes you go into credit card debt. This is free will, and folks who do this make a value decision that this is worth more to them than alternatives, such as less income for more time off. It is a personal decision that is different for everybody, and those who value more time off can choose occupations providing that alternative (at some level I can appreciate the Henry David Thoreau life approach).
Whoa, I was with your line of thinking until the last paragraph. Nobody makes folks buy expensive video game systems, cell phones, i-pods, HDTVs or upscale/large vehicles. Nobody makes you go into credit card debt. This is free will, and folks who do this make a value decision that this is worth more to them than alternatives, such as less income for more time off. It is a personal decision that is different for everybody, and those who value more time off can choose occupations providing that alternative (at some level I can appreciate the Henry David Thoreau life approach).
Sorry, I should have elaborated. Being one who doesn't have any credit cards (that makes me weird, I guess) I don't have any problems with people who do and use them wisely. For those who are recklessly buying things (to keep up with he Joneses) and going deep into debt I have little sympathy. You're right, it is free will.
The number of TVs per room, or luxury cars in the garage do not indicate a quality of life. Materialism is not necessarily quality in life.
I was actually trying to show how people feel like they need more than they can afford and have a sense of entitlement that doesn't match their income.
I have fallen victim to buying more than I could afford and I'm paying the price for it currently as me and my wife move forward in our budget. I realized by doing a lot of calculations that by eliminating all interest based debt except a mortgage payment, we can effectively give ourselves a 20% pay raise by not paying interest, but rather earning it.
I just feel its hard to say the standard of living is lower when you see so many new cars on the road and houses in the 150K+ range being built everywhere you look. A lot of the people who truly are living a lower standard of living are doing so by paying tons of interest per month because they weren't patient enough to save up for something. Then they end up occasionally take payday loans at the highest legal rate possible to cover themselves from week to week. I gasp at how many payday loan shops are popping up on every corner. Its sad that there are so many people that get stuck in that rut.
Benefits are not in the hands of the employees. Some of us with professional jobs and multiple degrees are better positioned to be able to market and negotiate for ourselves. However, not everyone is in this situation. What does a Walmart employee (someone working in the store) do to make herself more marketable? How does a janitor make himself more marketable?
We can say, 'Go back to school and get a degree,' but not everyone is college material or has the resources (time and money) to do that. If they are not able to be marketable, does that mean they should be treated like slaves?
Also, I met someone who has a BS in Computer Science and after about 12 years in the field, he lost his job to off-shoring. He's thinking of going back to school so he can change his career to radiology. How he's going to pay his mortgage while he is in school, I don't know. But when he comes out with his new degree and is competing with people who even have just 2-3 years experience in the field, he may have very little to negotiate with. So after 12 years of work, he should get crappy vacation time and benefits?
Perhaps it's the area of the U.S. where I live, but being employed with the same company for more than 4-5 years is becoming an anomaly. There are layoffs... offshoring... outsourcing... letting go of permanent people and rehiring contractors as replacements... or reorganization where someone's job disappears and they take a less challenging one to stay employed (but eventually leave)... All these things create a lot of turnover. Why should someone with 15 years experience where they have worked with lots of different tools and processes at 3-4 different companies go to a new company and get only 2 weeks of vacation, in contrast with someone who gets 4 weeks because they've been working in the same job in the same company but for only 7 years (and probably not getting nearly as much experience)?
If companies are now into this mantra of change... 'we must all be flexible and be ready to change...' 'times are changing...' Well, great, change is the nature of things... but let's make sure that the way people are compensated is also changed, because now people are having to move more often with their jobs... and actually coming into companies with more skills as the result of the changes... but they need to be fairly compensated.
I have a lot of experience in my field, and when I interviewed recently to to find a new job, I was able to cycle through over a dozen companies before I found two that would provide 5 weeks vacation. But a lot of people aren't in the position to do this and that doesn't mean that they deserve to get stuck with 1-2 weeks a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Seriously now, the benefits associated with a job is in the hands of the potential employee. If that person is marketable enough, then the employer will be willing to compensate him/her according to his/her potential value to the company. If the applicant doesn't like the benefits, one has at least two options, make oneself more marketable or apply at a different company. Of course, another option would be to accept the company's offer. Why do so many people put the responsibility of the individual's lifestyle onto the employer? If the employer is willing to offer these benefits, he/she will attract better employees. Remember, the job belongs to the employer/owner who created the job by, in most cases, working hard and investing resources to make the job available.
Most of the jobs you described as "menial" aren't taken by those "willing" to do them. They are usually taken by those who have no choice, usually either because they aren't marketable or they just settle for something that will provide them spending money. These jobs don't "enable" white collar jobs, they are a RESULT of white collar jobs and those achievers who invest time and money to create them. And, yes, its socialistic/fascist and anti-American to have the federal government mandate wages, time off, health insurance, and other benefits.
Again, materialism is not quality in life.
Yes, employers create jobs. They also can regulate your lifestyle; drug screen, background checks.
It seems that basically you think the average worker is a possession of the company, to be used as the boss decides...or it's "socialistic/fascist and anti-American". That's the way it is. When the worker is used up, he/she is merely thrown away and a replacement is quickly found. Just like any machine that requires new parts now and then. It sounds like your opinion is the American way in the 1930s, when companies hired goons (and police) to disperse and beat on protesting workers.
By contrast, it seems that you feel that the employee owns the company. Other than in companies that provide employee shares, this is much farther from the truth than what you claim I contend. The employer indeed owns the job. When the employee accepts the position, he/she agrees to abide by the job requirements, the employer's rules, and the compensation offered. In turn, the employer agrees to pay the agreed upon compensation if the work is completed as required. Any deviation from this employment agreement by either party should be handled by the court system, if not addressed in the agreement. For example, if the employer refuses to pay, the employee has the right to quit producing, and vice-versa. However, for the government to step in and mandate what should be included in this employment agreement is fascist and socialistic.
Benefits are not in the hands of the employees. Some of us with professional jobs and multiple degrees are better positioned to be able to market and negotiate for ourselves. However, not everyone is in this situation. What does a Walmart employee (someone working in the store) do to make herself more marketable? How does a janitor make himself more marketable?
We can say, 'Go back to school and get a degree,' but not everyone is college material or has the resources (time and money) to do that. If they are not able to be marketable, does that mean they should be treated like slaves?
Also, I met someone who has a BS in Computer Science and after about 12 years in the field, he lost his job to off-shoring. He's thinking of going back to school so he can change his career to radiology. How he's going to pay his mortgage while he is in school, I don't know. But when he comes out with his new degree and is competing with people who even have just 2-3 years experience in the field, he may have very little to negotiate with. So after 12 years of work, he should get crappy vacation time and benefits?
Perhaps it's the area of the U.S. where I live, but being employed with the same company for more than 4-5 years is becoming an anomaly. There are layoffs... offshoring... outsourcing... letting go of permanent people and rehiring contractors as replacements... or reorganization where someone's job disappears and they take a less challenging one to stay employed (but eventually leave)... All these things create a lot of turnover. Why should someone with 15 years experience where they have worked with lots of different tools and processes at 3-4 different companies go to a new company and get only 2 weeks of vacation, in contrast with someone who gets 4 weeks because they've been working in the same job in the same company but for only 7 years (and probably not getting nearly as much experience)?
If companies are now into this mantra of change... 'we must all be flexible and be ready to change...' 'times are changing...' Well, great, change is the nature of things... but let's make sure that the way people are compensated is also changed, because now people are having to move more often with their jobs... and actually coming into companies with more skills as the result of the changes... but they need to be fairly compensated.
I have a lot of experience in my field, and when I interviewed recently to to find a new job, I was able to cycle through over a dozen companies before I found two that would provide 5 weeks vacation. But a lot of people aren't in the position to do this and that doesn't mean that they deserve to get stuck with 1-2 weeks a year.
I agree that some people just aren't marketable, and will never be. However, what makes this the responsibility of the employer?
I prefer an economy where the employers have to bid up the price so they can get anyone remotely qualified to work for them instead of one of their competitors. This can be done by limiting offshore work, immigration of (skilled and unskilled) workers and countervailing tariffs on imported goods and services.
Limit the supply and the price, including benefits, rises. Simple economics. Unfortunately the employees of this nation lack the political will and coherence needed to offset the corporate dominance (money) of our political system.
Most of Europe strictly limits immigration. From what I have heard it is nearly impossible to immigrate to Switzerland (the most capitalist country on earth) and get a job doing anything a Swiss citizen is able to do. Switzerland is not exactly a stagnant economy but is a very wise and long term economy.
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.
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.
Sorry for the big grin, but this was my genuine reaction to your post Moose. Not only do we have people advocating health insurance rights, but we now have vacation rights. How about a-television-in-every-room rights? Or Lexus rights where everyone is entitled to drive a Lexus?
