How long before the revolution?

[OhioToCO]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

If you are not part of the ruling elite then it does apply to you, you are just one reorgainization or the loss of some clients away from financial ruin.


Maybe you are a retiree? A dependant?


But this absolutly applies to anyone who is an employee or a small buisness owner even who still has loans or a building lease.


The issue is that real assets require TONS of money to pay off in our society (house, nice car, student loans) those are the big 3 and can easily be half a million bucks unless you drive a jelopy and live in a tiny home ... which ironically is what alot of millenials are starting to do because the debt requried to live half way decently is becoming untenable.

I'm an employee, but I'm not one lay off away from financial ruin. I save and live below my means. I invest and diversify. My only difference from a majority of Americans is that I was born financially responsible. What most people consider to be a "half way decent life" usually is a huge waste of money.

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

The revolution will be in 4 years of Trump does not act on key issues (45% tarriffs, getting rid of H1B and the like, massive corporate taxes on profits, share holder dividends and stock price gains, I mean really steep like 1940s/50s steep). IF those things dont happen and happen soon then the people will vote in someone even more radical in 4 years.

Trump is doing what he promised to be doing, and that didn't include raising corporate taxes. He promised to lower them, so that wealth will trickle down. I'm not holding my breath for that wealth, and continue to build my own. I just wonder, if I will be all of a sudden a "bad guy" because I managed to accumulate real wealth and not a sham in a form of a flashy car and a McMansion.

[Nlambert]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

It's not the concept of rules that I find unsettling, but the fact that an employer or supervisor can change them on a whim, and without advance notice, and all because of the supposed expectations of that fickle, irrational, foible-driven critter called "the public".

Employees struggling to make ends meet and balance their personal and family obligations are often forced to deal with new burdens and, occasionally, personal expenses, such as more uncomfortable, elaborate, and expensive clothing, paid from their own pockets and not even tax deductible; all because of the vagaries of fashion and "consumer tastes".

Perhaps it's time for formulation of a basic set of employee rights (hopefully, without Big Brother's interference) -- and the sensitivities of those still trying to live in the Fifties be damned!

An employer can only change rules within the law and only do so when it is necessary. Employers do not want to risk unrest and upset in the company despite what many might think. It's a huge risk that can result in higher turnover, new training, process changes, and a slew of other effects that all cost the company money in the end. When changes are made, they are made to keep the company competitive. If the company is not competitive, no one will have a job because they will have to close shop.


If an employee CHOOSES to balance their financial responsibilities irresponsibly that isn't on the employee. Companies aren't requiring that employees buy Gucci or some other high end clothing. They may however ask that you dress appropriately to the position. You can dress in a suit from a thrift store and the only person who knows what it costs is the employee. If you decide you WANT to be fashionable and buy expensive clothing, that is your CHOICE and is not forced upon you by business. If you do not agree with the company dress code, guess what? You can CHOOSE to go somewhere that dress code isn't as important.


Employers set the rate at which they are willing to pay for a service from you. If you choose to accept the position knowing up front the wages how is that their fault? This isn't China, and they don't set your wages for you. They merely offer up the position and accept a person who best meets the needs and agrees to the wage.


Employees have rights. You are not forced to work for a specific company in a specific job. You are not forced to accept a certain amount of money. You have a right to work anywhere you choose. You have a right to compensation based upon the agreement you set forth with the company upon hire. You have a right to leave any time you choose. You have a right to work anywhere despite a disability and to have reasonable accommodations made to allow you to perform your job. You have a right to work in a non-discriminatory environment.


What other rights do you want?

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

If you are paid peanuts why should you be paid more? What value do you bring to the table? Are you generating at least 3X the cost to have you around? I always think it is funny when low wage earners want more money but fail to increase the value that they offer. Why should a company pay anyone more when the return on the investment is so low?

And while I don't see any effective measure for enforcement evolving, what about the attorney or CPA who charges $75/hour, then delegates the work to an accounting student paid $15/hour -- or less? And the customer will never know the difference unless something hits the fan. Sure, the prospect for advancement is there, but the subjugation seldom eases up, and the stuffed suit up on top has far more incentives (and opportunities) for betrayal of trust at every stage of the process. Not to mention that increasing diversity in the workplace provides more opportunities to play one employee, or group, against another.

Betrayal, unfortunately, seems central to the process of "Korporate" life. And other than the development of the study of organizational behavior as a prerequisite for a degree, the individual often has little preparation for this.