Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 16:29 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejck7c$8qk_001(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ej7mj4$9m2$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ej7bp3$8qk_025(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <ej53mo$u2c$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <sq15h.3588$IR4.1362(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>>>I would argue that anybody who is still making minimum wage after any >>>>>time >>>>>at all in a job, isn't productive and doesn't deserve to be rewarded. >>>> >>>>There are some who are working at the limit of their ability. These >>>>people still deserve enough of a wage to live on. I have, indirectly, >>>>employed such a person in the past. He showed up for work on time and >>>>remained for the required time, but instructions to him needed to be >>>>made >>>>without subordinate clauses because he could not parse them. He is >>>>never >>>>going to get promoted into management no matter how hard he works. >>> >>>The grocers hire people who think this way. They are their best >>>workers. Now why do you assume that these types have to be >>>paid only minimum wage and never get performance raises? >> >>The "have to" is an interesting part of your comment. > > That is the tenor of the other people in this discussion. Really? Do you think everyone in support of a minimum wage advocates that is _all_ the person should be paid? >> It suggests that >>you think there may be an external force at work that holds them to >>minimum wage. > > I don't think this. Reread what I wrote. I asked why they thought > people never got raises. Who thinks they dont get raises? Raises do take the steam out of most of your arguments against minimum wage though. >> >>This person who can't follow complex instructions is on one side of the >>negotiations on the other we have a manager with experience at keeping >>their wages low. They aren't going to get the raise by negotiation >>skill. > > These people are very aware about money. They can compare wage > rates and are able to go to a competitor. They know about benefits > and the advantages and disadvantages of each. All of them are > very willing to tell you about all of this stuff :-). We are talking about people working on minimum wage here, aren't we? The example made was the "person who can't follow complex instructions" not a skilled and talented software engineer. >> >>The company that employs them is not a charity. Their purpose is to make >>a profit for their shareholders. They won't be raising the wages >>spontaneously. > > People get raises. Yes, some people do. Others don't. It is not _always_ down to the persons work ability either. >>There is very little competition for workers at the very >>low end of the scale. There are few jobs that really need to be done that >>they are able to do. > > ARe you kidding? You need to pay attention more. We had a gal > who could not think well in our computer group which turned > stuff into ASCII for doc writers, spec writers, and programmers > and their managers. Her talent was 120 WPM typing speed. She > was taught how to "program" doc files with RUNOFF commands > and churned out ASCII bits at a phenomenal rate. > > Would she ever be able to solve a bug? Probably not. As long > as the commands didn't change, she was very productive. > >> >>The result is that this person will work for the minimum wage. > > Unless there is another grocery store who has job slots open > and wants to attract new people. So a minimum wage is not a problem then?
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 16:30 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejck9g$8qk_002(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4557666A.D749389A(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> > >>> >>I would argue that anybody who is still making minimum wage after any > time >>> >>at all in a job, isn't productive and doesn't deserve to be rewarded. >>> > >>> >There are some who are working at the limit of their ability. These >>> >people still deserve enough of a wage to live on. I have, indirectly, >>> >employed such a person in the past. He showed up for work on time and >>> >remained for the required time, but instructions to him needed to be >>> >made >>> >without subordinate clauses because he could not parse them. He is >>> >never >>> >going to get promoted into management no matter how hard he works. >>> >>> The grocers hire people who think this way. They are their best >>> workers. Now why do you assume that these types have to be >>> paid only minimum wage and never get performance raises? >> >>Wow ! >> >>That's socialist talk ! Did you realise that ? > > It is called capitalism which you call socialism. That's another > oddness that comes from Europe. Amazing. Truly amazing.
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 16:33 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejckhl$8qk_003(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <yt-dne7WCNI5zMrYRVnysw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej7ffd$8qk_042(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <455615CC.2B8A045E(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >> Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >Why ? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> It causes all other prices to eventually go up, especially housing. >>>>> >> It eliminates wage competition. People's real productivity is >>>>> >> no longer measured nor rewarded with wage. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >Can anyone actually live on that ? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> $10k/year? Yes. >>>>> > >>>>> >You wouldn't get far on ?5263 over here for sure. >>>>> >>>>> I didn't say it was easy and one also has to give up a lot >>>>> of middle class "attitudes" ;-). >>>> >>>>Around here you'd pay ~ ?3000 p.a. minimum just for >>>>a very basic rented room ! >>> >>> In the US you can't plan on renting when you stop working. Part >>> of way we live is to spend a part of our wages on a place to live >>> that will become yours after a few years. That way you can >>> eliminate paying rent as part of your living expense. >> >>Your argument has more holes than swiss cheese. >> >>You cant plan on renting anywhere when you stop working. If you are >>earning >>$200 a week, how do you save for a place to live? Where do you live while >>you are saving? What do you eat? > > When I said plan, I meant long-term planning. That is why people > buy their own house and start paying the money they earn while > young to pay off the mortgage. When the mortgage is paid off, > they don't pay rent. The plan to stay in the house when > they quit working. When you are earning $200 per week, how much can you spare to pay off a mortgage? What duration are US Mortgages? How much of a deposit is normally put down? I know you meant long term planning, but earning minimum wage does not lend itself to that kind of living. People have to eat. They have to pay bills. They have to be able to save for a deposit. They have to live somewhere while they are waiting to buy their house. Etc. >> >>> Like I said it is possible but you do have to give up middle class >>> attitudes. >> >>Nonsense. >> >>>> >>>>Now try living on ?43 p.w. ! >>> >>> After my tuition and dorm fee were paid, I lived on $2/month when >>> I went to college; the $2 included clothes washing and Tampax. >> >>I defy you to feed yourself on $2 a week. I defy you to feed yourself, >>travel to and from work and afford work clothes on $2 a week. > > I defy you to think of ways to stop spending money. > > /BAH >
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 16:35 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejckhl$8qk_003(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <yt-dne7WCNI5zMrYRVnysw(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej7ffd$8qk_042(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> After my tuition and dorm fee were paid, I lived on $2/month when >>> I went to college; the $2 included clothes washing and Tampax. >> >>I defy you to feed yourself on $2 a week. I defy you to feed yourself, >>travel to and from work and afford work clothes on $2 a week. > > I defy you to think of ways to stop spending money. I can think of lots of ways. What does that have to do with what I said? You claim to have lived on $2 a month as an example of how people should be so happy to live on $200 per week. I say not only are you living in a mystical past of fifty years ago, but living on a wage of $200 per week in this day and age is far from easy.
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 16:37
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4559E3D3.16220EC(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >And you like to imply things that just aren't true. You weren't >> >> >living >> >> >on >> >> >"$2/day". >> >> >> >> Right. It was $2/month. >> > >> > And you can also clean a whole house in 15 mins ? >> >> The thing that she conveniently glosses over is that 1) it was in 1960s >> dollars, about a factor of 10 - 100 higher when adjusted for inflation, >> and >> 2) she was also paying tuition, room and board, which probably added at >> least $50/month in 1960 dollars, or $1000/month in 2006 dollars. That's >> a >> far cry from talking about $2/month as if it were 2006 dollars, which is >> what the discussion was about...living on <$100/month total salary in >> 2006. > > In 1973 ? my first full-time job paid ?2000 p.a. ( ? 38.46 weekly ). It > seemed > like a good rate of pay for a youngster at the time. Heck, my rent was > only > ?28.16 p.c.m too ! The Thatcher years were not pleasant :-) Fortunately I was in the Army and we had massive pay rises :-) |