you did the work to get the company started, the investors took all risk and maintained all the trust in you. You were rewarded with a successful company, and no doubt a respectable income for it. Do you really think your investors should not get a return for the risk they took, tying up their money until you made the company profitable? I mean they could have easily lost that money if you failed.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Wait so the burden is a trickle down effect, like how tax breaks to the rich is suppose to trickle down to the workers but instead have given them more money. Usually tax payers money which is more so a burden to us, like all the tax credits that are available for doing things like buying "Green" cars, new windows, etc.. First of all you have to have the money to buy a car and I think the "green" cars are over 14k. Basically we've been giving tax credits to the rich to get them to part with their money but they're only paying a portion of what the product is worth. We're just paying for there stuff even.lowing wrote:
If you really need to ask that question, then consider yourself part of the problem.jord wrote:
It's not just the US, it's the world. What is a work ethic anyway, breaking your balls to make someone else achieve a bigger profit margin?
Jobs need to pay employers live able wages, otherwise they won't have people who can buy there wears or use there services. Besides, the dollar is mightier then the idea. If I had an Idea that would bring in Millions, I'd have to go to investors to get it started. Now these Investors will probably end up with a bigger "slate" even though I did all the work and get all the company started.
My job is not more important, my job is more skilled and more in demand. Although I can ship parts, or stick a bolt in hole from day one, they can not fix an airplane without training and a license. I can easily do their job, they can not easily do mine. Like it or not, kinda makes my skill worth more.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Lowing are you saying that your job is more important then the guy who builds or ships the parts you need?
Cause with out the parts your useless.
you save that effort for yourself?, and are you rich?DrunkFace wrote:
I ain't going to bust my balls to make someone else rich. I save that kind of effort for my self. If they paid me accordingly I would, but they don't so fuck em.lowing wrote:
Of course you are helping make someone else rich....In trade you get a paycheck hopefully that reflects your worth, and benefits. If YOU wanna be rich as well, then feel free to take whatever risks you want to start your own business and work for it. OR if you don't want to help make someone else rich, quit.DrunkFace wrote:
Work hard and make someone else rich.
They pay you what the market will bare, obviously. You asked THEM for the job, you accepted the job offer, and you are working there. Is it too much to ask that you produce what you agreed to produce for the amount of money you agreed to take for that production? Why are you pissed at them? Are you there against your will or something?
Right, but the ones with the money right now aren't getting it fairly. The ones with the money are the ones who are socialist and not true capitalist. Including your field, how many times have they gotten bail out money to keep the airline industry going? Is that capitalism?lowing wrote:
you did the work to get the company started, the investors took all risk and maintained all the trust in you. You were rewarded with a successful company, and no doubt a respectable income for it. Do you really think your investors should not get a return for the risk they took, tying up their money until you made the company profitable? I mean they could have easily lost that money if you failed.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Wait so the burden is a trickle down effect, like how tax breaks to the rich is suppose to trickle down to the workers but instead have given them more money. Usually tax payers money which is more so a burden to us, like all the tax credits that are available for doing things like buying "Green" cars, new windows, etc.. First of all you have to have the money to buy a car and I think the "green" cars are over 14k. Basically we've been giving tax credits to the rich to get them to part with their money but they're only paying a portion of what the product is worth. We're just paying for there stuff even.lowing wrote:
If you really need to ask that question, then consider yourself part of the problem.
Jobs need to pay employers live able wages, otherwise they won't have people who can buy there wears or use there services. Besides, the dollar is mightier then the idea. If I had an Idea that would bring in Millions, I'd have to go to investors to get it started. Now these Investors will probably end up with a bigger "slate" even though I did all the work and get all the company started.
I'm not sure who you work for but if it's one the major airlines then chances are you're living off of government subsides.
I never approved of govt. subsidizes for any company, even my own industry. However, don't think because it does I am going to quit my job over it. Also don't think for a second, that if the govt. didn't subsidize I couldn't find another job.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Right, but the ones with the money right now aren't getting it fairly. The ones with the money are the ones who are socialist and not true capitalist. Including your field, how many times have they gotten bail out money to keep the airline industry going? Is that capitalism?lowing wrote:
you did the work to get the company started, the investors took all risk and maintained all the trust in you. You were rewarded with a successful company, and no doubt a respectable income for it. Do you really think your investors should not get a return for the risk they took, tying up their money until you made the company profitable? I mean they could have easily lost that money if you failed.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Wait so the burden is a trickle down effect, like how tax breaks to the rich is suppose to trickle down to the workers but instead have given them more money. Usually tax payers money which is more so a burden to us, like all the tax credits that are available for doing things like buying "Green" cars, new windows, etc.. First of all you have to have the money to buy a car and I think the "green" cars are over 14k. Basically we've been giving tax credits to the rich to get them to part with their money but they're only paying a portion of what the product is worth. We're just paying for there stuff even.
Jobs need to pay employers live able wages, otherwise they won't have people who can buy there wears or use there services. Besides, the dollar is mightier then the idea. If I had an Idea that would bring in Millions, I'd have to go to investors to get it started. Now these Investors will probably end up with a bigger "slate" even though I did all the work and get all the company started.
I'm not sure who you work for but if it's one the major airlines then chances are you're living off of government subsides.
Who says they are not getting it fairly? Is everyone working NOT doing so so for the compensation they agreed to, when they ASKED the company to hire them?
I don't see how those need to be in conflict with each other ...lowing wrote:
Because according to liberals, the company is in business to provide you with a good living and take care of you, it is NOT supposed to be in business to make money.
I would rather state that a company that takes care of its employees more than the next also makes more money, happy employees are more productive and they have fewer days off work because they are sick!
Many people with disabilities can be just as productive and the needed investments to cater for those workers doesn't need to cost that much either ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
So you aren't looking for another job, and you are taking govt money.lowing wrote:
I never approved of govt. subsidizes for any company, even my own industry. However, don't think because it does I am going to quit my job over it.
OK.
How about if the govt let in 50,000 Chinese aircraft mechanics?Also don't think for a second, that if the govt. didn't subsidize I couldn't find another job.
Fuck Israel
Because anything the company does for its employees is called benefits. It is part of their compensation package. It is not a hand out. The employee has EARNED it, in the eyes of the company. It does not take away from the fact that the company is NOT in business to provide quality of life to an employee. It is in business to make money.Varegg wrote:
I don't see how those need to be in conflict with each other ...lowing wrote:
Because according to liberals, the company is in business to provide you with a good living and take care of you, it is NOT supposed to be in business to make money.
I would rather state that a company that takes care of its employees more than the next also makes more money, happy employees are more productive and they have fewer days off work because they are sick!
Many people with disabilities can be just as productive and the needed investments to cater for those workers doesn't need to cost that much either ...
Always looking for another job, (it is a perk you have when you are marketable.)Dilbert_X wrote:
So you aren't looking for another job, and you are taking govt money.lowing wrote:
I never approved of govt. subsidizes for any company, even my own industry. However, don't think because it does I am going to quit my job over it.
OK.How about if the govt let in 50,000 Chinese aircraft mechanics?Also don't think for a second, that if the govt. didn't subsidize I couldn't find another job.
Let them, plenty of work in aviation all over the world. Not worried one bit. I do, as always, love your "what if" scenarios. Nothing too outrageous or unrealistic for you to throw out there to try and prove a point. Very entertaining
lowing even if you are the most super-employable person in your industry... you have to realize not all industries are like your own, or so straightforwardly skill-based... not everyone's scenario is the same, e.g. liquid assets, mobility, opportunity, personal circumstance, etc. to call everyone else lazy because they don't share your scenario is a little narrowminded.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Never called everyone else lazy. I called those that want, expect and demand everything for nothing lazy.Uzique wrote:
lowing even if you are the most super-employable person in your industry... you have to realize not all industries are like your own, or so straightforwardly skill-based... not everyone's scenario is the same, e.g. liquid assets, mobility, opportunity, personal circumstance, etc. to call everyone else lazy because they don't share your scenario is a little narrowminded.
and if you are not marketable, then who do you suggest we blame for that? ME?
Is it so hard to understand that what I do, I do for my family, and the quality of life for my family? Anything else I do that you insist be taken away "to make things fair", takes away from the work I do for my family's benefit. I do not have the resources, nor the inclination to solve your problems as well as my own. If you really are interested in "fairness" adopt a philosophy where I am saddled with my problems and YOU are saddled with yours, never expecting to double up on each other.
Last edited by lowing (2011-04-06 10:42:33)
I swear I think lowing hears some background music in his head every time goes off on his melodramatic rants
Last edited by eleven bravo (2011-04-06 10:46:08)
Tu Stultus Es
The leadin to Hannity's radio show is Tool's Aenima.eleven bravo wrote:
I swear I think lowing hears some background music in his head every time goes off on his melodramatic rants
I bet Maynard James Keenan is pissed.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I was thinking more like heralding trumpets and military drums. something like the glory soundtrack
Tu Stultus Es
I like my version bettereleven bravo wrote:
I was thinking more like heralding trumpets and military drums. something like the glory soundtrack
Cuz I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.
I wanna watch it all go down.
Mum please flush it all away.
I wanna see it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in.
Watch you flush it all away.
I guess that's my soundtrack though
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
my soundtrack would be anything with george clinton
Tu Stultus Es
eleven bravo wrote:
my soundtrack would be anything with george clinton
Was at this show It was his birthday
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
He should be. But then again, I guess that means he doesn't actually have the rights to that song.Jay wrote:
The leadin to Hannity's radio show is Tool's Aenima.eleven bravo wrote:
I swear I think lowing hears some background music in his head every time goes off on his melodramatic rants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCEeAn6_QJo
I bet Maynard James Keenan is pissed.
Like I said, you can have both ...lowing wrote:
Because anything the company does for its employees is called benefits. It is part of their compensation package. It is not a hand out. The employee has EARNED it, in the eyes of the company. It does not take away from the fact that the company is NOT in business to provide quality of life to an employee. It is in business to make money.Varegg wrote:
I don't see how those need to be in conflict with each other ...lowing wrote:
Because according to liberals, the company is in business to provide you with a good living and take care of you, it is NOT supposed to be in business to make money.
I would rather state that a company that takes care of its employees more than the next also makes more money, happy employees are more productive and they have fewer days off work because they are sick!
Many people with disabilities can be just as productive and the needed investments to cater for those workers doesn't need to cost that much either ...
It's not called a benefit to enjoy your work ... making employees enjoy work is adamant if the company seriously want to make money over a longer periode of time ... thinking otherwise makes the company fluctuate from high to low economic wise ...
Yes companies are in business to make money but how they do that varies very much ...
Workers tends to care less about their employer and gets lazy when the company ignores the well being of them, employees are an asset and if treated correctly a gold mine ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Lowing sees workers as a cost of production instead of an capital asset.
If you are referring to work environment, I agree whole heartedly. If we are talking about vacation time, sick time, good insurance, a pay check etc...That is all benefits the company offers to lure good people. The more valuable you are to the company, the greater the benefits get FROM the company.Varegg wrote:
Like I said, you can have both ...lowing wrote:
Because anything the company does for its employees is called benefits. It is part of their compensation package. It is not a hand out. The employee has EARNED it, in the eyes of the company. It does not take away from the fact that the company is NOT in business to provide quality of life to an employee. It is in business to make money.Varegg wrote:
I don't see how those need to be in conflict with each other ...
I would rather state that a company that takes care of its employees more than the next also makes more money, happy employees are more productive and they have fewer days off work because they are sick!
Many people with disabilities can be just as productive and the needed investments to cater for those workers doesn't need to cost that much either ...
It's not called a benefit to enjoy your work ... making employees enjoy work is adamant if the company seriously want to make money over a longer periode of time ... thinking otherwise makes the company fluctuate from high to low economic wise ...
Yes companies are in business to make money but how they do that varies very much ...
Workers tends to care less about their employer and gets lazy when the company ignores the well being of them, employees are an asset and if treated correctly a gold mine ...
They are both. Especially in my line of work. We do not produce anything for the company, we spend the company's money in order to maintain the aircraft. We are a necessary evil in the eyes of the airlines.DrunkFace wrote:
Lowing sees workers as a cost of production instead of an capital asset.
In my experience, employee happiness has very little to do with the employer. Instead, it's usually a reflection of the other people in the work environment. I've seen what should be a happy environment poisoned by the incessant whining of one person. I've seen another environment uplifted by an exuberantly cheerful person. This of course isn't the whole picture, and the employer does indeed have an impact, I think the social interactions that one has on the job have a much larger impact on a persons happiness than anything else. "Find a job you like" is synonymous with "find a job where you have a lot of friends".Varegg wrote:
Like I said, you can have both ...lowing wrote:
Because anything the company does for its employees is called benefits. It is part of their compensation package. It is not a hand out. The employee has EARNED it, in the eyes of the company. It does not take away from the fact that the company is NOT in business to provide quality of life to an employee. It is in business to make money.Varegg wrote:
I don't see how those need to be in conflict with each other ...
I would rather state that a company that takes care of its employees more than the next also makes more money, happy employees are more productive and they have fewer days off work because they are sick!
Many people with disabilities can be just as productive and the needed investments to cater for those workers doesn't need to cost that much either ...
It's not called a benefit to enjoy your work ... making employees enjoy work is adamant if the company seriously want to make money over a longer periode of time ... thinking otherwise makes the company fluctuate from high to low economic wise ...
Yes companies are in business to make money but how they do that varies very much ...
Workers tends to care less about their employer and gets lazy when the company ignores the well being of them, employees are an asset and if treated correctly a gold mine ...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
agree 100%Jay wrote:
In my experience, employee happiness has very little to do with the employer. Instead, it's usually a reflection of the other people in the work environment. I've seen what should be a happy environment poisoned by the incessant whining of one person. I've seen another environment uplifted by an exuberantly cheerful person. This of course isn't the whole picture, and the employer does indeed have an impact, I think the social interactions that one has on the job have a much larger impact on a persons happiness than anything else. "Find a job you like" is synonymous with "find a job where you have a lot of friends".Varegg wrote:
Like I said, you can have both ...lowing wrote:
Because anything the company does for its employees is called benefits. It is part of their compensation package. It is not a hand out. The employee has EARNED it, in the eyes of the company. It does not take away from the fact that the company is NOT in business to provide quality of life to an employee. It is in business to make money.
It's not called a benefit to enjoy your work ... making employees enjoy work is adamant if the company seriously want to make money over a longer periode of time ... thinking otherwise makes the company fluctuate from high to low economic wise ...
Yes companies are in business to make money but how they do that varies very much ...
Workers tends to care less about their employer and gets lazy when the company ignores the well being of them, employees are an asset and if treated correctly a gold mine ...
I agree the interactions between coworkers are a large factor, afterall work is the place you interact the most on a daily basislowing wrote:
agree 100%Jay wrote:
In my experience, employee happiness has very little to do with the employer. Instead, it's usually a reflection of the other people in the work environment. I've seen what should be a happy environment poisoned by the incessant whining of one person. I've seen another environment uplifted by an exuberantly cheerful person. This of course isn't the whole picture, and the employer does indeed have an impact, I think the social interactions that one has on the job have a much larger impact on a persons happiness than anything else. "Find a job you like" is synonymous with "find a job where you have a lot of friends".Varegg wrote:
Like I said, you can have both ...
It's not called a benefit to enjoy your work ... making employees enjoy work is adamant if the company seriously want to make money over a longer periode of time ... thinking otherwise makes the company fluctuate from high to low economic wise ...
Yes companies are in business to make money but how they do that varies very much ...
Workers tends to care less about their employer and gets lazy when the company ignores the well being of them, employees are an asset and if treated correctly a gold mine ...
Holy crap ... I agree with lowing
Wait behind the line ..............................................................