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.
Above average, ambitious people will always thrive for that next step. They will take on additional, often uncompensated duties and be rewarded by gaining additional experience that often leads to promotion. Once they thoroughly understand their position they will become bored and look for the next thing. You could even view this as the typical path to career progression.
Truly ambitious people own their own businesses. The wealthy people that I know personally who are at the top of their game careerwise don't work a typical 9-5 for some faceless corporation. They work for themselves.
I have a question for the "employer" types who feel "average" people deserve to be unemployed, and who feel that employment should only be a privilege for a small elite (who is willing and able to work 24/7/365, who has no medical problems, who is over 6' tall if male or under 100 lbs if female, who has an advanced degree from an elite university, who has the type of personality that employers like, etc). My question is, how do you expect everyone else to live? Do you want the government to support us? If so, you will be paying even more taxes taken out of the money that you are working ridiculous hours to earn. Or do you want us to all just suffer and be homeless? If so, then who do you expect to buy the products and services that you produce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001
Looks like none of the "employer" types are even attempting to answer my question, and most of the "employee" types are agreeing with me.
Nobody responded because it was a self evidently dumb post.
I do not meet the qualifications you cite above, none of my employees do, and none of my potential hires do. Yet I have a job, my current employees have jobs, and some of the applicants that I am looking at will have jobs once I get through the hiring process.
Only very rare misguided employers are looking for perfect. Most are simply looking for the best possible, which is what you would do if you were in a position to hire. Can you honestly respond and tell me that if you were hiring, you would pass over the top 23 applicants just so that you could hire #24?
Can you honestly say that I should take a $35,000 pay cut so that I can hire a new entry level employee who would have nothing to do, just so that the rolls of the unemployed are reduced by one? Would you?
Truly ambitious people own their own businesses. The wealthy people that I know personally who are at the top of their game careerwise don't work a typical 9-5 for some faceless corporation. They work for themselves.
Some do, some don't. Owning your own business takes capital. Some people like to do things which do not lend themselves to running their own shop. Others are great at some aspects of a job, but do not have a skill in marketing, which is needed to run your own business, in addition to all the other necessary factors.
What the hell has that bloated, mustachioe'd hack ever produced, built, programmed, sold, created, invented or discovered other than very average books of propaganda in favor of the beltway elite, which anchor people's laps as they snooze on the DC-NYC acela express?
When reading a Freidman piece, all you need to ask yourself is, "how does this latest one serve the purposes of those who'd prefer to see the American worker blamed for everything wrong with our economy?" YOu won't need to blow a brain gasket to figure it out.
How true! Friedman has always been one of the #1 cheerleaders for outsourcing as many American jobs as possible to India, etc., while pretending it will have absolutely no effect on unemployment here. Either a moron or a bald faced liar.
I hope in his next life he is born into the lowest caste in India ... and is one of the millions who doesn't even merit learning to read in his own language (yes they still do this in India) ... and begs on the street for a living from childhood up. He will experience first hand the truth for most of the citizens of the country he thought deserved American-created jobs moreso than Americans.
I meant within the organizations and not the hiring manager's personal life.. Hiring managers may know they need more employees to make the company run more efficiently but they cannot because of policies above them.
I was referring to the business owners who are living high on the hog while everyone else is suffering. I was not referring to a middle manager that can only do what his/her boss tells him/her to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrviking
One has nothing to do with the other. People will get hired when they are needed. Not so the company can give someone a job. You don't build a company so you can make jobs for people.
What is needed is an incentive (maybe a tax break) for hiring as many American workers as possible. Or maybe a penalty for offshoring or for expecting workers to work more than a certain number of hours. (I agree more with the incentive, rather than the penalty). We need people to be working, and productive members of society, and not drains on the system.
Nobody responded because it was a self evidently dumb post.
I do not meet the qualifications you cite above, none of my employees do, and none of my potential hires do. Yet I have a job, my current employees have jobs, and some of the applicants that I am looking at will have jobs once I get through the hiring process.
Only very rare misguided employers are looking for perfect. Most are simply looking for the best possible, which is what you would do if you were in a position to hire. Can you honestly respond and tell me that if you were hiring, you would pass over the top 23 applicants just so that you could hire #24?
The whole premise of this thread is that employers are looking for nearly perfect.
Quote:
Can you honestly say that I should take a $35,000 pay cut so that I can hire a new entry level employee who would have nothing to do, just so that the rolls of the unemployed are reduced by one? Would you?
To a business owner who is living high off the hog, $35,000 is nothing. And, unless they are the worst manager in the world, the new employee would have a lot of work to do.
To a business owner who is living high off the hog, $35,000 is nothing. And, unless they are the worst manager in the world, the new employee would have a lot of work to do.
It may be nothing, but it's their money.
My husband is a business owner. When there is a business need for an additional employee he hires. He doesn't hire people just to fill jobs. His objective is to make money for himself, not to keep people employed.
The whole premise of this thread is that employers are looking for nearly perfect.
Actually, the premise of the post is that average workers get below average wages. That is very different from what you think the premise is.
Addressing your version of the premise, you are simply wrong. I just cited examples of average people who are not 'nearly perfect' who have jobs.
Quote:
To a business owner who is living high off the hog, $35,000 is nothing. And, unless they are the worst manager in the world, the new employee would have a lot of work to do.
One sentence, two misconceptions.
First, many business owners are not 'living high off the hog'. Many are simply making a decent living for themselves and a $35k hit would be really, really hard.
Secondly, the concept that any additional employee will have lots to do, provided there is adequate management, is asinine. Sometimes businesses have an appropriate number of employees. Adding more simply splits a finite amount of necessary work among more people. As an example, if I own an autoshop, hiring an additional mechanic will not magically generate more customers.
My husband is a business owner. When there is a business need for an additional employee he hires. He doesn't hire people just to fill jobs. His objective is to make money for himself, not to keep people employed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Actually, the premise of the post is that average workers get below average wages. That is very different from what you think the premise is.
Addressing your version of the premise, you are simply wrong. I just cited examples of average people who are not 'nearly perfect' who have jobs.
One sentence, two misconceptions.
First, many business owners are not 'living high off the hog'. Many are simply making a decent living for themselves and a $35k hit would be really, really hard.
Secondly, the concept that any additional employee will have lots to do, provided there is adequate management, is asinine. Sometimes businesses have an appropriate number of employees. Adding more simply splits a finite amount of necessary work among more people. As an example, if I own an autoshop, hiring an additional mechanic will not magically generate more customers.
I was referring specifically to businesses where the owner is living high off the hog, and where there is enough work for more employees. For example, the owner of the company I work for is living high off the hog. A few years ago, they laid off several employees. Two of them were 2 of the hardest workers in the company; they worked 7 days a week, arrived at 6 AM every day, stayed late every day, and worked nearly every holiday, including major ones. They literally sacrificed their life for the company. As soon as there was a slight reduction in work, the were laid off. A few months later, when the workload was heavy again, they were replaced by 2 young, low paid employees.
Two of the other employees who were laid off were low paid, part time employees who received no benefits and were paid a low hourly rate. Their pay was negligiable to the company's bottom line, so laying them off saved nothing. It just meant everyone else had to work longer hours, while they had to figure out how to explain to their kids that Santa isn't giving any presents this year, even though they behaved well.
When it was time for our annual raises, we were told there was no money for raises, so we all just got a token 1% raise, and were told to be happy we still have jobs. When the Christmas party came along, the COO tells us that it was the company's "best year ever". Meanwhile, the laid off employees (whose hard work before they were laid off was part of why it was the best year ever) are suffering, and none of us got raises that even matched the inflation rate that year.
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.
