Working hard to get ahead [Makers and Takers]

[vern_humphrey]

This assumes that larger markets mean higher turnover, when a larger market could just mean more competitors. It also assumes that a higher turnover will be passed on to non-management staff, when most employers would prefer to expand the business and employ more people rather than pay existing employees more (that and increase their end of year bonuses).

You assume that managers don’t know how to manage. In fact, talk to any business owner and he will tell you his biggest problem is finding qualified, competent workers.

Believe me, good workers can always find work

There are employment sectors where pay is fairly standard and doesn’t budge. Service jobs in particular (waiting tables, shop assistants). Employers in these industries would rather go short staffed than use pay as means to attract employees. Do you actually think employers want wage competition?

They don’t have a choice.

Do you actually think employers want price competition? They don’t have a choice.

Do you actually think employers want quality competition? They don’t have a choice.

Do you actually think employers want service competition? They don’t have a choice.

That’s why capitalism works so well. Remember, capitalism is an economic system where the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated for profit in a competitive environment.

Next time you run into a 40 year old mechanic, truck driver, builder or labourer earning less than you think they should, make sure to tell them they’re indolent.

Good, reliable truckdrivers and mechanics make very good money.

I disagree with the maximize part.

I’ll bet you do.

Almost nobody is doing as much as they could be. Even you aren’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t ever get to go “Hunting, shooting, riding, backpacking, fishing”. It’s like you’ve formulated your ideas in a vacuum that ignores the fact that we are all human (which you *will *interpret as lazy)

Your mistake is thinking everyone is like you. You seem to equate being a workaholic with being productive.

So that’s about 120K (U.S), or $460 a week at a 20% tax rate. How many mechanics or craftsman could afford $460 a week.

You’ve lost me. Are you saying mechanics or craftsman can’t afford to earn $460 a week?

You’ll have to explain that to me.

You* know* what this would do to a lot of people don’t you.

It would make them prosperous, and they could bear their share of the load helping others who cannot work.

 

[rtconstant]

You assume that managers don’t know how to manage. In fact, talk to any business owner and he will tell you his biggest problem is finding qualified, competent workers.

Actually most managers are terrible at their jobs. Often times managers are where they’re at because of personality, nepotism or in some cases because they can do less damage in a higher position. Typically they mismanage money in ways that cause one to question their sanity. Yet keep their jobs because they waste money on companies who kick back to those above them. Management is not about leadership it is about knowing how to appear to be doing something or greasing the right palms.

When a manager says that its hard to find competent workers you should automatically translate that to: “its hard to find people who can give me the minimum allowable skill sets for sub-standard pay.” The days of companies wanting and rewarding hard work and loyalty are gone. If you’re loyal to a company and stay for many years they don’t think “hey that guys really loyal!” They think: “man that sucker will put up with anything.”

Also managers suck up resources. When you’re in an IT shop and money comes around for new machines who do you think gets them? The workers who actually need the better equipment for higher productivity? Or the manager who uses it for email and spreadsheets?

Today you’re lucky to find a manager who even knows what his team actually does. Usually they sit on things until they’re chewed out and then they demand an immediate fix with no comprehension of what they’re actually requesting. I can’t tell you the amount of times I’ve pulled my superior’s fat from the fire, and I’m at the corporate level so I talking the president and VP’s here.

Believe me, good workers can always find work

If only that were true. Oh they’ll eventually get something but its not like companies are knocking down the doors to get good quality work. If that were the case they wouldn’t be sending jobs to sweat shops.

Oh yeah they do.

 

[rtconstant]

Do you actually think employers want price competition? They don’t have a choice.

Yeah, they do. When a person is blessed to find a really good company they don’t leave. The rest of the companies trade employees back and forth. Whenever, people start making to much they release them and hire someone in at base level pay, and then they repeat the process. The older someone gets the harder it is to get hired and over-qualification is a real problem. I’ve seen management completely bi-pass excelent candidates because they expect them to want to much money because of their qualifications and experience.

These days it really isn’t employers who are in competition with each other in wages. Its employees who must compete with each other to get hired. Or to keep their jobs and quality and hard work are way down the list in consideration.

Do you actually think employers want quality competition? They don’t have a choice.

Oh they have lots of options. Do you think that the top companies are there because they have higher quality? Not even close. You don’t have to have better quality. You have to have better salesmen, and better appearance. If you want new customers you just have to look better than the other guys.

Wanna know how one gets customers away from competitors? Make sure you have salesmen without souls. They lie, lie, lie because once the customer signs the contract you got’em for X number of years.

Do you actually think employers want service competition? They don’t have a choice.

I understand why you think that and absolutely what you say should be the way it works but it doesn’t. Most companies have no concept of the long haul. Now its very true that one can gain excellent customer loyalty by providing good service. But most often companies take another route. Lock them into a contract, and then make it so getting rid of you is way more trouble than they’re willing to go through.

That’s why capitalism works so well. Remember, capitalism is an economic system where the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated for profit in a competitive environment.

Well truthfully capitalism works well because it assumes the negative about people. People are greedy and they will do anything to get more money and therefore more safety. This is a realistic approach and so it works. Or at least works better than socialism which assumes that people will work for the common good which is not very realistic.

Your mistake is thinking everyone is like you. You seem to equate being a workaholic with being productive.

No he was just speaking to your words on maximization. No one really maximizes. Some people are more effecient than others absolutely but that’s really just a moot point anyway. In truth mediocrity is a much safer approach in today’s work place.

 

[mary_bobo]

Actually most managers are terrible at their jobs. Often times managers are where they’re at because of personality, nepotism or in some cases because they can do less damage in a higher position. Typically they mismanage money in ways that cause one to question their sanity. Yet keep their jobs because they waste money on companies who kick back to those above them. Management is not about leadership it is about knowing how to appear to be doing something or greasing the right palms.

When a manager says that its hard to find competent workers you should automatically translate that to: “its hard to find people who can give me the minimum allowable skill sets for sub-standard pay.” The days of companies wanting and rewarding hard work and loyalty are gone. If you’re loyal to a company and stay for many years they don’t think “hey that guys really loyal!” They think: “man that sucker will put up with anything.”

Also managers suck up resources. When you’re in an IT shop and money comes around for new machines who do you think gets them? The workers who actually need the better equipment for higher productivity? Or the manager who uses it for email and spreadsheets?

Today you’re lucky to find a manager who even knows what his team actually does. Usually they sit on things until they’re chewed out and then they demand an immediate fix with no comprehension of what they’re actually requesting. I can’t tell you the amount of times I’ve pulled my superior’s fat from the fire, and I’m at the corporate level so I talking the president and VP’s here.

If only that were true. Oh they’ll eventually get something but its not like companies are knocking down the doors to get good quality work. If that were the case they wouldn’t be sending jobs to sweat shops.

Oh yeah they do.

 

[ribozyme]

Oh yeah they do.

Do you have evidence to back up this sweeping statement?

All we have are anecdotes okay.

But regarding productive and salaries I think a liberal think tank is a better source than anecdotes.
Jared Bernstein and Larwence Mishel:

As of Labor Day 2007, the economic recovery that began in 2001 is six years old, and the economy has consistently expanded over this period. Productivity growth, though slower of late, has been particularly strong, and after a long, slow start, employment has been consistently growing, albeit slower than past recoveries.

But most American workers have not shared in the growth and prosperity they have been helping to create. Surely, one measure of the success of an economic growth period is how much of that growth finds its way into workers’ paychecks. In a period of sharply rising inequality, however, this is no “slam dunk.” In fact, as much of the data in this brief reveal, many workers’ wages have been stagnant for a number of years, after adjusting for inflation, particularly those at the middle and lower end of the pay scale. For example, while productivity is up nearly 20% since 2000, the real median hourly wage is up 3% overall and 1% for men, with none of this growth occurring over the three-and-a-half years since 2003. At the top of the wage scale—at the 95th percentile—real wages are up 9%

epi.org/content.cfm/bp195

From the end of the 2001 recession through last year, median household income fell almost every year even as the economy expanded and individual workers became more productive. The most recent official data indicate that in 2006, half of all families made more than $58,407 and half made less. That compares with an inflation-adjusted peak of $59,398 in 2000.

This financial stall marked the first time since World War II that the typical family was worse off at the end of an economic expansion than at the start, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a left-of-center think tank in Washington, D.C.

“This is the first business cycle on record where the median family income failed to recover its previous peak,” EPI economist Jared Bernstein says. “It’s been a uniquely disappointing cycle from the perspective of the median-income family.”

usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-06-08-dream_N.htm

 

[vern_humphrey]

Do you have evidence to back up this sweeping statement?

All we have an anecdotes okay.

But regarding productive and salaries I think a liberal think tank is a better source than anecdotes.
Here’s a deal – go out and start your own company. Run it according to the ideas you’ve posted here.

Come back next year and tell us how you made out.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Seems in your mind if someone disagrees with what you say, they are bashing liberals. Not so. How does my having something you can’t afford (hypotheticallY take away your freedom to work harder to earn it for yourself if that is what you want? Class envy is an ugly thing and the mantra of taking from those who have earned it for themselves, no matter how rich they might be, does not square with me.

Excuse me, but I don’t envy anyone and I resent the continued accusation that I do. I have not called Conservatives greedy or selfish. I have met greedy, envious and selfish people on all sides of the political spectrum. No one “side” has a monopoly.

My years of volunteering with food pantries and with organizations that assist pregnant women have left me with a perspective on society that differs from many here. I have met so many people who would dearly love to be able to have even the smallest house or apartment and feed their families without having to resort to assistance. I’ve seen how government programs can both help and trap people. I’ve never met a “welfare queen” nor have I ever seen that mythical person buying steak and lobster with their food stamps. I have met people who work multiple jobs to keep their families together, to have and keep babies rather than aborting them and to keep their children in good schools. I’ve met people who did all the right things-worked hard in school, went to college and got good jobs and they still ended up needing help due to illness or layoffs.

I want those folks to get the help they need and I can tell you that charities can’t do it all.

One of our stronger arguments against abortion is that we can judge a society by how it treats it’s weakest members. I believe that is true about how we treat our struggling adult members as well. What we’ve been doing isn’t working, things are getting worse. More of the same is not going to change anything for the better.

 

[rtconstant]

Oh yeah they do.

Do you have evidence to back up this sweeping statement?

LOL, well in reality I was replying to a sweeping statement, and I gave evidence from experience in the corperate world which I work in. I’ve worked for several major companies and what I stated was/is the norm.

Now do you have any evidence to back up the sweeping statement that companies don’t have any choice but to be competitive in wages, quality and service? I know they don’t because I’ve seen them do it without any consideration to the above. But if you think you have good evidence to back up the belief that they must without exception be competitive and reward quality go for it.

 

[Teflon93]

The Air Force saying is “attitude determines altitude”.

It is as true in aeronautics as in life.

 

[cynic]

You assume that managers don’t know how to manage. In fact, talk to any business owner and he will tell you his biggest problem is finding qualified, competent workers.

Believe me, good workers can always find work
.

Being a qualified and competent worker doesn’t mean you’ll be earning 120k.

They don’t have a choice.

Do you actually think employers want price competition? They don’t have a choice.

Do you actually think employers want quality competition? They don’t have a choice.

Do you actually think employers want service competition? They don’t have a choice.
.

Except with semi-skilled or entry level work, those people have nowhere else to go, so they can collude to keep wages at a certain level. It’s also difficult to measure how hard working somebody is in certain jobs, Either the work gets done or it doesn’t. Other than turning up on time, being reliable and competent, it’s hard to prove that you’re any harder working than the next person.

Good, reliable truckdrivers and mechanics make very good money.
.

Double the average wage?

I’ll bet you do.
.

thanks again

Your mistake is thinking everyone is like you. You seem to equate being a workaholic with being productive.
.

You’ve said that a 40 hour week isn’t hard work. If someone works hard all day but knocks off at 5:30, then they still aren’t reaching their full working potential. I don’t have a problem with that because there’s more to life, but it seems you do.

You’ve lost me. Are you saying mechanics or craftsman can’t afford to earn $460 a week?

You’ll have to explain that to me.
.

They most likely couldn’t afford to have $460 taken out of their weekly earnings, which is what someone earning 120k would be paying at a 20c in the dollar tax rate.

It would make them prosperous, and they could bear their share of the load helping others who cannot work.

It would simply punish those who earn less.

 

[rtconstant]

Do you have evidence to back up this sweeping statement?

All we have are anecdotes okay.

But regarding productive and salaries I think a liberal think tank is a better source than anecdotes.

epi.org/content.cfm/bp195

usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-06-08-dream_N.htm

Thanks.

 

[mary_bobo]

Do you have evidence to back up this sweeping statement?

LOL, well in reality I was replying to a sweeping statement, and I gave evidence from experience in the corperate world which I work in. I’ve worked for several major companies and what I stated was/is the norm.

Now do you have any evidence to back up the sweeping statement that companies don’t have any choice but to be competitive in wages, quality and service? I know they don’t because I’ve seen them do it without any consideration to the above. But if you think you have good evidence to back up the belief that they must without exception be competitive and reward quality go for it.

Unless I misread what you wrote, you said that most managers did not know what they are doing. I was pointing out that for the most part they would not be managers if they did not know what they were doing. Businesses would not be around long if they were not competitive. That is my evidence. And no where did I state my opinion as an absolute. There are good managers and bad managers and generally speaking the bad ones are not around very long. I really don’t think it is fair to judge all managers by the ones you apparently have experienced personally.

Underlying all of this, of course, is the choices one makes. We all have control of our own destiny and it is the choices we make that set our paths. Sometimes we make bad choices.

 

[steveandersen]

Do you believe you can still get ahead through hard work?

How do you define "get ahead’?

If all you are interested in is making money then sure you can work hard and make money.

Does that mean you are “ahead”?

2000 years of Christianity has indicated that your fate in the next life is more important than any gain or loss of status in this one.

 

[rtconstant]

LOL, well in reality I was replying to a sweeping statement, and I gave evidence from experience in the corperate world which I work in. I’ve worked for several major companies and what I stated was/is the norm.

Now do you have any evidence to back up the sweeping statement that companies don’t have any choice but to be competitive in wages, quality and service? I know they don’t because I’ve seen them do it without any consideration to the above. But if you think you have good evidence to back up the belief that they must without exception be competitive and reward quality go for it.

Unless I misread what you wrote, you said that most managers did not know what they are doing. I was pointing out that for the most part they would not be managers if they did not know what they were doing. Businesses would not be around long if they were not competitive. That is my evidence. And no where did I state my opinion as an absolute. There are good managers and bad managers and generally speaking the bad ones are not around very long. I really don’t think it is fair to judge all managers by the ones you apparently have experienced personally.

Underlying all of this, of course, is the choices one makes. We all have control of our own destiny and it is the choices we make that set our paths. Sometimes we make bad choices.

They may or may not know what they’re doing, they’re just not doing anything good. I’ve yet see anything to suggest to me otherwise. I’ve worked for several multi-billion dollar corporations. If they aren’t indicative of business trends I don’t know who would be. Yes absolutely there were/are good managers in there but they are exceptions not the rule at least in the big companies. Also the good ones were no more likely and often less likely to advance. Small businesses probably are more likely to have good leadership though.

You are correct that corporations have to be competitive but that doesn’t mean that they have to do good business or produce products that are competitive in quality. They just have to sell better than the other guys. That is competition and its fierce but it isn’t an ideal.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Actually most managers are terrible at their jobs. Often times managers are where they’re at because of personality, nepotism or in some cases because they can do less damage in a higher position. Typically they mismanage money in ways that cause one to question their sanity. Yet keep their jobs because they waste money on companies who kick back to those above them. Management is not about leadership it is about knowing how to appear to be doing something or greasing the right palms.

When a manager says that its hard to find competent workers you should automatically translate that to: “its hard to find people who can give me the minimum allowable skill sets for sub-standard pay.” The days of companies wanting and rewarding hard work and loyalty are gone. If you’re loyal to a company and stay for many years they don’t think “hey that guys really loyal!” They think: “man that sucker will put up with anything.”

Also managers suck up resources. When you’re in an IT shop and money comes around for new machines who do you think gets them? The workers who actually need the better equipment for higher productivity? Or the manager who uses it for email and spreadsheets?

Today you’re lucky to find a manager who even knows what his team actually does. Usually they sit on things until they’re chewed out and then they demand an immediate fix with no comprehension of what they’re actually requesting. I can’t tell you the amount of times I’ve pulled my superior’s fat from the fire, and I’m at the corporate level so I talking the president and VP’s here.

you’ve described management perfectly.

Now here’s a joke:

A man in a hot air balloon is lost. He sees a man on the ground and reduces height to speak to him.

“Excuse me, can you tell me where I am?”

“You’re in a hot air balloon hovering thirty feet above this field,” comes the reply.

“You must work in Information Technology,” says the balloonist.

“I do,” says the man, “How did you know?”

“Well,” says the balloonist, “Everything you told me is technically correct, but it’s no use to anyone.”

“You must be in management,” says the man.

“I am,” says the balloonist, “How did you know?”

“Well,” says the man, “You don’t know where you are, you don’t know where you’re going, but you expect me to be able to help. You’re in the same position you were before we met, but now it’s my fault.”

 

[Teflon93]

I’ve worked for big corporations, small companies, and the government as a quality professional.

I can tell you that outside of the armed services, the worst by far in terms of incompetent management and indifference to quality is the government.

The armed forces, which you wouldn’t stereotypically think of as primarily focused upon quality or efficiency or stewardship or advancing abstract notions of the general good, in fact far and away exceeds every other aspect of government in these areas. They are the exception which proves the rule.

Government produces no value. It takes from the productive, value-producing segments of the economy to do what it does. When we’re talking about such necessary services as national defense, that’s a very good and necessary thing. When we’re talking about the bureaucratic paper-pushing that the vast majority of the government employees engage in today, that’s nothing but a drag on the economy.

It is interesting to see all those who clammer to hammer corporations, which produce measurable value anyone can see by picking up a stock report, and which efficiently deliver the products and services which have made our standard of living vastly higher than that of our ancestors. Many of you are no doubt the same people who yearn for expansion of the dead-end, worthless government jobs discussed above, and for doing so in part by slashing the only productive part of the government, the armed forces.

It should also be noted that the common denominator here is that the armed forces, as corporations, are meritocracies. This is to contrast them with labor union, academic, and civil service jobs, where seniority is determinative. It is no wonder that people who exist in a pocket of the economy where the only thing that matters is not rocking the boat and collecting a paycheck for a week longer than the next guy would be skeptical of meritocracy—it doesn’t exist in their bubble.

But who’s fault is that?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It would simply punish those who earn less.

Which is nonsense – but it might encourage them to be more productive.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I’ve worked for big corporations, small companies, and the government as a quality professional.

I can tell you that outside of the armed services, the worst by far in terms of incompetent management and indifference to quality is the government.

The armed forces, which you wouldn’t stereotypically think of as primarily focused upon quality or efficiency or stewardship or advancing abstract notions of the general good, in fact far and away exceeds every other aspect of government in these areas. They are the exception which proves the rule.

Government produces no value. It takes from the productive, value-producing segments of the economy to do what it does. When we’re talking about such necessary services as national defense, that’s a very good and necessary thing. When we’re talking about the bureaucratic paper-pushing that the vast majority of the government employees engage in today, that’s nothing but a drag on the economy.

It is interesting to see all those who clammer to hammer corporations, which produce measurable value anyone can see by picking up a stock report, and which efficiently deliver the products and services which have made our standard of living vastly higher than that of our ancestors. Many of you are no doubt the same people who yearn for expansion of the dead-end, worthless government jobs discussed above, and for doing so in part by slashing the only productive part of the government, the armed forces.

It should also be noted that the common denominator here is that the armed forces, as corporations, are meritocracies. This is to contrast them with labor union, academic, and civil service jobs, where seniority is determinative. It is no wonder that people who exist in a pocket of the economy where the only thing that matters is not rocking the boat and collecting a paycheck for a week longer than the next guy would be skeptical of meritocracy—it doesn’t exist in their bubble.

But who’s fault is that?

First of all, you have made a sweeping generalization of all government workers outside of the military. Obviously you have a right to your opinion, but I’m sure you would object if someone said that everyone working in for profit business enterprises were greedy, unscrupulous and selfish.

Secondly, I have worked for both the DOD as a civilian and for private, for profit companies. I have seen favoritism, cronyism, sexism and racism run rampant in both. I’ve also seen generosity, fairness and hard work well rewarded in both.

Not everyone who works hard gets rewarded in the way that they should. Not everyone who thinks they are the hardest worker in the organization actually is the hardest worker.

 

[rtconstant]

you’ve described management perfectly.

Now here’s a joke:

LOL nice.

 

[Teflon93]

First of all, you have made a sweeping generalization of all government workers outside of the military. Obviously you have a right to your opinion, but I’m sure you would object if someone said that everyone working in for profit business enterprises were greedy, unscrupulous and selfish.

You’ve read the thread, right? They have.

And yes, the nature of the thread is “sweeping generalization.” I am simply noting that, unlike government, business makes money by earning it, not printing it or taxing it. Unproductive business disappears. Unproductive government is eternal.

Secondly, I have worked for both the DOD as a civilian and for private, for profit companies. I have seen favoritism, cronyism, sexism and racism run rampant in both. I’ve also seen generosity, fairness and hard work well rewarded in both.

The question is the relative probabilities. Government jobs are riddled with cronyism. One need only review the non-performance related requirements for such jobs to see this; experience confirms it.

Not everyone who works hard gets rewarded in the way that they should. Not everyone who thinks they are the hardest worker in the organization actually is the hardest worker.

The “everyone” fallacy is duly noted. “Not every…” formulations are the last refuge of the derailer around here.

The question is whether success is dependent upon effort. See Charles Murray’s excellent “Human Accomplishment” for the evidence that it is. It is sad that so many today require such proofs of the obvious.