Abusive union

[CougTek]

...And you shouldn't need 40K$ a year to live. If it really is the case at New York, then it proves that some people south of my country are definately nuts.

 

[Howell]

Decreasing the differences between social classes is important because if , for instance, you wouldn't have had so many rich people in New York, earning way too high salaries, whiling to spend a lot more than middle-class people could afford to buy houses, then your houses would still be affordable today.

It doesn't work like that. It starts with your common everyday worker wanting amenities in their daily living. They want parks. They want the opera. They want to live on the water. Someone has to pay for these. You have to pay for public lands through taxes (this land would otherwise bring in sales and property taxes) and the arts requires admission fees. As waterfront property is finite, those who want it more will pay more.

The greater the difference between social classes, the more the rich have and the least is left for the poor.

Your desire for equality between the classes is emotionally driven Marxism. Human nature is what it is. Marxism doesn't work and is inherently implosive. US economics is not a "zero-sum game".

PS. While I also think the living situation in NY is atrocious, You can live there not uncomfortably. You just have to be willing to have a couple roommates. I have a relative my age living there right now.

 

[blakerwry]

The higher salary of the engineer makes it a more apealing carreer choice. If you lowered the salary, then there wouldn't be much of an incentive to be an engineer vs the grocery store bagger.

Would you rather have a country full of grocery store baggers or engineers? (I think neither)... baggers here make about the minimum wage which is $6.25/hour or more.

I guess the thing is that there is a supply/demand that comes to play here, if you only have a few engineers and they are in high demand, they can command a high salary. The high salary interests others to become engineers and the supply goes up... if the need for engineers remains constant then the salary will go down as there will be more competition. Eventually you'll reach a balance.



Currently I just started a job and am making about $22,000... in a few months I'll probably get a good raise for doing a good job and should be making closer to $23k-24,000. I could live off of it, but it's a heck of a lot easier sharing the bills with my girlfriend

 

[CougTek]

Human nature is what it is. Marxism doesn't work and is inherently implosive.

Correction, American human nature is like this. The rhetoric I explained above works in some countries where people have a more evoluated social conscience than in the States.
I've never studied Maxism and I don't claim that everyone should be paid equal. I simply say that differences between social classes should be lesser, not nil. A society can work very well even when the salary differences aren't as ridicouslous as in the States or other relatively unregulated countries, but in order to work, some cultural education is needed. In a society where opportunism, selfishness and individualism are the paramount values, this, of course, cannot work.

 

[blakerwry]

If those are our bad qualities, what are our good ones?

I happen to think oppurtunism and individualism are good qualities. Looking out for yourself (selfishness) is more of a balance. It's nice to be selfless and think about the needs of others, but I feel someone has every right to be selfish if they want.

 

[jtr1962]

I simply say that differences between social classes should be lesser, not nil. A society can work very well even when the salary differences aren't as ridicouslous as in the States or other relatively unregulated countries, but in order to work, some cultural education is needed. In a society where opportunism, selfishness and individualism are the paramount values, this, of course, cannot work.

And to an extent I agree with this. In my opinion if our government is failing, it is because it is failing to educate many of our citiizens. Education is the path towards reducing income differences between the classes. I neglected to mention one big reason companies here pay low salaries to many workers or even outsource to other countries is that the quality of the labor pool is abysmal. Many workers are so poorly educated in even basic skills that they aren't even worth paying minimum wage to.

Regarding pay scales, it shouldn't bother you that an engineer might earn several times what a low-skilled worker makes. The extra education and skill justifies it. What should really bother you more(and what bothers me) is the ridiculous pay scales for executives and lawyers. I can't think of a valid reason why an average lawyer should earn more than an average doctor when being a doctor is much harder. Indeed, most lawyers are engineering and medical school dropouts who couldn't hack it and switched to law instead. As such, lawyers should make less than engineers, not more. And then there are the disgusting amounts CEOs and other executives are paid, even when they run a company into the ground. You could pay a legion of workers good salaries on what many of these people make. Becoming a CEO and then cutting costs by laying people off takes no skill or imagination. If a CEO grew a company's profits with creative new ideas they might be worth paying a large salary to, but most only know one word-layoff.

...And you shouldn't need 40K$ a year to live. If it really is the case at New York, then it proves that some people south of my country are definately nuts.

This is the end result of gentrification. You get a small amount of lawyers or Wall Street types who pay ridiculous housing prices in a neighborhood, and it drives up the general housing market. I'm not any more happy about this than you are, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. Housing is the main reason living in New York costs so much. Nearly everything else is cheaper than in most places if you comparison shop.

BTW, I didn't say that packing groceries meets the standard to earn a salary to make a life with. Packing groceries is normally a student job (or a job for women at home needing to go out or bored retired people) and it rarely is a full-time job. Your original laugh was at the expense of a tree cutter, which is a far cry from packing groceries. Normally, this job involves operating industrial machinery and demands a certain knowledge. Perhaps not a master degree in botany, but some experience with heavy machinery at least.

Well, at least you admit some types of jobs aren't really lifetime jobs, which is the point I was trying to make to start with. I'm not sure something like a tree cutter or garbage collector should be, either. I feel every person should be on a continual path towards nirvana and bettering themselves, even if they just work 40 hours per week. Each job should have more pay and skill than the job before it. I realize not everyone will be a doctor or engineer or scientist, but most people are capable of far more than they are doing. Not living up to your potential is the cause of much unhappiness in this society. The unions are to blame for much of this by using job descriptions to keep people doing one boring thing for their entire careers.

 

[CougTek]

I feel every person should be on a continual path towards nirvana and bettering themselves, even if they just work 40 hours per week.

Please realize that many choose to improve themselve on other aspects than anything that is job-related. Becoming better parents, better husband/wife, better friends, better posters on SF, etc.

 

[Fushigi]

I feel every person should be on a continual path towards nirvana and bettering themselves, even if they just work 40 hours per week.

Please realize that many choose to improve themselve on other aspects than anything that is job-related. Becoming better parents, better husband/wife, better friends, better posters on SF, etc.

And some are happy with the status quo. Not everyone has to be concerned with self-improvement. Not to mention some may reach their peak early in their career.

 

[jtr1962]

Doesn't improvement work it's way into all aspects of your life, including whatever you do to earn a living? In some cultures a person is defined by what they do. I'm still not sure if that way or the American way is better.

Maybe you guys are happy with most aspects of your careers, your income, even your personal life. However, I can state emphatically based on what I see every day that we have a lot of unhappy people in the US who can do with a bit of self-improvement in all aspects of their life. And I tend to think the fact that many are forced to do a boring, repetitive job just to pay the bills when they could do more permeates every other facet of their existence. A job isn't your whole life, but anything you do for at least 40 hours a week does tend to have a major impact. About the only thing most people spend more time on is sleeping, or in the case of some here, possibly posting on SF. :mrgrn:

Basically what I'm saying here is that if you do something you detest it's bound to negatively affect other areas of your life, and I see many people in boring service jobs who seem genuinely unhappy that they have to do what they're doing. I get cashiers who are rude, food service workers who spit on food when you're not looking, municipal employees who actually get annoyed if they have to do anything beyond showing up for work, etc. Our service economy sucks and if we could automate all these boring jobs and create creative ones to replace them I think the populace would be much better off. People are drifting through life like automatons and they don't even realize it. One major problem I've had finding and staying at any job in my life has been the sheer repetitiveness of most jobs. I get bored to the point it negatively affects other areas of my life, and then I have to quit regardless of whether I need the income or not. In other words, boring work affects my health, especially my mental health. I just can't fathom how anyone except a retard could be happy doing a repetitive manual labor task for twenty years. As I said earlier, blame unions for much of this. The concept of hiring someone to work in a company as "general help" where they work in all areas of the business is rarely done any more thanks to "job descriptions". The concept of "merit pay" is also alien to most unions(heaven forbid we reward those who actually produce the most, even when such measurement can be done objectively). If I ever owned a large company, I would insist on not keeping employees doing any one thing for more than a few months. And a good part of pay would be determined by merit(either productivity or creativity). Boredom breeds stagnation which breeds discontent which breeds rebellion. Rebellion is not a good thing in a modern economy.

 

[Fushigi]

Maybe you guys are happy with most aspects of your careers, your income, even your personal life.

I'm under 40 years old and have achieved the highest technical position I probably can without going into product design. The next 'logical' career step for me is management. I don't want to work 20-30 additional hours a week for another measily 10-15% income. It's not worth it. I like what I do, it pays well, and my boss likes me. I am reasonably content. However, I value my time away from the office much more than the time at the office. My career is fine where it's at.

Basically what I'm saying here is that if you do something you detest it's bound to negatively affect other areas of your life, and I see many people in boring service jobs who seem genuinely unhappy that they have to do what they're doing.

Office Space.

 

[jtr1962]

I don't want to work 20-30 additional hours a week for another measily 10-15% income.

I can't argue with that. Frequently getting promoted to management means you actually earn less per hour thanks to more hours combined with no overtime. Bettering oneself in my book means earning more per hour, possibly combined with working fewer hours. Unfortunately, I gave up trying to find this as an employee years ago. Now that I work for myself, my main concern is getting more billable hours. I'm quite happy with the fact I can bill at $40 to $60 per hour and my one(so far) client thinks I'm worth every penny. I don't really bill per hour(which I think is a stupid way of paying even employees), but rather per unit. It happens to usually work out to the range I mentioned. And I'd be quite happy averaging only 20 hours per week if only I could get that much work. Much more and I would start getting into ridiculously high marginal tax brackets where I would have to raise my rates to compensate. At this stage of the game I'm probably not worth $100/hour to anyone so that might not be possible. Hence, I would probably turn away work past a certain point(I find working and giving half or more to the government in taxes to be repugnant in the extreme).

I found that link you posted rather amusing, especially this quote:

People used to beleive being tall equalled success in business. However, being able to walk with your head below 'the cubicle line' is a big asset! Who's going to refuse work (or worse...ask you for a raise) when you've slipped in without warning in the middle of their IM chat sessions? Being a short manager is not a challenge - it's a big value-added!

Going by this my old GF would have a great advantage at only 4"8" or 4'9"(my estimate - I never really asked her). In fact, she could probably sneak in under the cubicle the way kids crawl under tables! :lol:

In all seriousness, though, I've never believed in watching employees like a hawk. A certain amount of trust should exist, and if work isn't getting done it'll be obvious eventually. Also, if work is done quickly and correctly I'm not averse to sending people home early but paying them for the day, provided nothing else will come in. Or if not, letting them relax a bit until more work comes in.