|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 16, 2011 8:08:15 GMT -6
Outsourcing taken to the next level?
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Feb 16, 2011 9:06:18 GMT -6
On a personal level, I cannot help but be struck by the irony of this timing. I had a phone screen interview with a manager from NYSE Euronext last week and just heard back from him that he wants me to come in next week for an in-person interview. Even if I am offered the position there, I'm concerned that if I accept the offer, I could be downsized after the merger is approved. Clearly, I've got to cross that bridge when I come to it -- *if* I do -- but it's nevertheless a concern for me right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 16, 2011 10:17:32 GMT -6
I wish you luck on the interview Beeb. It seems that most folk's jobs these days are short stints rather than 30 years and a gold watch. There are a few exceptions such as the big oil companies where they might transfer you to Siberia but they will try to find a slot for everyone when they shut down a project, but for much, maybe most of the economy, five years is a long time to be with one company. I talk with some of the young guys graduating from UT Austin and they don't even think in terms of a career with one company anymore. That is yesterday's paradigm in their minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Feb 16, 2011 10:29:37 GMT -6
Very true -- I am almost 7 years at my current employer, which is a record for me. Most of my past jobs have only lasted a couple years tops because they either went out of business or were acquired by another company.
|
|
|
|
Post by innit Geezer on Feb 16, 2011 20:25:05 GMT -6
Is it possible to have a contract with the position? Good luck, my money is on you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 17, 2011 0:27:23 GMT -6
Little buy little everything in this country is become foreign owned.
Good luck Beeb.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Feb 17, 2011 0:46:54 GMT -6
I understand how the transition from "lifetime employment" to "employment at will" can be a difficult one, especially to those of us who came of age when the earlier paradigm was still in place. But.... I think the ch-ch-change is one for the better. It lets employers be more nimble and therefore more efficient, and it encourages employees to remain up to date and on the cutting edge of their skills, which benefits the system as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Feb 17, 2011 1:52:38 GMT -6
I can see that out here as well in my business. We used to have the winery field reps that lasted 20 to 25 years. Now most only last 3 to 4 years and off they go. I just get the bastard potty trained and they leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 17, 2011 6:33:25 GMT -6
I understand how the transition from "lifetime employment" to "employment at will" can be a difficult one, especially to those of us who came of age when the earlier paradigm was still in place. But.... I think the ch-ch-change is one for the better. It lets employers be more nimble and therefore more efficient, and it encourages employees to remain up to date and on the cutting edge of their skills, which benefits the system as a whole.Translated, it means the employer gets to screw you at will, you have to work a lot harder with no guarantee that you will be better off for it. And doesnt that phrase "benefits the system as a whole" equate to socialism... or I guess in this case fascism which is basically corporate socialism . I dont see a real benefits for individuals. |
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 17, 2011 10:00:04 GMT -6
I understand how the transition from "lifetime employment" to "employment at will" can be a difficult one, especially to those of us who came of age when the earlier paradigm was still in place. But.... I think the ch-ch-change is one for the better. It lets employers be more nimble and therefore more efficient, and it encourages employees to remain up to date and on the cutting edge of their skills, which benefits the system as a whole.Translated, it means the employer gets to screw you at will, you have to work a lot harder with no guarantee that you will be better off for it. And doesnt that phrase "benefits the system as a whole" equate to socialism... or I guess in this case fascism which is basically corporate socialism . I dont see a real benefits for individuals. Texas has been an "employment at will" state forever as far as I know. It is also the home of the largest oil companies in the US, who tend to be very loyal to their employees. The biggest difference that I have seen between the heavily unionized states and the typically non-union states is the whole mindset of the employer-employee relationship. IMHO, the "us vs. them" mindset is unhealthy and unproductive. Stoking that mindset does make the union bosses powerful and jobs scarce. Perhaps it is a contradiction to want more job creation but to punish and villainize employers. Powerful unions generally remove employee accountibility and put a third party between employer and employee. It is like a married couple communicating through their lawyers. I suppose that if you were weaned on "us vs. the boss" and management as the bete noir, it is difficult to imagine employees who really care about the success of their employers and employers who really care about the well being of their employees. There are exceptions to every rule, but generally, employer/employee relations in the non-union south are completely different and far better than in the heavily unionized states. It is very myopic, IMHO, to believe that employers are going to start mistreating their good employees because they can fire them if they wanted to. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Feb 17, 2011 10:05:16 GMT -6
Gordon, you are such a pessimist! The employer isn't screwing you; you are screwing yourself if you don't maintain yourself as a productive employee. As a self-employed person, I would expect you to share my views.
We all know the old geezer who is just coasting in his job, not doing more than the minimum, waiting out his retirement. Think how much more efficient the world would be if we were all productive through our entire career.
As a consumer, I don't want to be paying prices that are artificially inflated so that the company can pay its lardass employees to sit on their butts and eat donuts.
Your socialism comment is out of left field. Please explain?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 18, 2011 6:41:55 GMT -6
Gordon, you are such a pessimist! The employer isn't screwing you; you are screwing yourself if you don't maintain yourself as a productive employee. As a self-employed person, I would expect you to share my views. We all know the old geezer who is just coasting in his job, not doing more than the minimum, waiting out his retirement. Think how much more efficient the world would be if we were all productive through our entire career. As a consumer, I don't want to be paying prices that are artificially inflated so that the company can pay its lardass employees to sit on their butts and eat donuts. Your socialism comment is out of left field. Please explain? Jake as an individual who thrives on promoting individualism what is this collectivism (probably a better word in this circumstance than socialism) doing creeping into your argument? I can recall occasions where your have slammed the concept "benefits the system as a whole" as the antithesis of your belief system, in favor of the "what is best for me is best for me" ideal. As a consumer "I" need money to buy the products "I" and others produce, everything you describe does nothing to encourage employers to pay a reasonable wage, in fact it encourages employers to fire workers who have higher wages and hire workers with less experience at a lower wages. I was all in favor of "globalism" back in the 90's when it looked like a great way to lift a lot of the world into what we would call a "middle class" life. Instead all it has done is given US employers an excuse to ship jobs to third would countries and suppress wages here BECAUSE the employer has the option to fire everyone without cause and pick up and move the shop 10 time zones away. Asymmetrical power ALWAYS leads to asymmetrical abuse of power, its human nature. |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 18, 2011 6:46:18 GMT -6
Translated, it means the employer gets to screw you at will, you have to work a lot harder with no guarantee that you will be better off for it. And doesnt that phrase "benefits the system as a whole" equate to socialism... or I guess in this case fascism which is basically corporate socialism . I dont see a real benefits for individuals. Texas has been an "employment at will" state forever as far as I know. It is also the home of the largest oil companies in the US, who tend to be very loyal to their employees. The biggest difference that I have seen between the heavily unionized states and the typically non-union states is the whole mindset of the employer-employee relationship. IMHO, the "us vs. them" mindset is unhealthy and unproductive. Stoking that mindset does make the union bosses powerful and jobs scarce. Perhaps it is a contradiction to want more job creation but to punish and villainize employers. Powerful unions generally remove employee accountibility and put a third party between employer and employee. It is like a married couple communicating through their lawyers. I suppose that if you were weaned on "us vs. the boss" and management as the bete noir, it is difficult to imagine employees who really care about the success of their employers and employers who really care about the well being of their employees. There are exceptions to every rule, but generally, employer/employee relations in the non-union south are completely different and far better than in the heavily unionized states.I disagree 100% I recall my father being REALLY upset because my first car was a Ford and he worked for GM. His entire shop was EXTREMELY loyal to GM and they worked HARD for GM, and were rewarded with bonuses for their hard work when the economy warranted bonuses. That is the beauty SYMMETRICAL power, everyone gained, the workers AND the corporation.It is very myopic, IMHO, to believe that employers are going to start mistreating their good employees because they can fire them if they wanted to. By "myopic" you must mean "based on life experience" because THEY DID years ago, THEY DO now, and THEY WILL in the future. That is MY life experience, it has happened to me and happened to other in my close and extended family. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Feb 18, 2011 13:14:29 GMT -6
Jake as an individual who thrives on promoting individualism what is this collectivism (probably a better word in this circumstance than socialism) doing creeping into your argument? I can recall occasions where your have slammed the concept "benefits the system as a whole" as the antithesis of your belief system, in favor of the "what is best for me is best for me" ideal. Gordon, you wound me! After all these years, you still don't understand my beliefs, or the concept behind capitalism and libertarianism in the first place? Capitalism isn't about selfishness. It's based on the belief that if everyone does what's best for themselves, then life is better for everyone. As JFK said, "a rising tide lifts all boats." And yes, I do believe that the best system is one that "benefits the system as a whole." I just don't believe that government is the way to achieve it. I believe that empowering individuals to pursue their own personal best performance is the way to achieve it. |
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Feb 18, 2011 14:35:41 GMT -6
And yes, I do believe that the best system is one that "benefits the system as a whole." I just don't believe that government is the way to achieve it. I believe that empowering individuals to pursue their own personal best performance is the way to achieve it. So, in other words, "It Takes A Village". I don't know about anyone else in these parts, but I'm not gonna stand for any of that socialist propaganda shit on this here message board. |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 18, 2011 14:44:15 GMT -6
Jake as an individual who thrives on promoting individualism what is this collectivism (probably a better word in this circumstance than socialism) doing creeping into your argument? I can recall occasions where your have slammed the concept "benefits the system as a whole" as the antithesis of your belief system, in favor of the "what is best for me is best for me" ideal. Gordon, you wound me! After all these years, you still don't understand my beliefs, or the concept behind capitalism and libertarianism in the first place? Capitalism isn't about selfishness. It's based on the belief that if everyone does what's best for themselves, then life is better for everyone. As JFK said, "a rising tide lifts all boats." And yes, I do believe that the best system is one that "benefits the system as a whole." I just don't believe that government is the way to achieve it. I believe that empowering individuals to pursue their own personal best performance is the way to achieve it. So "greed is good" is out? |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Feb 18, 2011 14:51:51 GMT -6
Nooooo, greed IS good. That is how each person pursues his own fortune. Not by tearing down others, but by building himself up. No villages, either. Just individuals, all looking out for numero uno. But the overall result is that everyone has a better standard of living.
Either you two are being deliberately obtuse, or I am a much worse explainer of things that I thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 18, 2011 16:04:57 GMT -6
Maybe it's not that greed is good, but that it is the reality of human nature and you have to deal with it. (as in greedy Wisconsin unions)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 19, 2011 6:34:51 GMT -6
Jake there is a basic contradiction in your logic, or your explanation of your logic perhaps... "greed is good" but "Capitalism isn't about selfishness". Greed IS about selfishness, its part of the definition of the word...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 19, 2011 7:32:00 GMT -6
Maybe it's not that greed is good, but that it is the reality of human nature and you have to deal with it. (as in greedy Wisconsin unions) Greed is good... so I am told |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Feb 19, 2011 13:05:39 GMT -6
Gordon, it's not a zero-sum game. "Greed" doesn't have to mean screwing your neighbor. It can just mean wanting as nice of a life as you can make for yourself. If you do it in a free-market environment, you improve society as a whole by offering goods and services that people want. You do it for your own benefit, but everyone else benefits as well.
Not everyone believes that, of course (obviously you don't), but that is the theory, and I embrace it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 19, 2011 17:57:04 GMT -6
I really dont think you truly understand the definition of "greed"
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Feb 19, 2011 19:11:56 GMT -6
Sure I do. Greed is what other people are indulging in when they want more than you think they deserve. And I don't mean you specifically; the generic you.
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Feb 19, 2011 20:12:14 GMT -6
If you look at the definition Gordon quoted, it states "needs or deserves". That's the key -- greed is about taking from *others*, not about the acquisitive nature of people simply by their own initiative. You equate greed with capitalism and this is not necessarily so.
===
Edited to add: "looking out for numero uno", to borrow your definition, would certainly justify that. If you look out for yourself ONLY, then you are by definition trying to destroy others, which is different from competing in a free market society where you are merely trying to improve the goods/services you offer to show better value than your competition.
Perhaps you need to consider refining your own personal definitions of both "capitalism" and "greed".
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Feb 19, 2011 23:27:15 GMT -6
I don't see how you get from the first part to the second part. Does not compute. Please explain.
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Feb 1, 2012 10:03:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 1, 2012 10:11:50 GMT -6
So their Deutschmarks are no good here
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Feb 1, 2012 10:17:24 GMT -6
Nein, nein, nein.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Feb 1, 2012 10:20:07 GMT -6
... yet ...
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Dec 20, 2012 11:02:00 GMT -6
|
|
