Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50
Thanks Tree68Thanks

Thread: Inside IBMs purge of thousands of workers

  1. #41
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,986
    Thanks
    4006

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    How does that work in the social reality where families exist?

    You do live in Alaska were every resident, regardless of age, gets an unearned check from government.
    This is a very random comment and question. How does it work in the social reality? And the reminder that Alaska dishes out a dividend from its permanent fund?

    Ok.

  2. #42
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,759
    Thanks
    646

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    I'm sure we will have to, over time, although the federal government doesn't exactly need to tax every dollar it intends to spend on welfare provision.



    No matter how many times over the years I explain to you how stupid this argumentum ad baculum fallacy is, you just keep deploying it.
    You've explained nothing. "Argumentum ad baculum" is not an analogy and people who call it a fallacy are being downright silly and tragically ignorant. History proves it's not an analogy. I see your pathetic argumentum ad baculum and counter you with cause and effect. You impoverish a large number of people and social and political unrest, indeed societal collapse, is historically a proven consequence, almost an unavoidable inevitability. HISTORICALLY. PROVEN! And you've never even tried to refute this basic fact. So it's not a fallacy.

    You really have no idea what you're talking about, as usual, and rather just spout blindly angry comments. I'm the one acknowledging the inherent vulnerability in employment, arguing that one simply cannot expect permanent job security anymore. That includes myself. I'm not here saying "I get permanent job security, but the rest of you don't." You need to wake up to reality. You're just the one that bitches and hurls personal insults, presumably because these reality-based observations conflict with your sense of entitlement.
    Yes, it turns out you live in Alaska where you get a government check. So unlike most Americans you have something to cover you if you lose your job. And it is also possible you inherited some wealth. But that doesn't invalidate what I said - if you lose your job it's a crap shoot, you could still wind up one of those poor masses. And if that happens, your lack of empathy WILL bite you on the ass.

    And since corporations eliminated the concept of job security, it's quite possible to legislate it right back. What prevents that is exactly one thing: Republicans.

    That's really funny, coming from you.
    "I know you are but what am I?"
    Thanks from labrea

  3. #43
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    32,992
    Thanks
    25926

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    This is a very random comment and question. How does it work in the social reality? And the reminder that Alaska dishes out a dividend from its permanent fund?

    Ok.
    You wrote:

    The future of employment is going to be competitive, dynamic, continuously and rapidly changing. It was much less this way from, say, the 1950s to the 1990s. The future will be without employment guarantees like pensions and decades of job security. It already is, significantly. Whining about that reality doesn't change it.

    To read these harsh reality-based comments and claim that I'm the sheltered one with no concept of reality, as Enigma suggested, is beyond ironic.
    What you describe as an economic reality may work well for profits, but not for humans.

    The University of Virginia and Harvard University study called "Intimate Inequalities: Love and Work in a Post-Industrial Landscape," says the decline and disappearance of stable, unionized full-time jobs with health insurance and pensions for people without a college degree has had a profound effect on working-class Americans.

    snip

    "People with insecure work and few resources, little stability and no ability to plan for a foreseeable future become concerned with their own survival and often become unable to imagine being able to provide materially and emotionally for others," said Sarah Corse, associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and lead author of the study.

    Her co-investigator, Harvard sociologist Jennifer Silva, also noted that people living in an insecure and unstable situation have a tough time trusting possible partners.

    This is in part because of the risk of betrayal, and they may feel that marriage's emotional and psychological commitment is too great a demand on top of other challenges.

    snip

    This research sheds a deeper look at how the intense economic insecurity many workers experience today may affect their personal choices.

    Such insecurity seems to have risen to a new level, affecting not just pocketbooks and career dreams but now the institution of marriage.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...riage/2663323/
    Getting any where from four to eight thousand dollars a year in "free" money a family of four can go a long way to easing the economic bumps experienced in real life for the working class family.
    Thanks from Jacquelope

  4. #44
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,759
    Thanks
    646

    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    You wrote:



    What you describe as an economic reality may work well for profits, but not for humans.



    Getting any where from four to eight thousand dollars a year in "free" money a family of four can go a long way to easing the economic bumps experienced in real life for the working class family.
    Rekt. Utterly tyrannosaurus rekt. If I was Neo at this point I'd hide my face in hypocritical shame.

    Now for the coup de gras let's ask him what he thinks about the Basic Guaranteed Income idea...
    Thanks from labrea

  5. #45
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,986
    Thanks
    4006

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    What you describe as an economic reality may work well for profits, but not for humans.
    It has nothing to do with "profit," it's just a matter of competence. Competence matters to every employer, including government and non-profit employers. What makes an employee competent or not changes over time as the tools used to do jobs change. People who haven't changed along with it have outdated skills and gradually become less competent. People aren't and shouldn't be entitled to a job for life despite gradually decreasing levels of competence. Employers will always be able to find ways not to keep incompetent people on the payroll, and you can't be seriously in favor of forcing employers to keep incompetent people employed.

    I employ a 64-year old woman who, when she was hired, used no computer, because there was none in the entire building. She is now woefully incompetent, unable to even send emails with electronic documents attached to them, takes about 15 times longer than necessary to learn anything new, has no idea how to use basic Microsoft Office software minimally competently, it takes her about 2 hours to draft a one page letter with 10 or fewer sentences in it. Unacceptably incompetent. She is planning to retire in 12-18 months. The organization is termination-for-just-cause only. Our attorney advises not to fire her or even begin the steps of progressive discipline/performance improvement expectations because it would be perceived as age discrimination, given she is so near retirement. Therefore she will remain on the payroll and continue getting annual raises despite being painfully incompetent. Therefore it is virtually a legal requirement to pay incompetent people indefinitely because of perceptions of age inequality even when the core issue has nothing to do with age and everything to do with basic ability.

    To the woman's credit, she is extremely pleasant, extremely well-meaning and polite, extremely dependable, always the first to arrive in the morning, never complains or makes trouble. A super nice person that I have no ill will for whatsoever. But purely from the standpoint of "are you able to do this job," the answer is no. Not by today's standards, even remotely.

    Getting any where from four to eight thousand dollars a year in "free" money a family of four can go a long way to easing the economic bumps experienced in real life for the working class family.
    The Alaska permanent fund dividend is a bizarre unrelated tangent to this topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacquelope View Post
    Rekt. Utterly tyrannosaurus rekt.
    Are you eleven years old?
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 6th April 2018 at 08:34 AM.

  6. #46
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,759
    Thanks
    646

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    It has nothing to do with "profit," it's just a matter of competence. Competence matters to every employer, including government and non-profit employers. What makes an employee competent or not changes over time as the tools used to do jobs change. People who haven't changed along with it have outdated skills and gradually become less competent. People aren't and shouldn't be entitled to a job for life despite gradually decreasing levels of competence. Employers will always be able to find ways not to keep incompetent people on the payroll, and you can't be seriously in favor of forcing employers to keep incompetent people employed.

    I employ a 64-year old woman who, when she was hired, used no computer, because there was none in the entire building. She is now woefully incompetent, unable to even send emails with electronic documents attached to them, takes about 15 times longer than necessary to learn anything new, has no idea how to use basic Microsoft Office software minimally competently, it takes her about 2 hours to draft a one page letter with 10 or fewer sentences in it. Unacceptably incompetent. She is planning to retire in 12-18 months. The organization is termination-for-just-cause only. Our attorney advises not to fire her or even begin the steps of progressive discipline/performance improvement expectations because it would be perceived as age discrimination, given she is so near retirement. Therefore she will remain on the payroll and continue getting annual raises despite being painfully incompetent. Therefore it is virtually a legal requirement to pay incompetent people indefinitely because of perceptions of age inequality even when the core issue has nothing to do with age and everything to do with basic ability.

    To the woman's credit, she is extremely pleasant, extremely well-meaning and polite, extremely dependable, always the first to arrive in the morning, never complains or makes trouble. A super nice person that I have no ill will for whatsoever. But purely from the standpoint of "are you able to do this job," the answer is no. Not by today's standards, even remotely.



    The Alaska permanent fund dividend is a bizarre unrelated tangent to this topic.



    Are you eleven years old?
    The reference to you getting money from the Alaska permanent fund refers to your callous attitude toward workers in light of the fact that unlike most of us, you get a guaranteed income from the government that you can fall back on if things go south for you employment-wise. In other words you have a taxpayer-funded advantage that most Americans that you look down on, do not.

    Even an eleven year old can understand how that is not at all tangential to the subject of YOU. So you're either younger than that or an eleven year old has more sense than you. Which is it?
    Thanks from labrea

  7. #47
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    32,992
    Thanks
    25926

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    It has nothing to do with "profit," it's just a matter of competence. Competence matters to every employer, including government and non-profit employers. What makes an employee competent or not changes over time as the tools used to do jobs change. People who haven't changed along with it have outdated skills and gradually become less competent. People aren't and shouldn't be entitled to a job for life despite gradually decreasing levels of competence. Employers will always be able to find ways not to keep incompetent people on the payroll, and you can't be seriously in favor of forcing employers to keep incompetent people employed.

    I employ a 64-year old woman who, when she was hired, used no computer, because there was none in the entire building. She is now woefully incompetent, unable to even send emails with electronic documents attached to them, takes about 15 times longer than necessary to learn anything new, has no idea how to use basic Microsoft Office software minimally competently, it takes her about 2 hours to draft a one page letter with 10 or fewer sentences in it. Unacceptably incompetent. She is planning to retire in 12-18 months. The organization is termination-for-just-cause only. Our attorney advises not to fire her or even begin the steps of progressive discipline/performance improvement expectations because it would be perceived as age discrimination, given she is so near retirement. Therefore she will remain on the payroll and continue getting annual raises despite being painfully incompetent. Therefore it is virtually a legal requirement to pay incompetent people indefinitely because of perceptions of age inequality even when the core issue has nothing to do with age and everything to do with basic ability.

    To the woman's credit, she is extremely pleasant, extremely well-meaning and polite, extremely dependable, always the first to arrive in the morning, never complains or makes trouble. A super nice person that I have no ill will for whatsoever. But purely from the standpoint of "are you able to do this job," the answer is no. Not by today's standards, even remotely.



    The Alaska permanent fund dividend is a bizarre unrelated tangent to this topic.

    Are you eleven years old?
    I'm a good deal older than your 64 year old employee, and use email, attachments and all, just fine.

  8. #48
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,986
    Thanks
    4006

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    I'm a good deal older than your 64 year old employee, and use email, attachments and all, just fine.
    Good for you. Did you miss the point? You are passively advocating life-long job security for even incompetent people. Anyone who has a job should be able to keep it forever and ever, with no regard for actual ability to do the job. If I'm saying the opposite of this, and you're upset about it, you must be an advocate of employing incompetent people and being required to keep them on the payroll until retirement age.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacquelope View Post
    The reference to you getting money from the Alaska permanent fund refers to your callous attitude toward workers
    First of all, it's not a callous attitude toward workers to understand the basic reality that competence is required. Second of all, the Alaska permanent fund does not "refer to" any supposed callous attitude. It has literally nothing to do with anything in this thread.

    in light of the fact that unlike most of us, you get a guaranteed income from the government that you can fall back on if things go south for you employment-wise.
    LOL. Do you know how much the dividends are? Do you have any concept of the cost of living up here?

    In other words you have a taxpayer-funded advantage
    So by taxpayer-funded, you mean oil companies?

    that most Americans that you look down on, do not.
    It isn't "looking down at" anyone to observe the fact that employers need they hire to actually be able to do their jobs.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 7th April 2018 at 07:33 AM.

  9. #49
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,759
    Thanks
    646

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Good for you. Did you miss the point? You are passively advocating life-long job security for even incompetent people. Anyone who has a job should be able to keep it forever and ever, with no regard for actual ability to do the job. If I'm saying the opposite of this, and you're upset about it, you must be an advocate of employing incompetent people and being required to keep them on the payroll until retirement age.



    First of all, it's not a callous attitude toward workers to understand the basic reality that competence is required. Second of all, the Alaska permanent fund does not "refer to" any supposed callous attitude. It has literally nothing to do with anything in this thread.



    LOL. Do you know how much the dividends are? Do you have any concept of the cost of living up here?



    So by taxpayer-funded, you mean oil companies?



    It isn't "looking down at" anyone to observe the fact that employers need they hire to actually be able to do their jobs.
    What the hell part of "you get a taxpayer-funded check in the mail that the rest of us don't" do you seem to find it so hard to understand?

  10. #50
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,986
    Thanks
    4006

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacquelope View Post
    What the hell part of "you get a taxpayer-funded check in the mail that the rest of us don't" do you seem to find it so hard to understand?
    The part that's factually wrong, for one thing. Now I'm going to let you figure out where you screwed up, and all you have to do is google the Alaska permanent fund dividend and read about where the money comes from. See if you can do something that simple. I'm betting not.

    The other part I don't understand about your stupid comment is how you think it's at all related to this topic.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Purge My Ass!
    By vikingbeast in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11th January 2018, 06:42 AM
  2. Inside the Purge of Tens of Thousands of Ohio Voters
    By DemoWhip in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 5th June 2016, 01:41 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 29th January 2016, 05:46 AM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 13th July 2009, 05:39 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed