Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“People simply empty out”

lettersofnote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 477 posts

Re: “People simply empty out”

#381

Post by nhangen »

Loughla wrote: post #378
nhangen wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In capitalism, pay is a result of supply and demand. The truth is that working at McDonald's requires very little skill, and because of that, offers very little pay. I thought they paid a great wage when I worked there during high school. And you're right, there is no security, so what is your solution other than whining about it?

Those positions require very little skill, and provide very little pay. Correct. The next part is where most people today get the argument wrong; it isn't that those jobs should pay more for the arbitrary sake of paying more. Those type of jobs are the step for many people that not just have no more steps to take, but have never had any walkway to stand on. Their entire lives have been spent just trying to make it to…

You're right. Been there done that. During a period in my twenties, I had lost my job, had a negative bank balance, and two kids to feed. I was on foodstamps while I worked at the Olive Garden making very little while spending far too long in college subsidized by grants and student loans. I finally graduated, got another job, and was let go within a year.

I now had tons of debt and a degree that was almost worthless. So I joined the Army and left my kids for 16 weeks to attend bootcamp and AIT. Spent 5 years, including a stint in Afghanistan.

Needless to say, I recovered, taught myself how to program, and now run a software company.

Life sucks. For many, it sucks hard. But there are ways out. Most people just don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to do so.

Btw, I'm speaking of 1st world. 3rd world is obviously a different story.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#382

Post by king_jester »

mkrecny wrote: post #377
king_jester wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. I stated that in this case I thought the emotional abuse Bukowski's fiance inflicted on Bukowski was worse than the physical abuse he inflicted on her. That's my opinion. I think the way that she casually taunted him with her infidelity is _serious_ abuse. The kick is also terribly abusive. How exactly is being honest about not wanting and not committing to a monogamous relationship on an equal playing field as…

> "but hitting someone and being cheated on are not even remotely on the same playing field" Hey man, I think we've covered some interesting ground here, but I think we just have to agree to disagree. I certainly don't think that cheating should be punished with physical abuse. However, I do think that the cheating on someone who you're engaged to and clearly expects monogamy is worse than hitting someone once. I jus…

> I certainly don't think that cheating should be punished with physical abuse. However, I do think that the cheating on someone who you're engaged to and clearly expects monogamy is worse than hitting someone once. I just do.

Cheating on someone is a violation of that person's trust. Hitting your partner is violation of their physical integrity.

> Also, let's not forget that, whilst unacceptable, the kick was solicited by her admission of infidelity, whereas the infidelity is seemingly unsolicited.

What is the point of making this statement if not to excuse her getting hit or to make her getting hit seem like "she was asking for it"?

Re: “People simply empty out”

#383

Post by hnnnnng »

nhangen wrote: post #373
hnnnnng wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1 is flat out wrong. THERE IS NO SECURITY! Is mcdonalds right? paying people so little that they need another job to not be out on the street? How is that TAKING CARE of employees? Before you say mcdonalds is an exception, theres so many others so dont give me the bullshit about wealth exists because blah.

In capitalism, pay is a result of supply and demand. The truth is that working at McDonald's requires very little skill, and because of that, offers very little pay. I thought they paid a great wage when I worked there during high school. And you're right, there is no security, so what is your solution other than whining about it?

The solution? How about increasing the wage so that these guys dont have to work more than 20 hours a day? How about taking a loss of a billion dollars to reduce profit from 7 billion to 6 billion but in return provide for a better life for the thousands of less fortunate people? If some shareholder makes a few million dollars less, hes not going to die. But the people that are living on food stamps, might very well.

How does costco manage to do this without going into the red? Im not whining that theres no security, i'm stating that making the claim that there is security is WRONG. How about you read with your eyes open? thanks.

Edit: clarification. Edit2: another proof that you can make a profit while actually caring for employees: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-trad... Edit3: The supply and demand crap you spew is total garbage. Nothing is 'just supply and demand'. There is much more including profit creation as a result of fulfilling demand with supply. All I suggest is reduce the profit slightly so you pay your low level workers more. They already make less than a third of what people with education do. How about making it equal to or slightly more than a THIRD?

Re: “People simply empty out”

#384

Post by nhangen »

hnnnnng wrote: post #383
nhangen wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In capitalism, pay is a result of supply and demand. The truth is that working at McDonald's requires very little skill, and because of that, offers very little pay. I thought they paid a great wage when I worked there during high school. And you're right, there is no security, so what is your solution other than whining about it?

The solution? How about increasing the wage so that these guys dont have to work more than 20 hours a day? How about taking a loss of a billion dollars to reduce profit from 7 billion to 6 billion but in return provide for a better life for the thousands of less fortunate people? If some shareholder makes a few million dollars less, hes not going to die. But the people that are living on food stamps, might very well.…

Increase wages why? Corporations are not charities, and they have never purported that they are. How is a corporation responsible for someone else's lack of education or skillset?

Re: “People simply empty out”

#385

Post by hnnnnng »

nhangen wrote: post #384
hnnnnng wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution? How about increasing the wage so that these guys dont have to work more than 20 hours a day? How about taking a loss of a billion dollars to reduce profit from 7 billion to 6 billion but in return provide for a better life for the thousands of less fortunate people? If some shareholder makes a few million dollars less, hes not going to die. But the people that are living on food stamps, might very well.…

Increase wages why? Corporations are not charities, and they have never purported that they are. How is a corporation responsible for someone else's lack of education or skillset?

How? Because of a vicious cycle that begins with the low wages. You pay someone low wages so: 1) their kids can't pay for college => they can't get a proper education => lack of education/skillset in the kids 2) their kids have to work at these 'corporations' because of lack of education so they can put food on the table 3) their kids resort to stealing or some other illegal activity because they didnt have much of a choice => go to juvenile detention => no college => no skillset that you claim is not your fault

Is that enough or do you want me to go out and get some case studies as well?

Re: “People simply empty out”

#386

Post by blottsie »

nhangen wrote: post #359

I have three things to say about this: 1. Many people are horrified by the thought of not being a simple worker bee. They say they want change, but they don't. They want the security of someone else taking care of them. The reason wealth exists is because there are people that cannot live this way, and thus, make their own way. You cannot fault hard working business owners because their employees put themselves in a…

>They want the security of someone else taking care of them.

Performing a job, even a "simple worker bee" job, is still a job, not charity. As a worker, you perform a function, and the company pays you for your time/expertise/ideas/efforts/output/etc. What the hell part of that is charity, or being "taken care of"?

I find your implication that the employer is somehow doing the employee a favor by paying them for their work baffling and wrong-headed.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#387

Post by nhangen »

blottsie wrote: post #386
nhangen wrote: post #359

I have three things to say about this: 1. Many people are horrified by the thought of not being a simple worker bee. They say they want change, but they don't. They want the security of someone else taking care of them. The reason wealth exists is because there are people that cannot live this way, and thus, make their own way. You cannot fault hard working business owners because their employees put themselves in a…

>They want the security of someone else taking care of them. Performing a job, even a "simple worker bee" job, is still a job, not charity. As a worker, you perform a function, and the company pays you for your time/expertise/ideas/efforts/output/etc. What the hell part of that is charity, or being "taken care of"? I find your implication that the employer is somehow doing the employee a favor by paying them for thei…

I'm not sure where you're getting that, but if you read the rest of my comments on this thread I think you'll get a different impression.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#388

Post by nhangen »

hnnnnng wrote: post #385
nhangen wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increase wages why? Corporations are not charities, and they have never purported that they are. How is a corporation responsible for someone else's lack of education or skillset?

How? Because of a vicious cycle that begins with the low wages. You pay someone low wages so: 1) their kids can't pay for college => they can't get a proper education => lack of education/skillset in the kids 2) their kids have to work at these 'corporations' because of lack of education so they can put food on the table 3) their kids resort to stealing or some other illegal activity because they didnt have much of a…

That's not true. The government offers grants and loans for those with low incomes. I should know, that's how I paid for school. Skillsets and education must be earned; they are not granted.

You're still failing to provide evidence as to how the corporation is the party at fault.

Re: “People simply empty out”

#389

Post by cafard »

One of the scoutmasters of my troop, 45 years ago, was a warehouseman. I doubt that his job was exciting. I imagine he took some satisfaction in doing it well. I suspect that his true satisfaction came from his family and community.

I have relatives and shirttail relatives who never attended or never finished college and have worked at blue-collar trades. Some are happy, some aren't, I don't know how many would recognize themselves as emptied out. Some rightly would not.

Anthony Trollope spent his working life in the British post office. Having more regular ways than Bukowski, he rose to responsible positions, but he worked steadily. I imagine that the readers of 2113 will mostly rate Trollope higher than Bukowski.

Post reply on HN