641–650 of 660 posts
I'm looking at the recent airport crash of the Helicopter and plane as an example of where traffic should be limited. Must be other over busy airports too...
Everyone is going to make this about money or unions or etc, but my employer briefly worked with some ATC employee groups and I can tell you exactly why they are short staffed: - The FAA has strict hiring requirements. You have to be mentally and physically capable, and by their own admission less than 10% of applicants are qualified for the job. https://www.faa.gov/air-traffic-controller-qualifications - The trainin…
Everything you have listed above could be solved with money. Only 10% of applicants are physically and mentally qualified? Sounds like you need more applicants? Want to attract more applicants? Offer more compensation. The training and onboarding is incredibly long? Sounds like a doctor? Do you know why people go through the pain of becoming a doctor? Because they make a lot of money when they get through the other s…
Is it realized it almost happened in the recent helicopter / aeroplane crash. As it was said the helicopter was used for moving VIPS ....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In fact – plenty of [smart] people will take pay cuts for better qualify of life. Yep, I dropped to a 4-day week prorated (so a 20% cut, a little less if you consider that changed my position with respect to tax boundaries, for 20% less work) a while back, to deal with family health issues and my own burn-out. As things are fixing up I'm considering keeping to this routine despite the fact the extra money would be…
Do you think this is a counterargument? The implication is that for 20% + n% you'd go back to a 5 day week.
There are three forms of pay cut: reducing pay for the same time spent working, reducing pay for the same work done (when pay is awarded piecemeal rather than by time), or indirectly by a reducing in work. Ask anyone on a zero-hours contract who unexpectedly gets a zero-hours week: it feels like a pay cut to them more than a joyful temporary freedom from work.
There are a number of companies experimenting with a 4-day working week with no change in pay or other conditions, some are finding the reduction in working time often doesn't reduce useful work output. A 20%-ish drop in income for a 4-day week is a pay cut when compared to that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Want to attract more applicants? Offer more compensation. This was already addressed in the original post. Why write in this "spelling it out for you" style when they already addressed it? > Do you know why people go through the pain of becoming a doctor? Because they make a lot of money when they get through the other side. This is really reductive. There are multiple reasons: - very stable employment - very prest…
> This was already addressed in the original post. Why write in this "spelling it out for you" style when they already addressed it? The supply of labor for a given job is related to the market price of the job. This is literally ECON 101.
> at a certain point you are just going to be cannibalizing other talent pools
Nothing to do with raising pay causing/not causing more supply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think this is a counterargument? The implication is that for 20% + n% you'd go back to a 5 day week.
I thought I was agreeing. What were you thinking I was thinking I was countering? There are three forms of pay cut: reducing pay for the same time spent working, reducing pay for the same work done (when pay is awarded piecemeal rather than by time), or indirectly by a reducing in work. Ask anyone on a zero-hours contract who unexpectedly gets a zero-hours week: it feels like a pay cut to them more than a joyful temp…
"The notion that if you just pay enough, people who are otherwise qualified will do anything, is amazingly reductive. ... It's totally non-obvious this is true."
But perhaps you were just responding to the narrower assertion that some people will be happy to trade money for more leisure time. Apologies if I misunderstood which point you were addressing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This was already addressed in the original post. Why write in this "spelling it out for you" style when they already addressed it? The supply of labor for a given job is related to the market price of the job. This is literally ECON 101.
Unfortunately you've completely misunderstood. This is where they addressed it: > at a certain point you are just going to be cannibalizing other talent pools Nothing to do with raising pay causing/not causing more supply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is completely true. I make less working remotely in a LCOL area than I would in the HCOL area where my office resides. The differential in COL, though, is so high that I'm saving a lot more. In other words, I'm making less but I'm building more wealth. Most of the money that goes into living in a HCOL area and commuting to office is just pure waste to satisfy the egos of upper managers who want to preside over a…
That seem like a reductive take on why people live in HCOL areas. Those areas cost a lot because most people believe the quality of life is better, which raises the cost of living due to competition for real estate. If every part of the US became equally expensive and convenient for work, VHCOL areas like the Bay Area would still be immediately oversubscribed for reasons unrelated to work. The Bay Area has arguably t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not out of jealousy. Many people believe investment bankers are a net negative for society. In the case of lawyers, a necessary evil. I have respect for people, not a profession.
To be fair, the term "lawyer" is generic in the US. It can mean many different things: (1) in-house corporate counsel, (2) external corporate counsel (advise on merge/acq/deals/contract), (3) civil lawyer (sue/divorce/personal injury/intellectual property, etc.), (4) defender (public or private), (5) public prosecutor (work for attorney general office), (6) law professor, (7) judge (Can you be a judge in US without a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Plenty of folks take pay cuts to work remotely Pay cuts are not important; profit is! If I get paid 100 less, and spend 90 less because of no commuting, I'm gaining more than before.
i think you have your numbers flipped, but for me personally no commute is worth the drop in stress and increase in free time
I think you are right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many hours per day? How many days per week? Paid vacations?
40 hours per week. Most people work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Some work 10 hours a day, 4 days a week. A few work 10 hours one day, 6 hours a second day, and 8 hours the third/fourth/fifth days. Many facilities are 24/7 so we have rotating schedules where people have to work the midnight shifts. Shift work is brutal. Most controllers also work Saturdays and Sundays. Controllers often miss their kid's activities a…
Sorry for the delay, I wanted to write a long reply about my experience in math/physics. Short version:
After teaching math for 3 hours I get tired, and in some special cases I teach for 6 hours but at the 5 hours mark I was making too many errors. (And it included some pauses in between.) I'd would not try to make a decisions that risk lives after that.
I took some exams that were 3, 5 or even 8 hours long. It's possible but I have to administer the pauses, bathroom and even going to the bar to drink a coffee to survive them and give good answers. And in case of a mistake, I can review it half an hour later and there are no lives at risk.