Discuss and talk about any general topic.
14 posts • Page 1 of 1
Most jobs that actually produce tangible goods or services, including highly skilled jobs, are now trending towards minimum wage. It is easy to see why this is. In a "market" system, people are not paid according to their absolute value, but rather according to their economic value - the cost of replacing them with another unit. In a world of chronic unemployment and with a huge global labor force to draw on, if a worker demands more money the corps will almost always be able to tell him to get lost and send in the next guy, however good he is at his job. It is a work for whatever they offer you or starve situation.
However, at the same time productive workers are being boned, we have a plethora of people with vague job titles who can't seem to put into words what exactly they do or how it contributes to anything, who are being paid a king's ransom. Why might this be? Even if they were doing useful work (and I think it is fairly clear that most of them are not) there surely must be other people in the world who could do it just as well, so why do they get more than minimum wage?
Well, here are my thoughts on the subject. Partly it is evolutionary. If a worker on the factory floor can be profitably replaced by a machine or a worker in China, he is fired immediately. However, those in administrative positions can gradually replace their former useful functions with administrative rituals designed to keep them employed and use their positions of power to keep their salaries high. Eventually they will be cut as a cost, as is happening, but in the meantime they can keep their seat on the gravy train.
Far more of an issue is the elite's social engineering agenda. In order to destroy society and lay claim to all the females, the elite want to elevate the income of females above the income of males they would otherwise consider marrying. Since Western females are the most useless people in the world, there are not likely to be any real jobs that fit the bill, so the solution the elite have run with is to create bogus admin roles for them and then pay them high salaries. Their real function should be obvious to anyone who observes a group of them. They are in-house hoes paid to wear tight clothing, give the odd blow job and be used for sex at corporate functions.
Certain minorities such as blacks are also hired for social engineering reasons. Just as putting blacks in prison acts like a safety valve to stop them from committing as much crime as they otherwise might, so putting them into bogus or unearned jobs with high salaries does. It also allows the system people to then say to the ghetto blacks "See, he is getting lots of money, so there is no problem with the system - the reason that you are not must just be that you suck". In both cases a spin-off benefit is that these groups act as a foil against white guy culture. The elite know that white men are the only people capable of resisting their agenda of looting and ruining the world, and so must marginalize and replace us with the less capable. Of course, the supervisors of the adult daycare centers where the females and minorities "work" must be paid more than them to maintain a sense of hierarchy, so that explains why their salaries are high.
Kind of a depressing turn of events for those of us brought up to believe that skill, hard work and productivity will be rewarded, but in hindsight, what the hell were we ever thinking?
Yes most high-paying jobs are a scam. It's pretty obvious why. Society in decay. There currently is large stupid immoral middle class. The decay process involves parting these fools with their money. This is what the upper class is doing, and what I am doing my best to do. No one in modern society cares about morality or real value, so there is no money in it.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
To look at the issue another way, we could divide the workforce into two classes of people:
1. People needed to do actual productive work.
2. People hired because the powers that be want them to have jobs for ulterior reasons.
The people in category 1 really get the shaft in modern society. They are paid at their economic value, which in practice means they are paid near minimum wage since they can generally easily be replaced. They often have to work very hard and take physical risks. Whenever the economy slows down they are the first to be laid off. Companies are constantly looking to automate their jobs or outsource their jobs to cheaper countries. When this happens they are looked upon as lazy welfare scroungers by the people in non-productive jobs they have been supporting, when if fact the exact opposite is the case.
Conversely the people in category 2 have it made. They are often not required to do much and are generally in comfortable conditions. Their jobs tend to be recession proof since they are not expected to produce anything in the first place so there is no reason to lay them off if less production is required. For the same reason no-one is looking to automate or outsource their jobs. What they are paid is arbitrary, which in practice means they tend to be paid more than category 1 workers. Since nothing much is required of them they tend to be of inferior character to category 1 workers to begin with and this is reinforced over time by incumbent workers hiring even worse people than themselves and excluding any bright and talented people that would show them up. Thus the worse you are as a human being on average the better pay and conditions you get.
The most accurate and proper way to determine the value of a good or service is the time that went into producing it. Thinking in terms of currency "hours", mowing a lawn has less economic value than the construction of a new house (obviously). One can take a few hours max, the other can take several weeks or months with all the man hours put into the labor of constructing it. The same principle applies to goods such as cars. Compare a Ford and Mercedes. Even though the "market" dictates the Mercedes is the more expensive car, in reality it takes a similar amount of time to manufacture both, and has similar or equal time value. This principle busts the whole fraud of perceived "value". If you could buy a Mercedes S-class for the same time price as a Ford, most people would take the Mercedes. This would stimulate free market competition. It forces innovation to build and design cars people want to buy, and also drives the reduction of labor by coming up with more efficient manufacturing technologies. Why we aren't on a system like this baffles me. But we continue to attach an unstable, unconstitutional fiat currency to arbitrary values tied to the "market" system of economic value as you put it. It is the reason why we have "Cycles" and "booms-busts" -- another huge market fraud as well.
There's not much middle class left here or world wide, just read the communist manifesto. Actually if we the people were not so stupid and matured who needs to work with all this technology? We could just enjoy the planet, the social engineers are managing our society with their phony check book nothing more.
In a real money system where you have to back it with what you produce this alone would solve most of the problems of the wrong people getting the bounties of the fruit produced. You are essentially looking at what happens with a fake money monetary policy running the world.
If we use our heads we could all work part time tend shop and enjoy this planet together. The best things in life are free! we are the ones who have allowed a price to be put on everything everywhere.
Time to Hide!
Not going to comment first on the economic value, but rather---
Looking at it from the employee perspective--
Most higher paying jobs require A LOT more work. Generally speaking, you only get paid in
proportion to how much you are willing to suffer for it-- since most aren't willing, the ones who are
get paid more.
Add in the other sacrifices-- Example-- lost years of earnings and loans, people like doctors and lawyers barely do better than everyone else.
Let's look at it this way:
Lost 3-4 years of salary due to school, graduates with 200K in debt.
Had to work harder in undergrad, grad school, after graduating and until they were close to 50. Gave away a lot of their youth to
make a good salary.
Plus likely have to live in a high cost metropolis with high rents, expensive wardrobe-- keeping up your image--
a high class lawyer can't drive a beat-up Corolla and has to wear nice suits, etc.
And if he marries high class woman, she is likely to be snooty, demanding, less attractive and expensive. And if she earns just as much as him
then she will likely lack feminine qualities.
But it works out ok if you marry a teacher or a nurse or something.
Then the cycle starts over again if they want their kids to be high achievers-- expensive schooling.
HOWEVER-- this is only for the United States-- have no idea how it is for higher income earners in Germany, UK, Australia, Holland, etc.
That is news to me. I spent much of last year doing 12 hour maintenance shifts in a mill for peanuts. That was hard work, as in body feels sore the next day, have to remember to put Vaseline between your legs so as not to get sweat rash, have to remember to eat and drink at the right time so as not to get sick and fatigued. Obviously the only people who think that fiddling with forms in offices compares to such actual hard word are those who have never worked. In any case, the people I was mainly commenting on (e.g. diversity supervisors, sustainability coordinators, software project managers etc.) don't appear to do any meaningful work at all.
This is all a circular argument. Lawyers have to keep up appearances because we expect competent lawyers to be rich. But why should we have such and expectation in the first place? Plenty of people could be lawyers, so why not pay them minimum wage, they there would be no expectation that they should wear expensive clothes etc.
Many high paying jobs are make work "jobs" for feminist/AA/liberal types. Almost anything managerial is a scam. Middle management is there to perpetuate feelings of powerlessness, frustration, and stress among the more productive workers. Leadership is a valuable thing, but what management for gov-corp jobs is really about is the exact opposite: indeed, it prevents leadership and productivity.
My last job in the States was a great example of this (minus the high paying part.)
The place was run by bull-dykes. Most management or supervisory positions went to bull-dykes. And they weren't competent, productive, or even just genial lesbians either. They were hostile, incompetent, back-stabbing, lazy, unproductive, and the whole gamut of awful qualities. It was so obvious as well. Shortly before I left, a lesbian who had just been hired was quickly promoted to supervisor. Can't let too many men into positions of authority after all. But even most of the men were scum as well. One harassed me until I just left all of a sudden in frustration.
Even without considering high paying jobs, most jobs are make-work for perpetuating the current paradigm. Dinosaurs on life support.
A helpful guide:
Expatriation Apocalypse! The Guide to Expatriation for the Broke and Hopeless (Kindle)
Expatriation Apocalypse! (Paperback)
Finally, I get to read some factual information on a recent job experience of yours. I think working in a mill is a dignified form of manual labour, yet what entitles you to throw shit on any kind of non-manual job and dismiss it as unfair and unproductive? How many "sustainability coordinators" have you met, compared to the general workforce in a mill (eg. workers, technicians, engineers, etc.)? Perhaps one, max two. Many of those jobs are probably in response to some sort of national/regional regulations companies are shoved down their throats and forced to comply with. While you might be right, those jobs are effectively "created by the system" out of thin air, you won't find many CEOs or hiring managers who are happy to waste precious financial resources to fill those roles just because a bunch of Euro bureaucrats or senior politicians decided to pass a bill.
There is some legitimacy and some truth in your usual rants. Yet, I just fail to understand why you produce such a large number of post complaining that other people get intellectual, highly paid jobs and write them off them as useless and unproductive and the product of a feminist, cojones-less society. Nothing wrong with being a factory worker, but why the rage against project managers? Do you think a music director is a useless presence in an orchestra just because he doesn't play an instruments and keeps waving that stick in funny poses?
And once again, since I am not sure you ever worked in those industries and roles, are you really that qualified to criticise them based on their (perceived) usefulness and productivity? Your rants are partial and biased at best.
I thought this was interesting and true.
The interesting thing is the difference between suffering, and that suffering actually serving any purpose. For example I get paid a lot, and because of that my employer wants to make me and my coworkers suffer. Why? Does it produce more? No, not really.
I think it's the American idea of "no pain no gain". For some reason if I suffer all year, then I deserve a larger bonus. If I just get results all year and have fun doing so (which is what I do), then I don't get as much money, because I didn't suffer!!! But I don't give a shit.
Perhaps that wasn't exactly what you meant, but that's what I've seen from my time in the corporate world. Americans want to be unhappy and suffer a lot, because somehow that's a good thing?
Cornfed can't win at the game. Therefore the game is rigged and is not worth playing.
Sometimes you guys are funnier than hell.
I have to check and see if these posts are not in the "humor" section.
не поглеждай назад.
"Even an American judge is unlikely to award child support for imputed children." - FredOnEverything
14 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests