2stepz_ahead
New member
zzombie;8281591 said:
ceo's still make millions when companies are failing
Wendy's To Switch To Self Ordering And Robot Burger Maker To Avoid $15/Hr Wage
ceo's still make millions when companies are failing
2stepz_ahead
New member
zzombie;8281617 said:
man those dudes aint about to have morals when the perks alone for leaving are better than if they stay.
and most of them are just following thru on the previous persons waves or the company already has a following and established name
Stiff;8281100 said:
I've been working in IT for 15 years. I see it firsthand every day, so I'm not surprised by this at all. I think they are using the minimum wage excuse to do what makes logical and financial sense to them. The sad truth is that there are a lot of jobs that can easily be replaced by technology. I think a lot of companies are afraid to take that step because they don't want to deal w/ the backlash and public relations nightmare that comes w/being "that company who put a lot of people out of work". My advice to people is to find a job where the likelihood of being replaced by a computer (in your lifetime) is slim to none. I know that's easier said than done depending on a person's skill set and personal background, but don't be surprised when you see this happen more and more in the near future.
(ob)Scene;8281567 said:
Quoted for emphasis. The Bible verse, "love thy neighbour" is so powerful...
To add on to this thought, I was watching the history channel a few years back. They were discussing the 7 deadly sins.
So for the topic of envy, they polled Americans if they would rather make 100k and their coworker would make 150k, or make 80k and their coworker make 50k... Guess which won...
Think on that for a minute...
Arya Tsaddiq
New member
nex gin;8281651 said:
Certain trades trade skills will never be able to be replaced by machines.
And....quiet as kept....barbers make bread. Especially if you own the shop. Point me to a robot that can cut a proper taper....
2stepz_ahead
New member
zzombie;8281662 said:
i made a thread a while ago and i explained how pharma works.
they build a billion dollar facility to tear it down or abandon it only to built another billion dollar facility somewhere else so they can pay the local population lower wages.
all while profiting billions of dollars.
at some point it crosses from making money and being profitable to being greedy and fattening the higher up pockets and making shareholders happy. but they keep people happy by donating a few million. a fraction of a fraction of a fraction
at some point enough has to be enough
2stepz_ahead;8281604 said:
word to richard fuld and carly fiorina
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5965360
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1848501_1848500_1848417,00.html
zzombie;8281662 said:
Less competitive? Nigga...
In the second experiment, Ariely and Norton asked participants to guess how wealth was distributed in the United States, and then to write how it would be divvied up in an ideal world (this, it seems, served as the template for Norton’s most recent study). Americans had little idea how concentrated wealth truly was. Subjects estimated that the top 20 percent of U.S. households owned about 59 percent of the country’s net worth, whereas in the real world, they owned about 84 percent of it. In their own private utopia, subjects said that the top quintile would claim just 32 percent of the wealth.
“People drastically underestimate the current disparities in wealth and income in their societies,” Norton told me in an email, “and their ideals are more equal than their estimates, which are already more equal than the actual levels. Maybe most importantly, people from all walks of life—Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all over the world—have a large degree of consensus in their ideals: Everyone’s ideals are more equal than the way they think things are.” Theoretically, Americans aren’t exceptional in their views about distribution at all—they have a sense of fairness similar to that of Germans, French, and Australians, and most Americans would be offended if they actually knew the degree of economic inequality that exists in this country.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...nequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html
So this next excerpt from that same article summates it all...
So basically Americans THINK the ratio of CEO to employee pay is about 30:1.
Ask them what the ratio would be in their utopia and they say about 7:1.
The shit is really anywhere from 272-354:1.
But you bitching about $15 an hour.
Last edited:
Judge_Judah;8281667 said:
lol....true. Certain trades are a while off from being replaced by machines, but I guarantee that there is a MIT grad student somewhere conjuring up tech ideas that will eventually leave a lot of people unemployed in the future. It's sad......capitalism is a mf.
How long do you think it's going to take them to refine something like this so that it doesn't require human intervention?
[video=youtube;oMREA_XLQ1A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMREA_XLQ1A[/video]
They are already working on tech for robotic hair salons. Shit is crazy fam.
And stop with the jargon about, "make me less competitive than other companies in my industry." All the American companies in your industry would be playing with the same rules. If yours doesn't succeed given the same deck then you deserve to fail. You don't get to remain afloat and living plush at the expense of your employees.
$15 ain't really shit either. Instead of only being able to afford only one #1 at McDonald's per hour now Mr. Bossman blessed you with the ability to be able to afford a #1 for both you and your wife.
$15 ain't really shit either. Instead of only being able to afford only one #1 at McDonald's per hour now Mr. Bossman blessed you with the ability to be able to afford a #1 for both you and your wife.
Last edited:
2stepz_ahead
New member
(ob)Scene;8281682 said:zzombie;8281662 said:
Less competitive? Nigga...
In the second experiment, Ariely and Norton asked participants to guess how wealth was distributed in the United States, and then to write how it would be divvied up in an ideal world (this, it seems, served as the template for Norton’s most recent study). Americans had little idea how concentrated wealth truly was. Subjects estimated that the top 20 percent of U.S. households owned about 59 percent of the country’s net worth, whereas in the real world, they owned about 84 percent of it. In their own private utopia, subjects said that the top quintile would claim just 32 percent of the wealth.
“People drastically underestimate the current disparities in wealth and income in their societies,” Norton told me in an email, “and their ideals are more equal than their estimates, which are already more equal than the actual levels. Maybe most importantly, people from all walks of life—Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all over the world—have a large degree of consensus in their ideals: Everyone’s ideals are more equal than the way they think things are.” Theoretically, Americans aren’t exceptional in their views about distribution at all—they have a sense of fairness similar to that of Germans, French, and Australians, and most Americans would be offended if they actually knew the degree of economic inequality that exists in this country.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...nequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html
So this next excerpt from that same article summates it all...
So basically Americans THINK the ratio of CEO to employee pay is about 30:1.
Ask them what the ratio would be in their utopia and they say about 7:1.
The shit is really anywhere from 272-354:1.
But you bitching about $15 an hour.
i think your missing the point.....raising someones wages who is at the "bottom" of the totem pole will make everything else up eventually...because no one wants to be out done if they are at the same level and no one is going to take a pay cut
2stepz_ahead;8281695 said:(ob)Scene;8281682 said:zzombie;8281662 said:
Less competitive? Nigga...
In the second experiment, Ariely and Norton asked participants to guess how wealth was distributed in the United States, and then to write how it would be divvied up in an ideal world (this, it seems, served as the template for Norton’s most recent study). Americans had little idea how concentrated wealth truly was. Subjects estimated that the top 20 percent of U.S. households owned about 59 percent of the country’s net worth, whereas in the real world, they owned about 84 percent of it. In their own private utopia, subjects said that the top quintile would claim just 32 percent of the wealth.
“People drastically underestimate the current disparities in wealth and income in their societies,” Norton told me in an email, “and their ideals are more equal than their estimates, which are already more equal than the actual levels. Maybe most importantly, people from all walks of life—Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all over the world—have a large degree of consensus in their ideals: Everyone’s ideals are more equal than the way they think things are.” Theoretically, Americans aren’t exceptional in their views about distribution at all—they have a sense of fairness similar to that of Germans, French, and Australians, and most Americans would be offended if they actually knew the degree of economic inequality that exists in this country.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...nequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html
So this next excerpt from that same article summates it all...
So basically Americans THINK the ratio of CEO to employee pay is about 30:1.
Ask them what the ratio would be in their utopia and they say about 7:1.
The shit is really anywhere from 272-354:1.
But you bitching about $15 an hour.
i think your missing the point.....raising someones wages who is at the "bottom" of the totem pole will make everything else up eventually...because no one wants to be out done if they are at the same level and no one is going to take a pay cut
No, you're the one missing the point. Like badly missing the point.
I already addressed and shut down that mindset clear as day on the previous page. Swallow your insecurities because no one at the same level should be taking pay cuts. You're vastly misunderstanding who it is that should be taking pay cuts... and not all of them would even be paycuts since most profits end up being bonuses on top of salaries already earned.
You're mad at the idea of a person doing just as much work as you (just a different type of work) for earning the same pay. But you're not upset that one person at the top of the ladder takes the extra earnings off of your labor and gives himself 300 times more than what you make. FOH.
Last edited:
2stepz_ahead
New member
(ob)Scene;8281715 said:2stepz_ahead;8281695 said:(ob)Scene;8281682 said:zzombie;8281662 said:
Less competitive? Nigga...
In the second experiment, Ariely and Norton asked participants to guess how wealth was distributed in the United States, and then to write how it would be divvied up in an ideal world (this, it seems, served as the template for Norton’s most recent study). Americans had little idea how concentrated wealth truly was. Subjects estimated that the top 20 percent of U.S. households owned about 59 percent of the country’s net worth, whereas in the real world, they owned about 84 percent of it. In their own private utopia, subjects said that the top quintile would claim just 32 percent of the wealth.
“People drastically underestimate the current disparities in wealth and income in their societies,” Norton told me in an email, “and their ideals are more equal than their estimates, which are already more equal than the actual levels. Maybe most importantly, people from all walks of life—Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all over the world—have a large degree of consensus in their ideals: Everyone’s ideals are more equal than the way they think things are.” Theoretically, Americans aren’t exceptional in their views about distribution at all—they have a sense of fairness similar to that of Germans, French, and Australians, and most Americans would be offended if they actually knew the degree of economic inequality that exists in this country.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...nequality_is_new_harvard_business_school.html
So this next excerpt from that same article summates it all...
So basically Americans THINK the ratio of CEO to employee pay is about 30:1.
Ask them what the ratio would be in their utopia and they say about 7:1.
The shit is really anywhere from 272-354:1.
But you bitching about $15 an hour.
i think your missing the point.....raising someones wages who is at the "bottom" of the totem pole will make everything else up eventually...because no one wants to be out done if they are at the same level and no one is going to take a pay cut
No, you're the one missing the point. Like badly missing the point.
I already addressed and shut down that mindset clear as day on the previous page. Swallow your insecurities because no one at the same level should be taking pay cuts. You're vastly misunderstanding who it is that should be taking pay cuts... and not all of them would even be paycuts since most profits end up being bonuses on top of salaries already earned.
You're mad at the idea of a person doing just as much work as you (just a different type of work) for earning the same pay. But you're not upset that one person at the top of the ladder takes the extra earnings off of your labor and gives himself 300 times more than what you make. FOH.
the people i am talking about who wont be taking paycuts are the people are the top of the ladder.
damn you hurling insults without properly trying to get a clear understand of what could be taken as miscommunication
