Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yup. I had an entire class around inventory management. Its a bitch.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yup. I had an entire class around inventory management. Its a bitch.

Liar. Anyone who can wash a dish can do it in their sleep.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You probably fail to see the difference because you have no idea what you are talking about. And sell by dates and such are not at all what I am referring to.

There is no law that can't keep my milk till it turns green in my home fridge. But doing that in a restaurant would get you shut down.

Of course it would. Who would keep milk until it turns green? That is a ridiculous argument. The argument was that a lot of times these things are very obscure.

 CptJake wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
There is a difference between checking if that milk is spoiled and juggling it in bulk. Plus you have health standards to consider. Milk that is legally spoiled for restaurant use might be the same milk I keep at home for a few more days.

There is no comparison with your home fridge and a commercial kitchen.

There is also ordering to not have excess and to not run out, being able to calculate when various items need to be re ordered. Anticipating sales based on upcoming promotions or local events and so on.

How is this exceedingly difficult? I mean, they could just go back and look at their order log for the time. How much food are we going to need for Thanksgiving? Lets check last years log and run it against how we are doing this year! "For thanksgiving last year we needed this much. Going by that data, I am going to assume we will need this much again."

In reality this is not a difficult job and it does not require a college education to accomplish. You are just attempting to make it sound difficult.

Oh its not as simple as must looking at last years numbers. Youalso have to factor in other things, like how have we been doing over the last fwe months, is business growing or declining, how is the economy doing, what are the latest trends, etc...

Just doing what you did last year is a good way to fail.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

They would care if you're getting less money than you could be.

In which case I would be forced to disown the grasping little creature.

Respect! "you kids! SHUDUPAYOFACE!" I like it.

This is all a very nice discussion at all, but what does it have to do with people quitting because someone else got a raise?

Again: What does the person that quit gain by going "they got a raise and I didn't so I quit"?

They can work somewhere else for the same amount of money that they were already making?

 CptJake wrote:


And yet... folks with this viewpoint then bitch about others having more than they do and claim It Isn't Fair. Being jealous the other guy won and instead of wanting to be a winner too, thinking every one should just get participation ribbons and quit keeping score.

I think you're missing the point here. Nobody begrudges someone for earning more than them generally, if we're all living comfortably, and getting an honest days wage for an honest days work. But there comes a point whereby someone is making so much money for so little comparable work, that it's clearly far more money than they'd ever possibly need. In which case, you take it and distribute it to those who desperately need it. That's the basis of the social welfare estate.

You also overlook the issue of exploitation. Robert Mugabe isn't a 'winner' because he has soldiers threatening to shoot people who don't work in his blood diamond mines. He's an oppressor and an exploiter. Likewise, a rich businessman who owns every business in town and the town itself telling someone to do as they're told and work their 16 hour shift six days a week or get fired isn't a 'winner' either, any more so than feudal barons were.

Most people with tremendous sums of money acquire it through one form of exploitation or another. Not all (certain inventors for example) make their money through licensing and suchlike, but if you're a high ranking businessman in the Western world, odds are your bloated salary comes at the cost of backbreaking labour in China/India, or evading as many taxes as possible or running a monopoly of a utility, and so forth.

Arguments of principle. If your hard work isn't being appropriately rewarded you might take a job somewhere else that will.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Arguments of principle. If your hard work isn't being appropriately rewarded you might take a job somewhere else that will.

If they quit a job making $70,000 to take the same job somewhere else making $70,000, how does the new employer value their job more?

Better raise packages, benefits, work environment, etc... Lots of variables in a job besides the flat pay.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Better raise packages, benefits, work environment, etc... Lots of variables in a job besides the flat pay.

And yet we have zero information that says the other perks of the job besides the wage have decreased while the wage itself has increased for most.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Arguments of principle. If your hard work isn't being appropriately rewarded you might take a job somewhere else that will.

That is a very human reason indeed.

 Ketara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


And yet... folks with this viewpoint then bitch about others having more than they do and claim It Isn't Fair. Being jealous the other guy won and instead of wanting to be a winner too, thinking every one should just get participation ribbons and quit keeping score.

I think you're missing the point here. Nobody begrudges someone for earning more than them generally, if we're all living comfortably, and getting an honest days wage for an honest days work. But there comes a point whereby someone is making so much money for so little comparable work, that it's clearly far more money than they'd ever possibly need. In which case, you take it and distribute it to those who desperately need it. That's the basis of the social welfare estate.

You also overlook the issue of exploitation. Robert Mugabe isn't a 'winner' because he has soldiers threatening to shoot people who don't work in his blood diamond mines. He's an oppressor and an exploiter. Likewise, a rich businessman who owns every business in town and the town itself telling someone to do as they're told and work their 16 hour shift six days a week or get fired isn't a 'winner' either, any more so than feudal barons were.

Most people with tremendous sums of money acquire it through one form of exploitation or another. Not all (certain inventors for example) make their money through licensing and suchlike, but if you're a high ranking businessman in the Western world, odds are your bloated salary comes at the cost of backbreaking labour in China/India, or evading as many taxes as possible or running a monopoly of a utility, and so forth.

Oh for feth's sake. No restaurants in the US are holding guns to employees heads and exploiting them. The CEOs you and others seem to think are Evil Overlords are not chaining dishwashers to sinks. The 'rich businessman who owns every business in town and the town itself telling someone to do as they're told and work their 16 hour shift six days a week or get fired' is made of straw.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Better raise packages, benefits, work environment, etc... Lots of variables in a job besides the flat pay.

And yet we have zero information that says the other perks of the job besides the wage have decreased while the wage itself has increased for most.

There is still the principle. We doing know the specifics either way its true, but the fact people did leave means they most likely did find greener pastures.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Better raise packages, benefits, work environment, etc... Lots of variables in a job besides the flat pay.

And like I said previously, if you can switch jobs to get a better raise package, better benefits, better work environment, etc... then you do it. What someone else makes really doesn't have anything to do with any of that. And none of the information we have says that they quit to get another job, they quit because of the salary floor being raised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Arguments of principle. If your hard work isn't being appropriately rewarded you might take a job somewhere else that will.

That is a very human reason indeed.

But we don't have any information that says that. All we have is someone quitting because someone got a raise and now makes $70,000 and they "only" make $70,000+ themselves.

Would they be willing to work at another job where they get the same pay and other people still get paid less?
Would they turn down a new position at another job where they get the same pay and the minimum pay is already $70,000?

 CptJake wrote:


Oh for feth's sake. No restaurants in the US are holding guns to employees heads and exploiting them. The CEOs you and others seem to think are Evil Overlords are not chaining dishwashers to sinks. The 'rich businessman who owns every business in town and the town itself telling someone to do as they're told and work their 16 hour shift six days a week or get fired' is made of straw.

Way to miss the relevant and focus on a strawman.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You probably fail to see the difference because you have no idea what you are talking about. And sell by dates and such are not at all what I am referring to.

There is no law that can't keep my milk till it turns green in my home fridge. But doing that in a restaurant would get you shut down.

Of course it would. Who would keep milk until it turns green? That is a ridiculous argument. The argument was that a lot of times these things are very obscure.

 CptJake wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
There is a difference between checking if that milk is spoiled and juggling it in bulk. Plus you have health standards to consider. Milk that is legally spoiled for restaurant use might be the same milk I keep at home for a few more days.

There is no comparison with your home fridge and a commercial kitchen.

There is also ordering to not have excess and to not run out, being able to calculate when various items need to be re ordered. Anticipating sales based on upcoming promotions or local events and so on.

How is this exceedingly difficult? I mean, they could just go back and look at their order log for the time. How much food are we going to need for Thanksgiving? Lets check last years log and run it against how we are doing this year! "For thanksgiving last year we needed this much. Going by that data, I am going to assume we will need this much again."

In reality this is not a difficult job and it does not require a college education to accomplish. You are just attempting to make it sound difficult.

It is a good thing I already said exactly what you just said to me Grey Templar. Bolded so you can see it.

Fair enough I missed that, but do you actually know how to do that? Saying ''do this'' and actually doing it are two very different things.

That's not something just anyone can do. Its not elementary. People go to school for years to learn how to do this sort of thing. Its not an everyday sort of skill anyone can do. You have to know what the data means and how to interpret it and then make a judgement call on how to use it.

You learn that kind of stuff in school these days with classes like business management.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Better raise packages, benefits, work environment, etc... Lots of variables in a job besides the flat pay.

And yet we have zero information that says the other perks of the job besides the wage have decreased while the wage itself has increased for most.

There is still the principle. We doing know the specifics either way its true, but the fact people did leave means they most likely did find greener pastures.

So other people getting paid $70,000 didn't have anything to do with it after all?

No, it did. I wouldn't want to work for a company that gave raises to the less important positions for no reason.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, it did. I wouldn't want to work for a company that gave raises to the less important positions for no reason.

So if you were given two job offers with entirely equal pay and benefit packages, but one of the companies had a $70,000 salary floor and the other one didn't, you would pick the one where people are paid less?

I don't know. Not enough information.

But if I was a guy who had already been working there and had just gotten screwed on my raise relative to others I might not stay. Especially if I had seniority and was more deserving of a raise than others.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't know. Not enough information.

What other info do you need? Everything is equal except salary floor, so which job do you pick?

But if I was a guy who had already been working there and had just gotten screwed on my raise relative to others I might not stay. Especially if I had seniority and was more deserving of a raise than others.

But if your option is to go somewhere else and make the same market driven pay you are already making? And loose seniority and vacation days?

Again, just to clarify, if they got increased pay and/or benefits or other tangible improvements then changing jobs then that is a valid reason to quit IMO.

It really doesn't make a difference if I am coming in, but for people already working there its screwing a lot of them for the benefit of only a few.

It might not be enough to justify moving, but it would be enough to make me raise hell with the management who had this boneheaded idea. I might threaten to leave, and if they truly value my work they'll give me a raise that reflects that to prevent losing a valuable employee. One who is more valuable than the knucklehead they gave a huge raise to for no reason.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It really doesn't make a difference if I am coming in, but for people already working there its screwing a lot of them for the benefit of only a few.

If they make X there now, and they would make X anywhere else, then how exactly are they getting screwed?

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It really doesn't make a difference if I am coming in, but for people already working there its screwing a lot of them for the benefit of only a few.

If they make X there now, and they would make X anywhere else, then how exactly are they getting screwed?

They have been working there longer, contributing to the success of the company. So why are the company profits getting used to give entry level positions the same salary as I who have been working here for years? Why are you not rewarding the employees who actually caused your success? Why are you instead rewarding employees who contributed less to the success more?

It would be one thing if everyone received a comparable salary increase and then the floor was implemented, but to just jam the floor in without also compensating the high and middle wage employees is just bad.

So if you don't get more money "just because", you would go somewhere else and get no more money instead?

 d-usa wrote:
So if you don't get more money "just because", you would go somewhere else and get no more money instead?

Its not ''just because''. No more than these other guys getting huge raises because 'reasons'.

If I have worked with a company for several years I am inherently more valuable to them, and thus more deserving of raises than another guy who hasn't been there as long. Anyone with a brain should be able to see that me not getting a raise and someone else whom is lower on the ladder getting one is backwards.

The better solution if you want to ensure lower end workers are getting a decent wage(whatever that means) is if you were to give everyone comparable raises.

If this guy is getting a $30,000 raise from 40k to 70k I would hope the guy who makes 65k is also getting a similarly huge raise. Maybe up to 80k.

Of course the whole thing is absurd. Nobody deserves a huge raise like the above one. And you certainly shouldn't give the largest raises to the employees getting paid the least, they most likely didn't have as much to do with the profits to begin with.

 d-usa wrote:
So if you don't get more money "just because", you would go somewhere else and get no more money instead?

sounds a lot like min wage workers who want more money
"just because" after all, cannot they just go somewhere else for more $ if where they are isnt enough.


and a lot like people who hate on those who are "over paid"

after all, what does it matter to them if some CEO or whatever is
""over paid"