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.

 Vulcan wrote:
Oh, it's not just possible, in much of the American business world it's LIKELY. The person the boss likes gets promoted. The person the boss depends on to get work done, gets more work to do. Or as many of us put it, "The reward for working hard is the requirement to work harder in the future."

I mean it would be possible for a person with such a personality trait to not turn to conservatism, but I also kind of reject this narrative. I'm sure it looks like it happens, but everytime I talk with a specific person who complains about not getting promoted... I can usually tell within about five minutes why they haven't been.

Very few jobs have simple ladders to higher paying, more senior positions without any increase in duties. Pure technical jobs might, but for most office work, pretty much any increase in responsibility is going to involve dealing with more people. For promotability, what a lot of managers look for is both the raw talent to take on additional responsibility, but also the demonstrated ability to learn and do different tasks. A person that just does more of their assigned work is a really valuable asset, but that alone is rarely enough to be promoted. Soft skills become a bigger factors in upward mobility, and so while it may look like the boss just promotes people he or she likes, that could also be a person with the strongest interpersonal skills.

I'm sure it's frustrating to people that are grinders, because they see the people dicking around and hanging out with the boss getting promoted, but often there is good reason!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not to mention the fact that relative poverty matters too, not just absolute numbers.

Indeed.
According to statistics i am supposed to have 250'000 CHF.
Because we are the richest ever. For whatever reason my Konto never really got close to that number.


However relative poverty is also a term i dislike. The correct term imo would be "Wohlstandsschere" which would literally translate into the prsoperity scissors but probably be better translated with Rich-poor-Scissors.

 Vulcan wrote:
Oh, it's not just possible, in much of the American business world it's LIKELY. The person the boss likes gets promoted. The person the boss depends on to get work done, gets more work to do. Or as many of us put it, "The reward for working hard is the requirement to work harder in the future."

It's more like, "If your boss doesn't like you, you're not getting promoted".

Sometimes a boss can just be a jerk and hate people for absurd reasons. I can tell you I've worked for a guy that was younger than me and he thought it was fun to be condescending when he spoke to me, and flaunt his superiority in his daddy's business. Fortunately, I discretely secured myself another job and then decided to walk off the site at the perfect moment so that everyone saw him talk down to me, heard me say "Get f**ked, boy" and walk off the site. I hear his father took him off construction sites and put him at the office.

A lot of times, a successful boss that wants a successful company will dislike people for a very good reason.

I've seen quite a few people that think their boss is an absolute a-hole because he's... expecting his employees to be clocked in at a certain time every day. And, all kinds of absurd stuff like... performing routine duties and ensuring the area is clean at the end of the day. I mean, that monster actually... expected his employees to greet customers and help them find what they are looking for. Wow, that kind of guy's a real slavedriver, I tell you. Practically a Nazi.

I have two jobs. I won't get into my primary job, but let's just say this- it's medical, in a sense and I'm not a doctor (not that smart) and I'm not a nurse (the skirt showed my balls). In both, I've got a position of leadership- and honestly, it's because both of my employers have seen my military background and watched me perform, identify and resolve problems, and placed me in this position with the pay.

I have people show up that wear a dirty uniform.. in our line of work, you MUST be clean. People with sludge under their fingernails, in a line of work where cleanliness is a VERY important factor. People who show up actually high and smelling like weed. People who will show up nearly an hour late and then expect their excuse to be suitable, when they never bothered to call and let someone know- then get pissed when they find out you gave someone else their shift. Or people who call in sick 5 minutes before they were supposed to be on shift. People who huff when you need them to deal with a patient, because you interrupted their phone playtime.

This isn't counting the FLGS where I do weekend work for extra fun money.

I had an employee that would come in, clock in, and keep the store closed until noon and nap all morning. One who spent her entire shift chatting with her boyfriend- not on the phone, at the register, behind the counter (and had him in the store past closing time). One guy that didn't know where we kept the mop and floor cleaning supplies, because in 6 months, he'd never done it. And the worst offender was an employee that was selling his own M:tG cards at the store instead of those we had. Employees that were letting stinky, gross people into the gaming room and refusing to ask them to leave.

You're damned right I didn't like them, and neither did my supervisors/employers. But if you ask any of those people why they got ran out- they'll tell you it's because I'm a jerk of some sort and I just didn't like them.

Remember: Anyone who is always a totally innocent victim that was done wrong for absolutely no reason at all, just because some meanie wanted to be a meanie... is probably a liar and deserves all the butt-hurt they're feeling.

Well, let me preface this with a highly clear note that I am not a economist, I don't really know much about the economy and I am not trying to make it seem like I do.

With that said, I think it's a mistake to equate the economic situations of our parents were in, to the one we are in now, to the one our children will be in.

To an idiot like me, this video from Mark Blyth made sense. I don't know that he is 100% correct, or even at all, but the notion that things were in "labor's" favor when our parents were getting into the workforce and the notion that this is not the case now, at least makes some sense to a strict layman like myself.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Most would be pretty happy with looking around, seeing that our neighbors get better results, and seeking to replicate that.

America is really resistant to learning anything from anybody else. Look at our failure to endorse the metric system, or degrees Celsius, or simple voter reform like giving everyone election day off to increase the representation in our government. If someone else does it first, it's a good bet Americans won't until we can claim it's ours.

And we certainly can't do universal healthcare! That would make us just like the communist hellscapes of the UK, Canada, and Australia.

I wish we were able to analyze policies and reforms with more logic and less ego.

Yyyyyyup.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Most would be pretty happy with looking around, seeing that our neighbors get better results, and seeking to replicate that.

America is really resistant to learning anything from anybody else. Look at our failure to endorse the metric system, or degrees Celsius, or simple voter reform like giving everyone election day off to increase the representation in our government. If someone else does it first, it's a good bet Americans won't until we can claim it's ours.

And we certainly can't do universal healthcare! That would make us just like the communist hellscapes of the UK, Canada, and Australia.

I wish we were able to analyze policies and reforms with more logic and less ego.

Yyyyyyup.

You don't vote on weekends?
Like, why?

Not Online!!! wrote:
You don't vote on weekends?
Like, why?

To make it harder.

 Polonius wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
You don't vote on weekends?
Like, why?

To make it harder.

Also how long have you time for it? Do you get the material about a month before?

Are you even able to vote via letter?

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
When your parents were kids the average home size was about 45% of what it is now

Take it from someone with a smaller and cheaper house than the one his parents sold when they divorced, you're full of it on this one. Even living frugally these days can be pretty rough. I'm doing damn well and have been reasonably restrained with my expenses so I have savings, but paying attention to all that makes it so I can tell you exactly how screwed anyone who isn't as well off as I am is.

https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html

When my parents were teenagers the average home size in the US was 1300ish square feet. Today it's about 2700ish.

I went and tried to buy a 1,300 SQ FT house.

No one builds those anymore. So, what is a consumer to do?

 Polonius wrote:


To make it harder.

This is the literal reason.

It's not a recent thing either. Basically from day one of America, we've actually had an unspoken legal clause of "all (proper) men are created equal." Exactly what proper means varies in that context, but even the Founding Fathers couched a lot of their democratic ideals under a caveat that entailed only some people having the ability or right to participate in government.

Ever since, political parties have gone out of their way to keep groups they don't like from being able to vote, and when that fails they fall back on looking for ways to make voting more arduous and difficult in the first place.

Hence, why we'll make Columbus Day a federal holiday, but not election day.

 Polonius wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Oh, it's not just possible, in much of the American business world it's LIKELY. The person the boss likes gets promoted. The person the boss depends on to get work done, gets more work to do. Or as many of us put it, "The reward for working hard is the requirement to work harder in the future."

I mean it would be possible for a person with such a personality trait to not turn to conservatism, but I also kind of reject this narrative. I'm sure it looks like it happens, but everytime I talk with a specific person who complains about not getting promoted... I can usually tell within about five minutes why they haven't been.

Very few jobs have simple ladders to higher paying, more senior positions without any increase in duties. Pure technical jobs might, but for most office work, pretty much any increase in responsibility is going to involve dealing with more people. For promotability, what a lot of managers look for is both the raw talent to take on additional responsibility, but also the demonstrated ability to learn and do different tasks. A person that just does more of their assigned work is a really valuable asset, but that alone is rarely enough to be promoted. Soft skills become a bigger factors in upward mobility, and so while it may look like the boss just promotes people he or she likes, that could also be a person with the strongest interpersonal skills.

I'm sure it's frustrating to people that are grinders, because they see the people dicking around and hanging out with the boss getting promoted, but often there is good reason!

I see your point, but when you're doing most of that guy's work so you can get your OWN work done on schedule (because he refuses to do his work until the last possible moment, putting YOU impossibly far behind), seeing him get promoted is just a double-sized slap in the face. It's easy to be cheerful and perky when someone else does your job for you, and really hard to be cheerful and perky when you have to do someone else's work just so you can START doing your own.

 Ouze wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
America is really resistant to learning anything from anybody else. Look at our failure to endorse the metric system

This is the most galling since metric is so self-evidently better than what we use instead.

Objection.

We do use metric. For applications where it’s efficiencies matter. IE: in scientific fields. Not using it in mundane every day uses like cooking or for car odometers is not an issue.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
America is really resistant to learning anything from anybody else. Look at our failure to endorse the metric system

This is the most galling since metric is so self-evidently better than what we use instead.

Objection.

We do use metric. For applications where it’s efficiencies matter. IE: in scientific fields. Not using it in mundane every day uses like cooking or for car odometers is not an issue.

It's a complete pain in the ass, so I would say it is a practical issue in the very least. Not to mention we need to teach people two systems of measurement.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
America is really resistant to learning anything from anybody else. Look at our failure to endorse the metric system

This is the most galling since metric is so self-evidently better than what we use instead.

Objection.

We do use metric. For applications where it’s efficiencies matter. IE: in scientific fields. Not using it in mundane every day uses like cooking or for car odometers is not an issue.

It's a complete pain in the ass, so I would say it is a practical issue in the very least. Not to mention we need to teach people two systems of measurement.

Its not that hard to learn two systems. Plus I don't think anybody learns any of the more obscure Imperial measurements. We learn inches, feet, and miles, thats all you need for day to day use, and you've probably learned those before you were even in school just from day to day life. In school you also learn metric for doing your science experiments and stuff. And for cooking we have the various measuring utensils, which are really just arbitrary amounts anyway. What is important in cooking is ratios and not the exact amounts anyway, and its as much art as it is a science.

Anybody who is under the impression that we regularly use furlongs or paces is mistaken.

Not really sure how it is even relevant either.

The more I think about the term Glass Floor it really makes no sense for the situation the OP is trying to describe.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Anybody who is under the impression that we regularly use furlongs or paces is mistaken.

Only people I know of who still use furlongs all the time are ritzy/wealthy horse racing people.

 Easy E wrote:
The more I think about the term Glass Floor it really makes no sense for the situation the OP is trying to describe.

Think in terms of Cash Cushion and it'll work. No matter how hard some people fall, there's a pile of money to catch them. For some folks landing on that pile still leaves them well above most people in terms of financial security and general means.

Or we can just go back to calling it privilege like we used to. That sheer financial inertia that can propel even the stupidest human being into highly important positions in society.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The more I think about the term Glass Floor it really makes no sense for the situation the OP is trying to describe.

Think in terms of Cash Cushion and it'll work. No matter how hard some people fall, there's a pile of money to catch them. For some folks landing on that pile still leaves them well above most people in terms of financial security and general means.

Or we can just go back to calling it privilege like we used to. That sheer financial inertia that can propel even the stupidest human being into highly important positions in society.

This. . . I think there are plenty of terms for it, whether we use silver spoon, cash cushion, glass floor, or anything else, I think we're all kind of swirling around the same premise: that some people are simply too rich to truly worry about their decisions.

 cuda1179 wrote:

When your parents were kids the average home size was about 45% of what it is now, the house had a single land line, and if they were lucky a single 16-inch black and white TV with an antenna that got 4 channels. They also likely had one car to split amongst the family.

I thought houses were getting smaller over time (after some point at least, since we went from miners cottages to townhouses). My 40 year old 2-bed is bigger than newly build 3/4 beds, especially if you factor in the garden and garage. This is the UK though, maybe houses are still getting bigger in the US but I can't see it being the case.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


This. . . I think there are plenty of terms for it, whether we use silver spoon, cash cushion, glass floor, or anything else, I think we're all kind of swirling around the same premise: that some people are simply too rich to truly worry about their decisions.

Take Trump for a (non-political example). He complained he was only given $1m to get an apartment, and has a string of failed business ventures around the globe but started with so much inherited money he's completely insulated from being an incompetent businessman.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
America is really resistant to learning anything from anybody else. Look at our failure to endorse the metric system

This is the most galling since metric is so self-evidently better than what we use instead.

Objection.

We do use metric. For applications where it’s efficiencies matter. IE: in scientific fields. Not using it in mundane every day uses like cooking or for car odometers is not an issue.

Except for the times that a company is making a scientific instrument/software and isn't using the correct system, resulting in total mission failure.

For example, NASA lost the Mars Climate Orbiter because Lockheed-Martin used imperial measurements in the software they designed rather than SI units.

Herzlos wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

When your parents were kids the average home size was about 45% of what it is now, the house had a single land line, and if they were lucky a single 16-inch black and white TV with an antenna that got 4 channels. They also likely had one car to split amongst the family.

I thought houses were getting smaller over time (after some point at least, since we went from miners cottages to townhouses). My 40 year old 2-bed is bigger than newly build 3/4 beds, especially if you factor in the garden and garage. This is the UK though, maybe houses are still getting bigger in the US but I can't see it being the case.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


This. . . I think there are plenty of terms for it, whether we use silver spoon, cash cushion, glass floor, or anything else, I think we're all kind of swirling around the same premise: that some people are simply too rich to truly worry about their decisions.

Take Trump for a (non-political example). He complained he was only given $1m to get an apartment, and has a string of failed business ventures around the globe but started with so much inherited money he's completely insulated from being an incompetent businessman.

There was actually a tipping point in the US, at least for now. A few years after the economic recession started the average home size did shrink a bit, but has increased again. I think the high was somewhere in the 2009 era. With American families getting smaller there really is a factor of diminishing returns with home sizes. Families used to pack 7 people into a 3-bedroom one bath house. Now it's 4 people in a 3-bedroom, 2 bath house. We may have just hit the top of the bell curve when it comes to home sizes.

As for Trumps failed businesses, I think that it's vastly overstated. Most new businesses fail in the first 2 years. Even big-wigs aren't immune from failing business ventures, and they happen quite regularly. Add into that that Trump sold his name to be slapped onto several businesses and had little to do with them, he just wanted the royalty check. Do we really count these failed businesses as "his"?

For example, NASA lost the Mars Climate Orbiter because Lockheed-Martin used imperial measurements in the software they designed rather than SI units.

To be clear, one component of the Orbiter used imperial and another used SI. No one coordinated between this components apparently, so when the imperial unit sent imperial measurements to the SI unit, the whole thing went south fast. It could easily have been solved with a piece of software somewhere to convert between measurements, or some kind of protocol so that every unit on the rig could measure in the same system. Nasa changed a lot about how they procure components after this incident to do just that.

Do we really count these failed businesses as "his"?

So long as he decides the ones that didn't fail are "his" successes.

Can't have it both ways, but what else is new with the rich and successful? They might as well slap a bumber sticking saying "I have cake and ate it to" on their motorcades

Herzlos wrote:

I thought houses were getting smaller over time (after some point at least, since we went from miners cottages to townhouses). My 40 year old 2-bed is bigger than newly build 3/4 beds, especially if you factor in the garden and garage. This is the UK though, maybe houses are still getting bigger in the US but I can't see it being the case.

The average square foot size of new construction in the US has continually risen. . . . Even the 2008 recession bubble didn't bring home sizes down that much. In my area, mine was the 2nd development in, the 1st and 2nd developments are all houses that range from 1700-2500 sq. ft. floor plans. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th developments going in (the 5th is actively being built and is less than 20% built) the smallest floor plans, which are all single story houses, start at 2000 sq ft. Going up to around 3300 sq. ft. . . . The ridiculous thing is though, and I've looked into it a little bit, is that these houses are objectively bigger than even my house, but they are on the same size plot of land as I am, so they are actively giving up exterior personal space (in the UK this would be the back garden).



Re: the failed Trump businesses, there is a whole lot going on there. . . Yes, he's slapped his name on all kinds of gak to make royalties. But what is often not discussed is that while yes, the steak business, casino business, and airline business were all high profile situations, there is a much, much larger wake of "failure". Essentially, it is part of his "being rich" strategy, and what is getting him into hot water financially. Basically, he'd do something like, say, buy a yacht. . . He'd make payments on this yacht until he decided it wasn't gold enough, or big enough or whatever. So, he'd then let it go into default and get repo'd. . . In order to "protect" himself, he basically would have a business be the sole owner of this yacht, and he'd fold the business using bankruptcy law to pad his personal bank accounts while also being rid of an unwanted thing. . . This tactic developed to a point where no major US or Western European bank would loan him money. But the Russians would (and this is where/why we see some of his political ties, which I will leave at that and not discuss further).

Part of the housing issue is about simple practicality; as the price of land & materials has risen (dramatically) construction companies need to make nicer, more expensive homes to turn a profit. A plot of land costs the same whether the company intends to build a tiny house or a huge house, a plank of wood costs the same whether it is used in a luxury home or a cheap one, and larger homes will need less material per square foot.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The average square foot size of new construction in the US has continually risen. . . . Even the 2008 recession bubble didn't bring home sizes down that much. In my area, mine was the 2nd development in, the 1st and 2nd developments are all houses that range from 1700-2500 sq. ft. floor plans. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th developments going in (the 5th is actively being built and is less than 20% built) the smallest floor plans, which are all single story houses, start at 2000 sq ft. Going up to around 3300 sq. ft. . . . The ridiculous thing is though, and I've looked into it a little bit, is that these houses are objectively bigger than even my house, but they are on the same size plot of land as I am, so they are actively giving up exterior personal space (in the UK this would be the back garden).

This is definitely the case in my region. Right up the street from me is a development that has 3,000-4,000 sq ft. homes on lots as small as .15 acres.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Part of the housing issue is about simple practicality; as the price of land & materials has risen (dramatically) construction companies need to make nicer, more expensive homes to turn a profit. A plot of land costs the same whether the company intends to build a tiny house or a huge house, a plank of wood costs the same whether it is used in a luxury home or a cheap one, and larger homes will need less material per square foot.

Not entirely true. . . due to weirdness with the RE industry, the most recent development going in, the family owning that parcel of land originally (ie, the ones who sold the plot to developers), were able to get more per acre precisely because the land was "more valuable" due to proximity to "land improvements". . . Without derailing too much, this is why HOA's exist: because like it or not, the value of MY home is affected by the state of my neighbor's property, and the general state of property in the immediate vicinity. The HOA, at its core, is about protecting the "investment" of the home owner, to prevent value slipping and all that.

That is the price of buying the land. Once they have done so that bill is paid; they can then build a small home on the land or a big one, which would affect its value, but not change the amount already paid