Is Bernie Sanders Persona Real? (1 Viewer)

zeroaccess

Active member
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
608
Bernie is for forgiving student loan debt. Why would we reward people who made poor choices and always have this year's iPhone and a big SUV and the biggest TV they can fit in their living room? My daughter and I are funding college for my twin granddaughters because the girls made prudent choices and are living almost within our budget. By making good choices, they'll end up with very little debt.
The problem is many saddled with excessive student loan debt did not make "bad choices". It's simply outrageously expensive to finish even a Bachelor's degree at most places in the U.S., let alone become something like a Pharmacist, Doctor, etc. There is almost no way to do it without taking on excessive debt.

Bernie is for "free" health care for everyone in the country and since he is also for open borders, how does that not extend to everyone in the world?
Again, a mischaracterization. He is not promoting "free" healthcare. He is saying our healthcare is funded incorrectly. There should not be insurance middlemen and we should fund it directly from payroll just like Medicare, which is much more efficient. He is also not promoting "open borders".
Biden is simply a criminal. In addition to his family profiting from his name and him being on tape exchanging money for a service with a foreign official, he is also in the pocket of the big credit card companies. And then there is his increasing episodes of mindlessness. The incident with his wife and sister last week doesn't count. That was just plain funny and we should be laughing with him in that case instead of at him.
I agree Biden seems to be losing it...but there is a lot of money trying to prop him up.
 

vba_php

Forum Troll
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
2,884
The problem is many saddled with excessive student loan debt did not make "bad choices". It's simply outrageously expensive to finish even a Bachelor's degree at most places in the U.S., let alone become something like a Pharmacist, Doctor, etc. There is almost no way to do it without taking on excessive debt.
there IS a reason for this, but again it is due to a human flaw and has nothing to do with economics.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 18:50
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
2,379
The problem is many saddled with excessive student loan debt did not make "bad choices". It's simply outrageously expensive to finish even a Bachelor's degree at most places in the U.S., let alone become something like a Pharmacist, Doctor, etc. There is almost no way to do it without taking on excessive debt.
To be very brief. The student loan crisis is actually a repeat of the housing crises. The students were/are "victims" of an ill-conceived government program and they fell for the "bait". Those who promoted student loans had to have known, or should have known that they were creating a financial "bubble" similar to the housing crisis. I believe that this was done on purpose (by the nameless "they") so that a "crisis" would be created that would require a federal government "solution". The student are mere pawns in this game.

He is also not promoting "open borders".
If Bernie is not for open borders, how come he does not vocally support the deportation of illegal immigrants?
It also appears that Bernie is playing some innovative word wordsmithing over the definition of "open borders". He apparently wants to make illegally crossing the border a civil matter instead of a criminal matter. So, if it is a civil matter, how do you "deport" a person who is, under current law, illegally here? If anyone is allowed in and deportation is off-the-table, you have an open border.

Again, a mischaracterization. He is not promoting "free" healthcare. He is saying our healthcare is funded incorrectly. There should not be insurance middlemen and we should fund it directly from payroll just like Medicare, which is much more efficient.
Bernie is correct that the health care system is funded incorrectly. Unfortunately, the debate is on the concept of "insurance" and not a health care system. I would support a taxpayer funded health care system provided that it is approved by the electorate.
 
Last edited:

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator, Former MVP, Retired SysAdmin
Staff member
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
18,312
My only complaint on student debt is that if a student takes out a loan and then the educational institution collapses under its own weight, that is not visible to the student and therefore not his/her fault. I would take those specific debts and dump them on the grounds that the student did not receive the service for which the loan was originated. That would have to go back to those liquidating the failed educational institution.

As far as student loans were concerned, I paid for my schooling as I went through it by playing music on Bourbon Street and other areas of greater New Orleans. Also, played organ for at least 75 weddings over a 5-year period. OK, I lived with my parents so they were spotting me food and shelter plus the occasional gift of clothing at birthdays and Christmas. But the ONLY loan I ever took out was $40 one year from my Mom because I had a lab fee due and textbooks had wiped me out. Two months later I was able to pay her back. Between scholarships and teaching assistantships, I paid for everything for a Bachelor's degree and a Ph. D. - graduating debt free. So it was possible and the educational institution was recognized as a good school for chemistry at the time, so it wasn't a fly-by-night situation either.
 

zeroaccess

Active member
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
608
Yes, but oh have times changed. If you take a look at today's tuition rates (and you probably have) you'd cringe at the thought of trying to pay-as-you-go with today's diminished wages which have not kept with either productivity nor inflation. We're more productive than ever and getting less in return.
 

vba_php

Forum Troll
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
2,884
I would take those specific debts and dump them on the grounds that the student did not receive the service for which the loan was originated.
richard, this is happening everywhere. for instance, at the university of iowa in our town, I saw the next semester list of class offered in computer science when I asked many months ago, and not one damn class had anything to do with what employers want! however, they ARE teaching things like how to write compilers, which I guess it relevant. but seriously, unless one is creating their own operating system or something from scratch, why the hell would a school teach something like that!? students are NOT going to be doing something from scratch unless they're the next Mark Zuckerberg. and most are not.

this is what they want, in terms of software: https://www.adamevanovich.com/content/candidacy/skillsets/

you'll have to contact me to get in. it is blocked to the general public.

<edit>
I uploaded a photo of the page for you, Richard.....

skillsets_in_demand.jpg
 

Attachments

  • skillsets_in_demand.jpg
    skillsets_in_demand.jpg
    643.9 KB · Views: 17

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 18:50
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
2,379
You have raised a couple of complicated topics.

Yes, but oh have times changed. If you take a look at today's tuition rates (and you probably have) you'd cringe at the thought of trying to pay-as-you-go with today's diminished wages which have not kept with either productivity nor inflation./QUOTE]At a very fundamental level, government programs designed to make something affordable, like housing and a college education, actually make things more expensive. High prices, actually restrain price increases thereby keeping prices "low" because people have to save before buying. Unfortunately, we currently live in a debt orientated consumer spending economy. Spend now, pay later; maybe never.

We're more productive than ever and getting less in return.
Take a look at most electronic devices. Prices are falling and the consumer is getting even more features. Even many "poor" people believe it is worth paying for a cell phone. Used to be only the rich could afford cell phones.
 

zeroaccess

Active member
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
608
That's innovation. But even phone prices are out of control.

Let's stick to the fundamentals. Housing and school. Far less affordable than they used to be. You can't pay-as-you-go like you used to.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 18:50
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
2,379
That's innovation. But even phone prices are out of control.
You conflate "innovation" and "productivity". While inter-related, productivity (simplistically) is the ability to produce a lot of product at (hopefully) a progressively lower per-unit cost. For example, a worker in one day can (hypothetically) make one car, but increased productivity means that worker can now make two cars in one day.

Here is a more formal definition from Investopedia:
"Productivity, in economics, measures output per unit of input, such as labor, capital or any other resource – and is typically calculated for the economy as a whole, as a ratio of gross domestic product (GDP) to hours worked. Labor productivity may be further broken down by sector to examine trends in labor growth, wage levels and technological improvement. Corporate profits and shareholder returns are directly linked to productivity growth.

At the corporate level, where productivity is a measure of the efficiency of a company's production process, it is calculated by measuring the number of units produced relative to employee labor hours or by measuring a company's net sales relative to employee labor hours."

Housing and school. Far less affordable than they used to be. You can't pay-as-you-go like you used to.
Correct. The reason is counter-intuitive. Making something "affordable" through government programs eventually makes them "unaffordable".
 
Last edited:

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator, Former MVP, Retired SysAdmin
Staff member
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
18,312
vba_php said:
and not one damn class had anything to do with what employers want!

Adam, you have touched on something that I can directly address and I would like you to know that I'm with you on this topic, except that I have some exculpatory comments to take SOME of the heat from colleges.

NOTE: Apologies because I see that I got a bit long-winded. But this turns out to be a hot-button topic for me.

Here is the story behind my viewpoint. When I started work for the U.S. Navy Reserve in 1988 as a contractor, we had a few briefings we had to attend yearly on topics of operational and document security. There were briefings on foreign travel and how to maximize your safety. These usually lasted about 30 minutes to an hour once per year and they were never scheduled in such a way as to make the whole day blocked off from productive work. But eventually the Navy put some of those briefings online using a training system that tracked who had take what "refresher" courses. So we could do that at slack moments if we had any.

Then about 1997 or 1998 we started seeing an uptick in foreign hacking. The Navy started getting serious about security clearances and more formal training. We were required to obtain certifications in various topics. We had to study things that were not normally taught in college. Among other things I had to get a Security+ certificate (which I got through CompTIA) and a Certified Systems Administrator for OpenVMS certificate (which I got from HP). Again, not terrible. But the Navy didn't pay for my time to do the training. They made it a condition of continued employment AND all new candidates had to get those certificates (or the corresponding Certified Systems Administrator for Windows or UNIX or VMWare as appropriate to the position for which they were applying.) My company found a loophole so that I could at least be reimbursed for the exam if I passed.

In the mid-2000s, I'm thinking 2006 or 2007, stuff ramped up again and we had to renew our Security+ certificates every 3 years. Again, no pay for the study time but at least we got paid for the exam cost. That is also when I had to get my Secret clearance. More online training but we could do that at slack times at work and it was expected.

But the thing that finally got to me was that in about 2015 they started piled on a yearly requirement that every system admin and certain other technical types (DB Admins WERE included) had to obtain 40 CEUs in computer-related topics AND they still kept the 3-year Security+ cycle. That requirement went in place as a hard requirement the year I was thinking about retiring and that requirement finalized my decision. That "requirements creep" would NOT have been something for which I could get ANY reimbursement for my time. In other words, my 8-hours-a-day job suddenly became a lot more because of the study requirements AND the cost was out-of-pocket. I was already two years beyond normal retirement age (which I did because of social security impact) and my liver issues, though improving, had taken entirely too much out of me. I just didn't have the stamina I had before the liver issues started and to be flat honest, I could not face that ramp-up in educational requirements. I was too tired.

But let's look at the other side of that problem. The kids coming out of college have to get a general education because not everyone is going to the same disciplines. So the colleges have to skim over ALL of the possible disciplines. States require colleges to teach language, social studies, math, and some type of technical studies. Typical college programs are something like 120-140 credit-hours and you can only earn maybe 18 hours per semester (or at least it was that way when I went through college) and 18 hours was considered a heavy course load. You have nominally 8 semesters if you don't go to summer semesters so a 15-hour load times 8 semesters is 120 credits. If your major required more, you had to either do summer classes or take more than 15 hours a semester. And you had to fit in something like 12 hours of English, 9 hours of math, 9 to 12 hours of history or geography or government, 6 hours of a foreign language, and a few miscellaneous courses. Over 30% of your available hours would be gone even before you started taking courses for your major program. But then, that program would involve secondary requirements. For me, it was at least another 6 hours of a foreign language, another 12 hours of math including at least two statistics courses, at least 12 hours of physics or biology even though I was in the chemistry program... it all added up. Less that 50% of my bachelor's program could concentrate on my major.

Then, the kids have to have SOME foundation to "climb the ladder." To understand programming, you need SOME appreciation of what is going on in the hardware. Maybe not much - but some. So there goes a few more credit hours to learn the basics. I can tell you with absolute certainty that to a kid still in school and trying to learn, the details of such things as "Security Access Arbitration" and "Recursive Path Analysis" are totally foreign. Without a good foundation, kids flounder around and get lost in the haze. I know of several chemistry students who changed majors because of all the things they needed. UNO didn't have a Computer Science major back then, just some technical electives. I took everything they offered.

Here is the ultimate "gotcha." You never know what you are going to do at work until you actually get a job. My first "real" job was for a company that made Real-Time Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition systems, or SCADA for short. Because I had a background in operating systems from college (that's a long story in its own right), I became a device-driver writer for the SCADA company that made their own proprietary telemetry hardware. But there is no way I would have known where I was going to work so there was no way to prepare for the specifics. And that is why colleges HAVE to take the broad-brush approach. You never know what your job REALLY involves until you walk in the door.

Some places want security people. That subdivides into O/S security and network security - two different sets of skills. Some folks want database administrators or systems administrators - again, different skill-sets. Then there are web-site managers Jon could comment on the skill sets he has had to pick up, and I'll bet it is a formidable list. Every employer for whom I have ever worked always understood that it usually took a minimum of six or seven months for a new employee to actually learn the job and become productive enough to not need too much more hand-holding. And that has been true for at least eight different employers. (Navy contracting is good work but the environment can be unstable, which is why so many different employers.)

Adam, think about it. How many different jobs have you had and how many different skills have you had to pick up? My point here is that you cannot expect a college to prepare someone for a job when the student him/herself doesn't even know yet where they will be working or on what. And employers want those skills but don't want to pay for them. THERE is a MAJOR disconnect. And that is why headhunters target disgruntled employees in hopes of getting them to hop to a job in a similar industry. Not for industrial espionage, but simply to get folks who have a more relevant skill-set in order to reduce the learning curve and get better results faster.

I don't think you can blame the colleges as much as you would blame the potential employers who hope to get "something for nothing" - by demanding that kids have more education than a bachelor's program has any chance of providing.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 18:50
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
30,050
It's simply outrageously expensive to finish even a Bachelor's degree at most places in the U.S., let alone become something like a Pharmacist, Doctor, etc. There is almost no way to do it without taking on excessive debt.

Wrong. There are many ways to do it to minimize debt. If a student is intent on a specific program at a specific school, they need to work hard to get scholarships and subsidies or be prepared to foot the bill rather than asking me to foot it for them. For most students, state schools work well and are much less expensive than private colleges. You can frequently commute which reduces your expenses dramatically. Then there are the 2-year schools. In Connecticut at least, you can do your first two years at one of these community colleges and ALL credits transfer to other state schools so you enter the 4-year school as a junior. So, that means that my Granddaughter can take two years at Housatonic Community College which is 5 miles away and transfer to UConn at Storrs as a junior and live on campus. Students can also get a part time job to earn spending money.

Although I am a strong proponent of education and wish more people would read history (it is actually more interesting than you could possibly imagine given how it is taught), I don't believe that college is nessary or even correct for everyone. We need plumbers, builders, electritians, etc. Some of these require specialized education but not college as we know it.

To continue what Steve said, college wasn't always prohibitively expensive. It only became so when the government decided to "help" us pay for it.

He is not promoting "free" healthcare

He calls it "medicare for all" and intends to apply it to people in the country illegally because they're people too. In the past, he was for closed borders and so were the rest of the Democrats and Republicans (although in words only. Neither party was willing to actually take the actions required to stop the flow of illegal immigration.) Now that it is never Trump all the time, anything Trump is for, the rest are against.

The cost of medical care got expensive when insurance changed to plans that cover all costs with a co-payment for some services with others being "free". Prior to the advent of these all inclusive plans in the 70's, people actually knew what their doctor charged for a visit or a vaccination. When people knew what a normal treatment cost, they could find alternatives. Today, we have upended the system because we now have given insurance carriers a perverse disincentive to keep costs in check. Assuming their profit margin is 5%, they get $5 if your doctor charges $100 per visit but they get $7.50 if he charges $150. Why would they want to keep the cost low? They just increase the premium next year so they can cover the increase and their profit goes up. They don't have to get more customers, they just need to let the cost of services rise to raise their income. Also, a lot of the "not for profit" insurance companies switched to "for profit" so the cost for the middleman went up. Insurance companies negotiate rates with all their providers so they actually pay less than the rack rate if there is a published rate at all, but if you walk in the door and don't have insurance, your provider will almost certainly negotiate with you to get your business after first trying to get you to pay the rack rate.
 

zeroaccess

Active member
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
608
You conflate "innovation" and "productivity". While inter-related, productivity (simplistically) is the ability to produce a lot of product at (hopefully) a progressively lower per-unit cost. For example, a worker in one day can (hypothetically) make one car, but increased productivity means that worker can now make two cars in one day.
Yeah, and we aren't seeing the spoils of that productivity:
7894.png


Where is all of it going? Here's one clue:
718.png

Correct. The reason is counter-intuitive. Making something "affordable" through government programs eventually makes them "unaffordable".
Even if true, this certainly can't be generally applied. Medicare is more efficient than private health care for many reasons due to its design.
 

zeroaccess

Active member
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
608
Wrong. There are many ways to do it to minimize debt. If a student is intent on a specific program at a specific school, they need to work hard to get scholarships and subsidies or be prepared to foot the bill rather than asking me to foot it for them. For most students, state schools work well and are much less expensive than private colleges. You can frequently commute which reduces your expenses dramatically. Then there are the 2-year schools. In Connecticut at least, you can do your first two years at one of these community colleges and ALL credits transfer to other state schools so you enter the 4-year school as a junior. So, that means that my Granddaughter can take two years at Housatonic Community College which is 5 miles away and transfer to UConn at Storrs as a junior and live on campus. Students can also get a part time job to earn spending money.

Although I am a strong proponent of education and wish more people would read history (it is actually more interesting than you could possibly imagine given how it is taught), I don't believe that college is nessary or even correct for everyone. We need plumbers, builders, electritians, etc. Some of these require specialized education but not college as we know it.
Agree with everything here, except I don't agree that most people can do a Bachelor's degree without loans. With today's cost of living outpacing any wage growth (most wages are stagnant and health care increases 5-10% per year), I simply don't have $15k per year for school while paying rent and everything else - even if working full time. And full time work can really put a damper on your ability to excel in school. Loans have become a reality for most.

To continue what Steve said, college wasn't always prohibitively expensive. It only became so when the government decided to "help" us pay for it.
There is much more to it. Every University now has to have an on-site spa and multi-million dollar rec facilities. Every time there's an upgrade, tuition goes up.

He calls it "medicare for all" and intends to apply it to people in the country illegally because they're people too.
I won't get into a discussion on who does and doesn't deserve healthcare. I will suggest you make an honest read of his policies.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 18:50
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
2,379
Yeah, and we aren't seeing the spoils of that productivity:
...

Where is all of it going? Here's one clue:
...
On the issue of why the top wage earners are getting greater wage increases, I will have to pass on that. The graph is visually insightful, but does not provide a reason for why the numbers are were they are.

On the issue of productivity: workers producing more but not "seeing the spoils of that productivity". The answer is simple, at the first blush level. It is the consumer and the company (as a whole) who directly benefit.

An issue with increased productivity and why worker wages may not be increasing is that the company usually needs less workers. That results in layoffs assuming that the company can only sell a specific quantity of product to the consumer.

I am sure that you will pick-up on the phrase: "and the company (as a whole)". That gets into a bunch of company policies: wage making, what is a competitive wage, and is the worker easily replaceable. The net result, some companies view their employees as a valuable resource to be paid a premium wage while other companies view their employees as an easily replaceable resource should they become to expensive.

----------------------------------

There is much more to it. Every University now has to have an on-site spa and multi-million dollar rec facilities. Every time there's an upgrade, tuition goes up.
You neglect Parkinson's law. I have not looked into this lately, but the number of "support" staff compared to the number of teachers has grown. That makes the educational system less efficient. The salaries of the support staff add to the tuition cost.

Your response also raises the question of management responsibility. In both the corporate and educational world, it seems that management simply brushes off controlling expenses and indulges in giving themselves excessive pay.
 
Last edited:

vba_php

Forum Troll
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
2,884
How many different jobs have you had and how many different skills have you had to pick up? My point here is that you cannot expect a college to prepare someone for a job when the student him/herself doesn't even know yet where they will be working or on what. And employers want those skills but don't want to pay for them. THERE is a MAJOR disconnect
I think you're missing something there, richard. when it comes to the corporate world, in this day in age, they're all scared shitless just like everyone else. the reasons are irrelevant. but everybody competes minute by minute, and when one moves they all move. for instance, the current craze is called Dev Ops. and of course, that doesn't mean shit. the only reason it was created is because the panic is so high now in human beings that they want NOW NOW NOW. and the corporations are responsible for it. the government too. so if schools understood this, they could be educated appropriately. in terms of software, this webpage will tell you everything you need to know in terms of what is in demand at the moment in the corporate world. =)

 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator, Former MVP, Retired SysAdmin
Staff member
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
18,312
Adam, I don't give a rat's patootie what every employer wants now. Or yesterday. Or tomorrow. What REALLY matters is that the world is changing faster than we can keep up with respect to qualifications and training. We don't have the ability to put our head in a helmet and learn a new skillset in a matter of minutes. Training people to do things is NEVER a fast process. Oh, you can make it FASTER than it used to be - but never fast enough. I have not missed anything.

DevOps, or "development operations," is merely an attempt to organize the software development life cycle in a way to optimize each phase of that cycle. As such, it is a worthwhile endeavor because of the great tools it will create - but it may run into some serious issues. The most important issue is "unknowns." The problem with these unknowns is that they might be easy to consider - but they might not.

Many years ago I was a Principal Design Programmer (actual title) for a medium sized company that developed automated control systems. We used the ideas of DevOps but it wasn't formalized then. Nevertheless, we applied a lot of DevOps principles.

Using DevOps methods, I designed a system that ran oil and gas pipelines in over 50 different sites in perhaps 30 different countries. The same nucleus also ran building (or industrial complex) energy management to optimize and track energy usage. I had designed it to be modular and capable of extension in a way that didn't interfere with our "normal" equipment. It was designed to handle several hundred truly different devices in a single system if needed. That minimized our development cycle to only having to test the system thoroughly for the new equipment and run less extensive tests for the "traditional" equipment. Shaved maybe 50-60% of the design engineering because we only had to focus on new things.

The problem was not so much when a customer had a new brand of a familiar sensor. We would a week or two to the engineering time just to figure out the newness of it all. After that, we could handle it. But one of our customers came up with a totally new type of sensor and a new annunciation system that we had never seen before. Both required new device drivers and new documentation for the implementation team to actually use the devices. They had new types of valve control devices and a networked technology that required us to implement a non-standard telemetry system.

When I added up the unknowns and came up with my engineering estimates, the sales folks practically stroked out. They screamed at me, but I pointed to the new technology. They said "Sharpen that pencil, we've got to do better." I said, "If you undersell this, we will lose money and it will be because you changed my software estimates." Then the hardware engineer stepped in and handed over HIS estimates, which were commensurate with mine. The marketing guys had to stand down when TWO senior designers "raised red flags" over the project.

We bid what we thought it would cost. Came in 1st technically but lost the bid to the cost factor. But we got the job anyway, two months later, because our competitor had deferred their in-depth analysis and just shot from the hop. Once they got into the design phase, they saw that it would have bankrupted their company. They paid the non-performance penalty rather than let themselves be held with their feet to the fire for non-performance later. This is because DevOps on their part failed to identify places where DevOps didn't apply.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator, Former MVP, Retired SysAdmin
Staff member
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
18,312
Yeah, and we aren't seeing the spoils of that productivity:

Here is one possible explanation: The productivity may well have increased because of infrastructure investment rather than personnel improvement. For example, "A person used to make one car a day. Now he can make two cars a day." But how much of that is because of automation that the person doesn't control or directly use? I'm all for rewarding increased productivity, but the question will always by WHY did productivity increase. If you can't answer that, you can't justify doubling someone's salary.

On the other hand, I have absolutely no problem with anyone raising the issue of top executive compensation being disproportionate to the improvement in productivity. I think top execs are frequently overpaid and should be forced to face the consequences for BAD decisions as well as taking credit for good ones. When a company loses money, the execs and boards of directors SHOULD take hits. Big ones. But they usually don't. That is because the board that performed the act of mismanagement is the same board that sets executive salaries.
 

vba_php

Forum Troll
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
2,884
Adam, I don't give a rat's patootie what every employer wants now. Or yesterday. Or tomorrow. What REALLY matters is that the world is changing faster than we can keep up with respect to qualifications and training. We don't have the ability to put our head in a helmet and learn a new skillset in a matter of minutes. Training people to do things is NEVER a fast process
this only applies to the corporate world, richard. if you would talk to any of my christian friends that are part of their own community and not obsessed with pop culture and getting rich, you would know that "DevOps" means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. it's a "kick". nothing else. it may be a "qualified" process in terms of making sense, but at the end of the day it's really no different than the same concept that brought about the iPhone. something "new" and "cool". I can guarantee you that I can find a multitude of people to sell my products (and even employers) to that wouldn't give one $hit about doing it the "DevOps" way.
 
Last edited:

zeroaccess

Active member
Local time
Today, 17:50
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
608
Here is one possible explanation: The productivity may well have increased because of infrastructure investment rather than personnel improvement. For example, "A person used to make one car a day. Now he can make two cars a day." But how much of that is because of automation that the person doesn't control or directly use? I'm all for rewarding increased productivity, but the question will always by WHY did productivity increase. If you can't answer that, you can't justify doubling someone's salary.

On the other hand, I have absolutely no problem with anyone raising the issue of top executive compensation being disproportionate to the improvement in productivity. I think top execs are frequently overpaid and should be forced to face the consequences for BAD decisions as well as taking credit for good ones. When a company loses money, the execs and boards of directors SHOULD take hits. Big ones. But they usually don't. That is because the board that performed the act of mismanagement is the same board that sets executive salaries.
I think Executive pay should be set as a ratio to the pay of the average worker in the company. That would help keep things in check. It needs to be coupled with other policies but it's a good start.

725.png


723.png
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 18:50
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
2,379
I think Executive pay should be set as a ratio to the pay of the average worker in the company. That would help keep things in check. It needs to be coupled with other policies but it's a good start.
How do you propose that be accomplished?

I agree executive compensation is excessive. I would even go as far as to say that they are using their management power to "steal" from the company. Technically, it is the board of directors who should be controlling executive pay, but they aren't. They are, unfortunately, in-on-the-game. From the free-market perspective, the board of directors is the appropriate body to set executive pay. (Shareholders have a responsibility too, as they elect the board of directors) Are you suggesting that the government manage executive pay?

PS: What about private companies? Do you believe the government should define what pay the owner gets?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom