Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,230 Year: 5,487/9,624 Month: 512/323 Week: 9/143 Day: 9/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wealth Distribution in the USA
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 253 of 531 (699952)
05-28-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Dr Adequate
05-28-2013 2:06 PM


Re: Minimum Wage
The value of a job is the wage paid for that job.
Unless we're talking to you in post #172, in which case the value of a job is the value of that job, and the wages paid for that job have no effect on its value.
There's two different "values" being talked about. One is that which the company values the job at, and that is the wage they offer for the job. There is also the value to the bottom line that each job provides to the company, which can't be calculated for most jobs.
Increasing the wage-value for a job does not add to the bottom-line-value for the company.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2013 2:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Tangle, posted 05-28-2013 5:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 256 by Jon, posted 05-28-2013 7:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 258 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2013 9:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 531 (699963)
05-28-2013 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Tangle
05-28-2013 5:51 PM


Re: Minimum Wage
The question we're trying to discuss here is whether or not something needs to be done to change wealth distribution.
Needs to be done? In what way? What's the goal?
One tool iis minimum wage legislation which is supposed to reduce poverty.
I think minimum wage is due for an increase, but I doubt it'd noticeably reduce the poverty that I see around me.
Left to their own devices, businesses, with very few exceptions, will always attempt to drive down wages (except for those that set the wages of course.)
Meh, you can end up driving yourself out of workers and that'd be bad for business. And realize that the min-wage jobs are the ones that have low value to the workforce, too.
Any minimum wage in a developed country is likely to be higher than that in the undeveloped world so if the work is relatively unskilled and not location dependant, jobs will effectively be exported. There are counter arguments of course, but essentially we see that happening in manufacturing.
But is the overall effect beneficial to both economies? It seems so to me. It floats all boats; the devoped world gets cheaper products, high profits, becomes more skilled in service industries, intellectual property and high end design, the undeveloped world find a new economy, new skills and an export market. (It's often very unequal, but....).
Think about how bad it must be to be unemployed if you're willing to be that $2 a day shoe maker, or whoever. Some people were saying that these wages are so bad they're near starvation. Well that means that without those jobs, those people would just be dead. (I wonder if you can see effects on something like infant moratality rates of an area when a large business moves in)
What I think is missing is some restraint on 'excessive' profit and global tax reform so that both companies and individuals can't game the system and create massive inequalities which harm society as a whole.
I feel ya. It'd be nice if society could just not buy the product because the jobs they use are too bad, or willingly pay more for them so they can be better. I don't see much personal eththics in business, so that's where government steps in. But that's almost just as bad as the businesses. And we don't want to end up screwing up the economy too much. Governments end up using a lot of money, so you need the businesses to thrive. It takes money to make money, and the more you make the more you can make.
How much more money does your Queen have than you?
The graphs in OP's video showed how much its snowballed. If something needs to be done, what's it going to be? How do you restrain profit without hurting business? I don't know anything about global tax. If you spread that money out to the left, then aren't you increasing the amount of people who are near starvation? Is that better? Can you change the curve? You'd have to change the formula. Hopefully it would be stable. We know it can get volatile. I don't think there's a simple answer to this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Tangle, posted 05-28-2013 5:51 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Tangle, posted 05-29-2013 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 531 (699980)
05-29-2013 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Jon
05-28-2013 7:59 PM


Re: There Can Be Only One
One is that which the company values the job at, and that is the wage they offer for the job.
Absolute nonsense.
The wage offered for any job is the absolute lowest wage possible given the market for that particular job.
No, not for any job. Unless I misunderstanding what you mean by "given the market"? But companies can get competitive with finding employees. Too, if you were right, then how did we get these overpriced executives that are being complained about?
Just like you will pay as little as you can for a bag of peas (remember those?) McDonald's is going to pay as little as they can for my labor.
Sure, but when I want a good steak, I don't go to the cheapest steakhouse in town. And I refuse to eat cheap sushi.
The value the company places on the job directly equals how much revenue (=benefit) they think the job brings in (however they arrive at that figure/estimate).
How many people have you hired at the business you work for, Jon?
This understanding of 'value' fits perfectly with all other concepts of value based on willingness to pay as a marker of perceived utilityi.e., the concepts of value that actual economists use.
Well, there also Job evaluation:
quote:
A job evaluation is a systematic way of determining the value/worth of a job in relation to other jobs in an organization. It tries to make a systematic comparison between jobs to assess their relative worth for the purpose of establishing a rational pay structure.
That's pretty much exactly what we're saying.
There's simply no room for Percy's made up definition of 'value', and no need for it either, since we already have a word to describe the concept: wages.
Well, it makes sense to me. It accurately describes the kind of process I went through for the last 4 or 5 QC lab techs that we hired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Jon, posted 05-28-2013 7:59 PM Jon has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 531 (700028)
05-29-2013 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Straggler
05-29-2013 3:10 PM


Re: Minimum Wage
I haven't ignored anything but I am utterly perplexed as to why you think the economic benefit of a particular role in a company is some sort of mysterious and wholly unquantifiable thing that nobody in their right mind would ever even try to consider.
I estimate the costs and benefits of hiring IT infrastructure staff on a regular basis. Some might say I even do this reasonably successfully.....(or at least convincingly)
What portion of the economic benefit to the company to you give to the engineer as his wage? Is it a fair amount or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2013 3:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Straggler, posted 05-30-2013 7:56 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 531 (700030)
05-29-2013 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Tangle
05-29-2013 12:41 PM


Re: Minimum Wage
The analysis in the video shows that there is vastly unequal distribution of wealth in the USA. It also says that it's not what the majority of US citizens feel is fair. The goal therefore would be to distribute wealth more fairly.
I'm not sure that needs to be done, but okay.
The first step really must be to crack down on off-shore accounting...
I agree. I think that should be illegal. I consider it immoral.
Then you need progressive personal taxation that allows individuals to get wealthy but also to be taxed proportionally. And again - cut out all the artificial tax avoidance schemes that the wealthy are able to use to get out of paying their dues.
How much taxes do the wealthy pay?
Take a look at the report from the Congressional Budget Office.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Tangle, posted 05-29-2013 12:41 PM Tangle has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 301 of 531 (700101)
05-30-2013 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Straggler
05-30-2013 7:56 AM


Re: Minimum Wage
Network engineers provide considerable economic benefit to businesses and (in London at least) are generally paid a decent wage at market rate for doing so. There is no great anomaly or discrepancy to be addressed. I have used network engineers as an example not because I am suggesting that they are underpaid but because I know a bit about assessing the economic benefits of employing network engineers.
So are they receiving a fair wage, that is the right portion of the economic benefit they provide to the company, or not? How do you tell?
This all started because it was claimed that someone who made X dollars a day was being screwed because they were surely adding more economic benefit to the company than that. But there's nothing sure about that at all. We don't know how much benefit they added.
People also seem to think that working hard means your worth more, or the jobs that make the product come to life (like the shoe maker) are adding an awful lot to the whole company. Meanwhile, the executive who just landed a huge increase in sales with a couple of emails, well, he hardly did anything so he's overpaid.
They're not measuring anything with anything other than their heart. They feel like its unfair so therefore it must be. And if we don't jump on the bandwagon then we're evil too.
It is at the very top and bottom that the anomalies under discussion tend to occur.
But how do you know if they are anomalies or not if you can't even determine if it is fair for the jobs that you do know a bit about assessing. Why should I think you are correctly assessing these jobs that you don't know anything about?
The minimum wage workforce whose labour is of enormous economic benefit to businesses but whose wages are so low that they have to be subsidised by government at huge public expense.
How much economic benefit do they really add? More or less than the franchisee who put forward the capital investment to open up the stores in that town in the first place? None of those people would even have that job if he didn't do that. But now because he's sitting at home collecting the profits he's all of a sudden the bad guy? One sole min-wage worker provides almost no economic benefit whatsoever.
Also, it takes a whole bunch of the min-wage workers to get it done. If it takes 10 min-wage workers to run a McDonalds, that $77/hour... $160,000/year. If the franchisee is collecting that same salary to do the books, is he being unfairly paid too high and they're being unfairly paid too low? How do you tell?
And where do you think most of that public expense comes from? The wealthy pay for most of the federal government, so they're already getting some of their wealth redistributed back to the low wage workers they employ. Its just a convoluted loop that isn't giving people the warm fuzzies, so therefore it must be wrong even though they cannot show that it is.
The heads of business who continue to receive stratospheric salaries, fat pensions and vast payoffs no matter how economically disastrous the decisions they make may be.
Its easy to paint a picture of this great wage anomaly when you get to pick the details. But what is really happening out in the real world? Most people with big salaries are actually the ones who are providing all the economic benefit to the company. Its not the lowly wage workers. And that's besides the fact that they're a dime a dozen and we've got 50 applications in the cabinet if we need to scoop up another one. Good executives are a lot harder to come by and they're in a much more competitive market.
These are the anomalies being talked about when it is suggested that reward in the form of wage should reflect the economic benefit of one’s labour at least to some degree.
But you're assessing the economic benefit with your emotions, not with facts. Why should I believe that you've assessed them correctly?
I think you're entirely wrong about how much benefit each side is providing.
Nobody but Percy (and now you?) is pursuing this fuckwitted notion that there must be some formula which proves exactly how much each individual position within a business contributes to the profit and loss position.
If you want to claim that a person is unfairly paid because they're not getting enough of a portion of the economic benefit that they are adding to the company, then you should be able to show that the portion is in fact low. If you can't, then how do you know that its unfair?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Straggler, posted 05-30-2013 7:56 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Straggler, posted 05-30-2013 1:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 531 (700134)
05-30-2013 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Straggler
05-30-2013 1:09 PM


Re: Economic Benefit
Are you actually denying that businesses can, and do, estimate the economic benefit derived from filling individual positions within a company?
No, but it doesn't happen for the vast majority of jobs.
Do you think that when businesses hire a new memebre of staff they simply throw their hands in the air and proclaim - We have some work that needs doing but the value to the business of this work is a complete mystery. It might exceed the cost of employing someone to do it.Or it might not. We have no idea.
No, because the cost of employing them is rarely exceeded. Usually, there's no question that employing one more person is affordable. Usually the business is making plenty of money to warrant the new hires, otherwise they don't go hiring people.
I refer you to Message 195 where I detail how the sort of cost benefit analysis done in real companies for real positions is undertaken.
If you stand to loose millions of dollars if you don't hire them, then its a no brainer if your paying them tens of thousands of dollars a year. If you network engineers are still having down-times, then you need another guy.
But at no point do you actually go: this engineer will provide the company with X number of dollars, so therefore we are going to pay him Y number of dollars. That's the point you're missing.
CS writes:
So are they receiving a fair wage, that is the right portion of the economic benefit they provide to the company, or not? How do you tell?
Let's consider an extreme example for purposes of illustration: Imagine an employee who provides little economic benefit to a business but who is by far the best paid member of that company. Now imagine an army of workers whose work is essential to that same company but whose combined starvation wage salaries total a mere fraction of the salary paid to the single employee mentioned above. Now you could just throw up your hands and say "market forces". Or you could seek to highlight the fact that the company in question would arguably barely miss the presence of the single highly paid employee but be utterly financially fucked in the absence of the poorly paid workforce generating the profits for the company. One could further suggest that in such situations the single highly paid employee is overpaid and that the starvation wage workforce are underpaid given the relative economic benefit they provide to the company in question.
In the hypothetical case above would you disgaree with that assessment?
No, but the only way you can answer the question is with an unrealistic example that has the answer pre-loaded into it.
In the real world, even in your own job where you know about the details, you cannot answer the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Straggler, posted 05-30-2013 1:09 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2013 7:30 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 330 of 531 (700259)
05-31-2013 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Straggler
05-31-2013 7:30 AM


Re: Economic Benefit
Unless businesses are assessing these things with reasonable competence they will be employing people they don't need at unnecessary cost and failing to fill positions that could be of enormous economic benefit to the business if filled.
The fact is all businesses are making these sort of estimated assessments regarding the economic benefits of positions within the business all the time. Even if they don't formalise the process of doing so. Not to do so at least reasonably competently would be economic suicide for any business.
An economic benefit assessment does not have to be done in order to have good hiring practices. For manufacturing, all you have to do is build the labor costs into your overhead and have your margin exceed that. You don't have to figure out how much economic benefit a box stacker adds to the product because you're selling it for more than it costs you to make it, including paying that guy to stack the boxes.
CS writes:
In the real world, even in your own job where you know about the details, you cannot answer the question.
The question as to whether my position provides the company with economic benefit estimated to be far in excess of the costs of employing someone in my position most definitely can be answered.
You've misunderstood, I wasn't talking about your job. Your economic benefit assessment for the network engineer, in Message 195, never contained the phrase "the network engineer will provide an econominc benefit of X"
The question was "How much economic benefit does the individual provide?" You can't answer it in your assessment for the network engineer, the one where you know about the details, so why should I think you could do it for a job where you don't know the details?
Positions within my company (indeed whole sections and even departments) are under constant review and if the estimated economic benefits don't justify the costs redundancies are made.
Sure, but the point your missing is that you'll never find this piece of information: "Charlie, in his job, provided the company with $53,724 last year."
CS writes:
But at no point do you actually go: this engineer will provide the company with X number of dollars, so therefore we are going to pay him Y number of dollars. That's the point you're missing.
It's not the point I'm missing but nor does it have any great bearing on the point I am making.
When you say that somebody is grossly underpaid because they are not receiving a large enough portion of the economic benefit that they provide to the company, you're implying that you know how much economic benefit they provide. Otherwise, how could you say that their portion is too small?
The point I am making is this - The labour of low wage workers can indisputably be demonstrated to provides huge economic benefit to many businesses.
Then demonstrate it. How much economic benefit does a low wage worked add to a business?
Meanwhile these same businesses are quite happy to pay huge salaries, pensions and payoffs to senior managers even when these senior managers are responsble for economically disastrous mistakes or hold positions which no cost-benefit analysis could possibly justify (honourary paid positions on the board, high paid executive positions for the chairman's son, consultancy exercises with the CEO's brother-in-law etc. etc. etc. to cite some obviously extreme yet not entirely untypical examples).
You're just Begging the Question. Where are these businesses? Are they privately owned? How do you know how much economic benefit the charman's son is providing?
So we have a situation where the government is effectively subsidising businesses such that they can underpay those who demonstrably provide enormous economic benefit so that those at the top can make huge gains regadless of whether they provide any economic benefit or not.
A minimum wage worker provides little to no economic benefit to a company. If you think otherwise, demonstrate it.
Its only when you have a whole bunch of them that you start to get an appreciable amount of benefit. But, at that point, you are actually paying quite a bit for all those people.
Too, the people who make most of the money are the ones who are paying for the federal government, so its all just coming back around anyways.
That absolute ripping up of the expectation that one's economic benefit to a business will have some bearing on reward, even just to the extent of a wage one can live on, is the "discrepany" I am talking about.
The economic benefits that a worker adds to a company do not belong to the worker, they belong to the owners of the company.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2013 7:30 AM Straggler has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 331 of 531 (700260)
05-31-2013 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Straggler
05-31-2013 10:28 AM


Re: Minimum Wage
But who, other than Percy, rasied the issue of calculating salaries on such things?
Answer - No one I have seen in this thread.
This all started from Message 83:
quote:
The factory worker earns his pay. The local company he works most likely earns a profit as well, as do the suppliers of the materials used in the shoes.
That's a cop out answer. The factory worker is given his pay which is a small fraction of the value he adds to the materials he starts with. Surely the value he adds is more than 2-3 dollars per day.
Percy's first post in this thread was a reponse to that with the appropriate question:
quote:
Surely the value he adds is more than 2-3 dollars per day.
What calculations determine the value he adds? How can you say the value he adds is actually 2-3 dollars per day if someone else can do the same job just as well but for only 1-2 dollars per day?
And its still the same thing I'm asking you...
You say that someone indisputably and demonstrably adds more economic benefit to a company than he is being paid to the point that its unfair to pay them that low.
In order to determine that, we need to know how much economic benefit they are adding. And that's something you can't determine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2013 10:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2013 4:40 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 342 of 531 (700448)
06-03-2013 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Straggler
06-03-2013 4:40 AM


Re: Economic Benefit
If the lowest paid workers are being paid so little that it is imposible for them to feed, clothe and house themselves, and thus continue in employment without welfare assistance, then it is absolutely reasonable and appropriate for society to ask whether those employees are providing the businesses that employ them with economic benefit that far outstrips the cost of the measly wages they pay.
Except for the fact that its impossible to calculate how much economic benefit they are providing.
This notion that the economic benefit an employee brings be utterly and completely divorced from the reward they receive is a huge part of the problem at hand.
It may well be a part of the problem, but its a fact nonetheless (except that nobody is saying "utterly and completely" divorced).
But please note - Recognising the need for a link between the economic benefit one brings and the reward one receives in no way equates to this gigantic red herring straw man that everyone's salary need be calcluated on the basis of some fictitious formula.
And you note - realizing the impossibility of the calculation doesn't mean you think there should be absolutely no link whatsoever.
When we look at the real world, we see that people who benefit companies more do get paid more.
CS writes:
Sure, but the point your missing is that you'll never find this piece of information: "Charlie, in his job, provided the company with $53,724 last year."
Whoop! Whoop!! Straw man alert. Straw man alert!!
But that's the position you are defending against. If you don't want to defend it then don't. The answer to the very first question I asked you in this thread would have required a calculation like that and you carried on down the path as if we were right on track.
CS writes:
An economic benefit assessment does not have to be done in order to have good hiring practices.
It doesn't have to be formalised. But somebody is necessarily making such judgements everytime staff are hired or fired.
CS writes:
For manufacturing, all you have to do is build the labor costs into your overhead and have your margin exceed that.
Which is itself involves estimated calculations of exactly the sort I am talking about.
No, it really isn't. We don't calculate how much benefit we're going to get from box-stackers and then figure out if we're going to hire some more or not. We figure out how much work it is going to take to fulfil the order and then hire however many box-stackers its going to take to get it done, usually with a couple extra just in case. If they don't have any boxes to stack, they can sweep the floor or something.
CS writes:
You don't have to figure out how much economic benefit a box stacker adds to the product because you're selling it for more than it costs you to make it, including paying that guy to stack the boxes.
If not employing enough box stackers will cause you losses then you need to ensure that you have enough box stackers employed at a cost that doesn't exceed a level which stops your product being sufficiently profitable. This is an estimated calculation of employment cost Vs economic benefit.
But there's plenty of margin built into the product to cover the cost of overhead, including labor. There's so much wiggle room that we don't need to worry about having too many box-stackers. There would be a bunch of them standing around not stacking boxes and then we would just tell them to go home if there's no work for them to do.
Well let's remove every single low wage position within McDonalds (for example) and see what effect it has on the profitability of that business. I think we would find that the low wage workforce of McDonalds provides economic benefit to McDonalds Inc that is several orders of magnitude greater than the costs of employing those workers..... Wouldn't you?
Nope. Let's add up the cost of every single low wage position within McDonalds* and see what portion of their income that is. I doubt their income is several orders of magnitude more than that.
*McDonalds is probably a bad choice for these calculations give their sheer size
On the other hand, consider how much economic benefit just one low wage position at McDonalds provides. I say its almost none. We can see from the pay they offer that McDonalds thinks its very low.
How many more burgers do you think they'll sell that day if they bring in one more min-wage employee?
And actually, in food service your whole economic benefit calculation isn't used either. The amount of workers they determine they need is based on how much sales they expect to have, how much work they think will need to be done. The managers keep track of their labor costs per hour. When the amount of sales per hour starts declining and the labor cost begins approaching a pre-determined percentage of sales, then they start sending people home.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2013 4:40 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2013 10:01 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 345 of 531 (700454)
06-03-2013 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Straggler
06-03-2013 10:01 AM


Re: Link
Then can you explain what link you think is, or should be, present?
I don't know what it should be, and the way it is differs between various types of jobs. For a lot of jobs there is very little link at all: I just explained to you how food service does it, and how manufacturers do it.
For jobs where the link is more obvious, like sales, then people usually move to a commission based system.
Because everytime I try to do this I get inundated with straw man horseshit about calaculating salaries based on fictitious salary formulas and being asked to prove that person X provides economic benefit Y.
That's because some of your arguments depend on that being the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2013 10:01 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2013 10:23 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 348 of 531 (700458)
06-03-2013 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Straggler
06-03-2013 10:23 AM


Re: Link
Its right here:
whether those employees are providing the businesses that employ them with economic benefit that far outstrips the cost of the measly wages they pay
How do you determine how much economic benefit they are providing so you can figure that it far outstrips their pay?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2013 10:23 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2013 6:46 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 349 of 531 (700459)
06-03-2013 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by Straggler
06-03-2013 10:45 AM


Re: Divorce
Some jobs are divorced from the economic benefit they provide, like a box-stacker, others are directly tied to it, like a used car salesman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2013 10:45 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 3:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 353 of 531 (700488)
06-03-2013 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by Dr Adequate
06-03-2013 3:43 PM


If I thought you were more interested in understanding me than just having a joke at my expense, then I would.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 3:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 4:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 355 of 531 (700492)
06-03-2013 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Dr Adequate
06-03-2013 4:20 PM


Well maybe if you explain your meaning, and it is not dumb, the there won't be any joke.
Yeah but when you can't make a joke, then you tend to just not reply at all.
So I don't see any reason for me to put any effort into replying to you; I'll either get made fun of or it will be for naught.
But you can find some of my reasoning on the box-stackers at the end of Message 342. Used car salesmen often get paid purely on commission; that's the best example I could come up with at the time for a wage that's married to the economic benefit provided.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 4:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 5:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024