Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 82 of 82
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    There are interests that sometimes converge, and often differ.

    It's best to keep those interests in mind.
    Sure, and each should act in accordance to those interests, subject to the contract between the parties and local labour laws. And I think most employers (and probably most employees) do. But as I previously accepted, other people's mileage on the 'most' point may be different to mine.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Gnoman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    When you said that people could do 2 to 3 times as much work in the short term, were you meaning that they could sustain an increased level of physical activity that raises their heart rate for an hour or two?
    Not an "hour or two", but "eight hours at a time, often with no breaks (because employees who take breaks are stealing money from the company)." Otherwise, yes. Work is a physical activity. If you go from sending ten thousand items down an assembly line to sending twenty thousand (this is how I got my bad shoulder), you are doubling your level of physical activity. If you have to clean six floors of a building instead of three (this is how I got my bad knee), you are doubling your level of physical activity. If you have to run four lathes at once instead of two (this guy wasn't me - he died), you are doubling your level of physical activity. If you do any physical labor of any sort, doubling the amount of labor increases your physical activity. This, of course, assumes that you're doing the most basic repetitive labor possible.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    2D8HP's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnoman View Post
    ...doubling the amount of labor increases your physical activity....

    And it cripples and ages you faster.

    By-and-large efficiency "experts" are the enemy.

    I've never seen "work smarter, not harder" actually be effective.

    Its always a trade-off between "likely to be fired", and "likely to cripple or kill me"

    'course when you're injured, you will be fired 'cause (as the scumbags will tell you) "its your fault".

    As long as the employer regards the employees as disposable they'll try to force a crippling and even killing rate, and to be fair, as long as they're other jobs available, most employee's really won't give a damn if the enterprise is profitable.

    It was only when the employer and employee's were stuck with each other that they care about each others long-term viability, but that's in the past.
    Grim specter of noogie hangs like shroud over us all


    Extended Sig




    PBP's

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja_Prawn View Post
    You're an NPC stat block."I remember when your race was your class you damned whippersnappers"
    Snazzy Avatar by Honest Tiefling!

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Surgebinder in the Playground Moderator
     
    Douglas's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Mountain View, CA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Even for jobs that do not focus on physical activity like that, mental fatigue and exhaustion is every bit as real as physical, and it is affected by the level of mental effort and activity just as physical exhaustion is affected by the level of physical activity.

    Regardless of the type of job, it is nearly always possible to temporarily increase productivity - work done per unit time - well above the highest sustainable level. Doing so is always exhausting, can be dangerous, and requires a recovery period afterward.
    Like 4X (aka Civilization-like) gaming? Know programming? Interested in game development? Take a look.

    Avatar by Ceika.

    Archives:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Saberhagen's Twelve Swords, some homebrew artifacts for 3.5 (please comment)
    Isstinen Tonche for ECL 74 playtesting.
    Team Solars: Powergaming beyond your wildest imagining, without infinite loops or epic. Yes, the DM asked for it.
    Arcane Swordsage: Making it actually work (homebrew)

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Mar 2009

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Chen View Post
    Talk to your managemen about the extras you’ve contributed. Ask why it wasnt taken into account.

    What I don't get is you said people were staying until 7 normally or until later when it was busy. If this was with no calls coming in why did people have to stay more? If the extra calls you got added were all sales calls clearly there should be good profit. If they’re more support calls though you may not directly be generating more sales (though presumably doing better for the customers). In any case I think you need to rationally approach your boss about it. Probably cant do anything for this year but maybe next year.
    The client went home at 4:00 PM (5:00 PM their time). The company and the agents get paid by the hour by the client, but we also get paid a commission for selling insurance policies. The client turned off call forwarding at 4:00 PM. I would say ~90% of call volume went down. We still got calls, but a lot less. We would get calls from the numbers not set to go to the client (our call-back number, for example). Some agents high in the queue would see less of an effect then others. Many agents would get zero calls. I would joke that I could bring in a pillow and blanket, and take a nape from 4:00 PM till 7:00 PM . . . I mostly could have . . . only to be interrupted by the rare call. Having ~80 insurance agents sitting around picking their noses is not a productive use of time, but collecting commissions would be. It was still profitable for us to sit around and pick our noses, as the client was paying the company per agent per hour.

    During the Annual Enrollment Period (six weeks under Trump) we are open until 9:00 PM on some days and until 11:00 PM on other days. The work was there, but out of reach (for 3-4 years). A flick of a switch fixed that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    If the employees were capable of working two or three times harder than it sounds like the department was over-staffed, and redundancies were the right thing to do. Your suggestion that the employer should be loyal to employees who were only working at 33% to 50% of their capacity strikes me as ridiculous.
    We are insurance agents and our primary function is to be Hungry-Hungry-Hippos during the Annual Enrollment Period gobbling up marbles. Where the marbles are helping a customer select a plan in a limited timeframe. Usually this is 12-weeks, but has been 6-weeks under Trump.

    In my department (we have different agents and other folks doing different things in the company) the company gets paid a flat amount by the customer/carrier, and this is a profitable amount. However the company also gets commissions for selling policies. Some months of the year are slow. I was able to take an un-paid week vacation this month, for example. Before the Annual Enrollment Period the company hires hundreds of people, and keeps some after.

    My department is at about 35 / 500 of the employees, but we will add ~50 temporary agents for the busy season. So we likely double or more in size for 3-6 months. We are beginning to gear up for AEP now. I may do some training.

    We are set to double this year from 500 to 1000 and open up a third office. They tell us that we keep exceeding yearly profit goals. Last summer at a BBQ a bean counter money guy was telling me that the company was doing crazy well. I am hopeful that this company becomes huge, and that I got in early enough. It is not common to grow or double in size like this company is. I am hoping that this company becomes huge, and eventually we get stock options and/or profit sharing. It would be a pie-in-the-sky dream to be in a pre-blue-chip company.

    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas View Post
    Even for jobs that do not focus on physical activity like that, mental fatigue and exhaustion is every bit as real as physical, and it is affected by the level of mental effort and activity just as physical exhaustion is affected by the level of physical activity.

    Regardless of the type of job, it is nearly always possible to temporarily increase productivity - work done per unit time - well above the highest sustainable level. Doing so is always exhausting, can be dangerous, and requires a recovery period afterward.
    I worked a 90-hour week for the 2016/2017 season, and began to hallucinate.
    Last edited by darkrose50; 2018-05-23 at 08:08 AM.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2013

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Out of curiosity, Liquor Box, where are you? Because you seem to be coming at this from a very different set of experiences than the U.S. marked posters.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2010

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by darkrose50 View Post
    The client went home at 4:00 PM (5:00 PM their time). The company and the agents get paid by the hour by the client, but we also get paid a commission for selling insurance policies. The client turned off call forwarding at 4:00 PM. I would say ~90% of call volume went down. We still got calls, but a lot less. We would get calls from the numbers not set to go to the client (our call-back number, for example). Some agents high in the queue would see less of an effect then others. Many agents would get zero calls. I would joke that I could bring in a pillow and blanket, and take a nape from 4:00 PM till 7:00 PM . . . I mostly could have . . . only to be interrupted by the rare call. Having ~80 insurance agents sitting around picking their noses is not as a productive use of time, then collecting commissions would be. It was still profitable for us to sit around and pick our noses, as the client was paying the company per agent per hour.
    The last bit is key here I think. You increased productivity based on extra commissions during a 3 hour period. That's different than adding 3 extra productive hours. Those hours, from a company point of view, were already productive since you were getting paid for them by the client. This should still have been acknowledged but determining the exact value you added here is not as obvious. You'd need to look at commissions per hour per person and how much of that is profitable. It's certainly valuable but its not adding 240 man hours (80 people x 3 hours) of productivity to each day.

    During the Annual Enrollment Period (six weeks under Trump) we are open until 9:00 PM on some days and until 11:00 PM on other days. The work was there, but out of reach (for 3-4 years). A flick of a switch fixed that.
    My point was if it was so dead after 4 or whenever the forwarded went off, why were people needed for longer hours? Presumably there was sufficient work during those times even without the call forwarding to need people to stay longer.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Mar 2009

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Chen View Post
    The last bit is key here I think. You increased productivity based on extra commissions during a 3 hour period. That's different than adding 3 extra productive hours. Those hours, from a company point of view, were already productive since you were getting paid for them by the client. This should still have been acknowledged but determining the exact value you added here is not as obvious. You'd need to look at commissions per hour per person and how much of that is profitable. It's certainly valuable but its not adding 240 man hours (80 people x 3 hours) of productivity to each day.
    The hourly billing is indeed important. However the company also makes a commission off of sales. I average a sale-per-hour (when we get constant calls), but I am slow at typing. I bet the commission is $500 per sale (based on overhearing an upper level manager . . . poorly . . but it sounds plausible).

    6 days * 6 weeks * 100 sales per day * $500 = $1,800,000. This would be a high estimate, and I would need to give it further thought. It is likely not this high.

    *Shrug* I guess I will find out someday, or not.

    I think that we can request a report on how many calls/sales from the forwarded numbers were made between x and y date, and between a and b hours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chen View Post
    My point was if it was so dead after 4 or whenever the forwarded went off, why were people needed for longer hours? Presumably there was sufficient work during those times even without the call forwarding to need people to stay longer.
    We still billed the client for those hours.
    Last edited by darkrose50; 2018-05-23 at 08:10 AM.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnoman View Post
    Not an "hour or two", but "eight hours at a time, often with no breaks (because employees who take breaks are stealing money from the company)." Otherwise, yes. Work is a physical activity. If you go from sending ten thousand items down an assembly line to sending twenty thousand (this is how I got my bad shoulder), you are doubling your level of physical activity. If you have to clean six floors of a building instead of three (this is how I got my bad knee), you are doubling your level of physical activity. If you have to run four lathes at once instead of two (this guy wasn't me - he died), you are doubling your level of physical activity. If you do any physical labor of any sort, doubling the amount of labor increases your physical activity. This, of course, assumes that you're doing the most basic repetitive labor possible.
    When you got your job (signed your contract) was your agreement that you would only clean 3 floors a day or send ten thousand items down an assembly line? Or was it that you would clean/assemble for x hours a day (with a few breaks)? Because if you agreed to work x hours a day, then I think you are agreeing to work as hard as you can for that period. If you agreed to clean a certain number of floors etc, then you are absolutely right, you should not have to clean more than that.

    To go back to your jogging analogy - you usually run a 3mph, but can run at 6mph for periods. If you had to run a 6mph for as long as you could every day, this would become more sustainable over time, because you would become conditioned to the increased physical activity. After a few weeks of doing that it would become easier for you to sustain 6mph.

    I acknowledge that injuries (like your knee) may be an issue for certain jobs - those jobs where you are required to use your body unnaturally (such as crawling in a confined space for hours on end), or RSI type injuries. I do think that employers should be required to take steps to mitigate the risk of such injuries. But, so far as it is safe to do so, I think employers are entitled to expect staff to work as hard as they can within their working hours.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogar Demonblud View Post
    Out of curiosity, Liquor Box, where are you? Because you seem to be coming at this from a very different set of experiences than the U.S. marked posters.
    You're right, I am from New Zealand, not USA. It does appear that my different experience informs my different perspective.

    However, I suggest that my different perspective is not because employers in my country do not require employees to work hard (during their agreed hours), they do. I suggest my different perspective arises from most New Zealanders seeing it as right that people work hard during their working day. The difference may arise from the general sentiment here being more accepting of hard work, rather than from employers not requiring it.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    2D8HP's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    ....I acknowledge that injuries (like your knee) may be an issue for certain jobs - those jobs where you are required to use your body unnaturally (such as crawling in a confined space for hours on end), or RSI type injuries. I do think that employers should be required to take steps to mitigate the risk of such injuries. But, so far as it is safe to do so, I think employers are entitled to expect staff to work as hard as they can within their working hours.
    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    You're right, I am from New Zealand, not USA. It does appear that my different experience informs my different perspective.

    However, I suggest that my different perspective is not because employers in my country do not require employees to work hard (during their agreed hours), they do. I suggest my different perspective arises from most New Zealanders seeing it as right that people work hard during their working day. The difference may arise from the general sentiment here being more accepting of hard work, rather than from employers not requiring it.

    If only "certain" jobs cause physical pain the harder you work in New Zealand I'm very doubtful that there's the work ethic you suggest.

    Most work cripples, that's why you have to be paid to do it.

    Simple as that

    We have a phrase for jobs that don't cripple you in the U.S.A.:

    "Gravy Jobs"

    And gravy jobs are only for an elite, if they even exist at all.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Orc in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Singapore
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    If only "certain" jobs cause physical pain the harder you work in New Zealand I'm very doubtful that there's the work ethic you suggest.

    Most work cripples, that's why you have to be paid to do it.

    Simple as that

    We have a phrase for jobs that don't cripple you in the U.S.A.:

    "Gravy Jobs"

    And gravy jobs are only for an elite, if they even exist at all.
    um cripple?

    aren't all white-collar jobs quite safe
    I am a: Chaotic Good Human Bard(14th Level)

    Ability Scores:
    Strength-10
    Dexterity-15
    Constitution-12
    Intelligence-6
    Wisdom-9
    Charisma-23

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    2D8HP's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Elanasaurus View Post
    um cripple?

    aren't all white-collar jobs quite safe

    Relatively?

    Yes, but not absolutely (though I may be thinking more of the repetitive stress injuries of what's often called "pink collar").

    But just being lower on the taking orders ladder is injurious to health.

    I don't remember where I heard or read it, but IIRC the best two jobs for a long lifespan (in the USA) are Judge and tenured professor.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    You're right, I am from New Zealand, not USA. It does appear that my different experience informs my different perspective.

    However, I suggest that my different perspective is not because employers in my country do not require employees to work hard (during their agreed hours), they do. I suggest my different perspective arises from most New Zealanders seeing it as right that people work hard during their working day. The difference may arise from the general sentiment here being more accepting of hard work, rather than from employers not requiring it.
    New Zeelands productivity per working hour is 28th in the world to the USA's 3rd.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post
    If only "certain" jobs cause physical pain the harder you work in New Zealand I'm very doubtful that there's the work ethic you suggest.

    Most work cripples, that's why you have to be paid to do it.

    Simple as that

    We have a phrase for jobs that don't cripple you in the U.S.A.:

    "Gravy Jobs"

    And gravy jobs are only for an elite, if they even exist at all.
    Sorry, I cannot accept that. How does working at a supermarket checkout cripple? How does beinjg a cycle courier cripple (outside of being hit by cars)? If Americans think that all jobs other than a few jobs for the elite cripple you, that just reinforces my comment to Roger.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Gnoman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    Sorry, I cannot accept that. How does working at a supermarket checkout cripple? How does beinjg a cycle courier cripple (outside of being hit by cars)? If Americans think that all jobs other than a few jobs for the elite cripple you, that just reinforces my comment to Roger.
    This is a clear sign that you've never done either of those jobs. Standing for 2-4 hours at a time increases the risk of cardiac problems massively and all but guarantees skeletal damage, while pedaling a bike through traffic at high speeds is hell on your knees and back.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Tvtyrant View Post
    New Zeelands productivity per working hour is 28th in the world to the USA's 3rd.
    Are you saying that your productivity per hour figures contradicts any suggestion that Americans may have a relatively greater aversion to working to their capacity? Or are you saying that the figures suggest that hard work is not what matters?

    Because I don't think those rankings are very informative either way. The productivity figures that I think you are referencing are influenced by exchange rate, degree of capital investment (ie how well equipped workers are), available natural resources etc and numerous other factors. It would not surprise me if it turned out that Bangladeshis (who are last on Wikipedia's list) work harder than Americans (close to the top), but are less productive for reasons that are not easily remedied (lack of resources, type of industry, lack of capital investment etc).

    Since we are on wikipedia, I note that our life expectancy is better than USA's (rank 17th vs 31st). So if it is true that we do work harder, it doesn't seem to be detrimental to our life expectancy. Although I admit that a myriad of factors influence our life expectancy other than how hard we work, so this statistic's relevance is also limited.
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2018-05-22 at 07:39 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnoman View Post
    This is a clear sign that you've never done either of those jobs. Standing for 2-4 hours at a time increases the risk of cardiac problems massively and all but guarantees skeletal damage, while pedaling a bike through traffic at high speeds is hell on your knees and back.
    Interesting, the assertion that standing or cycling is bad for you is, relative to what people would likely be doing if not working (probably sitting most of the time for most people), is contrary to what I understood.

    May be a function of our different countries, but here most check-out jobs have stools for leaning or sitting, so you can alternate regularly (which is optimal). However, even if check-outs in USA do require people to stand, at worst opinions are mixed as to whether that is better or worse than sitting all day.

    Cycling is only painful on your joints if you have poor technique. I'm going to need a source from you if you assert that cycling is overall worse for you than what most people do in their leisure time.

    This article references a study that finds that people in USA who continue to work pas the retirement age tend to live longer. It suggests that the reason is that working requires people to remain active, whereas if they didn't work they may become sedentary.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ve-longer.html
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2018-05-22 at 07:34 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Gnoman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    However, even if check-outs in USA do require people to stand, at worst opinions are mixed as to whether that is better or worse than sitting all day.
    No, it is not. The evidence is overwhelming.

    Cycling is only painful on your joints if you have poor technique. I'm going to need a source from you if you assert that cycling is overall worse for you than what most people do in their leisure time.
    Cycling isn't bad by itself. Cycling as fast as possible (remember - according to you anybody that gives less than 200% effort at all times is lazy!) while carrying packages is extremely bad for you.

    This article references a study that finds that people in USA who continue to work pas the retirement age tend to live longer. It suggests that the reason is that working requires people to remain active, whereas if they didn't work they may become sedentary.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ve-longer.html
    Yes, being active instead of plopping down on the couch 18 hours a day is better for you. That does not prove your point.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnoman View Post
    If you had said "there is some evidence", I would have had no issue, but because you decided to go to the extreme of calling the evidence is overwhelming, I feel obliged to point out that your own study itself says the evidence is mixed. The abstract refers to studies that suggest no correlation between standing and heart disease and others that suggest there is. For example:
    "A pooled analysis of 5 cohorts from England and 2 cohorts from Scotland (total n = 5,214) reported no relationship between prolonged occupational sitting, compared with occupations involving standing and walking about, in relation to cardiovascular mortality over a 12.9-year follow-up period "

    Anyway, heart health is only one element of health. There are a myriad of articles referencing studies suggesting that there are benefits to each:
    http://fortune.com/2018/04/13/is-sit...anding-better/
    https://www.precisionnutrition.com/s...g-walking-work
    https://open.buffer.com/healthiest-w...nding-sitting/
    https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...g-at-your-desk

    As I mentioned in my last post, most of the check-out job I have seen have a stool which allow variation between standing and sitting (which is optimal for health). But even if you do not have one, and are forced to stand, I think the most that can be said is that opinions are mixed as to whether that is marginally better or marginally worse than doing what most people would be doing when not working.

    Cycling isn't bad by itself. Cycling as fast as possible (remember - according to you anybody that gives less than 200% effort at all times is lazy!) while carrying packages is extremely bad for you.
    I specifically asked for a source. Simply stating your earlier conclusion again does not count as one. What basis do you have for thinking that cycling fast is "extremely bad for you"? Especially relative to being inactive (which most people are when left to their own devices). Sorry mate, but I think you are stretching credulity by suggesting that cycling fast is bad for you, outside of the possibility of being hit by a car.

    Yes, being active instead of plopping down on the couch 18 hours a day is better for you. That does not prove your point.
    Not prove it conclusively perhaps, but it does support it. The initial contention was that all jobs (with a few 'elite' outliers) cripple you. This study suggests that working actually improves your health relative to not working.

    The issue with the study is that it found working makes you less likely to die, and dying is not the same thing as being crippled. But then you did discuss heart disease (which is not the same as being crippled, and may be fatal), so I think that the influence of working on dying is on the table.
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2018-05-22 at 11:42 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Mar 2009

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Interestingly I have found a disconnect between working hard and pay. Money just does not care how hard you work. In my experience the less difficult jobs pay more.

    Working at a grocery store paid poorly, and I was a horrible stock-person. I got paid more doing tech support, was good at it, and it was painfully simple. I once had a temp job doing tech support that paid three times as much as I was making at the grocery store.

    I have made more money noticing something, than working (some exaggeration, depending on the interpretation).

    At GenCon Cool Mini Or Not had a deal where you could buy $100 of stuff, and get a promo that sold for ~$80-$120. . . some of the things you could buy were promo's that sold for more than they were selling them. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

    I can buy a game on Kickstarter and usually make ~$70 each. Most of the time this is painfully stupid easy, but not always. I have stuff I need to sort, inventory, package, and such. But some companies don't make you do that. The months leading up to Christmas's I could sell 0-5 per day (normally 2-3).

    Just about never is it actually impressive that that someone who inherited a large sum of money has money. It would be more impressive that they lost it . . . most of the time that requires an idiot.

    Money makes money, that is what money does. Companies make money, that is what they do. Investing in something that makes money, makes money. It is painfully stupidly easy. It is such a con (in the US) that investment income is taxed lower than actual work income. No significant group of idiots ever would choose to not invest in a profitable company because it was taxed at the rate of working . . . the idea defies logic.

    Q: Who would not invest in Amazon if the profits were taxed like that of the income of a plumber (at a macro level)?
    A: No one with two brain cells to rub together (at a macro level).
    Last edited by darkrose50; 2018-05-25 at 08:56 AM.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2010

    Default Re: My profitable observations were not (yet) rewarded

    Quote Originally Posted by darkrose50 View Post
    Interestingly I have found a disconnect between working hard and pay. Money just does not care how hard you work. In my experience the less difficult jobs pay more.

    Working at a grocery store paid poorly, and I was a horrible stock-person. I got paid more doing tech support, was good at it, and it was painfully simple. I once had a temp job doing tech support that paid three times as much as I was making at the grocery store.
    This is a supply/demand issue in part. Physically laborious jobs can certainly be more "difficult" in many regards to office jobs. But it takes very little training or knowledge to do some laborious jobs (lawn mowing for example). Even if the job is sweaty and physically difficult, you can get almost anyone to do it (as parent's can attest to) so the remuneration is lower.

    I have made more money noticing something, than working (some exaggeration, depending on the interpretation).

    At GenCon Cool Mini Or Not had a deal where you could buy $100 of stuff, and get a promo that sold for ~$80-$120. . . some of the things you could buy were promo's that sold for more than they were selling them. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

    I can buy a game on Kickstarter and usually make ~$70 each. Most of the time this is painfully stupid easy, but not always. I have stuff I need to sort, inventory, package, and such. But some companies don't make you do that. The months leading up to Christmas's I could sell 0-5 per day (normally 2-3).
    This still requires know how and knowing the market. It's called arbitrage. Not everyone has the time or opportunity to do so. It's mainly because its actually difficult to do this and support yourself ONLY on this. And thus it tends to get relegated to spare time. This also puts cognitive biases into play. All of it is "free money". Consider if you were doing this 9-5 and you HAD to rely on that income to eat/live. It would start becoming fairly clear this job isn't all that easy once the low hanging fruit has been picked.

    Money makes money, that is what money does. Companies make money, that is what they do. Investing in something that makes money, makes money. It is painfully stupidly easy. It is such a con (in the US) that investment income is taxed lower than actual work income. No significant group of idiots ever would choose to not invest in a profitable company because it was taxed at the rate of working . . . the idea defies logic.

    Q: Who would not invest in Amazon if the profits were taxed like that of the income of a plumber (at a macro level)?
    A: No one with two brain cells to rub together (at a macro level).
    This could easily lead to politics so I'll be fairly brief. Many taxes or tax breaks are used as incentives. If the government (or society) wants you to do something they can use taxes to push in one direction or another. Investment (in general) was something the government wanted to incentivize and thus the taxes for that were lowered (back when it was initially done). Any more detailed look here and how this has changed in more modern time runs REALLY hard into that political wall so we probably shouldn't go there. Takeaway is that the amount income is taxed is unrelated to the effort required to produce said income.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •