[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Jun 21 21:43:51 UTC 2002


On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Russ Johnson wrote:
> There are many reasons one should seek the highest pay available for a
> desired position. Planning for retirement is one. Making sure you have
> sufficient funds for emergencies is another. They say you should have
> 2 months salary in the bank at all times. I don't personally know
> anyone that does that.

All of those are pre-dependent on the notion that you have to provide for
yourself, even when you can no longer provide for yourself.  You can't
possibly plan for every eventuality.

I think everyone should take it upon themselves to help those around
them.  This relieves you of the worry of planning for the possibility that
you might become unable to provide for yourself.

> Another thing. Wages are continually going up for the most part.

Huh?  Real wages are DOWN by more than thirty percent over the past thirty
years.  I'd like you to prove that wages are continually going up.

The only sector of the "workforce" that is experiencing continually
growing compensation is the top 3%.  Everyone else is going down.

The minimum wage is half what it was during the Nixon administration
(adjusting for inflation).

> What is paying the most today, most likely won't be at a later time.

What's paying the most is CEO and fatcat "investor".  Until we start
compensating people for their work, rather than the wealth they already
have, it will continue to be that way at a later time.

> Socking that "extra" money away for a "rainy day" would be a good use
> of that extra pay.

Giving it to someone who is experiencing a "rainy day" would also be a
good use and more likely to actually be useful than preparing for a day
that may not come.  You should be able to rely on the people around you
during your hour of need.

Right now, you can't... because they're too afraid of losing their sockful
that they keep for THEIR hour of need.  It's a cycle of fear, rather than
a cycle of trust.  Again, exactly the opposite of how it should be.

> Now, understand, I'm speaking from my technical career point of view.
> I'm leaving out a whole slew of issues that come up when you include
> the upper crust of management in the corporate world.

And the lower foundation of workers in the agriculture, service and
industrial fields.  You know, people who meet the needs of all those
people whose work does nothing to contribute to the needs of others.

> I personally think those folks should take a pay cut and funnel that
> money to their employees, without whom they wouldn't have a job.

If you're not exploiting the needs of others, you're not a good
businessperson.  Hell, you can be SUED for that shit these days.  It's
called "failure to maximize shareholder value".

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list