No OT for you!

[Salis]

Should I cut/paste what I just said, or can you scroll up over that bullshit?

[Chmee]

Harvard study on happiness (look it up, famous) comes to the conclusion that people define happiness by how they perceive themselves doing _against_ their peers. So while everyone may be GDP/pop richer, they ain't saying it.

I am saying nothing at all about happiness, that is more of a philosophical question. I can't guarantee you will be happy if you have all the money in the world. I am just talking about how well off people are economically.

[Salis]

Isn't economics intrinsically linked with happiness and well being?

[Chidoro]

And you say you don't google?

The point with technology is that just because things were once perceived as luxaries doesn't mean they are now. People don't consider cars so much as a luxary than more of a necessity. People don't live in little towns any longer and public transportation outside of a few major cities is lacking. You aren't putting things into their proper perspective. So keep hunting down more googled exerpts w/ regards to product launches. Ford can kiss my big Jewish ass quite frankly.

And just because things are automated now w/ lots of variety does not mean they have quality. This computer desk was one of fifty in a store yet it's already falling apart. The desk behind me is approximately 80 years old, it's still used daily and it's holding up like a champ. That was probably one desk out of four or five that my grandparents purchased from a store where the people made things by hand. This computer desk will be a hunk of shit filling up some landfill in 10 years while the deak behind me will be passed down to my children's children. So the fact that you aren't jesting makes me laugh to no end. Hell, ALL of my grandparents stuff was passed down. Funny, the only stuff I have that will be passed down to my children will be their stuff and not the crap you so adamantly feel is of better quality. And it's not even sedimental value, it's that the stuff still works as intended even after all of this time.

Maybe you need to travel to a couple of towns near where I grew up to get a better idea of what older products and their quality means. Take a ride through Princeton or Freehold or Cranbury or Hightstown, New Jersey to see the homes and the quality built into them. Then travel down the road where the McMansions are then come back 20 or 30 years to see if those homes had to be scrapped for new ones while the homes built in one of those towns in the 17th and 18 century (yes the 1600's and 1700's) still stand to this day. See the quality of such an item where people can hollow out floors to make ducts for an AC unit yet it still holds firm. See how homes still stand on a foundation and are lived in even though asbestos had to be replaced and lead based paints stripped. These are things that would make a lesser product in the K. Hovanian line crumble to the ground like a pile of Jenga blocks

[vn_Tanc]

Isn't economics intrinsically linked with happiness and well being?

No.
It might prevent you from being unhappy but it won't make you happy.

Your true wealth is what you have left when you've lost all your money.

[Adex_Xeda]

I'm sorry Salis, I'm having tracing down your question in all of this.

What about Iraq? Who where you refering to?

[Chmee]

And you say you don't google?

I said I hadn't googled anything in that one thread. I did google the median income data. I knew what data I wanted (historical income data, and not just mean or GDP per capita) and where I wanted it from (most likely the census, if not one of the other government organizations that keeps aggregate data). I don't keep those bookmarked since it is a lot easier to just run a search for it when needed. As for the two articles I linked, both are from Reason magazine. I have had a subscription since the early 90s. I read both articles when they were orginally printed. I also have "The Myth of Rich and Poor" by Cox and Alm (the authors of the articles) from which the articles are largely taken (although sadly I haven't had enough time to read it yet).

The point with technology is that just because things were once perceived as luxaries doesn't mean they are now. People don't consider cars so much as a luxary than more of a necessity. People don't live in little towns any longer and public transportation outside of a few major cities is lacking. You aren't putting things into their proper perspective. So keep hunting down more googled exerpts w/ regards to product launches. Ford can kiss my big Jewish ass quite frankly.

People often see things that were once luxuries as things that are just accepted that everyone has now. Which might be part of the misconception that we are worse off than we were.

And just because things are automated now w/ lots of variety does not mean they have quality. This computer desk was one of fifty in a store yet it's already falling apart. The desk behind me is approximately 80 years old, it's still used daily and it's holding up like a champ. That was probably one desk out of four or five that my grandparents purchased from a store where the people made things by hand. This computer desk will be a hunk of shit filling up some landfill in 10 years while the deak behind me will be passed down to my children's children. So the fact that you aren't jesting makes me laugh to no end. Hell, ALL of my grandparents stuff was passed down. Funny, the only stuff I have that will be passed down to my children will be their stuff and not the crap you so adamantly feel is of better quality. And it's not even sedimental value, it's that the stuff still works as intended even after all of this time.

Some things made in the past were well made and have lasted a long time. Of course some things weren't and have already met their date with the landfill. Looking at the stuff that still survives from a previous period can give a skewed view of all products produced then. We also have a lot of options on what quality of goods we want to buy. When I first got a computer desk, either late college or just after I got out I got a relatively cheap one. It held up fine for what I needed it for. A few years back I wanted something better so I went out and got a much nicer one. If I had wanted to I could have spent even more. It would be silly to build a PC to last for 50 years, since it will be hopelessly outdated by then. Sometimes designing a product to last forever is overkill, sometimes it isn't.

Maybe you need to travel to a couple of towns near where I grew up to get a better idea of what older products and their quality means. Take a ride through Princeton or Freehold or Cranbury or Hightstown, New Jersey to see the homes and the quality built into them. Then travel down the road where the McMansions are then come back 20 or 30 years to see if those homes had to be scrapped for new ones while the homes built in one of those towns in the 17th and 18 century (yes the 1600's and 1700's) still stand to this day. See the quality of such an item where people can hollow out floors to make ducts for an AC unit yet it still holds firm. See how homes still stand on a foundation and are lived in even though asbestos had to be replaced and lead based paints stripped. These are things that would make a lesser product in the K. Hovanian line crumble to the ground like a pile of Jenga blocks

I have seen my share of old houses. Some are nice, some aren't so nice, some are falling apart. Generally speaking, the nice ones usually have had a fair amount of restoration/upkeep work done to keep them in that nice condition, and often they were houses that were higher income/upper class houses of the time. Much the same issues as I stated before, you are looking at a subset of the period, specifically the stuff that has survived. Even in cases where the houses of the past do compare favorably with those of the present, they can certainly be made much more livable with all the modern amenities.

[Chidoro]

Your glasses are so discolored, it's ridiculous to go any further. keep thinking it's because so few products made it through the degredation process so as not to be listed as a scrap pile. That's ok. Never mind that the each ENTIRE town still stands w/ the majority of homes still surviving quite well. There's no subset angle that you are trying to reach for. You won't have anything to pass down and I will. You, apparently, can live with such things as you see no alternative. The people who are a little wiser know though.

[Aaeamdar]

This "good ol' days" line is utter non-sense. Clearly a solid wood Oak desk built 100 years ago is better made than a particle board desk with fake Oak finish picked up today. So what? All that means is in the past, the ability to create mass produced crap for very cheap was not there. If you spend the money (whihc was simply your only choice in the past) on a solid Oak desk today, its is just as good (if not better, most likely) as that desk from ages passed. If you buy the particle board desk, then you got what you paid for - its just that people 100 years ago did not have the option to buy a desk at 1/10th the price (or cheaper) that would disentigrate after a couple years of use. If you wanted a desk at all - you shelled out the cash for a nice desk.

[Voronwë]

or built your own desk!!

[Mplor]

On an absolute scale, Americans are generally wealthier now than we've ever been. The purported decline in our way of life is mostly a matter of perception. While the lower and middle classes continue to grow wealthier, the richest of Americans are getting richer at an even faster pace. It is only relative to this upper class that the average American is losing ground.

The eruption of mass marketing in recent decades parades before us "lifestyles" (read "goods and services") previously limited to the rich and famous and simultaneously aims to convince us that we don't have enough things yet. Enough of us succumb to those sentiments that life without, say, a hand-crafted hardwood desk is considered by some only with haughty disdain.

Mp

[Chidoro]

This "good ol' days" line is utter non-sense. Clearly a solid wood Oak desk built 100 years ago is better made than a particle board desk with fake Oak finish picked up today. So what? All that means is in the past, the ability to create mass produced crap for very cheap was not there. If you spend the money (whihc was simply your only choice in the past) on a solid Oak desk today, its is just as good (if not better, most likely) as that desk from ages passed. If you buy the particle board desk, then you got what you paid for - its just that people 100 years ago did not have the option to buy a desk at 1/10th the price (or cheaper) that would disentigrate after a couple years of use. If you wanted a desk at all - you shelled out the cash for a nice desk.

Even the inexpensive alternatives were better than the ones seen today and had more durability. Pretty much makes that point of yours completely moot

[Psyloche]

Well if things were so much better off then, stfu and go buy from antique stores. Quit playing your computer which is probably gonna break or be obsolete next year as well. Then maybe you won't have to bitch about the lack of quality in today's products.

Wasn't this thread about Overtime?

[Chidoro]

I don't recall asking for your opinion mister tough guy.

[Psyloche]

I have a Dinosaur Chicken nugget as my Avatar, I don't consider myself very tough. i just thought it was stupid that I saw like 2 or 3 posts of you complaining about the quality of today's goods. If you really don't like it that much, there's always the option to not buy them.

I've definately seen some amazingly well kept, old buildings... as I live in Northern Va, just outside DC. I have also seen some really shitty old buildings. I think its dependant on how well people take care of their things as much as how well they were made.

So... this one time, I worked over 40 hours. I like got paid more for Overtime. I really liked the extra money. It was cool.

[vn_Tanc]

I saw like 2 or 3 posts of you complaining about the quality of today's goods. If you really don't like it that much, there's always the option to not buy them

Well that's hardly the point is it, cocknostril?

In-built obsolescence to feed consumerism is the point. And it's a piece of fucking insanity for which future generations will despise us.

[Psyloche]

Here's the point, buy it or don't. There's plenty of fucking quality places to buy things from if you really look. I'll definately agree that there are many things sold for dirt cheap prices at piss poor quality. You get what you pay for.

[Zaelath]

Yes, it's been pretty heavily derailed.

Adex is confusing "being paid for overtime", which I would consider a right, something I have to "beg to be given" by the government.

Chidoro while having his heart in the right place is still a consumer drone and confusing quality of life with quality of stuff.

I would contend people were generally a lot healthier and less neurotic 20, 30, 50 years ago. The death rate/average age is more a reflection of medical advances than societal advances.

The statistical argument has to be very carefully analysed, an excellent example of how not to do it; The introduction of helmets to armed forces saw a sharp rise in the number of head injuries sustained. So, what, helmets give you head injuries? No, helmets stop you from being dead and you don't count the dead among the wounded =p

[Adex_Xeda]

My point was rather than begging to government to force a pay scheme on your employer, it is better to find another employer that's willing to work out a more agreeable payment method.

When it comes to a job, one size doesn't fit all, and when the government forces a solution that's what you get, an ill fitting solution.

[Siji]

My point was rather than begging to government to force a pay scheme on your employer

You seem to be assuming that companies can be trusted to be the slightest bit fair to employees or potential employees. Ask the people of Enron how well that works. Or WorldCom or WalMart. As much as I dislike government intervention, companies need to be watched. Otherwise, greed from those in control gets out of control.

Employee's very rarely have much room to bargain with a company in regards to pay these days. Especially in the popular field of IT. For every job opening there's hundreds if not thousands of people that would like to fill it. And among those people are some that haven't been able to find a job in over a year or more.. so that 20k or less that they're being offered for what used to be an 80k or more position, sounds pretty damn good.

[Chmee]

Employee's very rarely have much room to bargain with a company in regards to pay these days. Especially in the popular field of IT. For every job opening there's hundreds if not thousands of people that would like to fill it. And among those people are some that haven't been able to find a job in over a year or more.. so that 20k or less that they're being offered for what used to be an 80k or more position, sounds pretty damn good.

That is the situation in IT for the last couple years. Compared to the sitiuation in the majority of the 90s where employees had immense amounts of market power. People always assume the companies have all the market power in this situation, but they don't. Sometimes they will have more, sometimes they will have less. But companies always compete to at least some extent for employees and employees to some extent compete between companies. There is no need for the government to try to set how compensation is set up.

[Adex_Xeda]

IT is a great example of my principle. You develop a skill set in the mid 90s. Few people have this skillset and you demand a high wage.

All a sudden everyone jumps on the IT bandwagon. Over time people discover that IT isn't as hard as non tech savvy people thought it was.

Suddenly you are surrounded by a surplus of IT workers. The ease of learning the skillset compels more people to jump into the job thinking it's easy money.

Now you're in a situation where there's a ton of people interviewing for the same job. The 20k guy gets hired.

What do you do?

You don't go demand a new federal program to protect your outdated
skillset.

You go and learn up on something new in the IT world that gives you a markable edge over the crowd.

Then you go to the next interview armed with an increased skillset and are able to demand more pay.

It's been cultural mantra for too long that every problem has a governmental cure. You have the power to control your outcome.

[Voronwë]

just because somebody thinks that there are particular situations in which the government should set standards for how workers are treated does not mean that they absolve individuals of responsibility for their lives or look at the government as a giant sow from which to suckle at the teet.

[Adex_Xeda]

True, but I disagree with some here on the number of situations that necessitate government action.

More specifically in this case of worker compensation, I attack it at a level abstracted from the particulars OT pay.

If you don't feel like you're adequately paid, take personal action to fix it outside of running to the government.

There's plenty of opportunities to better your life out there. I've witnessed it.

[Siji]

You don't go demand a new federal program to protect your outdated skillset.

The original subject was overtime pay and being compensated for time worked.. not having the government dictate pay scales. The amount of money a worker is getting as compensation (pay scale) is none of the government's business as long as it's at or above minimum wage.. but there most definitely needs to be laws that insure that a worker is being paid for what they're working.

[Zaelath]

You don't go demand a new federal program to protect your outdated skillset.

The original subject was overtime pay and being compensated for time worked.. not having the government dictate pay scales. The amount of money a worker is getting as compensation (pay scale) is none of the government's business as long as it's at or above minimum wage.. but there most definitely needs to be laws that insure that a worker is being paid for what they're working.

Exactly. However, Adex is following the party line here that says, "We need them to work the overtime, so we'll just drop the pay scale".

There's obvious ethical reasons why this should not be tolerated; unless you're a republican, at which point it's more pointless than trying to explain to a monkey why it shouldn't masturbate in church.

[Chmee]

You don't go demand a new federal program to protect your outdated skillset.

The original subject was overtime pay and being compensated for time worked.. not having the government dictate pay scales. The amount of money a worker is getting as compensation (pay scale) is none of the government's business as long as it's at or above minimum wage.. but there most definitely needs to be laws that insure that a worker is being paid for what they're working.

Saying that people who work over a certain amount of time have to be payed at a multiple of the base rate is the government meddling in compensation. And its not something the government should be doing.

[Venti]

IT is a great example of my principle. You develop a skill set in the mid 90s. Few people have this skillset and you demand a high wage.

All a sudden everyone jumps on the IT bandwagon. Over time people discover that IT isn't as hard as non tech savvy people thought it was.

Suddenly you are surrounded by a surplus of IT workers. The ease of learning the skillset compels more people to jump into the job thinking it's easy money.

Now you're in a situation where there's a ton of people interviewing for the same job. The 20k guy gets hired.

What do you do?

You don't go demand a new federal program to protect your outdated
skillset.

You go and learn up on something new in the IT world that gives you a markable edge over the crowd.

Then you go to the next interview armed with an increased skillset and are able to demand more pay.

It's been cultural mantra for too long that every problem has a governmental cure. You have the power to control your outcome.

I think Adex is capturing an all encompassing spirit that does touch on the overtime thing as well.

In the business/employment, well hell, any area really, It's crowded at the bottom and middle of of any group of people. Mediocrity should be avoided at all costs but it takes an awful lot of determination and resolve to set yourself apart from the crowd.

Once someone has attained a skill or level of value to employers that is substantially higher than that which can be easily replaced by them, you are in a far better position to negotiate a pay plan that compensates you for your value, instead of just your time clock entries.

[Mplor]

I'm surprised nobody has focused on the human and civil rights issues tied up in the forty-hour week and overtime pay.

In the late 19th century, the balance of power between employer and employee was heavily tilted in favor of the employer. In a regulatory vacuum, employers wielded the power to demand 60 hour weeks and rock-bottom wages. Employers openly colluded to drive down wages and to stifle competition for poorly organized labor. Blacklisting prevented workers who asked for something better from ever finding another job.

Clearly, this was not Adex's utopian job market, where if you don't like your wage scale you can just find another job. I have seen and read little to convince me that this is not the natural state of the labor market in the absence of outside intervention.

Of course, things have gotten better since then. Govt has intervened to prevent monopoly, interlocked boards of directors, conspiracy and collusion. Workers (we) are safeguarded from these pitfalls of unfettered capitalism through the forty-hour work week and attendant overtime laws, along with workers' compensation (wanna guess what happened when you lost an arm in the steel mill back then?).

The current balance of power between employer and employee (which Adex repeatedly cites as a reason labor laws are unnecessary) is a direct result of govt intervention in our free labor market. It's patently ridiculous to cite the benefits of gov't intevention as reasons for repealing labor laws.

[Adex_Xeda]

You first assume that I'm an extremist when it comes to government regulation. Yes, too little government oversight is harmful. History has documented it. That's NOT what I support reverting to.

Regulation vs. Employer freedom is on a sliding scale. I belive the balance point is a bit to far on the regulation side.

I belive the source of this over regulation is due to our culture having an attitude problem.

They turn to the government first for solutions, before looking inside themselves and exercising their own personal opportunities.

Personal opportunities that yield much better solutions than some ill-fitting omnibus political law.

[Mplor]

Sorry if I mistook your position. After re-reading your posts in this thread, it appears I may have overlooked your real concern:

I belive the source of this over regulation is due to our culture having an attitude problem.

You're correct that the government is, in the long run, driven by the will of the voters.

Perhaps your efforts would be better (and more democratically) served by addressing this "attitude problem" among voters directly, instead of treating its symptoms.

[Chmee]

Clearly, this was not Adex's utopian job market, where if you don't like your wage scale you can just find

another job.

You can't just demand whatever job you want at whatever wage you want, but people are free to look for new jobs if they are not satisfied with their current ones.

As I have said previously in this thread and other ones, companies do not have all the market power in the labor market. They do not have unlimited ability to set wages low. The compete between themselves for employees. At some times their is a large supply of labor available, and their market power is greater. At other times the labor market is tight and their market power is less. Historically when labor was less mobile than it is today (and communications costs were higher) many companies probably had a greater degree of market power within limited geographical locales. Even then though, their market power was not unlimited.