You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 10:36:59 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility  (Read 3576 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cere

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #25 on: May 04, 2010, 10:46:13 PM »

Government indebtedness is overrated. The debt levels by the federal government relative to GDP is the same as it was in the 80s.

Overrated? Try telling the Europeans that...Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and possibly the UK come straight to mind.  The markets certainly don't appreciate their indebtedness and have reacted strongly to Greece's situation.  A sovereign nation's debt is more risky than Lehman or Goldman and...err...one has bitten the dust and the other is in damage control.  Oh yes...I didn't mention the US...but hey, the head in the sand works wonders.

The whole point of deregulating utilities is to make it so that one utility can't hold the entire system for ransom, whether it's a government utility or a private one, because people can choose to go to another utility - which is exactly why utilities will be under competitive pressure to invest. If this is not the case, the government did not deregulate properly.

Hence my point about ensuring idiots don't run the country. And to your statement about having competitive pressure to invest...investment dollars don't fall from the apple tree so I would be interested to know where these investment dollars would come from. btw...in the UK the privatised electricity companies have held off investing in new assets to the point now where the country will, in a few years, begin to have blackouts because the lead time for replenishment without failure has passed!!

CEOs are (usually) paid based on the value of the company's stock directly or indirectly. If they cut costs so aggressively that future profits (which is what the price of the stock is based on) falls...well, they end up suffering because analysts are going to see this and start selling the stock because they recognize that the company's going straight to hell.


And you're telling me that this doesn't or hasn't happened? Following extreme cost cutting, the shell company usually gets sold before it's recognised for being unsustainable. Then it becomes the next CEO's problem. And that's why we're in the mess that we are today...collectively and lemminglike closing our eyes to exactly this problem...and please don't tell me that the market will work it out.  It won't because there are too many big boys in there lining their own pockets at the public's expense.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 11:27:11 PM by cere »

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #26 on: May 04, 2010, 10:57:03 PM »
Well Asuras..

I can see you're CLEARLY right..and EVERYONE else is wrong.

So, I'll leave you to your surety... and clearly high regard for the philosophy of Gordon Gecko. AFter all you're more of an expert in the textile industry than my father who only spent 40 years doing QA and Chemistry work in it.

« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 11:18:15 PM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline WyldRanger

  • This Is Who We Are / Mulder to her Scully / Random PM's are always welcome
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Lost In Paradise
  • Gender: Male
  • Snuggled by a Starfire Goddess <3
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #27 on: May 04, 2010, 11:25:45 PM »
An excellent song done by the people at "This American Life on NPR" that encapsulates the absurdity of all of this.

http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/special/405_Bonus_Bet_Against_the_American_Dream.mp3

Offline Asuras

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #28 on: May 04, 2010, 11:30:10 PM »
Quote from: Ket
Sitting there repeating over and over again that Mexicans should perform the cheap labor sounds like you are highly prejudiced against them as a people. Does that mean that a Mexican who immigrates here legally should only be allowed to work at Taco Bell (or related)?

No. But this is the practical reality. They work hard, they're here to work, but they're generally unskilled, which is a consequence of the fact that it's relatively easy for them to get here. A selection effect. And having grown up in a relatively mixed area of Texas I had plenty of Mexican friends so please don't call me a racist.

Where I work now, by contrast, more than a third of the people are foreigners in varying degrees but they're highly skilled and come from a wide variety of geographical backgrounds. A different selection effect. The typical Mexican who makes it to Japan is probably a highly qualified individual just as the typical Indian that makes it to Manhattan.

Quote from: Ket
But how would you fund it?  You've said now that we should invest more in education. Currently, many people are unable to obtain grants, loans and federal financial aid, simply because the money isn't there. Are you willing to pay out of your pocket to send the girl who bags my groceries to school? Not only that, but if everyone in America is trained to be only a white collar worker, where are all these jobs supposed to come from?  They don't just materialize out of thin air you know, if they did, our current problem of people with college educations unable to even obtain a job a McDonald's would be non-existent.

Depends on who the girl that bags your groceries is. I used to bag groceries.

Jobs come with investment, education, and time. So no, of course they don't come out of thin air. But there really is not a shortage of white-collar jobs; my firm would be happy to hire twice as many talented people, but there aren't that many talented people up for hire even in this market. This is a consequence of the way we run our education system (and more broadly our society).

But if someone without a college degree can't get a job at McDonald's, it's a problem with him.

Quote from: Ket
So, there's a new regulation out. You love you job in the financial industry, but sorry, everyone in the country must now become a farmer. Or an advertiser. Or a lawyer. Or so on and so forth. So even though you love your job, it's what you've always wanted to do all your life, you are now going to be pushed out of said job because it's not allowed anymore.

See, what I like to think about is the other side of this - which is what other people are forced to sacrifice to let you do what you want. I gave examples already where people would have to pay twice as much for plane tickets or twice as much for clothes. And then I remember that the real outrage is that someone in Mexico - who works hard - is denied the opportunity to do so because some slacker has decided to use the laws of this country to protect his right to being a cashier.

And again - and I have said this a dozen times by now in this thread - I am not unsympathetic to people suffering because of progress. It would suck to be laid off, it would suck to be told that I can't have the job that I want to have. But the point of a job is that it is useful to society. We don't pay people to enjoy themselves or else we'd all be living in squalor.

And I've personally suggested raising income taxes, and since I've told you that I live in Manhattan and work in finance that you can deduce that income taxes are not abstract to me. So, no, frankly...if the government told me with justification that I had to leave my job I think and hope that I'd have the civic obligation to respect that.

Quote from: Ket
Just because you had the means to go to college, obtain a degree and get the job you have, doesn't mean that others want that situation. While they may want or have the education, they may be perfectly content in their current job field, even if it doesn't provide them with every luxury in life.

In that case, you are asking us to pay for your uselessness. I say the reverse - if you don't want to go to college, if you don't want to learn, if you don't want to work, if you don't want to be useful, you deserve to be paid less. I will welcome the foreigner who comes here with nothing and competes with you because he has worked harder to earn the privilege.

Quote from: cere
Overrated? Try telling the Europeans that...Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and possibly the UK come straight to mind.  The markets certainly don't appreciate their indebtedness and have reacted strongly to Greece's situation.  A sovereign nation's debt is more risky than Lehman or Goldman and...err...one has bitten the dust and the other is in damage control.  Oh yes...I didn't mention the US...but hey, the head in the sand works wonders.

I was talking about US sovereign debt, so if you have something to say about that, please...

Quote from: cere
Hence my point about ensuring idiots don't run the country.

So...what, you agree that deregulation in the hands of intelligent legislators is a wise course of action?

Quote from: cere
And you're telling me that this doesn't or hasn't happened? Following extreme cost cutting, the shell company usually gets sold before it's recognised for being unsustainable.

Yes, I'd actually like an example because there are very, very highly paid analysts to ask these very sorts of questions about how cost-cutting affects long-term profitability when they value a company. And I actually compete with them professionally so I'd love some shit to throw at these fucks.

Quote from: cere
Then it becomes the next CEO's problem. And that's why we're in the mess that we are today...collectively and lemminglike closing our eyes to exactly this problem...and please don't tell me that the market will work it out.  It won't because there are too many big boys in there lining their own pockets at the public's expense.

I'd be less cynical about these arguments if people didn't seem so eager to proclaim that there are "big boys in there lining their own pockets at the public's expense."

Quote from: Callie Del Noire
So, I'll leave you to your surety... and clearly high regard for the philosophy of Gordon Gecko. AFter all you're more of an expert in the textile industry than my father who only spent 40 years doing QA and Chemistry work in it.

Gekko. With two K's.

Offline Ket

  • Electroslut Extraordinaire
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: You'll find me under the gun of a tattoo artist...
  • Gender: Female
  • The Onion Queen - crispy fried goodness
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 5
Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #29 on: May 05, 2010, 12:10:32 AM »
You've yet to answer my question on how this mass education is to be funded. I'm lucky enough to have a government job that is willing to pay for my education. However, that is not available to everyone. So please, I ask you a third time, what are your thoughts on funding every American's college education so they can stop doing what you seem to think is menial labor? And why does it depend on who it is that bags my groceries? If she is American, you'll pay? Or if she's Mexican you'll say sorry, but you're only good for menial labor.

Who is saying the cashier/waitress/etc is a slacker? Are you saying that someone who works as a cashier doesn't work hard? No, it's not rocket science, but that doesn't mean that someone who works hard at their position is any less of a person than a rocket scientist.

I am asking no one to pay for my usefulness. I've yet to go to college, because I chose a different path in life. I chose to serve my country, in the interim actually giving up some of my constitutional rights in order to have the job I have and the benefits that come with it.

Americans work hard too. I've pushed myself to attain the rank and salary that I receive, without having gone to college. In all honesty, I make more than many people I know my age who do have a bachelor's degree. I push myself to have exceptional evaluations on a consistent basis so that I may advance in my field. Working hard doesn't just apply to white collar workers. Working hard applies to everyone and there are many out there who work just as hard as you, or some CEO, or any guy sitting behind a desk. As people, they are no less.

Your attitude is snobbish at best. Not everyone does well in school. Not everyone has the means to gain a college education. That doesn't make them any less as people or as workers. To suggest that they should be replaced and forced into doing something else is absurd. You have made your choices in life. Those are yours and yours alone. Forcing your choices onto someone else violates their free will and their right to live their life as they so choose.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #30 on: May 05, 2010, 12:23:46 AM »
You've yet to answer my question on how this mass education is to be funded. I'm lucky enough to have a government job that is willing to pay for my education. However, that is not available to everyone. So please, I ask you a third time, what are your thoughts on funding every American's college education so they can stop doing what you seem to think is menial labor? And why does it depend on who it is that bags my groceries? If she is American, you'll pay? Or if she's Mexican you'll say sorry, but you're only good for menial labor.

Who is saying the cashier/waitress/etc is a slacker? Are you saying that someone who works as a cashier doesn't work hard? No, it's not rocket science, but that doesn't mean that someone who works hard at their position is any less of a person than a rocket scientist.

I am asking no one to pay for my usefulness. I've yet to go to college, because I chose a different path in life. I chose to serve my country, in the interim actually giving up some of my constitutional rights in order to have the job I have and the benefits that come with it.

Americans work hard too. I've pushed myself to attain the rank and salary that I receive, without having gone to college. In all honesty, I make more than many people I know my age who do have a bachelor's degree. I push myself to have exceptional evaluations on a consistent basis so that I may advance in my field. Working hard doesn't just apply to white collar workers. Working hard applies to everyone and there are many out there who work just as hard as you, or some CEO, or any guy sitting behind a desk. As people, they are no less.

Your attitude is snobbish at best. Not everyone does well in school. Not everyone has the means to gain a college education. That doesn't make them any less as people or as workers. To suggest that they should be replaced and forced into doing something else is absurd. You have made your choices in life. Those are yours and yours alone. Forcing your choices onto someone else violates their free will and their right to live their life as they so choose.

He figures it will be magically done by the government I suspect.

Good points though Ket, thank you for enunciating what I've been trying to ask for the last 2 hours. Not everyone is suited for jobs in offices. (I'm a field tech when I have the jobs.. I do good in tech displines and computers but I HATE paperwork. Administration work is the DEVIL)

Offline Asuras

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2010, 12:52:22 AM »
Quote from: Ket
You've yet to answer my question on how this mass education is to be funded.  I'm lucky enough to have a government job that is willing to pay for my education. However, that is not available to everyone. So please, I ask you a third time, what are your thoughts on funding every American's college education so they can stop doing what you seem to think is menial labor?

We fund mass education for everyone from kindergarten to 12th grade. 4 more years doesn't really seem to break the bank and we're really not talking about even that much.

Quote from: Ket
And why does it depend on who it is that bags my groceries? If she is American, you'll pay? Or if she's Mexican you'll say sorry, but you're only good for menial labor.

You're the one who brought up bagging groceries! And yes, I'll pay, who the hell else will? I've done it so I have some understanding.

And I have not once in this discussion said that Mexicans are only good for "menial labor," so again I will appreciate it if you don't accuse me of being a racist.

Quote from: Ket
Who is saying the cashier/waitress/etc is a slacker? Are you saying that someone who works as a cashier doesn't work hard? No, it's not rocket science, but that doesn't mean that someone who works hard at their position is any less of a person than a rocket scientist.

Someone who works their ass off to learn differential equations, thermodynamics, and electromechanics deserves more than someone who stands behind a cash register all day for the simple reason that there are way, way, way more people willing to stand behind a cash register than willing and able to do the things needed to become a "rocket scientist."

Quote from: Ket
Your attitude is snobbish at best. Not everyone does well in school. Not everyone has the means to gain a college education.

If someone doesn't get the opportunities to succeed - if they don't have the means to get a college education - I sympathize with them and I'm willing to help. Thus scholarships.

Quote from: Ket
That doesn't make them any less as people or as workers. To suggest that they should be replaced and forced into doing something else is absurd. You have made your choices in life. Those are yours and yours alone. Forcing your choices onto someone else violates their free will and their right to live their life as they so choose.

And yet you are demanding that we sacrifice things to you because you refuse to be productive. How do you justify that?

Quote from: Calie Del Noire
Not everyone is suited for jobs in offices. (I'm a field tech when I have the jobs.. I do good in tech displines and computers but I HATE paperwork. Administration work is the DEVIL)

And yet...you have a choice: get used to jobs in offices where you can be productive, or get used to jobs in...textile mills.

Offline Ket

  • Electroslut Extraordinaire
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: You'll find me under the gun of a tattoo artist...
  • Gender: Female
  • The Onion Queen - crispy fried goodness
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 5
Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2010, 03:37:00 AM »
It is now time for me to bow out of this discussion. I would be more than happy to continue it, however I will not keep repeating myself over and over without being listened to.

Offline JudeTopic starter

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #33 on: May 05, 2010, 06:38:25 AM »
In an ideal world it would be as viable to support yourself with unskilled labor as it would be to do so through college educated labor.  However, the problem with that is, if I can get a job right out of high school that pays similar to a job that requires 4 years of difficult schooling, which do you think I'm going to do?  Society pays higher wages for jobs which fewer people can accomplish in order to encourage people to aim for those positions so that we can function and continue to progress technologically.

I don't think Asuras is saying that we should be getting rid of manufacturing and blue collar jobs in order to replace them all with white collar jobs.  As far as I can tell he's just making an argument for NAFTA and other fair trade agreements which is as follows.

1)  Free trade agreements put Americans in the same competition pool as less developed countries.
2)  This makes manufacturing in America somewhat nonviable because our standard of living works against them.  They have to pay more to survive an American lifestyle than the citizens of the companies which we trade with.
3)  Because of cheaper labor, many manufacturing jobs will be outsourced for cheaper production costs.
4)  This lowers prices because the costs of production are lower and generates wealth for the Americans who own these corporations.
5)  ???
6)  American prosperity.

(if you don't get the reference, click here)

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #34 on: May 05, 2010, 12:56:00 PM »
It is now time for me to bow out of this discussion. I would be more than happy to continue it, however I will not keep repeating myself over and over without being listened to.

As am I.. I listened to you Ket.

Offline cere

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #35 on: May 05, 2010, 07:26:39 PM »

I was talking about US sovereign debt, so if you have something to say about that, please...


If you want to ignore my comments and simply ask questions I'll leave this thread. So far you have agreed with no-one and have been pushing your wheelbarrow in ever diminishing circles.

However let me at least answer you...lets turn a blind eye to Europe and focus only on US sovereign debt. The world thinks the US dollar, because of the US indebtedness, is becoming too risky and it will lose its status as the world's reserve currency. That's extremely significant. You can read more about this here..http://www.gfmag.com/archives/110-january-2010/9930-coverstory-dollar-decline-and-fall.html#axzz0n6NkNRSO].[url]http://www.gfmag.com/archives/110-january-2010/9930-coverstory-dollar-decline-and-fall.html#axzz0n6NkNRSO[/url]

So...what, you agree that deregulation in the hands of intelligent legislators is a wise course of action?

No, I don't agree. Again, it's you who said that. 

Yes, I'd actually like an example because there are very, very highly paid analysts to ask these very sorts of questions about how cost-cutting affects long-term profitability when they value a company. And I actually compete with them professionally so I'd love some shit to throw at these fucks.

Take a look at Al Dunlap's work as a corporate cost cutter here... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_11_31/ai_57625666/ He has a long list of companies that he's destroyed. You can be assured that he is one of many CEOs currently appointed by weak boards of directors...but then...hell...you should know this in your professional capacity.  Another example is Electronic Data Systems...and HP. HP buys EDS and doesn't know a thing about services. The first thing it does is remove all of the 'expensive' people from EDS...the experienced professionals. What fun! HP lost all of the good people who, by the way, laughed all the way to the bank because their skills were in demand elsewhere AND they got a payout!

[quote author=Asuras link=topic=67669.msg3002106#msg3002106 date=1273033810
I'd be less cynical about these arguments if people didn't seem so eager to proclaim that there are "big boys in there lining their own pockets at the public's expense."
[/quote]

Try and be a little less cynical then. It was a "big boy" who lost billions of our money in the worlds biggest Ponzi scheme...Bernard Madoff.

I think I answered your questions.


Offline Asuras

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #36 on: May 05, 2010, 10:12:26 PM »
Quote from: Jude
4)  This lowers prices because the costs of production are lower and generates wealth for the Americans who own these corporations.
5)  ???
6)  American prosperity.

I've mentioned from time to time here that there ought to be a step 5 which is "provide assistance and training to Americans who lose their jobs and are suddenly exposed to competition with foreigners and deregulated markets and a more equitable tax structure to help distribute the benefits more equitably."

But I get the joke :)

Quote from: Ket
It is now time for me to bow out of this discussion. I would be more than happy to continue it, however I will not keep repeating myself over and over without being listened to.

Quote from: Caille del Noire
As am I.. I listened to you Ket.

Typically if I think that the other person is misunderstanding or refusing to hear my arguments, I point this out to him before leaving the argument and give some points on how we have failed to reach an understanding.

Quote from: cere
If you want to ignore my comments and simply ask questions I'll leave this thread. So far you have agreed with no-one and have been pushing your wheelbarrow in ever diminishing circles.

I said "debt levels of the federal government" because we were discussing the US economy. You brought up Spain, Greece, and Portugal - which we can discuss - but that has nothing to do with my argument. So who is ignoring whom?

This is all that you said about the US economy, which was what my comment was about:

Quote from: cere
Oh yes...I didn't mention the US...but hey, the head in the sand works wonders

So is it unreasonable to ask for more information about your position on this point? "head in the sand works wonders" does not really give me enough information to formulate a counterargument.

Quote from: cere
The world thinks the US dollar, because of the US indebtedness, is becoming too risky and it will lose its status as the world's reserve currency.

The value of the dollar is affected by many, many things. Its use as a reserve currency is also affected by many things, but we're talking about US indebtedness. So the question is, how would we isolate this factor?

The best way is CDS levels, which is basically the cost that companies pay to insure the debt they buy. Look at this:



And you'll see that the US debt has a very, very low cost of insurance...and we still get the top ratings from the credit ratings agencies, so...if the dollar is down, it's not down because of lack of confidence in US solvency.

Quote from: cere
Take a look at Al Dunlap's work as a corporate cost cutter here... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_11_31/ai_57625666/  He has a long list of companies that he's destroyed.

The quoted article shows that the share price of Scott went up 224% under his tenure, and Sunbeam 60%, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Quote from: cere
You can be assured that he is one of many CEOs currently appointed by weak boards of directors...but then...hell...you should know this in your professional capacity.
 

I work in statistical arbitrage so it's not really part of my professional responsibilities.

Quote from: cere
Another example is Electronic Data Systems...and HP. HP buys EDS and doesn't know a thing about services. The first thing it does is remove all of the 'expensive' people from EDS...the experienced professionals. What fun! HP lost all of the good people who, by the way, laughed all the way to the bank because their skills were in demand elsewhere AND they got a payout!

Right...well that's what happens in an acquisition - HP's experienced professionals take the place of EDS's. That's the benefit of an acquisition - you streamline the operation and don't have to have duplicate accountants, duplicate sales, duplicate managers...

And yeah, the guys who got laid off got severance packages. I assure you that HP was aware that would happen. What HP will bet on is that over the next ten or twenty years the greater efficiency of the combined enterprise will earn way, way more than the severance packages they had to pay out today.

Quote from: cere
Try and be a little less cynical then. It was a "big boy" who lost billions of our money in the worlds biggest Ponzi scheme...Bernard Madoff.

You made a general statement:

Quote from: cere
It won't because there are too many big boys in there lining their own pockets at the public's expense.

And now you bring up explicitly the singular, most publicized example of the world's biggest Ponzi scheme to prove this. Taking a single extreme case doesn't prove a damn thing.

And really that flawed logic justifies my cynicism.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2010, 11:03:47 PM »
But if someone without a college degree can't get a job at McDonald's, it's a problem with him.

Yes.  My husband got told what that problem was all the time, after a long-running career in retail management got whacked by the economy.

He was overqualified.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2010, 01:15:53 PM »
Yes.  My husband got told what that problem was all the time, after a long-running career in retail management got whacked by the economy.

He was overqualified.

I'm going to regret this.. I really am.. (not responding to you Oniya.. but returning to this thread.. my BP spikes when I see some posts)

A LOT of folks have been getting this. One of the requirements of collecting unemployment is the occasional 'interview tactics' class. A LOT of folks who are in my last class cite this one. I had a guy who owned THREE restaurants (had to close and sell them off due to an encounter with cancer) get told he was 'over qualified' for almost every restaurant management/cook job he applied for (Apparently they don't like you leaving things out of your resume..but cringe when they see a degree in business management and cordon blue certification)

I actually got it once. I applied for a job as a Tech 1 for a contractor.. 15 years as an Avionics Maintenance tech in the Navy scared the screener off. I was 'overqualified' for a starting position. IE.. they wanted someone they could low ball @ 15/hour rather than the ACTUAL pay of 18.10 or more an hour (I have the skills of a TECH 3... ie.. 21.50/hour)

I don't get it.. don't people realize that the more skilled folks need to eat too?

Offline Asuras

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2010, 09:08:54 PM »
Quote from: Oniya
He was overqualified.

"Overqualified" is a euphemism. A company's not going to reject someone simply because they're experienced, it doesn't make any sense.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2010, 09:29:16 PM »
No, it doesn't make sense.  But it is happening.  I also have it from people who work at the local gas station that they are turning away people with Masters degrees in business.  These are people so desperate for work that they will take anything, and yet the businesses are hiring the ones that they can rationalize paying a lower wage to - even when the MBA is writing 'negotiable' on the 'wage desired' slot on the application.

Online Vekseid

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2010, 09:32:50 PM »
"Overqualified" is a euphemism. A company's not going to reject someone simply because they're experienced, it doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense: Who wants to front the bill to train someone into their own culture that they know not only has the full set of qualifications to leave, but the motivation and will to do so when they're back on their feet/whatever again?

This is generally the case at large storefront chains and franchises - gas stations, fast food, etc.

They generally understand that turnover is going to be higher, but the disruption involved in turnover - conducting a new set of interviews, training them, replacing any knowledge that you might have taken with you, etc - is a significant cost.

Overqualified = "We can't pay you enough to be sure we can keep you for more than six months."

Edit: To whit, this was explained to me rather specifically during my first job hunts. Maybe people are just more forthcoming with this stuff in Minnesota.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 09:34:15 PM by Vekseid »

Offline Asuras

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2010, 10:02:06 PM »
So basically you two are saying that someone who's overqualified is rejected because the employer thinks that the applicant is likely to find a better job so soon that it isn't worth hiring them. Yeah, that does make sense.

On the other hand...if the person is likely to find a better job so soon that it isn't worth hiring them...then presumably they will find a better job soon. The employer that rejected them made that bet. So...really not much of a tragedy.

But let's put this in context. A company invests time and money into training and acclimating a new employee into the business. That employee leaves because he gets a better job. This is a cost to the company and therefore to society.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2010, 10:08:31 PM »
"Overqualified" is a euphemism. A company's not going to reject someone simply because they're experienced, it doesn't make any sense.
YET THEY DO.

Constantly. My dad got told that a dozen times in the 80s... I've know several maintenance men who were told that trying to apply for airline jobs. I had a friend was as an IT in the navy (pre-NMCI contract days). He set up the squadron LAN, helped with the build and admin of the wing lan and the battle groups lan. He was told he was overqualified for a network admin job.

I've been told that as a 15 year vet with all that experience on aircraft I've BEEN told I'm overqualifed for a Tech 1 position.

I know my brother the aerospace engineer with a masters in design has been told it.

Experience means they MIGHT threaten someone's job. Experience means they might want to MOVE up the chain.

Corporate types LOVE hiring their replacements.

My mom has told me of hospitals leaning towards the less qualified nursing LPNs over RNs.. since they don't 'cost as much'. She was told she was lucky to have seniority or she'd be out on her ear. A floor supervisor could be hired for less, since it's only 'cost effective' to lose seniority and experience.

IE.. the folks in the suits want more money for themselves.. but hey.. there are plenty of service jobs out there right?

Offline Asuras

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2010, 10:18:46 PM »
Quote from: Callie Del Noire
YET THEY DO.

Mere skill/talent/training/experience in and of itself is not a reason not to hire someone. There must be some other reason that someone is systematically refused a job. Vekseid and Oniya pointed out one, which is that they're likely to jump ship at the first opportunity, which is true, but...see above.

Quote from: Callie Del Noire
Experience means they MIGHT threaten someone's job. Experience means they might want to MOVE up the chain.

Corporate types LOVE hiring their replacements.

And their bosses fire them if they don't hire competent people (i.e., their replacements). If the bosses don't do this, the shareholders fire the bosses because the company becomes unprofitable. So no - there is an incentive for the "corporate types" to hire their own replacements.

Quote from: Callie Del Noire
My mom has told me of hospitals leaning towards the less qualified nursing LPNs over RNs.. since they don't 'cost as much'. She was told she was lucky to have seniority or she'd be out on her ear. A floor supervisor could be hired for less, since it's only 'cost effective' to lose seniority and experience.

As expensive as health care is in this country I can't really say that I'm critical of trying to cut costs there.


Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2010, 10:21:45 PM »
There must be some other reason that someone is systematically refused a job. Vekseid and Oniya pointed out one, which is that they're likely to jump ship at the first opportunity, which is true, but...see above.

Um - no, that's not what I said.

Online Vekseid

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2010, 10:28:13 PM »
So basically you two are saying that someone who's overqualified is rejected because the employer thinks that the applicant is likely to find a better job so soon that it isn't worth hiring them. Yeah, that does make sense.

On the other hand...if the person is likely to find a better job so soon that it isn't worth hiring them...then presumably they will find a better job soon. The employer that rejected them made that bet. So...really not much of a tragedy.

You live in New York City. Most of the capable people here who are seriously struggling and are running out of options do not live so close to so many prospects.

This isn't the case everywhere, especially in more corrupt regions of the country or where racism plays a subtle role. Money slows down for a period, the jobs simply don't exist for an extended time, and no one is willing to buy their property, and they sure as heck can't afford to move somewhere better. The liquidity simply doesn't reach them, which creates an interesting problem if they (as in, the region they live on) are genuinely capable of being productive on their land, but the money simply doesn't exist to do so.

"Well, lending should be available." It should. Of course, because our banking system is currently on the rocks and their credit has been seriously impacted, it becomes a nasty cycle.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2010, 10:36:31 PM »
As expensive as health care is in this country I can't really say that I'm critical of trying to cut costs there.

So you're willing to hire a LESS knowledgable nurse to cut costs?

I'm sorry.. I'm done (again), you're clearly not willing to see that everything isn't honey and goodness and that folks do get screwed over. Once upon a time, I'd have been hired with my quals (as would my mom) and now I'm rapidly coming to the decision that I CAN'T get hired.. given the contractors I've talked to are willing to waive experience and skill for a snot nosed teenager with a 2 year degree who has never worked on anything larger than a single prop plane.

Because I'm 'OVERQUALIFIED' for an entry tech position. I LIKE working on planes.. I'm not sure I'd want to hire on as shift lead if there WAS an opening. I work on planes..not paperwork.

BUT following your logic I'm in error trying to do the same job for over 15 years.

So, once again I think I'll bow out before I say stuff that will make Veks either yell at me in a PM or lock the thread for starting a flame.

I envy your simplistic view of how things work and hope you never get stuck in my (and other peoples) positions.

Online Vekseid

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2010, 11:02:29 PM »
Callie, you don't need to resort to that sort of language to throw down in a 'stamp your foot and leave in a huff' argument. There's no particular rush in debating here. When people's friends are dying because an inexperienced nurse so thoroughly fucked up applying anesthesia that her patient suffered a punctured lung that then got infected, it's pretty clear that nurses are not exactly driving costs up, rather than drug prices, insurance overhead, excessive testing, nonpayment, medicare underpayment...

If someone makes a grievous error in fact, take the time to point it out.

Something about where Asuras is working may be relevant - in our profession, networking is the norm. I do jobs for people I've met, pretty much, and I think the ease of networking among computer professionals has a lot to do with the rampant libertarianism. Very easy to assume everyone else can just as easily have access to the same network.

If I did not get so royally fucked over and was not such a dunce about my business, I would probably be siding with him a lot more often - being in a liquidity trap is an eye opener.

Though I would say trying to do the exact same job for fifteen years - not diversifying at all - is in fact an error. Nothing against what you prefer to do - as a potential employer myself in the next few years, I love that - but at the same time, I'd need to be able to shunt people around when there is slack work in an area. You can always make more friends and build your own network to get to doing what you want to.

Offline Asuras

Re: Wall Street, the Economy, and Responsibility
« Reply #49 on: May 10, 2010, 11:35:04 PM »
Quote from: Oniya
Um - no, that's not what I said.

(the costs of multitasking while drinking, sorry :) )

Quote from: Oniya
No, it doesn't make sense.  But it is happening.  I also have it from people who work at the local gas station that they are turning away  people with Masters degrees in business.  These are people so desperate for work that they will take anything, and yet the businesses are hiring the ones that they can rationalize paying a lower wage to - even when the MBA is writing 'negotiable' on the 'wage desired' slot on the application.

There must be some reason that they're doing that. Why would a gas station throw out an MBA's resume (other than the reason which Vekseid suggested which I'm addressing)?

Quote from: Callie Del Noire
So you're willing to hire a LESS knowledgable nurse to cut costs?

We pay twice as much in health care costs as any other country. So yes.

Quote from: Callie Del Noire
I'm sorry.. I'm done (again), you're clearly not willing to see that everything isn't honey and goodness and that folks do get screwed over.

When have I ever failed to respond to your points? What have I ignored? Please point it out to me because I have in good faith tried to understand your arguments.

I have repeatedly recognized in this thread that people have gotten screwed over and deserve to be helped out.

Quote from: Callie Del Noire
Because I'm 'OVERQUALIFIED' for an entry tech position. I LIKE working on planes.. I'm not sure I'd want to hire on as shift lead if there WAS an opening. I work on planes..not paperwork.

The grim reality is that people do not get to do what they like to do unless they are willing to accept the costs. I would much rather program video games, but I realized that I wanted money and so I came to work in quantitative finance. Society needs more people in quantitative finance than it needs in video games...perhaps society needs more people doing paperwork than working on planes.

If you prefer working on planes, you must be willing to pay for the luxury of doing what you want to do.

Quote from: Vekseid
You live in New York City. Most of the capable people here who are seriously struggling and are running out of options do not live so close to so many prospects.

I received the offer for the job I now have last July. I was living in Texas at the time. The unemployment rate was higher than it has ever been in my lifetime, and at the time of the offer, the market for jobs particularly in finance was flooded due to the chaos in 2008. I am not unsympathetic to a competitive job market.

But I do not think my position is based on personal experience but on evidence. We are in the midst of a very deep recession - I recognize that - and jobs will be scarce and the most affected will be the most vulnerable. Which goes back to my point that we should invest and encourage people to become competitive, regardless of the economic situation. I think that's the best way of attacking inequality.

I am in fact curious about your view on this. I gather from our discussions that you think people ought to work for what they have - so do you think that people's jobs should be protected even if they can be done more efficiently if they were deregulated, or exposed to foreign competition?

Quote from: Vekseid
This isn't the case everywhere, especially in more corrupt regions of the country or where racism plays a subtle role.

I recognize this...that's why we have affirmative action. (which I support)

I am in fact reasonably liberal :)

Quote from: Vekseid
Money slows down for a period, the jobs simply don't exist for an extended time, and no one is willing to buy their property, and they sure as heck can't afford to move somewhere better. The liquidity simply doesn't reach them, which creates an interesting problem if they (as in, the region they live on) are genuinely capable of being productive on their land, but the money simply doesn't exist to do so.

"Well, lending should be available." It should. Of course, because our banking system is currently on the rocks and their credit has been seriously impacted, it becomes a nasty cycle.

Right. But we need to distinguish between things that are happening now, and permanent structural changes to the economy. We were discussing protectionism and re-regulation - those are very different and...quite unrelated to getting money and credit moving through the economy again right now, which is a temporary freeze. (although I think that credit markets have improved quite significantly over the last year or two)

Quote from: Vekseid
rampant libertarianism

Please, please don't call me a libertarian. It hurts. :) The FairTax thing was just for fun.