RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs

RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ShadowMasterTX -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:56:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: ShadowMasterTX quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie I never said "most people" I said that "The statistics are that 98% of the population has about 60 - 90 days of income in the bank." "Statistics" and "98%" being the operative word/number. Actually, the way this is written, the 2% (that is not part of the 98% above) include everyone who has MORE then 90 days, and who has less then 60 days (98% have 30-90 days, so 2% do not have 30-90 days) This is a bullshit stat, and I would question the validity. After all, I strongly suspect that the top 5%, on average, has more then 90 days saved. But, if you concede that only 40% of the top 5% has more then 90 days saved, then by this very statistic, NO ONE could have less then 60 days (because no one is left having accounted for 100%). And a stat that says "98%" is certainly "Most People".. 98% is clearly the majority. I would never argue that the top 5% of the population has lass than 60 - 90 days in savings. I don't know if it's true, but I think it would be ludicrous to presume otherwise. Actually, my point was that for the 98% stat to be valid, only 40% of the top 5% could have more then 90 days (40% of the top 5% would be 2% of the original 100%).. So, if 40% of the top 5% has more saved, NO ONE could have less saved.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:57:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I don't need to use the word average because the statement "98% of the population" presumes some have more and some have less. The "room" for the people with less than 60 - 90 days income is within the 98% figure. No it doesnt.... only in your mind. 98% of the population is just that.. 98%. 98% of the population with an average income of 2-3 months should have been what you posted.. and what you are trying to insist you meant. Which would have made no sense in the post you originally made that statement. I'm not "insisting" anything. I'm simply restating what I wrote. If it's beyond your ability to comprehend, that's okay with me.

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:59:15 PM)
you still need more practice

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:59:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShadowMasterTX quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: ShadowMasterTX quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie I never said "most people" I said that "The statistics are that 98% of the population has about 60 - 90 days of income in the bank." "Statistics" and "98%" being the operative word/number. Actually, the way this is written, the 2% (that is not part of the 98% above) include everyone who has MORE then 90 days, and who has less then 60 days (98% have 30-90 days, so 2% do not have 30-90 days) This is a bullshit stat, and I would question the validity. After all, I strongly suspect that the top 5%, on average, has more then 90 days saved. But, if you concede that only 40% of the top 5% has more then 90 days saved, then by this very statistic, NO ONE could have less then 60 days (because no one is left having accounted for 100%). And a stat that says "98%" is certainly "Most People".. 98% is clearly the majority. I would never argue that the top 5% of the population has lass than 60 - 90 days in savings. I don't know if it's true, but I think it would be ludicrous to presume otherwise. Actually, my point was that for the 98% stat to be valid, only 40% of the top 5% could have more then 90 days (40% of the top 5% would be 2% of the original 100%).. So, if 40% of the top 5% has more saved, NO ONE could have less saved. 40% can have any amount they care to, but statistically, they can only have a share that is relative to the absolute amount saved in the U.S.

ShadowMasterTX -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 9:00:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie Actually, none of the links that I gave you state anywhere at all that 98% of the population has 60 - 90 days of income in the bank. It's a mathematical extrapolation using numbers that are available for anyone to review from an unbelievable wealth of data. Numbers that are so available you can provide a current source for them? Or should this have been written as "98% of the people we surveyed at XYZ Wealth Management have a minimum of 30-90 days".. Or maybe, "Of those making between 200k, and a million a year, 98% have saved enough for 30-90 days " -- meaning it could be more, but is not less..

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 9:01:24 PM)
lol.. I would think you would get tired of being busted... guess not. Its past bed time... night... and do work on that dance move... [;)]

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/26/2012 5:29:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl lol.. I would think you would get tired of being busted... guess not. Its past bed time... night... and do work on that dance move... [;)] Okay Taz, if someone ever asks you to sew something for them and hands you the cloth, I'll give you a heads up and let you know that you'll also require a needle and thread. Most (who understand the rules of math and statistics) would have been able to read and discern the meaning of a phrase that used "statistically" and "98% of"....in the same sentence (by the way, leaving the word "statistically" would have validated your ridiculous argument. It was, however, a main component of same). I'll try to be far more clear with you in the future. You need the foundation first, then the facts. I got it.

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/26/2012 5:33:11 AM)
Its about time you got something. After reading your posts, you remind me of a pimply faced teenager sitting in his mom's basement, writing posts he believes to be incredibly witty and snarky.... not saying you are... just the mental image your posts gave me. quote: The statistics are that 98% of the population has about 60 - 90 days of income in the bank. That leaves 2% that have "more than that". quote: Most (who understand the rules of math and statistics) would have been able to read and discern the meaning of a phrase that used "statistically" and "98% of"....in the same sentence (by the way, leaving the word "statistically" would have validated your ridiculous argument. It was, however, a main component of same). Try again next time.

thompsonx -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/26/2012 6:37:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Im all for a fat bonus for executives who are making changes for a business that nets fat profits. Why should they get a bonus for doing their job?

thompsonx -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/26/2012 6:40:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie The statistics are that 98% of the population has about 60 - 90 days of income in the bank. Your links do not support this mindnumbingly stupid post.

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/26/2012 6:41:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Im all for a fat bonus for executives who are making changes for a business that nets fat profits. Why should they get a bonus for doing their job? As an incentive to reduce costs.... Im not talking about every year here.

thompsonx -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/26/2012 6:45:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Tell that to the 14,000 workers who agreed to accept the CBA Why do you approve of management being paid seven figures while asking labor to take a wage cut in a company that is going bankrupt? Who says I do??? But now.... the employees have NO JOBS and over two thirds of the work force wanted to continue. What is your point?

thompsonx -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/26/2012 6:46:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElChupa You people don't understand. This is all about SHUTTING DOWN BIG BUSINESS BROTHERS AND SISTERS. So what that people lose their jobs? Obama will give them a free phone and some stuff, man. It's cool. The big thing is to make sure the union bosses are well paid and have dictatorial powers. ANd that the company goes belly up baby. That's how we roll in america today. y'all better get used to it. Strike shut em down. Make em pay. Oh yes, people will lose jobs, but who cares? Once more your post is filled with mindless moronic drivil.

thompsonx -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/26/2012 6:47:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl My point was in reference to the post I responded too. Did that elude you as well? It must have....your intellect so overwhelms us all. It certainly seems to overwhelm you on a regular bassis.

thompsonx -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/26/2012 6:49:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic [image]http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/532148_10151281051133729_1490742946_n.jpg[/image] Tell that to Microsoft who has over 4,000 jobs that start at 90 grand a year, yet they can't find people skilled enough to do them. When you offer $45 an hour for a position that pays $60 an hour why is it so difficult for you to see why no one wants go work for less?

thompsonx -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/26/2012 6:51:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Im all for a fat bonus for executives who are making changes for a business that nets fat profits. Why should they get a bonus for doing their job? As an incentive to reduce costs.... Im not talking about every year here. The reason management is paid more than labor is to manage effeciently therefore a bonus for doing your job is bulshit.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/26/2012 7:08:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 It only takes ONE administrator to do that. I bet those fat cats are still being paid their fat and inflated salaries until the company is officially closed. Meanwhile, the workers are chucked out of a job, instantly, with no pay. I see no justice in that at all. It takes one Administrator to close 400 - 500 plants? Man, are you some kind of super human efficiency expert? I'd love to see how one guy could do all that. I have been in two jobs where the company has closed down. I don't know what they do over there in the US but here, usually, once the public side of things has been closed to the public (ie, closing shops etc), all the plants, transport depots and other fabrication units are instantly closed and locked up with no staff whatsoever and unless there are perishable goods, even the remaining goods/stock are locked up where they are stacked. Basically, everyone is locked out from day one, assets and bank accounts frozen and the whole process is administered by the receiver and that is usually just one person overseeing the sale of the assets. Typical case of Woolworths, Oddbins, Unwins, Threshers, Moben kitchens, Dolphins bathrooms, Carpetright et al, were all closed after a few days of a massive sell-out sales then the stores and storage units were all closed up, locked up with no staff and whatever stock was in them. They didn't have staff hanging on to clear out the stores or the warehouses or to sell off the transportation - the whole enterprise was just closed and locked overnight. If a buyer is found, the new owners sort out the mess - not staff from the old business. Virtually everything is done in meetings with the administrator and this is usually a single person not connected with the business in any way. So not even management are employed once you reach this stage. Edit for more opinion.... Given that statistics can be manipulated to reflect almost anything you like, I'm willing to bet that of that 98% being quoted, 90% of them were on low wages and/or weekly paid and have maybe, at best, 1 week's worth of 'savings' and the remaining 10% were better paid and have a little bit more. Apart from a tiny handful of fairly well-paid managers, most of the people I know in real life live from week to week and when that final pay cheque hits the bank, it's all they have to live on (so not really 'savings' as such). My friends also include a bunch of people I know in the USA - Jax and Tampa (FL) and a few more in north Carolina and some in Texas. Every single one of them doesn't actually have any 'savings' as such - not one red cent. They have all had to cancell medical insurance and other luxuries such as expensive foods. 98%???? PFFFFFTTT!!

DesideriScuri -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/26/2012 10:13:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Im all for a fat bonus for executives who are making changes for a business that nets fat profits. Why should they get a bonus for doing their job? As an incentive to reduce costs.... Im not talking about every year here. The reason management is paid more than labor is to manage effeciently therefore a bonus for doing your job is bulshit. The job may be to manage efficiently, and an incentive to do just that may include a "bonus" as part of the package. If you simply meet the job requirements, you mght not get a bonus, but if you do very well, you might get a hefty bonus. If it's written into the compensation package, then it's more than just a bonus for doing your job. It's a bonus for doing your job better than just gettin' 'er done.

GoddessInanna -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 people their jobs (11/26/2012 2:47:17 PM)
Why did they have such high prices and have to keep raising them? Umm the unions. The Unions refused to allow pay cuts, the unions forced them to charge high prices to pay for the workers. they would of stayed open and kept the jobs if the unions hadn't destroyed it. Unions are over all destroying our education and economy.

GoddessInanna -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/26/2012 2:53:58 PM)
Oh get off it. America is still a fat tinkie eating nation just most of it is eating from the food bank at the moment, that has a shortage by the way . Its not just hostess either. The teacher's union is responsible for us having one of the worst educational systems at the mometn. You can't even work if you have a masters and start because the unions wont let you take a normal starting wage and no school will hire. but according the teacher union our educational system is in shambles because they don't make enough so the teachers don't have enough incentive. Just recently the local metal workers union wouldn't take a new contract because the company couldn't afford a the current wage anymore. the workers had to strike against their union or all the metal workers would be with out a job. I think it has a lot to do with the union.

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625