Does your current job utilize your education?
This is a carry over from the "On suicidal thoughts" thread, which went off topic discussing education, careers, jobs, and so on.
Feel free to vote and expand on any additional thoughts you'd like to share! O:)
Feel free to vote and expand on any additional thoughts you'd like to share! O:)
Comments (117)
First, there is the question of how much one's education was worth as an education. Some people get better education than others. Towards what end was one's education directed? Maybe one's education was misdirected (mine was -- I should never have planned on being a high school teacher).
The jobs one gets might be the result of incompetent or super savvy job hunting skills. Any job might be hard to find; really interesting jobs are harder to find. Some people have more healthy or less healthy attitudes toward work (mine were exceptionally unhealthy at times).
Expecting a liberal arts degree (English Lit) to line up with non-teaching jobs just wasn't going to end well. The two good jobs I had (for 14 years, total) did utilize all sorts of skills and knowledge, and they were very serendipitous. The rest of the jobs were mostly great steaming piles of shit.
Look at those answers. Where is the answer "Can't say, I'm unemployed with a university degree"?
None of the answers quite match my position, I'd say that I'm happy to be free not to have to rely on a degree, even though I have one. That independence and freedom is something I think is really worth having. So I answered "No. And I like it that way" even though that doesn't say much...
Also, "No. And I don't care". The "Don't care" answer seems to me suggest that I don't care to answer the question.
Yes, the poll is biased quite heavily towards people who are helped by their degrees, in my opinion. Also the question "does your current job utilise your education?" assumes (without saying) that education is only what you learn in school/college/university. But that's just simply a false assumption. Of course my work - for example - utilises education - and big time. But it's not the education I received in school. Heister seems to have built a Crooked and Lyin' Poll! >:O
The issue with many people is that they get a degree, but truth be told, you don't actually learn much practical and valuable skills in University - even if you do a technical degree. But they brainwash you to think you have. So when you go to a job, you expect to be able to do lots of things, but the rude awakening is when you find out that you're mostly incapable to do anything of real value (how frustrating - you spent 4-5 years, and you're still not a professional...). That's what I found as an engineer. So the company effectively has to train you - invest time in you - and that costs money. So they'll likely train you to become specialised in one small area - invest just a little time in you to make you productive - and that's it. Your skills will not grow at all UNLESS you yourself put in extra effort, above and beyond work to learn and better yourself.
I know people for example who have been working in IT at multinational corps. for well over 10-15 years, and many of them have weaker programming skills than someone self-taught like me over the past ~1-2 years. In fact, the person I'm talking about recently requested that I give them tutorials to learn JS. How is that possible? Because they do lots of paperwork, and the same repetitive tasks day in and day out - when they don't know something they just ask a colleague, or give it over to someone else to do. Working as an employee (esp. in large companies) is 90% politics, and 10% work. It all ends up about office politics - kinda like school - whose the most popular, whose the coolest, who socialises the most, who goes to the best holidays, who goes drinking with the manager etc. But very little focus on who gets the job done. And it kills your creativity and problem solving skills.
When I have a problem for example, I am always forced to find out by myself how to solve it, there's no support network around. So you learn how to search, who to contact, how to get the answers you need from people, how to leverage your connections, etc. Whereas in a job where everything is given to you on a platter, you don't really learn much.
I mean all that is fine if you just want to pay your bills, but if you want sufficient freedom to use your time to help others, and actually do something for the world, those degree requiring corporate jobs aren't going to do you much good. Your best bet is still to study and work at home, by yourself, to learn something different while working your day job.
In my opinion, the economy should be based on small producers - entrepreneurship. Large, dominating entities should be discouraged. The intention of the economy is to give people the greatest amount of freedom - so work which ties one into imbecile rituals, and keeps them a wage slave is ultimately contradictory to the aims of a humane economy.
The question is mistaken - Heister is referring to university/college education - at least that's what our discussion in the other thread was about. I hope you didn't wait until college to learn basic maths :P
I never went to college or university, and I have no intention of going.
Yeah, I definitely think it's not worth the money. If I knew what I know today, and I had sufficient confidence back then to refuse the peer-pressure, I wouldn't go either.
You spend roughly ~£60,000 (with all costs, including accommodation, food, travel, etc. for 4 years), and are stuck with debt afterwards (and much more for US, or if you are international in UK obviously). From a meagre paying wage job it will take you ~6-8 years to pay that back (factoring living costs, etc.), and the skills you gain (apart from the piece of paper) are really not much. I think you're far better off learning something valuable by yourself while working a job - any job pretty much - that pays your bills, and lets you save some.
Whether or not one obtains useful skills in a university education (which probably greatly varies by major: engineering or accounting majors on average probably obtain more job-specific skills than those majoring in ethnic studies or Renaissance poetry), there is the pragmatic consideration that a lack of a university degree is a barrier to entry for many jobs.
Many employers want that "piece of paper," and lacking it will preclude one from even getting one's foot in the door for an interview. University graduates (at least in the U.S.; I haven't seen the data for the U.K.) earn substantially more over their working lifetimes than do non-university graduates.
Well, I'm with Labour who've pledged to abolish university tuition fees. But whether or not it's really worth it, as things currently stand, is a personal thing, in my view, and differs from one case to another, so I wouldn't make the blanket statement that it's definitely not worth it.
I hold an engineering degree. Learned almost 0 useful material. You go on a construction site afterwards, and don't understand anything. That's disgusting preparation, especially for someone who holds an Honours degree. It's all theory - but life is very different from theory. Academics like theory, because it's static, and it's easy to teach and control theory. It's much harder to teach real world.
Quoting Arkady
Depends who the "employers" are. Large(r) companies want it not because they need it, but it's a way for the person in charge of hiring to guard his behind if you end up being a bad hire. He can then say to his managers - "oh well, I did my best, look at his education here, he seemed to have been the perfect candidate!". It's all about politics, not doing what's best for the business.
But, say someone came to be employed by me (a small company/employer) - I'd only have one real question, apart from getting to know their personality - can you get whatever job I'm hiring for done well? If you can, let's see it, and I'd give them a real world test right away. If they perform well, that's all I care about. I don't give a toss about their degree, because I've seen too many idiots with degrees. And there's many like me, especially smaller companies. Smaller companies care about results - politics, reputation, and bullshit aren't relevant.
Quoting Sapientia
I agree, but the careers for which it is worth it aren't many (doctors come to mind).
That's a terrible idea. Do you imagine how many people will start going to university if tuition fees are abolished? Where will that money come from? Remember the costs are ~£9,000/student/year and at the moment, with the current tuition fees, there are 500,000 UK only students attending. That's £4.5 BILLION/year. And the number of students who attend will increase significantly if tuition is made 0. Say doubling (universities are smart - they will market, to get funds from the state, that's free and easy money, just for attracting more students). Are you prepared to pay £9 BILLION every year for free education out of your own tax money?
Also, please note that one reason why the quality of University has degraded so much is that University is no longer "elitist" -> there's too many students.
I amended my above post to say "many employers," because certainly, university degrees are not necessary for every job (luckily, since most Americans don't hold them). There are obviously many, many jobs which don't require such degrees, from minimum-wage, unskilled work (e.g. fast food worker) to skilled work which may command a decent living (e.g. finish carpenter).
However, beyond the "politics" aspect, a university degree also sends a sort of honest signal to an employer, i.e. that this applicant was qualified to gain admittance into a university, was intelligent and disciplined enough to complete the course work, etc. Unfortunately, as the value of degrees becomes debased by things like affirmative action or legacy admissions, grade inflation, or lowered standards for academic coursework, this signal likely communicate less useful information to employers.
Yes, once a person has some work experience under their belt, a degree (or lack thereof) becomes less relevant, as one's work experience becomes more salient. Younger people or more recent grads don't have this benefit, however.
None of this changes, however, that holders of a university degree earn substantially more over their lifetimes than those who don't hold such a degree (again, at least in the U.S.)
That "substantially" doesn't mean much. It's the difference between $20K and $60-80K/yr (and even with a degree it takes 10s of years to reach that level) with the stipulation that people who earn bigger salaries are often required to travel more, attend more expensive events, live in more expensive places (close to the job), etc. In real cash flow terms, it doesn't end up being a big difference. They live at slightly higher standards of living, but because their bigger wage implies bigger costs, they are still a few pay-checks from starvation.
Quoting Arkady
Well I, for example, wouldn't look at that as a plus necessarily. It's not that hard to gain admittance to even great universities if that's your only goal in today's age. I know some people who graduated from top universities who are utter idiots. Their degree doesn't change that. As for "completing the course work" => most people cheat, even on that. It's amazing how much cheating is going on in Universities. Back when I attended, I never cheated, but I know many people who have, including paying to get others to do their course works.
Quoting Arkady
I agree - degrees aren't what they used to be.
One estimate I've seen is that £19.4bn can be raised from the increase to corporation tax alone.
I spent ~£27,000 for a three year course. That was back when tuition was £3,000 a year (plus £6,000 maintenance).
And 6-8 years? You must be joking. The repayment is 9% of any income over £17,775 a year. If you're earning £18,000 then not including interest it'd take more than 3,000 years to pay back £60,000 (although they're written off after 25/30 years).
I think that's the key point. The rich (or some of them, rather) complain about having to pay a disproportionate amount of tax, but given that almost everyone would prefer to earn £150,001 and pay 45% tax than earn £11,500 and pay no tax, it's hard to empathise.
You can argue that it isn't fair, but in this situation the less fair option is the better option.
If you had a £80,000 salary, your costs would be significantly higher (and it wouldn't really be up to you). First of all, your job would very likely entail a lot more traveling than your current job does (that means expenses - thousands of pounds per year). Second of all, you'd be working in a central place (financial district of London for example) so in order to be efficient you'd need to live in a more expensive place. In order to create a good impression you'll also need expensive clothing (probably required by your employer), as well as attend dinners/lunches at expensive places. And so forth.
Granting how expensive the UK can be, ~£80,000/yr (roughly 7K/month) isn't even that much (anywhere in Eastern Europe though - if you make 7K/month you're probably a big bank director >:O ) That's why I've told you before it's the cash flow that matters. Someone making ~80K as an employee in the UK ain't rich. When you get to £200,000/year and up, then you're talking about starting to get rich. The fact is that these 80K/yr people struggle to make ends meet, are highly stressed, and making them pay 9 billion in educational costs makes no sense - they just cannot pay, they don't have the cash flow necessary. These people typically wake up at 50 completely burned out, with no hopes left in life.
Quoting Michael
Yeah, that commutes to ~£60,000 with the current tuition of £9,000 (9K*4+6K*4). As for the years I cited best case scenarios (starting with a very good job at £25,000-£28,000, and growing). My point is even 6-8 years is terrible for the value you get out of it.
Quoting Michael
The government doesn't reward the rich well enough. If I'm a billionaire, I have no problem paying for education a large amount of money. But that means I should have disproportionate rights in absolutely controlling how that education gets implemented (afterall, it's my money!). Not some dumb politician to take my money and do stupid things with it. I should have control over what happens to that money. If that happened, then rich people, at least many of them, would be interested to pay their fair shares of taxes. But at the moment, there's no benefits to paying your taxes. You're better off taking that money away to a fiscal paradise.
I find that hard to believe.
And my original point still stands; these people prefer to have this £80,000 a year job with its higher tax than the £12,000 a year job with its lower tax, so even though it might not be fair, it's still the better option. So this "disproportionate amount of tax" defence doesn't seem to be very well thought out.
Well, you actually said "from a meagre paying wage job", but even then, if you're earning £28,000 then it'd take 65 years to pay back £60,000 (not including interest), as it's 9% of income over £17,775, so £920.25 a year.
I don't think it's the government's job to reward people. Its job is to provide necessary services to the country, which at the very minimum is keeping everyone alive, healthy, and safe.
That's not how democracies work. Or are you suggesting that oligarchies are a fairer form of governance?
You mean aside from the armed forces, the police, a judiciary system, the fire service, the ambulance service, hospitals, a central bank, waste removal, roads, etc.? Of course, you can push to privatise everything, but given that private companies are primarily interested in making a profit, you'll likely end up paying more than you currently pay in taxes.
(Not to mention that private police services and militaries is a recipe for disaster).
I don't think anybody is holding you hostage to your home country. You're free to move to the Cayman Islands if you like.
>:O
That makes you feel safer (emotionally), but it doesn't necessarily commute rationally. I have quite a decent medical knowledge (of course nothing like a professional - but I could go head to head with a 2nd year medicine student, and some conditions/diseases I understand really well), and many doctors I've been to were disappointing in their "knowledge" and advice. Some of the advice I got actually harmed me. It's a fine line knowing when to listen to a doctor and when to ignore his advice - it's easy to go the wrong way in both cases.
Over time, I've shifted to doctors who listen to me and do as I say, and away from the very stubborn ones who insist on their way regardless of what I say. This year, for example, I avoided a surgery by finding a doctor who did as I told him. I also got a foot infection though from ignoring a doctor's advice - so it can go both ways. Health is a very complicated subject - best not to get ill, and if you do, use your own brain to help you decide and judge doctors and their advice.
Quoting Michael
Depends. Is the better option to have higher social status (that's mostly what that job is) and join the insane asylum when you're 50 because of too much stress?
Quoting Michael
Right. Yes you are correct, I just tried it. I have no idea what error I did when I calculated the first time. Either way, I've just assumed they had to pay £36,000 (just tuition fees) in loan repayments and they'd make up the remaining 6K/year working part-time or over the summers.
Quoting Michael
Right, but it shouldn't be the gov's job to punish people who haven't done anything illegal.
Quoting Michael
No, I'm saying that people who provide disproportionately - for whatever reason - should have greater decision power in the changes that are going to be made.
Quoting Michael
Sure but many rich people wouldn't rely on many of the public services anyway - say ambulances, hospitals, waste removal from the list you've provided.
Quoting Michael
I agree, obviously.
Quoting Michael
Yes, but when you do this, your country suffers significantly because they lose all potential taxes from you (apart from stuff that's unavoidable such as all the taxes involved with salaries/employment). They may as well settle on mutually favorable terms, then at least they get some of the taxes.
So, what, the more tax you pay the more votes you get? That's not a democracy; it's an oligarchy. And if all the power rests with a small number of the most wealthy then you end up with something like Russia. Is that really the sort of society you want to live in?
Paying tax isn't a punishment. It's a necessity.
The rich don't get sick or suffer injuries? They don't have bins in their houses that need to be emptied? They don't drive anywhere? They don't require an army to protect them from foreign invasion? Or a police force to protect them from would-be burglars? Or an independent judiciary to ensure that business contracts and the like are honoured? Their properties never catch fire?
This is just ridiculous. Of course they benefit from public services. They likely wouldn't have any money at all without them.
That's already the case. Obviously the current tax rate isn't severe enough to warrant the rich leaving en masse. They still live and work in the US or the UK or France or wherever. So I really don't understand what you're trying to argue here.
Paying a higher tax than everyone else is a punishment.
Quoting Michael
No, but neither do I want to live in a society where foolish good for nothings that we currently call politicians call the shots.
Quoting Michael
Private health care.
Quoting Michael
They also do that privately, largely. Part of estate management.
Quoting Michael
Yes, they do require this.
Quoting Michael
Private security.
Quoting Michael
Yes, they do require these.
Quoting Michael
Yes they work there, but many don't pay their taxes there.
:s A civil engineer isn't a construction worker mate...
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I'm probably one of the best educated people on the planet actually in terms of schooling. I was always the very top of the class, in both school (I was valedictorian) and university (apart from first year when I almost failed). So I doubt your statements are anything but blind attempts at trying to rationalise things.
My complaints don't stem from "my" failed education. My complaints stem for the fact that education just isn't helpful - despite me receiving some of the best education out there, I was still incapable to do useful work for others. It failed - miserably. And no, not because it didn't get me a job. It did get me a job, but I soon realised that in a job you are like a slave for the most part - at the mercy of others, since you simply haven't been adequately trained to provide real value to people. There's very little creativity, freedom to choose when you work, how you come dressed to work, etc. And I don't like that. So I absolutely didn't choose to quit engineering because of necessity - it's not because I wasn't making enough money.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
As an engineer by applying for it (with my degree, obviously). As an independent? By creating my job.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
That's not the point. The point is that you have so many advantages which you're throwing away.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Ehmmmm no. The system isn't supposed to ensure your success at all. You seem to have a very communistic mentality. That's how it was back in the day - eh - the fuckin state took care of ya! Let's take you and send you to North Korea shall we? You may like it there, they guarantee you a place to work in the field you studied! ;)
Quoting Heister Eggcart
It's nothing but your arrogance and inflamed sense of self worth that makes you think degradingly of working at McD's.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Just like losing weight, making money doesn't involve secrets. Just hard work.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Supposing that the world doesn't need anymore doctors (there's too many) why the fuck would you become a doctor? It's your fault for going into something that the world doesn't need anymore. You keep throwing the blame, but it's not anyone's fault.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
No, I never suggested you accept to prostitute yourself, or sell drugs, or stuff like that. So I'm not telling you to be a slut at all - I'm telling you to do something that is useful and helpful for others (and obviously legal) - as far as I see, I'm telling you to stop being a selfish bastard (I want I want) and start being an unselfish and upstanding man (what can I give to the world?).
Quoting Heister Eggcart
No, actually the reason there are specialised fields is that there's a need for all those fields in the world. They fulfil a whole different array of human needs, that would otherwise go unmet. They definitely don't exist in order to ensure selfish people get the career path they want. Otherwise we'd have career paths of watching TV out there for sure...
Quoting Heister Eggcart
No, that's not quite true. People did whatever was necessary and needed to do. A soldier wasn't going to be a soldier his whole life.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
The world doesn't give a damn what you want. The world has its own needs, and it will go on with them, whether you like it or not. However, if you ignore the needs of the world, don't be surprised when you find yourself unrewarded for your work.
I'm sure you could, but an education is years of training and the application of this training vastly differentiates with knowledge of a given subject, which is why tertiary studies can be rendered useless if one does not actually work in the given field.
A degree does not undermine a person who may not have one neither is it necessary pending the career or professional objectives. I know many highly intelligent and creative people without a formal education; I am trying to learn the piano and have found it incredibly difficult, so when I listen to a musician play, I am always gobsmacked at the intelligence required to become one. Many intelligent people are lost in the economics as is already pointed out as much as there are many without degrees that know more about a subject I have studied and put me in my place.
A degree is not relevant to a person' character traits and abilities, but it is still useful if you seek knowledge of a particular profession.
But it's not punishment, it's a fairer method of being able to implement a policy which will be a benefit to society. The greater the wealth, the greater the contribution.
Quoting Agustino
No, that's a terrible idea. That would be elitist. Decisions should be made in the interest of those who will be effected by them, not in the interest of a privileged class at the expense of the less well off.
Quoting Agustino
So? These things are obviously of great benefit to society as a whole, and they're essential for most. The needs of the many outweigh the interests of a privileged minority who don't have to rely upon these vital public services.
Quoting Agustino
The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world. We've had higher taxes in the past, and we were still raking it in then as we are now. Yes, there will probably be some who will take their wealth elsewhere, but there won't be a mass exodus, and we can manage without them. The way we're currently headed is a race to the bottom, which will only benefit those at the top at the expense of the rest of society. This wealth doesn't trickle down to those who need it most.
No, it isn't, it's called fairness. What possible alternative are you suggesting? Equal tax for all, regardless of income, assets, status, and so on?
Scrapping the tiered system of taxation would be incredibly unfair and political suicide. There'd definitely be large-scale riots.
I have degrees in two fields, one of them music theory/composition. So yes, my job utilizes part of my education.
Why is it fair?
Quoting Sapientia
I never said decisions shouldn't be made in the interest of those who are affected by them. They should. But those who make decisions should know what they're doing. How do they prove they know what they're doing? By their track record. If you're paying millions in tax, clearly you have a clue what's going on economically, while the person paying £5,000 has less of a clue (generally - of course it doesn't always hold true).
Quoting Sapientia
I agree.
Quoting Sapientia
I agree with your general gist. Wealth never "trickles down". The problem is that people are largely uneducated about money, how to make wise financial decisions, and the like. Making wise financial decisions alone will not make you a millionaire, but it will help you build up a nice and comfortable savings for you and your family, so that if a tragedy strikes - illness, car accident, etc. - you can get through it more easily.
There's a lot of "fake" advice around money and finance, lots of dead end roads about how to become a millionaire in a year or less and other shit. There's also many people who just have no clue what to do with the money they have, no understanding - they are tricked by banks to purchase dream homes mortgaged to the hilt, etc. That's a large part of the reason why common people, and even upper-middle class people end up poor. A college degree isn't sufficient to be financially educated. But this is an essential thing that everyone should be taught. How not to lose the money that you do make - even if it is little money.
The problem is that if politicians and the general public understood wealth better, then you'd understand that everyone would profit more by collaborating with, instead of fighting the most wealthy. The most wealthy typically get there by systems which allow repeatedly selling items/services at little additional costs as they scale up. Everyone is interested that they keep the profits in the country - and not take them outside. Because they always have the option of forming a company in, say, Cyprus, and then charging their company in Britain, effectively eliminating the profit in Britain, and moving it to Cyprus (where it will be taxed). So why should you throw away this tax money when you could keep it?
Quoting Sapientia
A flat tax for income over whatever level (corresponding to everyone else's tax), IF that income is reinvested into the British economy. Otherwise, if that income isn't reinvested, then the usual progressive tax.
Well I don't think it's fair. There's a reason why they make £1 million and the rest of us make 20K. They impact a much greater number of people through their economic activity than we do, probably create jobs for many more, and probably undertake a lot more stress than the common person. It's not fair to take stuff away from a person who does that - they could be an asset to the economy.
£80,000, so $103,744.
Also, in context the claim was that it's better to earn £80,000 and pay a high tax rate than to earn £11,000 and not pay any tax.
"Civil engineering is a professional engineering discipline that deals with the design, construction, and maintenance of the physical and naturally built environment, including works like roads, bridges, canals, dams, and buildings."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Quoting Agustino
Best educated? I thought your education was shite?
Quoting Agustino
????????? >:O
Quoting Agustino
So you went through with your "education" with the idea that you would never be taken advantage of or that you'd never have a shit boss?
Quoting Agustino
This is easy for you to say over the internet.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, it does. Success doesn't mean perfection, though. Remember that the baddies in power used the same system to get where they are now.
Quoting Agustino
Really, this is your reply? Fine, Agu, go volunteer in Somalia and work with the poor and dying. If you don't, this makes you an arrogant, narcisistic prick, :D
Quoting Agustino
And there is NOTHING wrong with me putting in hard ass fucking work completing one or more degrees in order for me to be trained to work a job I got that education for, a job that I also plan to work my ass off doing.
Quoting Agustino
The world always needs good doctors, persons who have the passion to treat and operate on those in need. Blame not the profession in itself, but those who fail to live up to the standard that is still being upheld by those commendable individuals who are doing a great job.
Quoting Agustino
As far as I'm concerned, my plan to become a licensed counselor and clinical therapist is perhaps the least selfish career path I can take. And getting a proper education to facilitate this, my career aspiration, is not egotistical, or bastardly, or whatever else. Don't lecture me about not being a good person merely because I don't want to work retail or be in the restaurant business. My character and expertise would be wasted flipping burgers. Period.
It's shocking that you'd need to ask that question. If you have greater wealth, then you can make a greater contribution with less of an overall cost than this would have if applied to those with less wealth. If you can - if you can weather it much better than others - then you should. And if you can't, you shouldn't. Greater wealth, greater contribution. Less wealth, lesser contribution. That's fair.
Quoting Agustino
But giving more power to those who pay a higher rate of tax, which means giving more power to those who earn more, which means giving more power to those with greater wealth, would almost inevitably skew the system in their favour, at the expense of the rest, which is unfair. More power should go to those who are capable of working towards creating a fairer society, not be dished out on the basis of how much tax one pays, with those who are already privileged enough as it is ending up with greater power, and therefore yet more privilege.
Quoting Agustino
How can we tell they know what they're doing?
Yes, by looking at their track record (what they've done) and also by looking at their plan (what they intend to do); not by how much tax they pay. Clement Attlee left behind an exceptional track record, and is widely praised, but looking at how much tax he paid rather than what he actually did, or what he proposed, would be a foolish way to asses his credibility.
Quoting Agustino
Ideally, collaboration should always be the first option. But in reality, there are situations where it would be naive to expect collaboration to work out, because the other party simply won't cooperate, or won't cooperate unless it's on their terms, so sometimes it will be more efficient, and will bring about better results, to simply skip that step and intervene by force. Do you really think that asking the Phillip Greens of the world nicely to do what's right is going to bring about the best results?
Quoting Agustino
The status quo isn't working, so more must be done. And like I said, a race to the bottom, which is what you get when you compete to be more of a tax haven than your neighbours, is not going to generate more wealth for those who are most in need of it. That will just mean that share holders will get to keep hold of even more of their wealth rather than that wealth being spent on public services which, over here at least, are in crisis and in dire need of more funds.
I would like the 5% of the population who have sucked up a hideously disproportionate share of the wealth from the working classes to collaborate in paying for a guaranteed minimum income. I do want to soak the rich ever so much (for their own good, of course -- a thorough fleecing would improve their moral condition) but I have several fish to fry...
One of the reasons for having a guaranteed minimum income is to free usually immature adolescent individuals from the tyranny of deciding what they want to do with the next 60 years of their lives. People need time and freedom from immediate starvation and homelessness to work out what kind of lives they want to lead.
Let's face it: There isn't enough bad work to go around; hence, there are high levels of real unemployment, underemployment, and part-time employment. There is even less good work to go around (because a lot of "good work" isn't profitable).
I also want to give people a margin of safety so they can risk occupational adventures without "ruining" their futures with debt. Perhaps they would like to try being a musician, a comic, a truck farmer, a cabinet maker, an upholsterer... (Obviously one doesn't just become a musician or a cabinet maker overnight--one has to learn how to do it. A guaranteed minimum income would enable one to take the risk of trying to learn.)
People also need time to experiment with education. Do you really want to be a high school teacher JUST BECAUSE you parents think that is a good idea? Maybe you would rather learn how to run a hotel. Maybe you will decide that the problems of running a large urban sanitary sewer system is what turns you on (there definitely are people who manage sewers and like it). But if you start with the idea that you must decide now, incur the large debt, only to find out it was a bad idea, that's a total waste.
I thought you were a philosophy professor!
Why do they suck up so much wealth? They do very different activities than the working class. When you're working, for example, to teach a class of 100 students every year, how can you possibly earn as much as someone who creates a product that is then manufactured, sold, and distributed to millions of people? Bigger risk = bigger rewards, that's only normal and fair. It's not easy to make 100 sales calls every single day. You try it, you'll see by the 10th consecutive rejection you'll feel like giving up 1000 times. The sheer emotional stress involved coupled with the financial risks involved justify the POSSIBILITY of outstanding gains - because there is no certainty.
Nope. That's about what my Brother has been earning in the most expensive part of the UK (London) over the past 10-15 years and he's saved enough to buy several houses and flats in Ireland which he now rents out. He's not even remotely struggling.
Any additional thoughts? Any academic job will probably suck out your insides to such an extent that when you finally die (of boredom) they'll be able to fold your corpse up and bury you in a matchbox.
+I kind of agree with some of the less crazy things @Agustino has said in the discussion.
I was a philosophy major (why "major"?) in college, and at that place and time analytic philosophy was taught for the most part. I've found the emphasis on use and meaning of language and analysis of argument taught in those philosophy courses to be quite useful in practicing law.
#1 is tax law. The rich are protected by a variety of laws which allow, enable, and encourage them to evade taxation.
#2 is finance. The rich are able to benefit from the manipulations of currency, stock, interest rates, etc.
#3 is the control their wealth enables them to exercise over economies; the rich get richer because they are running the show.
Entrepreneurs who are aiming for the "original accumulation" might walk the concrete trying to find people to buy their ideas. Yes, some do, and a few become colossally rich -- like Bill Gates. Most of them succeed on a much, much more modest scale, or they fail and try something else.
One of our problems is that the extreme disproportionate distribution of wealth hurts young, gifted, and greedy entrepreneurs as well as low-wage workers. The rich and the super-rich have tied up so much money that the masses of wage earning workers, small businesses, and institutions do not have access to enough cash to buy some of these great new ideas some people are trying to peddle.
The fact is, most people (no matter their performance in most degree programs) require, receive, and learn their trade in On-the-Job-Training (OJT). High schools, trade schools, and colleges can give you some, a moderate supply, or lots of basic skills, but in the end you have to learn how to use what you have got doing the job
I've been receiving dental care at the U of MN College of Dentistry for about 30 years, and have had everyone from first year dental students to post docs working in my mouth, From what I've seen and heard, it's pretty clear that once they learn some head and neck anatomy before they start trying to anesthetize, say, the lower left jaw (they practice on each other before they practice on patients); it's pretty much OJT from then on. What the teachers are telling the first year students is not theoretical, it's how to do the job. Then the instructor comes round every 20 minutes or so to see how they are doing. At the end of the very long appointments, the job is done well, but slowly. Students at the end of their training (third year) are much faster, more confident, and get little supervision. Post docs get consultations more than supervision. OJT.
The same is true in less technical fields too.
Philosophy is the other field in which I have degrees, and I did some student teaching when I was a grad student, but that's it.
Well that obviously also depends on the person. Maybe your bro is financially shrewd and focuses on keeping his costs down (not many people are). But there are people who're making that income who are struggling.
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is true, but the small business owners could have the same ways to avoid taxes. For example, someone like me is free to hire lawyers + accountants to form an entity somewhere like Cyprus, and help me pay lower taxes. But what's the use? My income isn't big enough, so in absolute terms I'd end up paying more for the whole procedure than I would make by not paying taxes. This is an advantage similar to the advantage brought on by economies of scale. Scale always brings leverage.
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is true - the rich are able to make "dirty" money using financial instruments too easily. It's not hard with 100 mil to make 10 mil relatively easily.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I've seen this in anyone who manages to have some sort of control over the means of production. That gives them leverage to dictate terms, but then it's natural to be that way. Us smaller entrepreneurs just have to be smarter, and more hard working to survive.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Sure, but Bill Gates is a whole different level of rich. Most of the rich are just millionaires.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I'm not sure. That's certainly the popular idea, but, for example, my business is nothing "innovative" in terms of services, and I did quite well this year. I find it's a lot less about idea, and more about execution (which really means mainly marketing combined with providing a good enough service). It's obviously true though that it takes a different sort of skill set to succeed as a small business than to succeed as a large company.
I think many businesses can be started with little to no money, and on no "special" ideas - just hard work and perseverance.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Right, I wish college/university was replaced straight by this OJT. It would be much quicker, and better that way. In fact, in the old days, a doctor who finished University was already a professional. Today it takes him many years after university to become a full doctor. That's fucked up - it means the condition of our schools is terrible at teaching real world.
And these people are not typical, and not struggling in anything like the same way, and do not deserve anywhere near the same amount of sympathy.
:s
Sympathy should be saved for those suffering from some form of privation. And there are plenty of those about. That's also how I would define "struggling". What possible privation would you attribute to someone earning 80K a year?
The privation of freedom. The privation of time.
By that definition pretty much everyone is "struggling" just by virtue of having to work, so it's not particularly helpful.
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. - Luke 12:33
Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same. - Luke 3:11
Be a good Christian, @Agustino.
No, don't misrepresent what I mean. Some of those people earning 80K/year struggle because of excessive job stress (compared to their earnings), lack of time for family or themselves, increasing job associated costs (rent/car/clothes/food, etc.) and lack of overarching meaning. They are struggling - whereas some people who earn 20K/year don't stress so much at their work, and have a lot more free time, even though, their smaller income doesn't give them as many possibilities.
Quoting Michael
Who said I don't give to the poor? I've always given to the poor.
That's not your only recourse. The government can intervene in helpful ways. For example, it recently came to light that Tesco deliberately and repeatedly withheld money owed to suppliers to boost its sales performance artificially, in a serious breach of supermarket regulations. In response, Labour has come up with a plan to crackdown on late payments. ([url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-small-business-policy-late-payments-fsb-quarterly-reporting-scrap-a7676226.html]See here for more info[/URL]).
I can. I chose not to venture down the legal profession because I see no glory in this Republic of yours or any country that values profit over human life. My efforts to finish a masters in human rights law was a requisite to work in the field that I desire(d), which is in international human rights and development with a particular focus on children. I currently earn mediocre pay with a national NGO that supports disadvantaged children and doing so intentionally to develop experience to pursue my career objectives in this field. But, I am also profoundly happy.
For me, it has always been a dream of mine to study the classics, ancient history and languages, but the utility of a degree is to enable the prospect of working in the field you desire. Not sure what compelled you to become a lawyer. :-$
And no, I don't call myself a lawyer. It's just painful having to explain the difference between having a law degree and being a practicing lawyer to those who don't know the difference.
Yeah, but the number of times that happens.... if small entrepreneurs were to wait for the government to act, we'd be dead. The government is very slow. I've worked recently with a bakery who make some products they sell through supermarkets - and they've had a lot of problems with delayed payments, etc. But you can't do much - the distributor has significant leverage. For example:
• You can't spread your products and sell them at scale without distributors (too much investment required otherwise).
• It's not an easy process to get your products into a supermarket, so once you're kicked out, it's not easy to go to another supermarket.
• You can't sue them, because the court case takes long, and they will stop working with you completely (not to mention not paying anything else) - that's tons of money lost for you.
• Appealing to the government is very slow. By the time the government acts (not to mention that large distributors have a plethora of lawyers, etc. which can delay government intervention) it's too late.
So yes, they will treat you like shit, because they can afford to. Nothing the government can ever do can stop this. They'll always have power, and they will use that power over you when they can.
Yes of course, but it's like me not having any food or job, and getting food for one single day of the month. Sure, it's something - but still, it's so small compared to what would be needed. Clearly you can see that that's not what will solve the problem. It will help - but it's not a real solution.
Oh, come on, give the guy a break.
Quoting Agustino
On second thoughts... :D
If this is all you mean, I don't really disagree, but conflating financial struggles in this context with general stress and unhappiness seems a bit awkward.
It would actually be better if you educate them, rather than donate. That way you'll teach them something, and they'll pay you ;) :D
I'm prone to irony. Regardless, I don't believe being a practicing lawyer requires appreciation of the glory of God's favorite country, these United States. Perhaps you should have become one after all.
Quoting TimeLine
I've always been fond of the classics and ancient history as well, and do what reading on them that I can. When it comes to ancient languages, I'm a fan of Latin. That might be due in part to my Catholic youth. But my knowledge of it is haphazard. It's no longer necessary to recite the Credo or Confiteor, and lawyer-Latin won't take you far at all. As to why I became a lawyer, I had no particular vocation. Continuing in the Academy, or going into journalism or the law were the options I presented to myself, and I chose the law.
I referred to "best educated" in terms of grades and university. If you read that whole paragraph, instead of tidbits as Baden is used to misquote, you'd realise that the point was that the best education in the world (in terms of grades/university) doesn't mean much. The point was you still have little to no practical skills after that. That's why I have little respect for what is considered education in today's age. The quality of universities has decreased tremendously from how things stood in the past.
The uneducated often get ahead of the very best educated for precisely this reason - they have better practical skills.
See, told ya you're a reactionary! ;)
>:O Yes, but consider what I say. It is true on this point.
People struggling on $80,000 ($1500+ a week, $38+ an hour, assuming a 40 hour week) usually have difficulty making ends meet because they are upgrading their standards of living above their financial capacity. This is true at many income levels, and is true for many people.
Some people save money even on low incomes (except if they have children to support) and if they can preserve saving habits as their incomes rise, they can accumulate enough cash to build deep cushions against misfortune or have enough money to invest in property or retirement funds. Property in Ireland took a dive, as it did in many places a decade ago, and if you had cash at that point, one could buy houses for rental purposes on the cheap.
When I started working in 1971, I earned about $390 a month--working for a Catholic college. $90 went to rent an efficiency near the college, I had a small loan to repay, and then the usual expenses. I managed to save by living frugally, which I more or less did from then on out. However, I didn't have children, I didn't own a car (can't drive), and I always rented cheaply so I wasn't tied into housing costs that couldn't be reduced on short notice. As a result, I was never close to being broke (by my standards, anyway). As my income increased, I was cautious about improving living standards, and was always prepared to cut costs abruptly when adverse circumstances came along.
What one can't do is save money on any income while regularly upgrading one's quality of life to match the larger paycheck. For instance, a bump in wages may lead someone to begin buying lunch every day, plus expensive coffees, instead of bringing one's lunch and drinking the office coffee. One can spend $5000 a year (or more) doing that. Substantially uppgrading housing as one's income rises sounds the death knell of savings. So does having several children, even if both parents are working and being somewhat thrifty, especially in a high cost area.
Our spending habits are very similar :P Also interesting you don't drive. I hate driving, so I don't own a car either (but I do have a license and I did drive (not my car) when circumstances forced me in the past). But everyone around me thinks I'm nuts because of that. I don't see what's the big thing people see in driving. To me, a car is expensive, driving is quite stressful, not to mention that the consequences of mistakes can be quite serious - jail if you kill someone, or being severely injured in case of an accident. The benefits? Can't see that many, apart from easier transport, but common means of transport are much cheaper and not sufficiently slow to make getting a car worth the hassle.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree with all this.
Exactly. But those on £80,000 or more who are "struggling" in this way should suck it up or bloody well downgrade. The population of the UK is approximately 65 million, and those earning £80,000 or more number approximately 1.2 million, which, by my calculation, amounts to approximately 0.2% of the UK population. Those people can downgrade and still easily live a much more privileged and luxurious life than the vast majority. Those people still have way more options available to them which would still mean they end up much better off than most.
Just to afford my modest studio-sized, one-bedroom apartment (which was one of the cheapest I could find on the market in my area, and which I can just about afford), I have had to pay about 75% of my basic wages each month into a savings account set up for the next 6 months rent. (I have to pay 6-months-worth of rent in advance every 6 months because my salary means that I fail the letting agent's test of affordability). And that's not including other unavoidable bills like water, gas and electricity, and grocery shopping. I'd say I'm one of those "just about managing" people. But if I were to downgrade, my options would be considerably more limited and much less desirable: shared accommodation, move back to mum's place...
And, even though the state can help, for someone like me, there are obstacles preventing me from getting that help. I have little-to-no hope of getting a council place because I'm considered a low priority and because demand is too high and supply is too low, and the majority of private landlords refuse to accept anyone on housing benefit. So I'm kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. Which is just... great.
Oh, and that makes three of us with regards driving. Don't drive, won't drive. Don't think it's really worth it for me. Costly, would walk less, which would mean less exercise, and unnecessary in light of other available means of transportation.
Nope, depending on the job in which they're making that income, it may not be possible to downgrade. But yes, probably many could downgrade. Though the family pressure gets most of them. People live beyond their means because they have a wife which wants more and more, because they have parents who push them, etc. Most give in to the pressure.
Quoting Sapientia
Hmmm... you could learn something to do on the side to boost your income. Even if you get another £200/month extra, if all that goes into savings it wouldn't be bad - that way you can build a cushion in case something bad happens. I've always taken this approach, because you never know what can happen.
In addition, you can learn all sorts of useful skills by yourself after work or on weekends, that are valuable to others and could get you some income, and maybe even allow you to transition into another kind of job (and a higher paying one too!).
Right, I suggest you compare the job description of a civil engineer with that of a construction worker. Totally different things. Site management/supervision is just one of the things a civil engineer can do. Designing structures or foundations is another for example.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Who told you it was shite?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Nope, I went through my education with the idea that I'd actually emerge a fully capable engineer out of there.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Why wouldn't I say it to your face?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
No this isn't an a priori necessity. It could be that all parents send their kids to become doctors, and we end up having an overabundance of them. Then the world certainly doesn't need anymore.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Right, so more ego. Instead of saying something reasonable such as "I think I can help others better as a licensed counselor than as a McD's worker", you prefer to indulge in ego :-d
See that's the thing - there's only so much the state can do to help. That's always the case. The biggest help comes from learning new things which can be of use to others - which others value and are ready to pay for. It takes time, but you can get books to learn different practical trades/skills. Or find someone willing to teach you. Or find online material (either free or paid). For example, if you learn carpentry, then whenever someone from your network needs a floor, roof, etc. fixed, you go do it.
Like: http://www.getwoodworking.com/forums/postings.asp?th=88355
If you think taking classes in a school room is going to teach you how to make a bridge perfectly in real life, I dunno what to tell you.
Quoting Agustino
So, your ranting and raving here and about useless an education is doesn't mean that education is shit?
Quoting Agustino
Going through that education doesn't teach you everything you need to know. Again, I just keep reading silly expectations from you while you're trying to blame everything else but yourself for not being in the position that you'd like.
Quoting Agustino
You're not addressing my point. Retry.
Quoting Agustino
What? Your quote is precisely my position. Re-read what I wrote if you couldn't figure that out.
Bridges are more complicated structures because of dynamic loading issues and (for some bridges) resonance. So no, I didn't expect to be a bridge master. But I did expect to be able to design and build a simple house from scratch for example.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
In my opinion yes, but that's not what most other people would say. Most other people in my place (my classmates) were very happy.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I'm not blaming anything - as I said before, I am happy that I'm not working in the same industry I got my degree in atm.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Weak
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Nothing you've said so far has really convinced me of that. I live in Essex, which is just outside of London. There is accommodation here which would be easily affordable to someone on such an income working in London, and commuting to London would also be both possible and affordable.
Quoting Agustino
Very many, and many of those who "can't" actually can, but are not willing.
Quoting Agustino
They should grow a backbone. Some people have real problems. "Honey, I simply [i]must[/I] have that Chanel handbag. Buy me it! It's only £10,000.", "Okay, darling. If you insist".
Quoting Agustino
I work full-time, and my free time is priceless. I'm not going to give up any more of it than I already do.
>:O Yes, but those bitches are very dangerous. I hate women like that. That kind of a woman, is, as King Solomon would say, the guarantee of ruin. It's like having a hole in your wallet.
Quoting Sapientia
Well, there you go, then you made a choice! It's good to be aware though of what it entails, and if that's your choice, then no one can say anything.
How long of a degree?
Quoting Agustino
I don't see how this applies to what I said?
Quoting Agustino
Yes, you are! You've spent quite a lot of time bashing education and blaming it for not being able to meet your expectations.
Quoting Agustino
Where is this supposed ego of mine? I'm not seeing it.
Yes, but the government should do more to help people like me than people like Mr. Rich and his gold digger wife.
Arrogance. You just need to work harder.
3+1(.5) (MSc).
Quoting Heister Eggcart
You just misunderstood what I meant by my statement.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I'm not blaming it, I'm merely saying the truth about it. I'm not complaining that it sucks. I managed quite well without its help in the end.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Quote the right bit of text. The ego is in you saying your character would be wasted by working at McD's.
How could the government possibly (and realistically) help you, in your opinion?
Well yes, I think if Sapientia wants more money, then he needs to work harder (more than fulltime). I certainly had weeks this past year when I worked 12hours+ day after day, including weekends.
And the government can't do anything about that.
Sounds like a bachelors degree here in the States, which is not anything to write home about, really.
Quoting Agustino
Alright, okay.
Quoting Agustino
Bitch, fucking puleaze. Get off your high horse.
Quoting Agustino
In Christian language, I'd say that the current path I'm on is my calling. The good in me would best be expressed by not working at McDonald's. This really isn't that outlandish a thought.
Quoting Agustino
It never follows that the poor are always poor because they don't work hard, and the rich are rich because they worked harder than everyone else. Living in this modern capitalist West means that a lot of people get shafted and/or fall through the cracks because a small segment of the population are disproportionately wealthy in relation to the rest of citizens.
"Working harder" really isn't good advice, especially for people who are already doing so and can't get themselves up and out.
Nope. That's the 3 years. MSc is a Masters Degree (the approx. 1.5 years).
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Okay I don't disagree. It just sounds much more reasonable when you express it like this.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I don't think this is true. Yes, there are some people who are poor and remain poor because of things like health and family problems. But many people could get themselves out of it, if only they were willing to work super hard and learn. Like non-stop - just work day after day after day (I've done that many days, and I'm not exactly poor, like BC I've always kept a nice cushion in the case anything bad happened). But they must also work smart. If they work at their $2/hr job super hard - it's not going to be of much use. They need to learn and actively seek ways to grow their income.
And most people who I've seen claim they're working hard, aren't really working hard (obviously I don't know what Sapientia's case is like, so not speaking about him here). Like look - hard work means you don't even have time to eat properly. No breaks, no nothing. Wake up, work work work, sleep. Repeat.
I already gave you a big clue earlier when I mentioned the obstacles which stand in the way of me getting state help, although maybe I added that in the edit and you didn't see it. They could build more council housing, scrap or reform 'right to buy', put in place legislation to make it harder for private landlords to refuse tenants on housing benefit, increase the minimum wage - which is currently below the living wage, and has been for some time... Inflation and the cost of living have risen, but average pay increases have fallen, and are lagging behind. Britain has suffered a bigger fall in real wages since the financial crisis than any other advanced country apart from Greece.
I've often wished to drive, but don't because I can't see well enough. Vision in one eye took a dive this winter (effects of glaucoma) so I'm finding that even biking around town has become a bit more hazardous. Even if I were totally blind, there is fairly good public transportation where I live.
Yes, but you're quite financially savvy. You could be a capitalist :P lol
Quoting Bitter Crank
Hmm okay, but was the vision problem something you had when you were younger? Or is it something that came with age?
Okay but council housing will be "the rich get richer" all over again. Who will build council housing? The people like Trump's father (btw did you know Trump's father made the bulk of his wealth based on government housing contracts? :P Like they say, no better way to do business than with the government, because the government is stupid and overpays [and if the developer pays a little commission fee in the right place, then they overpay a lot ;) ] )
Landlords will refuse you anyway if they know you're on housing benefit, even if there's a law that says no discrimination. They'll invent some reason to do it. That's the thing, the state is too slow for the stuff people come up with - it can never keep up! And practically speaking if a landlord refuses you, what practical steps will you take? Sue them? The law may be on your side, but enforcing the law is difficult in many cases, especially if you don't have the financial resources to pursue it.
btw did you know Trump's son-in-law is a slum lord, among other things? Are we surprised?
Ahh I see! You are right, being able to change the size of text on computers or Kindles is an amazing feature. Many of the older people I know who have access to them love it because of that reason.
Quoting Bitter Crank
lol no. I know precious little about his family, the one curious fact I learned is that two of his children have converted to Judaism. But I don't see how that is related to the point I was making earlier :P
There was a time not too long ago when I had two jobs and worked 7 days a week with no day off, and one of those jobs was full-time. When I first started my current job, I frequently worked 12 hour shifts over the busy Christmas period. And I'm always the first person that the management team turn to for overtime, because they know that I'm reliable and will say "yes" without hesitation. So I'm no stranger to hard-work if that's the kind of thing you mean.
But all of that is just a distraction, a shift of focus, from the role that government can and should play.
It is possible that you have been working hard, I never said otherwise. Again I don't know the facts, I would have to actually watch you. Because you could have had times when you just sat there doing little. I don't know you enough so I can't speak for you. Merely staying at work a long time isn't the same with hard work.
The other point as I said is that you need to do valuable work. What does valuable work mean? Well, if I'm a business owner, for me valuable work is work that brings in more money. Work that directly brings me more money (sales work) is easiest to quantify correctly. If I pay someone $10 and he brings me $20, then that's a good deal. But, for example, working as a secretary doesn't bring more money to the business. That's likely to be lower paid, than someone doing my advertisements, which bring in a lot of business and hence money. Working as a cashier is likely to again be lower paid. It doesn't get me more money. All that it does is convert that money that is already in my shop into my income (not a big deal - I've already done the hard work of attracting that money to the shop in the first place).
I get paid per hour. Whether I use that time to work really hard or just sit there doing little, I'll still get paid the same. So what's your point exactly?
That is irrelevant to me, because you may get paid doing nothing, but I wouldn't call that hard work. The question was whether you're working hard, not whether you're at the job for many hours.
I think you should care, because if you're not using that time effectively, then you're wasting the most precious resource. I don't know what your work is like, but if you find you have a lot of time when you're not doing much, then use that time to learn something. Bring in a magazine/book, etc. with you. There is a danger with working for a long time (many hours) and getting little work done in that time - your mind can start feeling good, like "man I'm really puttin' the hours in, this is great!". But the truth is you'd just be throwing that time away if you're only actually working like 30% of it.
This is extreme. One can be a hard worker without also being a walking zombie.
Yes but if you're starting very low (poor) there's no other choice. Unless you want to remain poor. You need to be willing to do what others aren't.
I am exactly where I want to be, in life and circumstances, and I think that is saying something about the professional decision I made. Several years ago, when I was merely working for profit to get me by, I was profoundly miserable. In both, I have to deal with people difficulties, but I am capable of dealing rather cheerfully with such difficulties now because my job is fulfilling. I do believe that to honour your legal profession, you would require an appreciation of the jurisprudential principles that it upholds nationally and as you and I probably both know, there is a lot to be desired.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
There is nothing as compelling to me as ancient and medieval history, especially religions and philosophy. When I had the chance to write a journal article on the syncretistic Near-Eastern religions, I had never been so happy as I combed through several European libraries until they kicked me out each night while researching on the subject. But, that would be an entirely selfish endeavour if I were to pursue it as a (academic) career. I felt compelled to push that desire aside as I pursued something more practically worthwhile.
You're encouraging me to risk getting myself in trouble for reading a book or magazine in work-time? I work in retail, and that's a highly inappropriate suggestion, just as it would be in countless other jobs. And no, I think that working hard for it's own sake is pretty dumb. I do tend to work hard, most of the time. But that's because it's in my interest to do so for various reasons, like my chances of keeping my job, getting more contracted hours, or getting promoted. Ultimately, it's about the money.
So, love is the cause, I guess. Or $740 million at first sight.
At that level, most marriages are strategic anyway, even if there was love involved. To be honest, there's a certain degree of rational understanding that's required too. For example, I wouldn't marry a woman even if I loved her if she wasn't someone who also had, or could develop, the traits required to build a strong family.
But yeah, I have little reason to doubt that the Trump kids married purely out of financial interests.
Well, I don't think it's inappropriate at all. Just ask the manager or whoever is in charge if there's any work you can do - if he says that currently there's nothing, then go read. I've worked part-time in a store while in high school, at the counter. There were times when there was no one buying anything so I was reading. Nobody had any problem with it, cause there just wasn't anything else I could be doing for them.
Quoting Sapientia
Not for its own sake, for the sake of making a good use of your time, and for the sake of results (which aren't necessarily monetary results).
Quoting Sapientia
It's a fine line with things like promotions, etc. If you make your employer feel he can do anything with you, and you'll always accept it, then you're not likely to get promoted or get raises. If on the other hand he feels you're such a valuable asset that his business will somehow suffer if you leave him and go somewhere else [and he sees the possibility of you leaving as real] - that he can't very easily find someone like you - then he'll be more likely to promote you or give you a raise.
Money ultimately means nothing but perceived value. If you remember that, you can alter the money by altering your perceived value. As I said before, people with degrees for example have higher perceived values, even though, many of them, realistically, don't deserve it based on their knowledge and capabilities of actually delivering results.
'Cause it's not just what you're born with
It's what you choose to bear
It's not how much your share is
But it's how much you can share
And it's not the fights you've dreamed of
But those you really fought
It's not just what you're given
It's what you do with what you've got
Read more: David Wilcox - It's What You Do With What You've Got
No. Just, no. Why would I go out of my way looking for work? If I was after a promotion or something and trying to impress my boss, then yes. Otherwise no. And I find the reading a book thing to be pretty naïve. I already know what the reaction would be. I'm not stupid enough to ask permission or just do it with the assumption that it'll be okay with them. I'm sure there are some more laid back places that might allow that kind of thing at times, but mine ain't one of 'em. It's bad practice and shouldn't be encouraged.
Quoting Agustino
It wouldn't be a good use of my time [I]for me[/I] if I can slack off and get away with it, and I don't need to be told the benefits of working hard to make a good impression, which in turn will likely be to my advantage.
Quoting Agustino
Why are we even having this conversation? I didn't ask for your input on how to best go about seeking a promotion, or for a lecture on the right mentality to have at work.
(Sorry if that was snappy. I haven't eaten properly all day, and have spent far too much time on here instead of getting things done).
Well do you want to think of yourself as someone who doesn't want to work, and will cut corners if possible? Or do you want to be proud of yourself that you're always giving your best and doing high quality work?
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
I'm not sure this is the right attitude to have. You shouldn't work just for the money or just for impressing the boss. You should take pride in your work - do it for yourself, not for your boss. With some of my clients for example, they ask me for X, and I give them 2X, with the additional X free. Why, what do I get? Well nothing pretty much - but it makes my clients happy, and it makes me glad I've done great work - that I put my heart and soul in it, and someone found it useful - I've helped another person.
Do it for yourself. Don't you want to think "Ah Sapientia is great! Whatever work he's given, he gives his best, and is committed to get great results for others!"?
Sure, there are some people out there who will try to abuse your kindness. But then it's their loss really. You should also consider not to turn into that which you hate. If you think your boss is abusing your work - then don't in turn abuse him by doing bad work, or cutting corners - don't be like him. You have your own values.
The other thing is, that people can catch on to attitudes. If you begrudgingly accept and do work, then even if you try to hide it, it still shows. Working for yourself - being proud of your work, and seeking to do your best - will show, and you'll end up doing better and being happier as well in the long run. At least that's been my experience. Take it or leave it.
Quoting Sapientia
No worries.