Sox fire Matt Lisle/Matt Lisle quits (?)

[Jack Parkman]

1 minute ago, Moan4Yoan said:

But that’s where you probably aren’t being realistic.  A job that is “starting at the bottom” and is “boring shit” likely isn’t going to pay well enough to live independently on.  When I started at $32K a year out of college, I was still living with my parents.  I couldn’t afford shit.

Philosophy difference. Anyone who works 40 hrs per week should be able to live a modest, independent lifestyle. Maybe I'm not being unreasonable, maybe the employer is? 

[Jack Parkman]

2 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Essentially, we’re arguing about Universal Basic Income at this point.

But it has nothing to do with why Lisle is no longer employed by the Sox.

 

We can also argue how the top 0.01% of the Top 10% are benefiting unfairly from the layouts of others...while the reverse argument will hold true as well, that entrepreneurs and risk-takers and visionaries are the ones who create those jobs for the rest of us, and we can either quit, stop complaining or attempt to start our own socially conscious enterprises and run them as we see fit, knowing the majority of our competition will not ever put employees first.

I never wanted it to go here. Listening to people argue in favor of massive income inequality is fun though. 

I realize I can only do so much, and that I have to operate in the world as it exists today. Isn't going to stop me from trying. 

This doesn't affect anything and it's anonymous, so it's fine. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Dominikk85]

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

It's required by law though. You're saying it's ok for corporations to break the law and steal wages from their employees. Wow. This world is really fucked up. How come it's ok for your boss to steal your wages but if I walk into a store and rip something off I go to jail? It's basically the same thing. 

I agree with that somewhat. Imo it is a bad development that simple clerks who make less than 50k per year are asked to do unpaid overtime because the company says the monthly salary covers that, imo that is exploitation.

However leading executives who make more than 100k have chosen that path for themselves. They could have stayed at a lower position but they chose they wanted this. Those type of employees are no longer paid for doing 40 hours of good work, they are paid for results whatever that takes.

So yes, I am against lower salary clerks having to do uncompensated overtime hours for more than a few weeks because the company is too greedy to hire extra guys to master the workload (unless it is an exceptional situation that is limited in time) but you can't expect to drop the pen at 5 every day if you are an executive. An executive must deliver results, nobody cares how hard or long he works.

[caulfield12]

5 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Philosophy difference. Anyone who works 40 hrs per week should be able to live a modest, independent lifestyle. Maybe I'm not being unreasonable, maybe the employer is? 

Even 16-22 year olds without college degrees?  

Even if you guarantee them $15/hour or roughly $30k per year, it’s still not an independent, livable wage outside their parents’ house. 

Of course, what will happen is 1/3rd of the current unskilled/retail/fast food workers will be unemployed and the rest will do 50% more work for that $15, so the operating margins would basically remain the same regardless.

Edited August 31, 2019 by caulfield12

[Jack Parkman]

1 minute ago, caulfield12 said:

Even 16-22 year olds without college degrees?  

Even if you guarantee them $15/hour, it’s still not an independent, livable wage outside their parents’ house. 

Of course, what will happen is 1/3rd of the current unskilled/retail/fast food workers will be unemployed and the rest will do 50% more work for that $15, so the operating margins would basically remain the same regardless.

Whyy do people believe the bottom paragraph. I'm about done here though. 

[Moan4Yoan]

5 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Philosophy difference. Anyone who works 40 hrs per week should be able to live a modest, independent lifestyle. Maybe I'm not being unreasonable, maybe the employer is? 

That isn’t the way the world works, unless you want to live in the Soviet-era communist Russia.

People get paid for the level of skill required for their job.  A ditch digger likely isn’t getting paid enough money to live what you would consider “a modest, independent lifestyle.”

[caulfield12]

For all we know, Lisle was working two jobs simultaneously...his side gig of professional consulting as well as getting paid by the White Sox.

Thats probably a large part of the reason he keeps moving on quickly from place to place, looking for the bigger better deal.

A worker like that who is a self-promoter and overly ambitious will never fit in well with the way the White Sox operate.  They will rub too many the wrong way, especially someone like Jim Thome, for example.

[Moan4Yoan]

3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Whyy do people believe the bottom paragraph. I'm about done here though. 

Because I doubt the majority of posters here are socialists / communists.  ?

[Jack Parkman]

Just now, Moan4Yoan said:

That isn’t the way the world works, unless you want to live in the Soviet-era communist Russia.

People get paid for the level of skill required for their job.  A ditch digger likely isn’t getting paid enough money to live what you would consider “a modest, independent lifestyle.”

Eh, I've about had it. This is getting dangerously close to politics at this point so I'm going to bow out. It was fun though. 

[caulfield12]

3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Whyy do people believe the bottom paragraph. I'm about done here though. 

Because the entire point of capitalism is maximizing profitability, not the greatest good for the greatest number of people (utilitarianism).

But you should read Umair Haque at medium.com, the two of you are like-minded souls.

[Dominikk85]

2 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Even 16-22 year olds without college degrees?  

Even if you guarantee them $15/hour or roughly $30k per year, it’s still not an independent, livable wage outside their parents’ house. 

Of course, what will happen is 1/3rd of the current unskilled/retail/fast food workers will be unemployed and the rest will do 50% more work for that $15, so the operating margins would basically remain the same regardless.

Higher Minimum wages dont really cost jobs. That theory has existed a long time but in no country the installation of minimum wages increased unemployment. That is because companies who can rationalize away a 15 dollar job would do the same with a 7 dollar job if they could because why don't save 7 dollars?

What does happen is that burger prizes go up if you raise salary. The only question is then if the people will still buy the more expensive burgers, if they don't that might lead to less jobs. Higher salaries don't lower margins but they might lower revenue if the higher prices make the market shrink.

 

[Jack Parkman]

3 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Because the entire point of capitalism is maximizing profitability, not the greatest good for the greatest number of people (utilitarianism).

But you should read Umair Haque at medium.com, the two of you are like-minded souls.

I think there's a middle ground between unfettered capitalism and pure communism. That's what I'm looking for. There's still the incentive to innovate and get rich, but lower income people get higher wages and more help. I'm a believer in the Nordic model as a decent compromise. They're still capitalists but they have a larger safety net. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Moan4Yoan]

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

I think there's a middle ground between unfettered capitalism and pure communism. That's what I'm looking for. There's still the incentive to innovate and get rich, but lower income people get higher wages and more help. 

You might need to move to another country if you are looking to “capitalize” on your ideas.

[caulfield12]

4 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Higher Minimum wages dont really cost jobs. That theory has existed a long time but in no country the installation of minimum wages increased unemployment. That is because companies who can rationalize away a 15 dollar job would do the same with a 7 dollar job if they could because why don't save 7 dollars?

What does happen is that burger prizes go up if you raise salary. The only question is then if the people will still buy the more expensive burgers, if they don't that might lead to less jobs. Higher salaries don't lower margins but they might lower revenue if the higher prices make the market shrink.

 

In the end, $7, $10, $12, not even $15 an hour jobs provide one the ability to pay for an independent, livable lifestyle, let alone allow one to take care of a family.

The biggest problem culprit is outsourcing (which comes down to slave labor in third world countries), as the $30-50 manufacturing and labor jobs of the past that used to allow the mother to stay at home and take care of the kids in the 70’s and early 80’s simply don’t exist anymore.

With automation, robotics, AI, AR and VR...almost every single job like that will have been replaced or displaced within just two generations of American workers.

[Jack Parkman]

6 minutes ago, Moan4Yoan said:

You might need to move to another country if you are looking to “capitalize” on your ideas.

I believe: 

1. Maximize competition (break up the industry specific cartels) corporate consolidation has messed things up

2. Maybe 1 is enough that things get good again where we don't have to go any further. I've never lived in a world where companies that got too big got broken up.

What I do know is that raising wages at the bottom helps everyone, from the average worker to the venture capitalist. 

I've considered moving from the US, but I can't do it unless I get a damn job first. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[caulfield12]

5 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I think there's a middle ground between unfettered capitalism and pure communism. That's what I'm looking for. There's still the incentive to innovate and get rich, but lower income people get higher wages and more help. I'm a believer in the Nordic model as a decent compromise. They're still capitalists but they have a larger safety net. 

Even Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland are starting to see significant cracks in their economic models in the last 2-3 years.

We have our idealized version from the media and political candidates, but the truth is somewhere in between utopias vs. North Korea/Venezuela.   

[poppysox]

21 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Even 16-22 year olds without college degrees?  

Even if you guarantee them $15/hour or roughly $30k per year, it’s still not an independent, livable wage outside their parents’ house. 

Of course, what will happen is 1/3rd of the current unskilled/retail/fast food workers will be unemployed and the rest will do 50% more work for that $15, so the operating margins would basically remain the same regardless.

Bingo!

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

I believe: 

1. Maximize competition (break up the industry specific cartels) corporate consolidation has messed things up

2. Maybe 1 is enough that things get good again where we don't have to go any further. I've never lived in a world where companies that got too big got broken up.

What I do know is that raising wages at the bottom helps everyone, from the average worker to the venture capitalist. 

I've considered moving from the US, but I can't do it unless I get a damn job first. 

I think you minimize the risk that the owners of the companies take. They risk everything with investment and deserve the reward of making a great deal more money than the employees who do not share this risk.

[greg775]

52 minutes ago, Moan4Yoan said:

But ultimately, no one is giving you shit for free.

Uh oh. Did you watch the debates?

[greg775]

7 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I believe: 

1. Maximize competition (break up the industry specific cartels) corporate consolidation has messed things up

2. Maybe 1 is enough that things get good again where we don't have to go any further. I've never lived in a world where companies that got too big got broken up.

What I do know is that raising wages at the bottom helps everyone, from the average worker to the venture capitalist. 

I've considered moving from the US, but I can't do it unless I get a damn job first. 

You aren't going to have to move if the next presidential election goes to somebody who thinks as you do. I thought work 60 and get paid for 40 was the mantra of most white collar workers, nyuk nyuk.

[Jack Parkman]

8 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I think you minimize the risk that the owners of the companies take. They risk everything with investment and deserve the reward of making a great deal more money than the employees who do not share this risk.

I think that any business model that doesn't pay their employees a living wage is a shitty business model. Extremely low wages have replaced slavery. This is why I think that the economic system as a whole is failing. We're at a tipping point, with consumption destroying the planet and too many people that can't sustain themselves. I've got my own theories about the world population as well, that that has contributed to the breaking of the system.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Jack Parkman]

23 minutes ago, Moan4Yoan said:

Because I doubt the majority of posters here are socialists / communists.  ?

I don't consider myself one either. I consider myself a social democrat. 

[Jack Parkman]

29 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Because the entire point of capitalism is maximizing profitability, not the greatest good for the greatest number of people (utilitarianism).

But you should read Umair Haque at medium.com, the two of you are like-minded souls.

I don't believe that the entire point of capitalism is to maximize profitability. I believe it is the combination of of maximizing profitability while providing a tangible benefit to society in both goods and services and good paying jobs. 

If the entire point of capitalism was to maximize profitability, nobody would get paid. They'd get a roof over their head, food and nothing more. 

Capitalism that maximizes profitability is virtually indistinguishable from feudalism. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Moan4Yoan]

11 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I think that any business model that doesn't pay their employees a living wage is a shitty business model. Extremely low wages have replaced slavery. This is why I think that the economic system as a whole is failing. We're at a tipping point, with consumption destroying the planet and too many people that can't sustain themselves. I've got my own theories about the world population as well, that that has contributed to the breaking of the system.

It’s not slavery, it’s simply supply and demand.  In general, an uneducated, lower skilled person isn’t going to be qualified to perform more advanced job functions.

Many people can dig ditches without having any extra education or skills.  Hence, this job doesn’t pay as well as an IT Manager position, for example.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Moan4Yoan

[Jack Parkman]

2 minutes ago, Moan4Yoan said:

It’s not slavery, it’s simply supply and demand.  In general, an uneducated, lower skilled person isn’t going to be qualified to perform more advanced job functions.

Many people can dig ditches without having any extra education or skills.  Hence, this job doesn’t pay as well as an IT Manager.

The only thing that separates you and me from the low skilled worker is access to a better education, but I digress. Again, this is going dangerously close to politics. 

If everyone had access to the same education, it would be different. Right now the quality of a child's education is directly tied to their parents' income. 

I don't believe that poor people are inherently less intelligent than others. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Jack Parkman