Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialTI there was not a single mention of not using the word "I" in that entire article. Or overusing it or trying not to associate yourself to a problem. If you're going to post an article at least make it relevant to what you are saying.
Talking in first person about a problem you are trying to associate yourself with does not work. Its a god awful read.
facepalm
Originally posted by Newjak
TI there was not a single mention of not using the word "I" in that entire article facepalm
To bad there was..
Here is an easier one for you to understand
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121371885556170
Surprising new research from the University of Texas suggests that people who often say "I" are less powerful and less sure of themselves than those who limit their use of the word. Frequent "I" users subconsciously believe they are subordinate to the person to whom they are talking.
Originally posted by Newjak
TI there was not a single mention of not using the word "I" in that entire article. Or overusing it or trying not to associate yourself to a problem. If you're going to post an article at least make it relevant to what you are saying.facepalm
Maybe you will get this
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121371885556170
Surprising new research from the University of Texas suggests that people who often say "I" are less powerful and less sure of themselves than those who limit their use of the word. Frequent "I" users subconsciously believe they are subordinate to the person to whom they are talking.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Maybe you will get thishttp://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121371885556170
Surprising new research from the University of Texas suggests that people who often say "I" are less powerful and less sure of themselves than those who limit their use of the word. Frequent "I" users subconsciously believe they are subordinate to the person to whom they are talking.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
To bad there was..Here is an easier one for you to understand
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579121371885556170
Surprising new research from the University of Texas suggests that people who often say "I" are less powerful and less sure of themselves than those who limit their use of the word. Frequent "I" users subconsciously believe they are subordinate to the person to whom they are talking.
My goodness TI I gave you a chance to to actually be constructive but you haven't
In that article you just posted is this very same quote someone says to use "I" more.
"So, how often should you use "I"? More—to sound humble (and not critical when speaking to your spouse)? Or less—to come across as more assured and authoritative?
The answer is "mostly more," says Dr. Pennebaker. (Although he does say you should try and say it at the same rate as your spouse or partner, to keep the power balance in the relationship.)"
It also never mentions anything about not using it more when debating other people.
At this point you're misquoting articles you yourself are posting while taking this off topic.
I'm done with you facepalm
I think we need to discuss to separate things here. One is that my opinion of a good business model is that it is the job of the employer to provide the means for their employees to at least maintain or give the resources to a decent healthy lifestyle. And I do believe this includes the ability to have a reasonable number of children like 1-2. Considering having children has always been a natural part of the human lifecycle.
Originally posted by psmith81992So you feel that an employer should be making profits first even at the expense of their employees?
You're coming up with your own definition of "reasonable" and using 1-2 children as your example. It is the job of the employer to give his employees a decent lifestyle IF HE IS MAKING A PROFIT. That's what you forgot to mention. The human lifecycle is irrelevant in this discussion. If someone is working for a year or two, then starts complaining that he can't make ends meet because he just had 2 children, I don't think it's the employer's job to bump his salary simply because the guy wanted kids. Certainly it's a nice gesture but it's on the employee to live within his means.
He mean what he said
"You're coming up with your own definition of "reasonable" and using 1-2 children as your example. It is the job of the employer to give his employees a decent lifestyle IF HE IS MAKING A PROFIT. That's what you forgot to mention. The human lifecycle is irrelevant in this discussion. If someone is working for a year or two, then starts complaining that he can't make ends meet because he just had 2 children, I don't think it's the employer's job to bump his salary simply because the guy wanted kids. Certainly it's a nice gesture but it's on the employee to live within his means."
Your thinking is personal responsibility and accountability is right out the window. And now it's the burden of them employer. It's not..
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have had meetings all morning so I'm actually earning my paycheck a bit, today. I'll respond later. After noon, CST, probably.But, we all know Newjak is subordinate to me because I'm an arrogant ******* and he's just appeasing my ginormous ego. estahuh
Hahahahahah, bout time you poked your butthole in here.
Originally posted by Newjak
So you feel that an employer should be making profits first even at the expense of their employees?
What is up with your strawman arguments? I did not mention anything close to what you said. There was no talk about "at the expense" of anybody. An employer's first job is profit. If his employee decides to have 2 kids during his employment, the employer is not required on any level to increase the employee's pay, especially at the expense of profits.
Originally posted by psmith81992I'm not trying to strawman you. That is legitimately what it sounded like you were trying to say to me. It's also why I phrased it in the form of a question to verify.
What is up with your strawman arguments? I did not mention anything close to what you said. There was no talk about "at the expense" of anybody. An employer's first job is profit. If his employee decides to have 2 kids during his employment, the employer is not required on any level to increase the employee's pay, especially at the expense of profits.
Perhaps we are speaking different topics. I'm not talking about a person having a kid and demanding to employer to pay them more. I'm saying that bare minimum a person should be making a wage that allows them the ability to support a child or two without going into poverty or being forced on welfare to decide. Over 50% of adults 18-40 have at least one child. 40% of adults 18-40 want to have a child even though don't currently have one. Only 6% of adults 18-40 don't want any children.
So yes I do think for the majority of our workers having a decent minimum wage should acount for them having children.
So I'm not saying an employee asking a boss for a raise because they had a child I and the boss saying no is him worrying about profit at the expense of the employee. I'm saying the minimum wage should already be including that. I can hear different arguments for what amount should be. And that if the employer is starting their employees below that minimumwage/living wage then they doing so at the expense of their employees.
So when you say employers should worry about profits first it sounds to me like you're saying they shouldn't worry about giving their employees a living wage if it is effecting profits.
Hopefully this clears up both sides and we can move forward with constructive conversation.
Because it really seems to boil down to whether or jot you believe a living wage should account for having a child.
I guess having kids when you are financially ready goes right out the window. And it's the employers job to support your decision to have kids. Then again that's what abortion is for right?
How about getting a job that can afford you and your kids a good living rather then making it the employers responsibility for your personal decision.
Also you didn't cite your source your percentages.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I guess having kids when you are financially ready goes right out the window. And it's the employers job to support your decision to have kids. Then again that's what abortion is for right?How about getting a job that can afford you and your kids a good living rather then making it the employers responsibility for your personal decision.
Also you didn't cite your source your percentages.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx
And I do believe it is the job of the employer to offer compensation to their staff that gives them the ability to earn a living wage as presented by Ushgarak. Which does include childcare.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well as Newjak has mentioned 'living wage', let's take the wiki definition for the UK idea of that concept:"A person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, transport, health care, minimal recreation, one course a year to upgrade their education, and childcare"
I don't know what that number is for the US. or any particular state in the US, but it seems like a good baseline.
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialYes they should. At the very least they should not be working hard to only make ends meat on one of the only jobs available to them.
Yes so the 18 year old working at McDonalds should have all that? 😂Do you have a job? Cause something is not making sense here.
Yes I have a job TI.
"Get a better job" is not an answer to bad wages and an absurdly low minimum wage. If it were possible for most average Americans to get better jobs they would, so in absence of those better jobs why not make the shitty jobs a little less shitty?
Economic growth and jobs growth without proportional growth in wages only leads to worse and worse economic inequality. All the arguments against raising wages and benefits for low level employees tend to revolve around how it might damage the corporations or "make fewer jobs," but how good is a job if it doesn't pay you what you need to live comfortably?
I think about this Henry Ford quote when I see debates on wage increases. Henry Ford is the father of American industrialism and one of the greatest figures in the history of capitalism, but his successors seem to have forgotten his words:
"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible."
You're not going to tell me that any Fortune 500 company can't raise its wages by just a little, if necessary at the expense of the executives' salaries.