Re: Moving to Oahu and get a job
- From: "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:35:05 -0000
"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138092010-sch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1137979205-sch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>>> Why is it not useful?
>>>
>>> Errors...
>>
>> If that is the reason, then no data is worthwhile
>> because just about all data contains some errors
>> doesn't it?
>
> No. We interpret data because we are aware of both
> systemic and random errors in the result obtained.
> That's why statistical sampling of aliens in census
> studies work when the numbers of aliens are large.
> Those unofficial numbers are more accurate than the
> official numbers.
>
But they all contain "errors". What is seems to me what you are saying
is
you accept the errors contained in the data when it supports your view
of
the world, and you do not accept the errors contained in the data when
it
doesn't support your view of the world....
>>> They can have the fry cook do double duty as he is
>>> doing now. In this job market, employers profit when
>>> they can make their employees do more work. Haven't
>>> you figured that out yet?
>>
>> You mean a fry cook can cook pastries as well as a
>> pastry chef? If that is so, then why even have a
>> pastry chef? That does not make any sense. By
>> definition, any employer can profit by trying to make
>> their employees do more work....
>
> Actually, a fry cook is a pretty easy job compared to
> pastry chef. That's why the pastry chef is doubling as
> fry cook. Some restaurants need a pastry chef because
> they cook all their own bread for example. It might be
> cheaper for the higher quality bread that they offer
> customers-- etc.
so, then your original statement was wrong?
>
> Whatever the cooking reason, I guess depending on the
> product, the pastry chef can work in batches in slack
> times for a fry cook. Ie, he could probably prepare a
> huge batch of dough for the morning shift while he is
> frying burgers in the evening. Or in the morning, he
> could be baking the dough while frying eggs.
>
> It's really not anything to do with cooking to "make
> sense". The employer saves money simply by not hiring a
> fry cook. That's what "makes sense". Is this what
> you've figured out that I'm saying.
>
>>>> That too. What person in their right mind would
>>>> not want to maximize there income?
>>>
>>> It's possible that the manager might want more
>>> customers. You get that by having a quality place
>>> with quality employees. You don't pay quality people
>>> slave wages.
>>
>> I thouht you democrats believed in the idea of
>> "choice"? That person who decides has a "choice" to
>> either work for the guy or not work for the guy. He
>> has a "choice" to go to work for someone who will pay
>> more than someone else. How can it be "slave labor"
>> when that worker made a "chocie" to work for that
>> person? How would you get more customers if you have
>> a cook that does not cook meals that the customers
>> want?
>
> You have a theoretical idea that choice will make the
> lowest paid workers have more pay and better working
> conditions. At the same time, you conceed that the
> employee wishes to maximise his profits by paying the
> lowest wage possible and having his workers do more.
> How do you reconcile these divergent factors?
Not theorectical at all. Every worker has a choice. They can choose to
work for someone at the pay that person is willing to pay, or they can
choose not to work for someone who is not willing to pay them the money
they
think they deserve. It is a matter of choice..... And no it is not
inconsistent. An employer wants the most bang for his buck. That
means he
will pay a person who works for them the amount of money it takes to
have
someone work for them, because without that worker, they would not be in
busienss....they would be broke. And yes, any person in their right
mind
would want to maximize their profit. When we put our money into a
savings
account of some sort, whether it is an interest bearing account, or the
stock market, or gold, or any other form of investment, we to so to
"maximize" our profit. We do not put our money into something to
"miminze"
our profit.....
>
>>> That's a short term policy and sure to leave you
>>> with a crummy restaurant and more customers for your
>>> competitor next door.
>>
>> That is right. So, if the owner made the wrong
>> "choice" or "choices" he would be out of business,
>> which is the ultimate pay back, but that is their
>> "choice" to make.... And when you are out of
>> business, you will not only not be making any profit
>> at all, but could be broke as well.....
>
> This may be the ultimate "pay back", but it doesn't
> help workers who have a boss who always wants to
> maximise his income as you claim. The Hawaii restaurant
> scene is highly competitive and all employers want good
> profits.
If the employer does not make a profit, he will not be in business. If
he
is not in business, he cannot pay anyone.... If he cannot pay anyone,
then
he won't have anyone working for them... If there is no one working for
them, there are no employees.....
>
>>> But it's possible the manager also plans to leave
>>> after he gets his bonus. He can claim hard work for
>>> getting a good profit despite a decrease in numbers
>>> of customers.
>>
>> That is also his "choice". You are against slavery,
>> well, it would be slavery to "force" that manager to
>> work after he gets his bonus, if he gets his bonus
>> that is....
>
> That's not a choice that you subscribe to. You claim
> that the manager's always wants to maximize his income.
> I claim that the choice is one he should also subscribe
> to for the quality of his business and long-term
> profit. You claim that's anti-business, and
> un-american.
Everyone wants to maximize their income. Are you saying that when you
work,
you are trying to "minimize" your income?
>
>>> CEOs often get lucretive bonuses for such cost
>>> cutting in a bad business year. You say he would be
>>> crazy not to "maximize" his income? Managers need to
>>> know when to stop that-- the store may close before
>>> he gets his bonus. Do you get the point?
>>>
>>
>> most likely the owner of the place. A CEO for the
>> most part is not someone who owns the company he or
>> she runs, he or she is just a "hired" hand. A well
>> paid hired hand, but stll a hired hand, who can also
>> be fired as easily as he was hired. Maybe just
>> before he gets his bonus, or maybe just before you
>> was eligible to retire, or maybe just before
>> Christmas.....
>
> No. Most CEOs pick their own BOD. That's why their
> salaries are now at over 400 times the average employee
> salary. If they can be overpaid like that, then you can
> be sure they'll have a nice golden parachute should
> they decide to move to green pastures. And since
> incentive pay is so enormous there is a lot of the same
> benefits of being an owner of the business. Both owners
> and CEOs will "maximize" profits IAW your expectations.
They are still a hired hand. The can only "pick" their BOD when someone
else allows them to "pick" their BOD, in this case the stockholders of
the
company. A golden parachute is also "given" to them by someone
else...most
likely the BOD.
>
.
- References:
- Moving to Oahu and get a job
- From: Prince Colwyn
- Moving to Oahu and get a job
- Prev by Date: Re: Moving to Oahu and get a job
- Next by Date: Re: Why Get an Education?
- Previous by thread: Re: Moving to Oahu and get a job
- Next by thread: Re: Moving to Oahu and get a job
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
