From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: billg@jk.pst.com Subject: Re: Your english sucks, mine is better. Date: 1997/11/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 293509277 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <347C92F0.152B@mWilden.com> <65k6jg$e6b$2@NNTP.MsState.Edu> <347DEBB2.5B6A@mWilden.com> <65lbe1$ond@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <347E4203.2A5E@mWilden.com> Organization: IDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-11-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <347E4203.2A5E@mWilden.com>, Mark@mWilden.com says... > However, there are _parts_ that are indeed zero-sum. Such a case is the > distribution of profits. You're selling everything you can make, you've > attracted and kept the best employees you can, your costs are as low as > you can make them--now you've got a certain sum of money: the profit. > Who gets it, the employees or the employers? Obviously, the employers > (more accurately, the owners). If the owners are the key people and not just administrators or investors, I can see the owners getting most of the profits. However, in practice, owners simply siphon the fruits of others' labor. The business simply operates as a tax collecting (for the owner) mechanism. > As a beneficiary of such compensation, I understand that very well. But > where I made a paltry quarter of a million, the owners of the company > made much more. Live and learn, your employers/managers are not your friends/family, they are the opposite (many times in practice). Your case: you do the work, perhaps all of it, are the key to the windfall, they retire (or you support their lifestyle) but you get to go looking for another job. > > My point is simply that > it's the employer's job to reduce costs, other things being equal. This is an assumption that (when applied to human issues) proliferates abuse via greedy temptation. The employee as a cost scenario leads to repressing (by the unethical) the employee so that he does feel adequately compensated; condescending attitude, devalueing skills etc. Read: cost reduction tactics for unethical employers; negotiation without concern for the individual. It indeed seeks to compensate the employee for even less than his perceived value (screwing someone over 101), not too mention not paying for his actual value. billg