This is why you shouldn't pay burger flippers 15 an hour

[beagle9]

Say you are a large fish, and your habitat is living in a large lake, but somehow you were derailed in life, and you ended up in a ditch where only small fish do very well in. Ok, so now you are a hinderence and very intolerable creature who has ended up as a fish out of your water so to speak. Now what happens next can be amazing. The small fish can gather around the big fish and push and struggle to get the big fish back to his natural habitat, or all of them can simply figure out how to somehow live together in the ditch. The best scenario is to help each other find either their lake or their ditich in life, and to do this without killing each other in the process.

 

[Asclepias]

It entirely depends on how one wishes to define "intelligence." Every IQ test looks at a specific "type(s)" of intelligence and thus only scores a person on that particular type(s) of intelligence. IQ tests almost never test /all/ accepted type of intelligence, but rather they are designed to test for the specific types of intelligence the producer of the test seeks to know (Be that for a specific job, or for a specific research project, or as with MENSA, for acceptance into the roll.)

Intelligence is increased not /just/ by "learning things", but also increased ability to reason, problem solve, comprehend the question and/or answer, and even how one processes their emotions. (It's an endless list, because the full spectrum of IQ isn't tested, merely the specific points applicable to the administrator of the test itself.) IQ goes up as one expands their cognitive ability... rather than just their "new" knowledge gained. IIRC there are some 30 "types" of IQ that are generally acknowledged, but we don't know if that's all of them.

It would not be the actual "learning" to creating a water cooling loop which might have increased my IQ, but rather a combination of that new knowledge and my ability to comprehend the underlying principles involved and then further apply that concept to /other/ areas. To example; the friction of water against the tube wall creating drag is not the relevant part I "learned" that might increase my IQ, rather it is the deeper concept; "EM field interaction." My IQ in related test areas would go up, because I am able to connect that underlying principle of EM field interaction to things like a gecko's feet, a car tire, a foot on the ground, and an airplane wing - aka I have a deeper understanding that I can apply to other fields and thus my intelligence as a whole increases despite, or in conjunction with, the more "specific" knowledge of "the flow drag of water in an acrylic tube."

Raw book knowledge and IQ are certainly related, but they are not necessarily dependent upon each other, book learning would be in the realm of "memory" IQ vs the bigger picture of comprehension and ability to utilize that knowledge in the "intuition" realm - Even if I cannot recall the specific plan for an electronic gadget, because I understand the deeper underlying principles I can still create the gadget - my ability is not dependent upon memory.

I define intelligence as the ability to learn. Thats how the dictionary defines it as well. You could be the most intelligent person in the world but if you were never taught your timetables you wouldnt know the answer to 5X11 is 55 as easily as some dullard that was taught their timestables.


How Accurate Are IQ Tests, Anyway? [VIDEO]

"While the IQ test may give an indication of general intelligence, it can't measure the entire complexity of the human thought process. Creativity, emotional sensitivity, social understanding, and various acquired skills such as music or art, are excluded from test’s measurements of intelligence. If you’d like to get an idea of your IQ take this test, but just remember that whatever your score be, it doesn’t necessarily define how smart you really are"

Theres a reason no one asks you for your IQ on a job application.

 

[Rustic]

Businesses are not started just to hire people, that is a byproduct of success. One and only reason to start a business is to make profit..

 

[beagle9]

Businesses are not started just to hire people, that is a byproduct of success. One and only reason to start a business is to make profit..

. Once a business is started, it then has to deal with the complexities of hiring the right people in order to fine tune the business.. This is in order to get the profits that it then strives for... One thing is for sure, and that is that the two must work together in a balance. Once the balance is broken, everything becomes fragil afterwards. Sometimes the writing will be written on the wall, but it is ignored due to arrogance and blinding greed.

 

[dannyboys]

Say you are a large fish, and your habitat is living in a large lake, but somehow you were derailed in life, and you ended up in a ditch where only small fish do very well in. Ok, so now you are a hinderence and very intolerable creature who has ended up as a fish out of your water so to speak. Now what happens next can be amazing. The small fish can gather around the big fish and push and struggle to get the big fish back to his natural habitat, or all of them can simply figure out how to somehow live together in the ditch. The best scenario is to help each other find either their lake or their ditich in life, and to do this without killing each other in the process.

That's some pretty heavy shit you're smoking dude.
Where are those fish? Living in a like on Uranus?

 

[dannyboys]

Businesses are not started just to hire people, that is a byproduct of success. One and only reason to start a business is to make profit..

. Once a business is started, it then has to deal with the complexities of hiring the right people in order to fine tune the business.. This is in order to get the profits that it then strives for... One thing is for sure, and that is that the two must work together in a balance. Once the balance is broken, everything becomes fragil afterwards. Sometimes the writing will be written on the wall, but it is ignored due to arrogance and blinding greed.

You are yet again not really 'tuned into' the reality of starting/running/succeeding in any business.
The number one reason the VAST majority of small businesses fail is the people who start these small businesses don't have a fucking clue what they are doing. Simple as that.
It's not so much their "arrogance and blinding greed, although these can be contributing factors down the road.
They don't have the skills to actually hire good employees. When they realise they hired some fucking idiot or thief they don't have the balls to fire them. They don't know how to 'buy right'. Asians business owners all have a wade of cash in their pockets. In the case of restaurants every supplier knows if they make a delivery to a struggling restaurant who can't pay cash for those crates of clams all the supplier needs to do is call the nearest Asian restaurant: "Hi Mr, Lee. I have five boxes of fresh claims on a truck ten minutes from you. I'll sell them to you at twenty percent off for cash. OK the driver will be there in a few minutes". That's how a successful business is run. They do not understand the cut throat industry they are dealing with in most cases. They don't have the financial resources to back them up. They don't have a emotional support in most cases.
They are dummies. Period!
I invested in a used restaurant equipment supply business many years ago.
The business has made a profit every year for twenty five years.
Guess why?
Because every lawyer and dentist thinks they can intuitively open a successful restaurant because they are so fucking smart. NOT!
Aside: The only people who NEVER buy used restaurant equipment are who? Asians. They believe buying equipment from a failed restaurant is 'bad luck'.

 

[beagle9]

Businesses are not started just to hire people, that is a byproduct of success. One and only reason to start a business is to make profit..

. Once a business is started, it then has to deal with the complexities of hiring the right people in order to fine tune the business.. This is in order to get the profits that it then strives for... One thing is for sure, and that is that the two must work together in a balance. Once the balance is broken, everything becomes fragil afterwards. Sometimes the writing will be written on the wall, but it is ignored due to arrogance and blinding greed.

You are yet again not really 'tuned into' the reality of starting/running/succeeding in any business.
The number one reason the VAST majority of small businesses fail is the people who start these small businesses don't have a fucking clue what they are doing. Simple as that.
It's not so much their "arrogance and blinding greed, although these can be contributing factors down the road.
They don't have the skills to actually hire good employees. When they realise they hired some fucking idiot or thief they don't have the balls to fire them. They don't know how to 'buy right'. Asians business owners all have a wade of cash in their pockets. In the case of restaurants every supplier knows if they make a delivery to a struggling restaurant who can't pay cash for those crates of clams all the supplier needs to do is call the nearest Asian restaurant: "Hi Mr, Lee. I have five boxes of fresh claims on a truck ten minutes from you. I'll sell them to you at twenty percent off for cash. OK the driver will be there in a few minutes". That's how a successful business is run. They do not understand the cut throat industry they are dealing with in most cases. They don't have the financial resources to back them up. They don't have a emotional support in most cases.
They are dummies. Period!
I invested in a used restaurant equipment supply business many years ago.
The business has made a profit every year for twenty five years.
Guess why?
Because every lawyer and dentist thinks they can intuitively open a successful restaurant because they are so fucking smart. NOT!
Aside: The only people who NEVER buy used restaurant equipment are who? Asians. They believe buying equipment from a failed restaurant is 'bad luck'.

. Thanks for the add, but as you said I noted some factors you agree with as well..

 

[beagle9]

Say you are a large fish, and your habitat is living in a large lake, but somehow you were derailed in life, and you ended up in a ditch where only small fish do very well in. Ok, so now you are a hinderence and very intolerable creature who has ended up as a fish out of your water so to speak. Now what happens next can be amazing. The small fish can gather around the big fish and push and struggle to get the big fish back to his natural habitat, or all of them can simply figure out how to somehow live together in the ditch. The best scenario is to help each other find either their lake or their ditich in life, and to do this without killing each other in the process.

That's some pretty heavy shit you're smoking dude.
Where are those fish? Living in a like on Uranus?

The above written by me is usually the result of a recession or depression that forced the larger fish into the smaller fishes space, and remarkably the smaller fish help the larger fish to survive the ordeal, but if the roles were reversed would the larger fish look out for the smaller fish in the bigger pond or could he look out for them in the bigger pond ?

 

[dannyboys]

Say you are a large fish, and your habitat is living in a large lake, but somehow you were derailed in life, and you ended up in a ditch where only small fish do very well in. Ok, so now you are a hinderence and very intolerable creature who has ended up as a fish out of your water so to speak. Now what happens next can be amazing. The small fish can gather around the big fish and push and struggle to get the big fish back to his natural habitat, or all of them can simply figure out how to somehow live together in the ditch. The best scenario is to help each other find either their lake or their ditich in life, and to do this without killing each other in the process.

That's some pretty heavy shit you're smoking dude.
Where are those fish? Living in a like on Uranus?

The above written by me is usually the result of a recession or depression that forced the larger fish into the smaller fishes space, and remarkably the smaller fish help the larger fish to survive the ordeal, but if the roles were reversed would the larger fish look out for the smaller fish in the bigger pond or could he look out for them in the bigger pond ?

On planet earth the big fish eats the little fish. That why the big fish is the big fish.
Here on planet earth we have a term for it: Social Darwinism.
Don't like it? Move to another reality.
Here will always be the poor and the wealthy. Mankind is 'wired' that way.
No fucking 'man-bun LIB/Socialist/ 'Takers' will ever change it.
There have been many countries whose voters have embraced Socialism/Communism and with the exception of a few, with 80% income tax are still around. Countries like Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Greece have collapsed financially under Socialism.
Thankfully now that no one will lend them anymore money to piss up the wall these countries are moving back to good old capitalism.
The hilarious thing is in the most hard-ass Socialist/Communist countries the 'rich' have always been 'rich' and the poor have always stayed poor.

 

[airplanemechanic]

80% of the jobs in this country are all service industry jobs, just about....and that includes the burger flippers that I hope spit on your shit when you come in, moron.

And I won't go eat there at all, putting them out of a job.

Problem solved. They can then go spit on their own shit.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I never understood why people get all pissy when they find out the CEO of a company makes millions and the bottom workers don't.

A company is not a direct pay based on amount of physical labor machine. Otherwise, ditch diggers would be millionaires. A company is like a car. The value of the parts are based on the value of the work that they give the car. The engine is worth more than the lug nuts. The person who runs the company should make more, he has more riding on his work. If a burger flipper doesn't show up, they can be easily replaced. The value a good Ceo brings to a company is not easy to replace and thus he is paid well so he stays. The CEO knows how to run a business, the burger flipper doesn't. Only a whiney liberal would think that a CEO should make less than an unskilled worker.

 

[beagle9]

I never understood why people get all pissy when they find out the CEO of a company makes millions and the bottom workers don't.

A company is not a direct pay based on amount of physical labor machine. Otherwise, ditch diggers would be millionaires. A company is like a car. The value of the parts are based on the value of the work that they give the car. The engine is worth more than the lug nuts. The person who runs the company should make more, he has more riding on his work. If a burger flipper doesn't show up, they can be easily replaced. The value a good Ceo brings to a company is not easy to replace and thus he is paid well so he stays. The CEO knows how to run a business, the burger flipper doesn't. Only a whiney liberal would think that a CEO should make less than an unskilled worker.

. You just made a fool of yourself with a post like that... No one cares how much a CEO makes, but it does raise eyebrows when the company isn't paying for the value of it's laborers in which had helped it reep down it's fields. Showing your greedyness or selfishness in your post is shameful. No one expects to make what the next man up the ladder makes, but just that a structural pay system exist that gives people an idea of what they have to work towards in life. Always remember what man is capable of in all of this, and that is to flat out slave someone if it were legal to do so.

 

[ZackB]

These morons ought to walk around in protest with signs saying "Fire Me And Give My Wages To Someone Else".

 

[charwin95]

Sorry wrong thread.

 

[beagle9]

I've already said myself that minimum wage should only be an entrance wage for stater employee's, and it should only last 6 months at best. After that the company should know what it is dealing with, and it should move the employee into the structural pay system in which it uses to reward or pay it's employee's with accordingly. I guess the socialist government we have, thinks hey pay all those workers enough at the lower levels in order to keep them out of the free entitlement programs or subsidies programs it runs. Wouldn't the better solution be to clean up and end entitlements or subsidies programs, and quit telling companies that they need to pay starter employee's a living wage as if they started at level 5 instead of at level one ? The feds under a socialist/communist thinking rule of course has created these problem, then it orders companies to pay for it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never understood why people get all pissy when they find out the CEO of a company makes millions and the bottom workers don't.

A company is not a direct pay based on amount of physical labor machine. Otherwise, ditch diggers would be millionaires. A company is like a car. The value of the parts are based on the value of the work that they give the car. The engine is worth more than the lug nuts. The person who runs the company should make more, he has more riding on his work. If a burger flipper doesn't show up, they can be easily replaced. The value a good Ceo brings to a company is not easy to replace and thus he is paid well so he stays. The CEO knows how to run a business, the burger flipper doesn't. Only a whiney liberal would think that a CEO should make less than an unskilled worker.

. You just made a fool of yourself with a post like that... No one cares how much a CEO makes, but it does raise eyebrows when the company isn't paying for the value of it's laborers in which had helped it reep down it's fields. Showing your greedyness or selfishness in your post is shameful. No one expects to make what the next man up the ladder makes, but just that a structural pay system exist that gives people an idea of what they have to work towards in life. Always remember what man is capable of in all of this, and that is to flat out slave someone if it were legal to do so.

There already is a structural pay system but it's up to you to get it not up to your employer to draw you a map then provide the means for you to follow it

If you want to work in a low skill low wage job for 20 years you have no right to complain about your pay because you did nothing to make yourself worthy of higher pay

 

[beagle9]

In order to keep people off of the government subsidies payrolls, then is it that the government is reaching for the only lever it has to pull, and that being the federal minimum wage law ? Is this a war between the government and business in this nation, and the workers are just caught in the middle of it ? Has the government found that there were people in jobs making minimum wages after being employed in a job for more than two years, and was it found that the employee's were also on the government subsidies programs because of the stagnated job the employee were in for two years or better ? What is the findings, and what should be the governments role as based upon those findings ? If the government finds that companies have abandoned the concepts of a structural pay grade system, and it found that millions were getting tax payer subsidies based upon their lack of income after they had been employed at a company for two years or more, then is the government wrong for pulling the minimum wage lever on them ? Now is it fair to pull that lever all across the board or just pull it on the offenders based upon it's findings ? DId the government pull the lever across the board because it is more into income redistribution than it is into being fair and reasonable upon the issue ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

In order to keep people off of the government subsidies payrolls, then is it that the government is reaching for the only lever it has to pull, and that being the federal minimum wage law ? Is this a war between the government and business in this nation, and the workers are just caught in the middle of it ? Has the government found that there were people in jobs making minimum wages after being employed in a job for more than two years, and was it found that the employee's were also on the government subsidies programs because of the stagnated job the employee was in for two years or better ? What is the findings, and what should be the governments role be as based upon those findings ? If the government finds that companies have abandoned the concepts of a structural pay grade system, and it found that millions were getting tax payer subsidies based upon their lack of income after they had been employed at a company for two years or more, then is the government wrong for pulling the minimum wage lever on them ? Now is it fair to pull that lever all across the board or just pull it on the offenders based upon it's findings ? DId the government pull the lever across the board because it is more into income redistribution than it is into being fair and reasonable upon the issue ?

Get rid of the government giveaways and people will be forced to work enough to pay their own bills

What's the incentive to improve if a person can work a few hours a week at a MW job and still get free money from the taxpayers?

 

[beagle9]

I never understood why people get all pissy when they find out the CEO of a company makes millions and the bottom workers don't.

A company is not a direct pay based on amount of physical labor machine. Otherwise, ditch diggers would be millionaires. A company is like a car. The value of the parts are based on the value of the work that they give the car. The engine is worth more than the lug nuts. The person who runs the company should make more, he has more riding on his work. If a burger flipper doesn't show up, they can be easily replaced. The value a good Ceo brings to a company is not easy to replace and thus he is paid well so he stays. The CEO knows how to run a business, the burger flipper doesn't. Only a whiney liberal would think that a CEO should make less than an unskilled worker.

. You just made a fool of yourself with a post like that... No one cares how much a CEO makes, but it does raise eyebrows when the company isn't paying for the value of it's laborers in which had helped it reep down it's fields. Showing your greedyness or selfishness in your post is shameful. No one expects to make what the next man up the ladder makes, but just that a structural pay system exist that gives people an idea of what they have to work towards in life. Always remember what man is capable of in all of this, and that is to flat out slave someone if it were legal to do so.

There already is a structural pay system but it's up to you to get it not up to your employer to draw you a map then provide the means for you to follow it

If you want to work in a low skill low wage job for 20 years you have no right to complain about your pay because you did nothing to make yourself worthy of higher pay

. So your saying that there are no companies out there who are using your tax dollars to have their employee's paid or subsidized by those dollars in which if the company doesn't pay them then they know that the government will ? How many were being subsidized by tax payer dollars in so that a company could pay less to it's employee's ? Who in government were working this out hand in hand with the companies in a collaborative and corrupt way over the years ? Who taught the companies or corrupted the government that this was a great thing that was going on ? Isn't this what was going on where millions of illegals were working for peanuts, yet meanwhile they were somehow surviving in a system that if a person wasn't making at least 10 to 10.50 an hour, then that person wouldn't make it ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never understood why people get all pissy when they find out the CEO of a company makes millions and the bottom workers don't.

A company is not a direct pay based on amount of physical labor machine. Otherwise, ditch diggers would be millionaires. A company is like a car. The value of the parts are based on the value of the work that they give the car. The engine is worth more than the lug nuts. The person who runs the company should make more, he has more riding on his work. If a burger flipper doesn't show up, they can be easily replaced. The value a good Ceo brings to a company is not easy to replace and thus he is paid well so he stays. The CEO knows how to run a business, the burger flipper doesn't. Only a whiney liberal would think that a CEO should make less than an unskilled worker.

. You just made a fool of yourself with a post like that... No one cares how much a CEO makes, but it does raise eyebrows when the company isn't paying for the value of it's laborers in which had helped it reep down it's fields. Showing your greedyness or selfishness in your post is shameful. No one expects to make what the next man up the ladder makes, but just that a structural pay system exist that gives people an idea of what they have to work towards in life. Always remember what man is capable of in all of this, and that is to flat out slave someone if it were legal to do so.

There already is a structural pay system but it's up to you to get it not up to your employer to draw you a map then provide the means for you to follow it

If you want to work in a low skill low wage job for 20 years you have no right to complain about your pay because you did nothing to make yourself worthy of higher pay

. So your saying that there are no companies out there who are using your tax dollars to have their employee's paid or subsidized by those dollars in which if the company doesn't pay them then they know that the government will ? How many were being subsidized by tax payer dollars in so that a company could pay less to it's employee's ? Who in government were working this out hand in hand with the companies in a collaborative and corrupt way over the years ? Who taught the companies or corrupted the government that this was a great thing that was going on ? Isn't this what was going on where millions of illegals were working for peanuts, yet meanwhile they were somehow surviving in a system that if a person wasn't making at least 10 to 10.50 an hour, then that person wouldn't make it ?

No it's the people who accept them that are using taxpayer money so they don't have to work as much

And if you're not making enough money on one job to pay your bills then you work 2 jobs. It's up to you to earn the money you need