ADVERTISMENTS:
call us:
206-350-1082
support killoggs!
|
 |
| |  |
 |
|
 |
|
Threaded Responses [ bottom ]
Rickriminate said at 10:27 AM 01-13-2003:
Mr. Ridley is wrong.The book, "War Against War," which is highly critical of the Gulf War, came out within a few years after the end of Operation Desert Storm. Moreover, President Bush was roundly criticized by several parties for leaving the Kurds and Marsh Arabs to fend for themselves against the Iraqi Army. Michael Moore, on his television show, "T.V. Nation," criticized post-war Kuwait, implying it had been unworthy of the efforts put forth ( actually, I guess that is a separate issue . . . ). Oh well, I do, in any event, appreciate Mr. Ridley's efforts to sweep away jingoism and triumphalism as far as that chapter of our history goes. |
 | josh [email] said at 10:29 AM 01-13-2003:
Uh.. you didn't answer the question. |
Ricklish said at 10:45 AM 01-13-2003:
But we have had this discussion before!Alright, I guess it was specific to film ( see the squabble that broke out over your bias towards foreign films in the "Giallo" post). But still . . . Bestiality is still forbidden. Taking third-parties seriously will bring about a pariah status. One may not be an atheist and reasonably expect to be elected president of the United States, regardless of one's credentials. One may not at all preach the Virtues of Atheism the way others tell of the God's Kingdom on Earth or whatever. Although it may not seem this way on killoggs.com, I feel as though one cannot raise concerns that our "War On Terror" is sweeping away basic civil liberties and rights. |
 | kiche [email] said at 11:19 AM 01-13-2003:
what about the gop's playing for the racist vote?
although that taboo seems to be coming down. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 10:35 AM 01-13-2003:
1. pedophilia (from the pedophiles perspective)
2. actual discussion of american foreign policy over the past 50 years focusing on the overthrowing/thwarting of democracies and treatment of nonwhites
3. christianity's darkside, and the ignoring (or defense) of that darkside by mainstream american christianity (from child and wife abuse to racist murder to economic plans that target the poor and minorities as religious doctrine) |
yetanotherben [ url ]
said at 10:56 AM 01-13-2003:
no one discusses it because it's not in the media :). However, one thing that seems to be a bit taboo is our dependence on oil (not just foreign, but ALL oil), and how our dependence upon it takes precedent many times over our global view.
You can view those "SUVs support terrorism" ads here: http://www.detroitproject.com/
Just try mentioning this idea around your co-workers who drive SUVs. Many folks get VERY ticked (the ones I've noticed). I don't know if it's because all of the sudden we've linked them with the "drug users" supporting terrorism or not :)
In any case, the fact that our foreign policy has slidden downhill to the point where even our once staunch allies in Europe and even Canada look at us with disdain... |
|
| kiche [email] said at 11:07 AM 01-13-2003:
oh yeah. and the media. no one really talks about the media. it's pathetic. the media ignores stories like this until the last possible moment. and there is no in depth coverage of these issues by the media. news sources=vapid entertainment. this is a huge taboo. |
|
| josh [email] said at 11:18 AM 01-13-2003:
I don't know, it seems like people talk CONSTANTLY about how the media is vapid entertainment - the real problem is that no one has any solution. |
 | kara [email] said at 1:25 PM 01-13-2003:
The media is vapid because the general public is vapid. |
wolfgang norton [ url ]
said at 12:14 AM 01-14-2003:
Noone has any solution to any of the real problems.
Capitalist Democracy doesn't seem to work, at least to me, but noone has suggested any better plans. I went to the library and the bookstore and I couldn't find any books on practical utopias, like a how to get from here to there thing. Nope, nada. |
anotherben.. said at 11:27 AM 01-13-2003:
it seems like, at least amongst this crowd, it is taboo to talk about some of the positive things going on in our dreadful country of oil guzzling, evil christian, imperialists. why is it so hard to distinguish between that which is not bad and that which is fucking deplorable? some christians are stupid. show me a religion that is any less despicably peopled. our nation uses a lot of oil. it drives an economy that allows all this bitching to go on from the comfort of your homes. do you feel guilty because you have internet and people in africa dont eat? people suck. pity is worthless. bitching even moreso. some politicians have risen to powerful positions whilst maintaining idiotic ideas. do you think they are all in one party? one could argue the bastards in the republican party are less deplorable because they dont feign an all encompassing love of those they are trying to screw. hillary clinton is a criminal pretending to be a benevolent politician (oxymoron?). kiche, you specifically bandy out gross generalizations like they were going out of style. the devil is in the details.. what about our foreign policy do you want to change to make the world a better place? what is your proposed solution to immediately fix our oil habit? how do we cleanse the people of the world of their petty religious fixations? all of these things have been touched upon in various posts...but it always comes back to these insulting blanket statements of fear and loathing. |
|
| josh [email] said at 11:39 AM 01-13-2003:
While I agree Kiche foams at the mouth a lot, I wouldn't really call most of those things taboo. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 11:49 AM 01-13-2003:
get that rabies vaccine the fuck away from me. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 11:43 AM 01-13-2003:
you forget ben, that "why do you hate america" crap doesn't work on me.
i point out things that are wrong in an attempt to stop them.
if you truly loved america, you would understand this, instead of supporting people who want to fuck up america for there own personal gain (see trent lott). |
anotherben.. said at 11:46 AM 01-13-2003:
where have i supported trent lott? and im not asking why you hate america..i dont care if you do..i just think your statements are all pithless because though occasionally they identify a problem..standing at the mouth of the cave and pointing at the dragon doesnt do shit for the hapless villagers that he feasts upon. maybe i just dont care much for rhetoric. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 12:05 PM 01-13-2003:
you have defended lott on here, but that doesn't really matter, i was just pointing him out as someone who profits off of making america worse.
standing at the mouth of the cave and pointing at the dragon doesnt do shit for the hapless villagers that he feasts upon.
true, but identifying the problem, is better than trying to obfuscate it.
but you've hijacked the conversation. we were talking about taboos in america.
i've got a good one for you to mull over. it's never discussed that liberalism, an ideology that proports to champion the needs of the poor (both rural and urban) is the accepted ideology of the white collar middle class (bougiouse).
think about it. |
Woody said at 11:18 AM 01-13-2003:
The imminent reconciliation of Britney and Justin.
Is anybody getting good coverage on this? |
|
| kiche [email] said at 11:25 AM 01-13-2003:
some taboos exist for good reason. |
 | xmeredithx [email] said at 11:31 AM 01-13-2003:
what about the second wave of WTC deaths that's going to start in a few years. no one ever talks about that. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 11:47 AM 01-13-2003:
from asbestos? |
AngeleL said at 12:59 PM 01-20-2003:
Does anybody know how much asbestos fibers you need to innhale to make it dangerous? |
anotherben.. said at 11:36 AM 01-13-2003:
no one ever talks about the retirement benefits of statewide/national politicians.. getting their salary for life. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 11:48 AM 01-13-2003:
i hear a lot about this. what are you gonna do though? and maybe they do deserve it. they don't have good job security.
i said "maybe". |
anotherben.. said at 11:54 AM 01-13-2003:
the clintons house note is $10,000...paid by the taxpayer..they built a guest house for the ss agents who guard them (at the cost of the taxpayer) and charge the government $10,000/month rent for the use of the guesthouse. maybe they deserve their salaries until they die.. but adding on top of that $20,000/month and a free house in westchester? this is just an example of how political benefits are (in my opinion) going a wee bit too far. |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:08 PM 01-13-2003:
If you are free of bias, why do you focus on the Clintons? George Bush (the first one) still gets his money, as do Ford, Carter and Reagan. Hell, Nixon got his until he died.
You also don't note that George W. Bush has twice the salary that Clinton did ($400k a year). He is the first president to get a raise since Nixon.
Also note : presidents do NOT get their salaries as pension, unless that has changed recently. They get a sizable pension, which is linked to the salary level of cabinet members, and an amount of "expenses" that they can charge, clerical services, office space, free mailing and, of course, secret service protection. This linking probably will work well for Bill Clinton, incidentally, since he had half the salary of G.W., and the cabinet salary level will probably eclipse the amount he was paid yearly as president before he dies. |
anotherben.. said at 12:15 PM 01-13-2003:
because why should g.w. get all the attention on this website? im just trying to be fair and give equal air time. |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:47 PM 01-13-2003:
Since this topic has nothing to do with G.W., I call bullshit. |
anotherben.. said at 12:17 PM 01-13-2003:
besides..who is free of bias besides the dead? |
|
| josh [email] said at 12:44 PM 01-13-2003:
Well, you _are_ complaining that Kiche is biased... |
anotherben.. said at 1:03 PM 01-13-2003:
but im not. all im saying is that he does a lot of generalized complaining without any purpose. all republicans are racist. all mississipians are idiots. all christians are wife beating alcoholics. as far as the gw comment..i know this topic doesnt. i said website. if kiche can rampantly bash vast swaths of society why cant i make fun of just clinton? i see your bullshit and raise you one horseshit. |
|
| josh [email] said at 1:21 PM 01-13-2003:
Sure, you can - but inserting random political bashing (that's really not even accurate) just makes for a pot...kettle situation. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 1:41 PM 01-13-2003:
all republicans aren't racists. i'm just trying to understand why you tolerate the ones that are.
all christians are wife beating alcoholics.
i'd put this in the quotes, but i think you'd take it the wrong way. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 1:43 PM 01-13-2003:
hmmm... i have one question for you. i riff pretty damn hard on islam on here. why does it bother you that i riff on christianity too? |
anotherben.. said at 2:09 PM 01-13-2003:
all your gross generalizations, in general, bother me. it is a mob mentality...yet you are only one. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 2:17 PM 01-13-2003:
i am a majority of one. it is myself against the world. i view any organization as an enemy and a threat to my individuality.
smash the control symbols. smash the control machines. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 12:16 PM 01-13-2003:
reagan recieves a stipend near that of the clintons, as do most ex-presidents excluding carter.
have you devolved to rabid clinton hating ben? i thought you were better than that. if the clintons had skimped on their "ss agents" as you call them would you be bitching about the squallor they were forced to live in next to the clintonian opulence?
if you really care about this issue, be bipartisan and bitch about the ridiculous amounts of money we've given reagan over the years, and bush sr, a man who was incredibly wealthy before he was president and still doesn't need it.
but the sad fact is, this money is just a drop in the bucket when we are talking about the u.s. spending budget. if you want lower taxes you need to either a) cut military spending or b) spend money on education in long range goal of making more of the u.s. employable to drive the economy better and have less useless dead weights dragging it down.
both solutions are anethema to your conservative ideals, though. you'd rather talk about that bitch hillary who actually thinks she should have a job outside the home. |
anotherben.. said at 12:21 PM 01-13-2003:
its not just presidents that get this treatment...there are a lot of retired senators, representatives, governors..
this is a stupid issue. i apologize for bringing it up. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 1:33 PM 01-13-2003:
it's off topic, it's not taboo, but i don't think it's stupid or invalid.
it's just that most people that bring it up focus solely on the clintons, which makes me question their motivations. |
Jeff C. said at 11:53 AM 01-13-2003:
No one ever criticizes Edward Said. We need more hard hiting news on Orientalism!
(name changed to appease Brandon) |
 | brandon [email] said at 12:31 PM 01-13-2003:
You postcolonialist-appeaser. I bet you'd throw Poland to Hitler. |
Geoff C. said at 1:00 PM 01-13-2003:
Just France, nothing good ever came from France. |
 | zack [email] said at 3:22 PM 01-13-2003:
Except for a BILLION HOT WOMEN! |
anotherben.. said at 3:47 PM 01-13-2003:
si vrai. |
 | dianne [email] said at 11:54 AM 01-13-2003:
how much money you make. how much you paid for this or that item. your debts, esp. credit card debt.
i have school loan for more than $25K. used to be more than 40. what's your initial reaction to me saying this in a public forum?
every time i tell this to someone who's not a close friend, i feel like i've just revealed something more intimate than what i like in bed.
wanna know how much i make? sure you do. we all do. nobody says. if i make less than you, you might feel a wee bit superior. if i make more, you might be resentful. even like me less. think i'm flaunting it.
i honestly think this, even more than our stupid politics and our sexual dysfunction and which antidepressants make us sleepy, is the biggest taboo in this society right now. |
Woody said at 2:21 PM 01-13-2003:
So, um... What do you like in bed? |
 | loren [email] said at 2:21 PM 01-13-2003:
That's a pretty good one... and one that i hate. This comes up all the time... someone the other day asked me how much i make and prefaced it with "i hope you don't mind me asking"... all i could think was why the fuck would i mind?
It comes up here at work most often and i find it pretty fascinating. I wouldn't mind knowing what everyone in this office makes. I'm pretty sure it would piss me off good knowing that some people make more than i do given that they do less work or have easier jobs, but whateva. Unless there's some gross unfair shiz going on, no one would have the right to bitch since they are the ones agreeing to get paid what they are for the work they do.
i don't think anything i typed just now made a damn lick of sense. god i'm tired. |
Woody said at 2:34 PM 01-13-2003:
I think this is a taboo created and perpetuated by companies. They can lowball the more desparate or timid people, but if everybody knew what everybody else got paid, the company would have to justify it all.
Incidentally, if you want to know what everybody gets paid, just do suppport for your company's financial systems...
I'd like to make a website where everybody in my company could go and post some detailed but anonymous info and their salary. Like education, years experience, salary level (we have 10 "tiers"). Then everybody can see where they are. It could run like fsckedcompany.com, but it only works for medium->large companies. |
|
| josh [email] said at 2:53 PM 01-13-2003:
I worked at a place where we were expressly forbidden to discuss our wages which is, I believe, illegal. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 4:03 PM 01-13-2003:
i have worked at many companies where they claimed it was a fireable offense. |
anotherben.. said at 3:54 PM 01-13-2003:
why would the company have to justify it? and why does it matter what anyone else makes? if you think you are underpaid then do something about it...why base your own worth on what someone else is or isnt getting paid? |
Woody said at 4:06 PM 01-13-2003:
Are you joking? The company would have to justify it or have disgruntled workers. This seems extremely obvious. If I feel I contribute the same as my peer, but I find out he makes more than me, I'm going to ask our boss why that is. And if he has no reason, then I'm going to get paid the same or I'll be pissed, or I'll quit. That's why it's all very secretive. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 4:08 PM 01-13-2003:
if the company is overpaying someone, and other employees find out those employees may start demanding higher salaries or quit. both bad situations for the company.
this is common sense.
i have known people who have quit jobs because they found out they weren't getting payed enough.
imagine, if when you were working in new york you found out that the guy they hired a year after you was making $5,000 more.
why am i explaining this to you? i figured this out when i was 16. |
Woody said at 4:09 PM 01-13-2003:
Oh, I forgot. Why does it matter what everyone else makes? Umm, that's how you determine what you are worth in the market. There is a supply & demand thing going on. When you are offered a promotion or raise, there are only 2 ways to know if that's the going rate: 1) get other offers, 2) know what other people are being paid.
If you think your salary is based only on what value you add to the company, you're being naive... |
|
| kiche [email] said at 4:27 PM 01-13-2003:
ben, as our token republican, why do we have to explain capitalism to you? |
anotherben.. said at 4:48 PM 01-13-2003:
you are pushing socialism here. dont try to sell it as capitalism. |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:54 PM 01-13-2003:
Hahaha, how is it socialism again? You are in rare knee-jerk form today, ben... |
anotherben.. said at 5:06 PM 01-13-2003:
socialism seeks to set up a collective system for the economy..one system by which all goods and services can be guaged..their worth known.. if you are saying that you want to make sure no one in your office is making more than you how is this any different? you want to set up a system by which everyone can look up their pay rate in a public catalogue. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:18 PM 01-13-2003:
Well, first off, read the definition of socialism I posted in this thread.
Secondly, even by your definition of socialism "a collective system for the economy", what you describe "a system by which everyone can look up their pay rate in a public catalogue" doesn't meet that definition. Because if even if you set up a system where everyone can look up their pay rate, which isn't exactly what Woody described anyway, this would not make the economy a collective system.
Thirdly, such tools as Woody mentioned aready exist in some form, and you have even talked about using them - doing job research to estimate what you should be paying - so why is this socialism again?
Again, Woody's idea was to set up a web site where people could anonymously record their pay rate and experience, with the idea of coming up with market analysis of what their jobs are worth to a company. The only difference between this idea and what you can ALREADY get from research sites like Gartner and Monster is that this info would be user-generated and not the estimates of statisticans - which would probably make it less useful in a grand scale, but more useful at a smaller scale (such as reviewing the details of individual records, or doing item by item comparison).
Again, how is that socialism? |
Woody said at 6:19 PM 01-13-2003:
Well, the big payoff for me from my idea, was that you could see what other people in the same company were being paid, without knowing who they were.
I hate salary surveys, because I have no idea what type of work those people are really doing. Companies use job titles very differently, and I never know who I should be comparing myself to. I am an junior engineer/intermediate software developer/database developer/systems analyst/senior webmaster, depending on who you ask. If I saw a job title at my own company, I'd know the level of work that person was doing, more or less. |
anotherben.. said at 7:11 PM 01-13-2003:
what if there were only 2 junior engineer/intermediate software developer/database developer/systems analyst/senior webmastes at your company and the salaries of both were anonymously published. yeah. im not arguing against salary research tools. im just saying your pay rate is really only your business. you shouldnt need to now that it is higher than someone elses to validate your worth to you. you should know how much you are worth. your time can only have value placed on it by yourself. how much are you willing to sell it for? if you are willing to sell it for less than someone who might not be as good a worker as you..is it your employers responsibility to correct you? no. is the guy who is making more than you for doing a similar job guilty of something? no. my only problem with any of what has been said is the idea of making each persons worth based on those around them. you agree to take a job knowing what you are going to make. if that salary is not satisfactory to you the options available to you have been stated several times in this post. this seems so blindingly apparent to me that i am befuddled..not sure what you are arguing against it.. do you feel as if you are somehow being cheated if you have accepted a lower salary than the worker the next cube over? and by knowing that persons salary..this is in effect supposed to correct your assessment of what your time is worth to you? the extreme of this is where every job title has a specific salary...regardless of the quality of work you produce (or the quantity) you get the salary specified for your title. that title has a specific worth as deemed by all of society. this is socialism. josh mentioned a $50k salary window...if you are making 50k less than a guy sitting down the hall from you who is doing the same work...yeah..you should quit your job because you are a fool. with a little research into your field you can get a reasonably good idea of what your skill level/profession combo makes. life is not like a box of chocolates..you can reasonably expect to know what you are going to get. and what you get is all that matters. the other workers paychecks have no bearing on your life (unless you are the one paying them or they are bleeding your company dry and putting you out of work - neither scenario being pertinent to this argument). thats all i have to say about this. |
|
| josh [email] said at 9:49 PM 01-13-2003:
what if there were only 2 junior engineer/intermediate software developer/database developer/systems analyst/senior webmastes at your company and the salaries of both were anonymously published.
Anotherben : if those two guys had a problem with their info being published - and bear with me on this one - WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY LOGIN TO THE SITE AND PUBLISH IT? Seriously, I fail to see why you have a problem with this.
Again, I don't see why you are railing against a site idea that would allow workers to, on their own, login and share information about themselves anonymously.
Seriously - how is that socialism, and why is it so bad?
It is simply a market research tool, what the hell is wrong with it? You have been talking constantly about how people should do research before they take a job, but then you froth at the mouth, kiche-style, decrying a research tool concept that Woody came up with, I simply don't get it - the two statements don't seem to jibe.
Do you think Woody was saying all pay rates should be published by the government, or something? Is that the misconception that started this?
That's not what he said, from what I read... He was saying it'd be cool to have a site where workers could swap info, a la a "virtual water cooler", protected by anonymity. If the workers _want_ to do this, what's wrong with it?
Maybe _you_ don't want to know what someone else makes, even if that info is anonymous and user-submitted, but you are free not to use the site if Woody gets up the initiative to actually make it. Why get so vehemeent decrying others who find the idea interesting? Again, as you point out, the information is already out there in a slightly different form, and YOU YOURSELF advocate accessing information about pay rates, so why so angry about this idea? |
anotherben.. said at 10:25 PM 01-13-2003:
this is getting unruly. the quoted line was just debunking the "Well, the big payoff for me from my idea, was that you could see what other people in the same company were being paid, without knowing who they were. " statement. like i said above..im not arguing against research tools. im just opposed to the idea of anyone setting their worth based on others. this doesnt mean i think people should get paid differently for doing the same thing. this doesnt mean i wouldnt mind being paid less for doing more. it means that with a general idea of what salary one can expect, there is no reason to be concerned about what other people make. you agree to your salary. you get to vote on your agreement every day. your employer reserves the right to vote at any time as well. my work is independent of what anyone else at the office does or makes. so..if you..which is what i gathered at some point from this monstrous discussion... feel like you should/need to know the salary of your immediate co-workers in order to make sure you are being paid "fairly"..i disagree. tha's all. i think i am arguin philosophy while you are arguing sociology. |
|
| josh [email] said at 11:15 PM 01-13-2003:
I'm just curious why you became so vehement at the idea of the web site where people could, if they wanted, enter their salary info, to aid research into what the appropriate jobs were... The internet is revolutionizing commerce, because it allows consumers to shop & compare prices at an unprecedented level. I don't have a problem with this concept being applied to jobs. |
|
| josh [email] said at 9:58 PM 01-13-2003:
Also, you never explained how the web site idea was socialism at work. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 7:05 PM 01-13-2003:
if you think that negotiating a price for your skills on the open market is socialism, you do not know what capitalism or socialism is.
so i'll explin this to you like i would to a small child or an imbecile. if i sell candy bars for a living, i'm probably going to check to see what other vendors of candy bars sell their wares for and what their wholesale cost is. this is not only capitalism it is common sense. quit acting like you are a fool. you understand these concepts, and you promote them, now drop the selective memory act. |
anotherben.. said at 7:17 PM 01-13-2003:
agghh... checking on other sellers prices and costs is for the sake of remaining competitive..by being competitive you sell more candy bars..by selling more candy bars you make more money. this is a seperate issue. one where the question does not come up of what your time is worth..because you are working for yourself. when you are working for someone else...you cannot expect to make all the money from candy bar sales. you have agreed to work for that person for a set price or a commission. either way you are selling your time..and have agreed to a price that was acceptable to you. it shouldnt have anything to do with the other candy bar sellers employees wages. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 8:21 PM 01-13-2003:
this is a really simple concept ben.
when you work for someone you are selling them your skills.
if you find out that people with the same skills as you are selling those same skills for more, perhaps you to would like to find someone to pay you a higher amount for those skills.
i have explained this repeatedly, i can think of no simpler way to explain it. could someone else put this in an easy to swallow manner for ben? |
 | milky [email] said at 8:38 PM 01-13-2003:
Ben, you're an engineer. You should have learned about what you've worth and the market and such before you graduated.
I'd expect that out of someone so smart. What, you want more money now? You wanted to go home, deal with it. I mean, it's not like you're broke or engaged or married or need health insurance.
Jesus. |
anotherben.. said at 8:49 PM 01-13-2003:
i think you have misread names somewhere. actually...i think you are on the wrong page entirely. |
|
| milky [email] said at 9:09 PM 01-13-2003:
um, no...
Are you not satisfied with your salary somehow? |
anotherben.. said at 9:27 PM 01-13-2003:
im quite satisfied with my salary. and to somehow tie that in with the discussion that seems to have ended..i dont care what anyone else makes. |
 | mary [email] said at 9:32 PM 01-13-2003:
Would you really be satisfied if all the other engineers with comparable education and experience were making 50 percent more than you?
Or what if the women in your office, with similar qualifications, all made 20 percent more than you. Sure you wouldn't want to know that? |
anotherben.. said at 9:49 PM 01-13-2003:
wow...look at that big juicy worm with a shiny hook in it just hanging in the water there... but we are not discussing gender based salary discrimination at this time. sorry. but to answer your question.. if you had to have sex with a dragon or a moose..which one would you pick? |
|
| mary [email] said at 10:00 PM 01-13-2003:
See, I think it is relevant. If workers had an easy way to compare salary info, gender and race-based pay discrimination would be much more obvious. And less likely to happen, IMO. |
|
| josh [email] said at 10:00 PM 01-13-2003:
Question for ya, Ben : if it was illegal to disclose how much you made, if no one outside of the company could know what people's salaries were, then how would someone know if they were being discriminated against? I think that is what Mary was getting at. |
anotherben.. said at 8:46 PM 01-13-2003:
this is a really simple concept kiche.
when you work for someone they are buying your skills.
if you find out that your boss is buying those same skills for more, perhaps you sold yourself short.
that doesnt mean you cant ask for/should ask for a raise (though the boss may have a valid reason for paying you less) or seeking employment elsewhere. now...back to my original statement:
why would the company have to justify it? and why does it matter what anyone else makes? if you think you are underpaid then do something about it...why base your own worth on what someone else is or isnt getting paid? let me try it this way. you have no right to set the value of any of your fellow employees. the boss has every right to pay joe jackass as much as he wants. is this fair? no. does it have to be? no. is your value in any way related to joe jackass? is your work better or worse in any way based on joes salary? no. you have the right to determine your own worth. if you find someone to pay you that amount..great! congrats. if that same person pays someone else half of what you are getting paid for the same work...should you take a paycut? should they get a raise? |
|
| josh [email] said at 9:56 PM 01-13-2003:
no. you have the right to determine your own worth.
Okay, so with this statement in mind... why is the web site where workers can login and anonymously post job info such a EVVIIIL, socialist concept?
I really don't get it. You say that you have a right to determine what your job is worth, but then decry an interesting-sounding tool to do just that? |
|
| josh [email] said at 10:09 PM 01-13-2003:
In the same response you say:
"if you find out that your boss is buying those same skills for more, perhaps you sold yourself short."
and
"why base your own worth on what someone else is or isnt getting paid?"
Again, those two statements seem to be in direct contradiction to each other. |
|
| josh [email] said at 9:53 PM 01-13-2003:
it shouldnt have anything to do with the other candy bar sellers employees wages.
you obviously have a very poor grasp on economics - and this is coming from me, someone who admittedly has a poor grasp on it.
OF COURSE the amount of wages the other candy sellers gets affects your price. In fact it does so EVEN IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE WAGES ARE. |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:57 PM 01-13-2003:
For Ben's sake, I'll post a definition of socialism.
socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry.
2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital.
Now, Ben : Please explain what the hell this thread, and Kiche's comments, have to do with socialism? |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:07 PM 01-13-2003:
Also, it's funny that you are raging against Woody's suggestion of a research tool to aid people's analysis of the job market. That's all his suggestion was : a research tool. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 7:06 PM 01-13-2003:
maybe anotherben hates capitalism. |
 | brianbibbly [email] said at 9:29 PM 01-13-2003:
I am raging against Woody's suggestion that Britney and Justin are getting back together. Noooooooooo! |
anotherben.. said at 4:41 PM 01-13-2003:
i work in the consulting business. i know exactly how much i am worth. and i am a project manager. i know how much everyone who works on my projects is worth. they can look in the proposal file and see how much they are worth. and how much i am worth. and whoever else. i know how much i would like to make...and with a couple of job offers i came to the conclusion i wasnt being unreasonable. when you are in an interview and the interviewer asks "how much are you looking to make?" you dont say "how much are you paying the other employees". with any given trade there is a expected salary range..easily researchable. if you are busting your ass and not getting paid as much as the next guy who is doing the same job then either you didnt ask for enough or know your own worth when you accepted the job (your fault) or the other guy is overpaid (why are you concerned with his business?) i think the flaw in your thinking is that somehow you think you deserve some sort of fair pay scale..a universal standard by which every one can be compared, measured, rated. fuck all that. the only person you have to be concerned abouts pay rate is your own. is it as much as you think you are worth? yes..good. no?..ask for a raise/look for another job. |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:51 PM 01-13-2003:
Again, if you work in a job where you don't have even a clue what others are getting paid, how can you guage your worth? Especially if you are in a field that isn't so documented as your own? Not everyone is a project manager or an engineer, Ben. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 4:53 PM 01-13-2003:
hypothetically, though, if you find out how much your fellow employees are making, you may re-evaluate your worth.
you may ask for more money (which would cut into company profits) or you may find another job (which would drain company human resources). either situation is bad for the company. one way companies deal with this is by being fair and open with salaries. another way companies deal with this is to discourage employees from discussing their salaries. |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:48 PM 01-13-2003:
Okay, I guess you did contribute some constructive information. |
Woody said at 5:14 PM 01-13-2003:
WooHoo! Is my head in the mail? |
|
| josh [email] said at 4:47 PM 01-13-2003:
Are you serious? Do you understand how the world works, Ben?
First of all, logically speaking, the statements "why does it matter what anyone else makes?" and "if you think you are underpaid then do something about it." Are incompatible. How can you know if you are underpaid without knowing what other people make? Then, you say "why base your own worth on what someone else is or isnt getting paid?" - C'mon. If you are getting paid $10 an hour and your co-workers who do the same job are making $30, wouldn't that be an issue that might affect your desire to stay at a workplace? |
anotherben.. said at 4:56 PM 01-13-2003:
my "if you think you are underpaid" statement is founded upon a self-appraisal. am i willing to accept $x for my time to do job a. if the answer is yes..take the job. do your work. buy the quality of liquor your expertise affords. if the answer is no...look for another job..eventually you will find one or have to develop a more realistic assessment of your worth in the market place. i dont see where the logic here has to incorporate the pay rate of other employees beyond the general range that any particular profession commands. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:03 PM 01-13-2003:
Some professions have a wider range than yours. For example, when I was applying for jobs in my area, I applied for jobs that paid from $30K to $80K. This range of salary was for the same job, just at different companies.
If I had taken a job for $30K at my current company, and then later found out that other employees with the same skill sets and experience were making $80K, I'd either try to get a raise or go to a different company.
This is why many companies try to make it a rule that employees cannot discuss their salaries - they are basically trying to influence the market by obfuscating prices. If the prices were publically know, they would reach a median level.
I believe it may be illegal to forbid employees from discussing their salaries, but I'm not sure about that. |
anotherben.. said at 5:12 PM 01-13-2003:
I'd either try to get a raise or go to a different company. ..this is what i am saying.. these are your options..and if you are a good worker..your boss can fully expect you to excercise these rights..thereby causing him to pay you at a rate that he thinks will continue to entice you to work for him. it is his right to choose how much he pays his employees. its the employees right to choose to accept that rate. |
|
| josh [email] said at 5:20 PM 01-13-2003:
Uh, yeah, that's exactly what we've all been saying. So? |
Woody said at 5:23 PM 01-13-2003:
He's ignoring the part where you said "later found out that other employees with the same skill sets and experience were making $80K"
He doesn't suggest how else you can learn this information. |
 | courtney [email] said at 8:47 PM 01-13-2003:
An incident happened at one of my high-profile places of work (some of you know where, but I won't name names here), in which someone e-mailed a list of all the employees and their salaries to the entire company. Ouch. It is safe to say that this ex-employee was certainly bitter.
You are right in saying that it pisses people off when they find out that others that were doing equal or less work were earning more... because it was true. It was a nightmare for said company, to say the least. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 12:27 PM 01-13-2003:
I think that taboo is an overused term: it should refer to things that cause psychological damage not just discomfort through mere mentioning.
That being said:
Cannibalism is still Taboo (Although Keep the River on the Right might have a groundswell effect that replaces the "n" with an "m" at popular Hunan restaurants across the country.
Incestual Pedophilia is still a big taboo. The fake variety, R-Kelly et al., while loathsome, is just illegal.
If we take classic descriptions of taboo subjects into account - something mentioned only indirectly, or in language replete with euphemism: capitalist market expansion is the greatest taboo in the country - more so than unmentionables were to the Victorians. I mean, shit, when you exploit a weak market or emerging market you purchase "entry" and you "penetrate it." Sometimes I listen to the PhD's talking up their work, and I swear if I didn't know they were discussing stochastic regression pricing options in international aluminum oligopolies, that they were instead bragging about getting laid.
The black side of globalization, which is by it's very nature an anti-labor, people-leveraging movement is taboo. Witness the feral crackdowns. In Chicago - which is the nation's/ and a major international banker - a small WTO meeting protested by less than 300 people was doubled in number by the cops, canines, and horses that physically formed a barrier around the entire groups march. Obscuring from the cameras the protestors themselves.
Criticism of the Catholic Church is still taboo to Catholics, instead, they're leaving, it won't reflect in the official numbers for a while.
Alcoholism and spousal abuse are taboo to the people involved.
Hating your children is Taboo.
Homosexuality inside a family is still taboo
Race discussion is taboo - but necessary - so it's couched in shifting terms. (How many different "proper" ways have there been in the past 20 years to refer to blacks? Using the outdated one, is nearly as bad - for a white - as using the n-word with it's original meaning of disgust and enmity)
The Death penalty is increasingly becoming taboo - meandering over into discussions of justice and equity.
Death is still Taboo - among relations and friends.
Drug use/habits are Taboo among non-friends - where they are either transformed into pathologies or immorality.
Pleasure, for it's own sake, is still taboo, except through very strictly defined routes: owning a nice car, owning a nice house, having a hot spouse, cultivating some expensive hobby, etc... mostly revolving around the showcase of wealth - and requiring the adjunct services of more earthier, more or less illicit, pleasures to make up for the stress caused by your official diversions.
Pollution is a taboo which causes it's discussion to be sullied by emotion and non-scientific thought - DDT for example, Alar's another one - "acceptable" in any sense when applied to levels of pollutant.
Population Control is taboo.
Hot, joint creaking sex with your grandmother is taboo... |
Geoff C. said at 12:36 PM 01-13-2003:
Criticism of minority leaders is still taboo. Bringing up any criticism of black leaders such as MLK (supposed to have plagiarized his dissertation), Al Sharpton (Tawana Brawley (sp)), etc. can lead to a torrent of interesting words thrown your way. |
|
| xmeredithx [email] said at 12:39 PM 01-13-2003:
masturbating at work is, sadly, mostly still taboo. |
 | sonny [email] said at 12:21 AM 01-14-2003:
I had a discussion that went from talking about peeing in the shower to on the job self love and my friend said that at his work him and a few others had shared porn hidden in the ceiling tiles in the potty for those in the know |
Geoff C. said at 12:42 PM 01-13-2003:
Outside of a small article in Sport's Illustrated several years ago there is little coverage of athletes and their illegitimate children. |
|
| brandon [email] said at 12:58 PM 01-13-2003:
Unless they snatch purses to support them... |
Geoff C. said at 1:03 PM 01-13-2003:
If I could train an army of monkeys to do that...say good-bye to college and say hello to luxury. |
|
| kara [email] said at 1:24 PM 01-13-2003:
1. incest
2. pedophelia
3. racial differences |
|
| milky [email] said at 8:12 PM 01-13-2003:
I'll agree. |
anon-I-mouse [ url ]
said at 1:24 PM 01-13-2003:
I think there are two different kinds of taboos. The first is something you just don't do, i.e. walk around nude. The second is things you just don't talk about.
I think the sexual life of children has already been said, and I'm not sure how I feel about this one. According to child molesters and Kinsley, children have sexual lives. Personally, I don't even remember having any sexual feelings at all until I could do something about them.
I think Dianne was right when she said how much money people make is taboo, but I'm not sure about her reasoning behind it. Certainly it is awkward to bring the subject up without sounding like you are fishing or bragging. But I would have to say there are other problems also. One of my siblings spent around a gazillion dollars on their education. They went to one of those "not quite, but almost" Ivy League schools. They graduated at the top of their class, got tons of awards, got their picture put up all over the school, etc. Now they work with (and make the exact same amount of money as) people who went to lowly state schools and never went to grad school. One of my other siblings stopped working when she started to have kids (which is a decision that I support in her case). Her husband makes quite a decent living earning more than probably any two of us put together. The problem is they have four kids now and their life style is such that his parents still support them. His parents pay for cars, live in babysitters, trips, vacations, etc. Her husband would never admit how much he made because after a few quick mental calculations we could then know how much over their means they were living.
I don't think pollution and race are taboo subjects - I think Americans talk about them all the time. We may not be saying what you want us to say, but that's life. If something is reported on the news, I don’t think it can be considered taboo (like criticism of the WTC, cannibalism, and criticism of the Catholic Church).
Last but not least, the single most important Taboo that people don't even like to think about, much less talk about is human evolution. I don't mean past human evolution (how we got here), I mean future evolution (where we are going). I'm not talking about Baptists or creationists, I'm talking about smart, educated, "open minded" people. Nobody wants to talk about the fact that in the history of life, there is one law that every species has either followed or died out. Every species has both grown and evolved and the weak have been weeded out or it has perished. Except humans. The entire field of medicine is setup to flout evolution. Every time we prolong someone's life long enough for them to reproduce, our species gets weaker. Now, I'm not proposing we try and weed out the weak (that's what Hitler was trying to do). Nobody wants to talk about the fact that for our species to grow stronger we will have to start genetic experiments and manipulations. I don't mean cloning (although it is a necessary first step). What is the point of cloning? To recreate someone that is already here. That's not going to get our species anywhere. Don't people already do this on some level? If you had the choice between a mate that was healthy and hot and one who was homely and sickly (but equal in every other way), you would choose the hot one, and not just because it would make your life better - on some level you would know their genes would make your kids lives better. I don't understand why people get so upset when there is talk about genetic engineering. Why not get rid of sickle cell anemia or diabetes or any genetic disease? If you had the choice between having a normal baby or having one that had no chance of a normal life due to illness or deformity, which one would you choose? Why wait until they develop a genetic abnormality, and then treat it? Why not just wipe it out from the beginning?
Anyway, sorry about the long post. |
|
| kara [email] said at 1:27 PM 01-13-2003:
Social Darwinism is rather taboo as well... |
missmary said at 1:42 PM 01-13-2003:
Hardly.
I run into plenty of people who tacitly support it, not to mention openly advocate it.
Of course, they all think they fall down on the "superior" half of the divide. And they all think they're "rebels."
I don't think any of the things mentioned so far qualify as taboo. The fact that they occured to us so easily, and were so easy to publish, indicates that they are not taboo. Controversial maybe, but not taboo. |
|
| kiche [email] said at 2:02 PM 01-13-2003:
yeah, i've met a lot of people who advocate social darwinism.
funny thing is, i don't think a lot of them could have cut social darwinism. they seem to think being social darwinists obscured the sweet lifestyle they were living off their parents money.
I don't think any of the things mentioned so far qualify as taboo.
the finances, pay, debt thing is a taboo.
pedophilia from the perspective of a pedophile/ sexual lives of children is taboo (note: i am simply saying it is taboo and am not advocating changing this taboo)
bestiality is taboo, as is necrophilia and coprophilia and other extreme perversions.
we live in a time of constant change and this blurs our taboos. |
|
| kara [email] said at 3:11 PM 01-13-2003:
I guess it depends on your definition of taboo. But I have never seen anything in mainstream media that has openly supported social darwinism really... |
 | cricket [email] said at 1:59 PM 01-13-2003:
okay, this may be taboo to others but i think children clearly have sexual lives. especially three year olds. i don't think there is anything perverse about acknowledging child sexuality. i think the perversion lies in adults capitalizing on, exploiting and manipulating the ways children express their sexual impulses. a baby suckling at a breast definitley has a sexual element both for the child and the mother. maybe sensual is a better description for that. but i don't think that a person's sexuality is or has to be a sudden ripening brought about by hormonal changes at some specific age. i think it is a continual process that begins and continues with the small child's exploration and realization of self. perhaps if children were allowed to be sexually free with themselves more of the time, then the transition into the teens would be less abrupt and startling. maybe girls would be less inclined to give blowjobs in the 6th grade. i think that if kids were allowed to openly possess their sexuality without oppressive moral interference from adults then their later sexual lives would be a lot less complusive. |
|
| kara [email] said at 3:12 PM 01-13-2003:
I agree with you.. at least in American culture we have this problem facing it... I know all these people who think they're fucked up or molested because they engaged in sexual experimentation as a small child, when in fact it's very common, and the fact that people DONT talk about it causes more problems. |
|
| |
