What's new
By:

2020 Presidential election

Wes Mantooth said:
Workers will simply take on more responsibility. Look at Amazon. They work their people to the bone, getting every ounce of sweat out of them in every second they’re on the clock.

Other companies will do the same. Instead of having 20 employees working at a Target at once, they’ll have 16. Those 15 will work have to work harder. If they don’t, they’ll be out of a job. They’ll automate more as well. Somehow they will.
Click to expand...

My wife's friend worked at the Amazon fulfillment center in Rahway - your tasks are broken down, literally, by the quarter minute.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
Workers will simply take on more responsibility. Look at Amazon. They work their people to the bone, getting every ounce of sweat out of them in every second they’re on the clock.

Other companies will do the same. Instead of having 20 employees working at a Target at once, they’ll have 15. Those 15 will work have to work harder. If they don’t, they’ll be out of a job. They’ll automate more as well. Somehow they will.
Click to expand...

My question would be, "How many companies are currently using more employees than they need to and automating less than they need to"? If they can do the job with 15 employees, why aren't they already?
 
fishonjazz said:
Trump lol

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Bernie and Biden. LOL

A socialist and a man with early signs of dementia.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elec...-youngest-male-candidate-in-democrat-primary/

Joe Biden, 77, Becomes Youngest Male Candidate in Democrat Primary

GettyImages-1209723975-640x480.jpg
 
Last edited:
dalamon said:
lmao again, pivoting to ad hominem instead of substance.
Click to expand...

You mean, as opposed to a post that said, "... remember when I called you out ..." and accused me of using insults (insulting posters is something I almost never do, BTW). I wasn't aware you were interested in "substance". What what you like to discuss the substance of?

Go ahead, link to the post where you called me out for my knowledge and I responded with an insult. I'll wait. It will be a long one.

Also, you probably know what an ad hominem is well enough to know I did not use one. I don't think you need a lesson on logical fallacies.

It's difficult for me to interpret this post in any light other than you trying to score some sort of points off me, or demonstrate your superior knowledge, or something like that.
 
One Brow said:
My question would be, "How many companies are currently using more employees than they need to and automating less than they need to"? If they can do the job with 15 employees, why aren't they already?
Click to expand...

Fair question. I’d guess it’s because it’s not very commonplace to work one’s people like Amazon does and if more companies started to do it, those people would try to leave and find a company that doesn’t work them so insanely hard.

Once the next recession hits, companies will start to do this more. And it’ll stick even when the recession is over imo.

My wife works Big 4 accounting. When the recession hit, they laid off about 30 ppl in her office iirc. The remainder picked up the slack and that harder work lifestyle has remained.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
Fair question. I’d guess it’s because it’s not very commonplace to work one’s people like Amazon does and if more companies started to do it, those people would try to leave and find a company that doesn’t work them so insanely hard.

Once the next recession hits, companies will start to do this more. And it’ll stick even when the recession is over imo.

My wife works Big 4 accounting. When the recession hit, they laid off about 30 ppl in her office iirc. The remainder picked up the slack and that harder work lifestyle has remained.
Click to expand...

Fair response to a fair question. I think we agree neither of us has real answers.
 
Bernie does not even know what type of government we have in the U.S. Is this really someone you want as president......

 
One Brow said:
Fair response to a fair question. I think we agree neither of us has real answers.
Click to expand...

I think one way to stop the inequity and sad state of affairs that our working lifestyle has become is to put caps on what executives can make. Caps on what ppl below them can make. It would have to be based on revenue/profits/employee #’s within a company or something and I’d guess this is crazy socialist but I see no way to otherwise stop the freight train that is in the equity. I think changing OT laws for salaried employees could also be hugely beneficial. Companies could no longer work people to the bone without paying them 1.25x to 2x what their hourly rate based on a 40 hour work week would be. It may be beneficial for companies to instead simply hire more people though what a company pays in benefits for an employee, amongst other things, must also be factored in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top