In the same job, yes. Across all jobs, no. Some of the best paying jobs don’t require as much effort as some of the lowest.
No, but I think in many cases it is swamped by much more determinate factors. Frankly, luck and perseverence play a much larger role from what I can tell. Most people fail a lot no matter how hard they work: those who keep trying generally have more chances to make it. Some people give up after failing two or three times. That’s a mistake, but then in many real world cases, it’s hard to fault the person too much for having their spirit broken, even if you would wish that they’d just pop back up for more and maybe make it next time.
Well, in which case you are not keeping all things equal.
I think this depends quite a bit on what you mean by effort. You may not think it requires much effort to sit at a keyboard and translate the wishes of a customer into the instructions that a computer needs to fulfill those wishes. Especially if you compare such effort to that of digging ditches, for instance. However, I think that is comparing apples and grocery carts.
Well, I would classify perserverence as a sort of working harder.
[QUOTE=pervert]
And I will salute your courage in makeing such a definitive statement. Then I will ask you for a cite.
As mentioned earlier, exersizing this aptitude for finding and circulating type A baggers is itself laziness, which actually makes the person who accepted the promotion a type B bagger assuming/accepting/exersizing the propoganda of having been a type A bagger.
I hate (well not really) to be the one to break this to you. But bagging is far from the only job which needs to be done in a grocery store. You need a whole host of jobs to be done to make a store run. One way to find a good worker is to have experience with him in another job. Noting that a particular individual works hard at bagging certainly does not prove that he will be good at checkout. However, it does prove that he is willing to work hard. And speaking as someone who has had to hire and fire people, that is the most important factor in picking an applicant. The details of any particular job can be taught, within reason. It usually falls outside the scope of a managers job, however, to teach a good work ethic.
[QUOTE]
I didn’t say that bagging was the only job necessary to run a store. I stated that of all of the positions in a store, bagging is the one position more than any other that renders profit for the store. It’s not like your gorcery store in Toledo Ohio is going to be an international multi billion dollar industry where business execs are charting private jets to have the honor of buying tampons on your isle 5 (unless oyu’re selling something else!) For the most part, stores like this are not expected to do more than stay afloat in a little niche and return a predicatable flow of cash if everyone follows the instruction manuals from corperate.
After this, the ONLY thing that can be done to increase profits is to reduce how much to pay out in wages and salary. The only places this CAN be done is in checking and bagging. And to differ on another point… a type A bagger is going to be a type A checker. The amount of concentration required to usurp 5 whole other people when you step on the floor requires such intense concentration, that if it blinks for even a second, it will take weeks to catch back up. Something as simple as sprinting down an isle and fogetting to twist your shoe to pick up a scuff mark while your facing the shelves on the way to count bottles can mean weeks of catch up just to get back to where you were before you passed the scuff on the floor just because your concentration broke.
Type A people and managers don’t have much in common. Managers accept wealth that they have access to, a type A worker will not. A type A worker actually does work. Something even as simple as using undefined terms to have a circle of friends or an intimate partner is something a type A worker will not do, as it is lazy.
I wouldn`t call that person lazy, I would call them stupid.
They could accept the 80k and give it to a charity or help their families or neihbors out with the money. They could invest it in a fund for their childs education. If someone is truly worth 80k and they only accept 20 of it then they have other issues, laziness not being one of them high on the list.
I dont equate greed with a comfortable level of success. If you run over people to acquire your wealth, then youre greedy.
Obtaining your wealth within the confines of the system where everyone has the same chance if they apply their bodies and brains is not greed by any stretch.
Perhaps we should take back John Nash’s Nobel Prize: A Beautiful-But-Essentially-Wrong Mind?
Game theory has long been an enormous and vital element of economics. Where your suicidal red herring swam in from I have no idea, but if you are arguing that you can have “big winners” (ie. the rich) without “big losers” (ie. the poor), then you are sadly mistaken.
Oh, piffle. This is such a mish-mash of absurd claims.
You appear to claim that Type A people are not managers–obvious nonsense.
What you appear to describe with your claims about Type A persons has nothing to do with Type A personality and everything to do with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. (A missed scuff mark sets them back weeks? Even allowing for hyperbole that makes no sense. Type A persons do not develop friendships or intimate relationships? You’ll need to explain to my several Type A friends that they do not really have any friends and that their spouses and children are figments of their imagination. Certainly, a Type A develops and handles relationships differently than some other people, but nothing in their personality precludes them from engaging in those activities.)
This makes it sound as though you have never worked in retail (and certainly not in retail mangement). There are many ways in which all employees (even managers) can affect profits for both good or ill. A store with a smaller profit margin but with truly high inventory turns can still earn a good profit. Turning merchandise can be accomplished through efforts in marketing, (both ad and display), customer service, and numerous other ways. Beyond that costs can be controlled through minimization of breakage/spoilage, effective use of just-in-time resupply, and other efforts. A manager can reduce employment costs by effective hiring and scheduling so that there are few to no wasted hours. Depending on the type of store, a manager can actually control wholesale expenses to a certain degree by judicious buying. The notion that the only control point for retail costs is in hiring overactive employees at the lowest rung (and, apparently, never promoting them) is simply totally disconnected from reality. (I am not claiming that employment costs are not extremely important, only that you have created an unrealistic scenario in your description.)
I have watched successful stores staffed by intelligent, but not hyperactive, personnel succeed where stores in the same chain heavily staffed by Type A clerks failed with the clearest difference found in the intelligence displayed in the managing of each store.
Defining greed as smart, work and effort.
As for the line on the bottom, everyone does have the same chance… they can commit suicide. Might makes right and all.
Why do you accept what you have access to? What access should you accept?
What acceptance of access is more work? What acceptance of access is intentional work (beings aware that they exist). You can kill your baby… children are the favorite excuses of capitalists world-wide for greed of all sorts.
The Nash equillibrium is true of beings who are not aware that they exist.
Let’s break this down.
What are your working for? Why are you not committing suicide? (besides being unaware that you exist and using the concept as a linguistic token).
Are you working for that linguistic token “survival”?
Ok, well let’s figure this out. How long do you think you’d survive doing what you do with the choices you make if you suddenly openned yourself up to a suicide contract with all people? They tell you to commit suicide for ANY reason, and you do it.
What does this say about the choices that YOU are actually making with respect to your long term survival? It says that you’re not engaged in behavior that translates an inherent purpose for living… which contradicts the purpose for doing what your doing under the “linguistic token” that you exist.
Equally, let’s say that you make it really easy for people to commit suicide around you… is what you accept as acceptable behavior under the belief that your working going to assure that nobody uses this option? Again, are you, by your action translating an inherent purpose for living… or are you using undefined linguistic tokens as circular evidence that you’re doing work and exerting effort consistent with the linguistic tokens you’re using to justify those behaviors? The first thing that you’ll notice when decreasing suicidal tension in a work place is that managers will not be able to accept as much money as they were before in order to keep the business afloat. How long do you think you’re going to keep your kids alive with what choices you make if you decrease their suicidal tension line at home? Or make a suicide contract with them… i.e. if they tell you to commit suiciee under and circumstances, you do it. Makes you think about whether or not you are capable of having children that survive or whether you are capable of translating an inherent purpose for making the choice of survival as something other than a linguistic token that is being parroted as a being who is not aware that they exist. This luxury of being able to use undefined terms to accept the wealth that you have simply because it’s there is the same problem that rat in the cage is dealing with when their brain is stimulated to eat sugar until it’s dead. By decreasing suicidal tension, humans have the ability to detect areas where their intent is being circumvented… this is actual human work.
You are not going to survive unless you do the work of assuring that intent is not being circumvented. To a being that is aware that it exists, doing any other work is actually suicide. Beings who are aware that they exist, bring into their purveiw the intentionality of life and death, take responsibility for whether their action leads to their death. They are not defeated by the linguistic token that “we can’t control this”. What does it mean to have a child that’s going to die because you cannoty raise it against a zero suicide tension line (if you actually implimented one) – to intentional beings it means that you are committing homicide. So basically, you’re excuse for everything is “I need more money to commit homicide and suicide” — you’re removing the entire area of accountability for yourself with respect to these decisions by “donating to charity for the children”. This is death money.
For the first part. Actually, when coving that many people, such a break in concentration leads to a chain reaction that severely sets back the operating standard. You’re going to go down another isle on the way back with unfinished work on the previous isle. An accumulation of these errors when someone is scheduled for 5 other people, who aren’t there!, are aren’t ever going to be scheduled when you’re on the clock will make your performance seem diminshied very rapidly. Suddenly, you’re not doing your job.
The second part raises perfectly valid points, except one thing… that’s part of the job description of those positions and certainly within the purveiw of a single human being to accomplish. These tasks have local area caps, hard caps. There simply isn’t a hard cap on a persons ability to to stock and clean a store as a single human being, as even the most active type A worker cannot do it all themselves. They can take off 5 people, but they cannot take off all other people for the tasks that can be flexed out… like floral dept., other deli’s, bakery, night shift stockers and cleaners (by doing all the work while they’re there), changing register tapes etc…
Uncommon Sense,
Some chains decide to drop the overhead of bottle counting by buying machines for it, and bagging by having all the cashiers do the bagging. The position of “bagger” is not eliminated, just the number necessary. It’s certainy not store policy to refuse to do a carry-out if someone is disabled to do so… and the cashier isn’t going to do that carry-out. The position is still there, some of the tasks have been automated to cut overhead.
Implying that the current line is stealing the OP. Where’s the accountability?
Would you accept people who agreed with you. That would be accepting wealth that you have access to. Without accountability, you’ve managed to use an undefined term to gain consensus. You have literally not done work for the wealth that you have recieved. What wealth have you recieved? You have recieved wealth that removes psychological pressure from you to verify the purpose for accepting what you have access to use. This coming from a person who laments about the psychological pressure imbued in a desk job. With linguistic patterns like this, I can’t imagine you’re working with that much psychological pressure. Are you really working THAT hard? Talk about a pointless way to gain social groups, social groups which incidentally, severely reduce psychological pressure in all situations.
The point is to differentiate the difference between “smart” work and “a rock rolled down a hill” work. In terms of human intent, there is no work occurring when positive re-enforcement occurs without systems in place to measure the accountability for accepting what you have access to. It is precisely, “a rock rolled down a hill” work, including every single linguistic token used to validate the “sheer effort” of what this rock rolling down a hill is doing. I tried to illustrate the difference between work that circumvents intent (like a REALLY productive looking rat with their brains being zapped) vs. something within the purveiw of a being that is not having their intent circumvented… a being who humors the concept that they might actually exist, rather than use it as an undefined linguistic token.
The OP was along the lines of “poor people are lazy, true or false?”
My point was, people who accept access to wealth are lazier in ALL instances than those who do not (if they do so without systems of accountability in place to verify whether their acceptance of welath corresponds consistently with the idea that they exist or are working for some given purpose under the auspices of their potential belief that they exist).
What I’m in part stating is what types of behaviors act as systems of accountability, and what types of behaviors are and are not deselected under these systems of accountability.
pervert has had to backstep a few times already…
first pervert tried to remove the concept of psychological work to make this point, only relegating it to physical work… but then it became clear that there is “smart” work. Well, that’s psychological. It comes back to my point all along WAY back when I was talking about having your intent circumvented for positive re-enforcement by using undefined terms.
So now the point is, what is smart work? And does smart work INVOLVE accepting wealth that you have access to? Well, no, because we have mutually exclusive choices. One of the wealths that we have access to is suicide! Does that mean suicide is the definition of smart work? How do we get around suicide when formulating might makes right ethics? (one way is not being aware that you exist) – but let’s assume that a person is actually aware that they exist, how does one verify what is the correct course of action, taking into account their belief of the purpose for doing what they use as validation for accepting any given course of action?
Besides suicide, you can also just sit there like a lump. (which if you talk to some scientists, actually burns more calories than eating (aka. harder work to just sit there and starve).
So now you have all of these CHOICES (that’s presumably what happens when you’re aware that you exist).
Now what choice corresponds with the stated purpose for accepting one?
pervert is running into the problem of trying to dismiss the psychological when it comes to choices like suicide, ambivalence of action… but these choices are a REFUSAL of wealth that you can accept. Why do you refuse to commit suicide OR why do you refuse to just sit there like a lump and starve? Why should you not refuse them? Why should you refuse or not refuse wealth that you have access to? Why should you accept 80k instead of 20k or visa versa?
If you’re not committing suicide and you’re not just sitting there “placing your faith in existence, surrenderring your will to a higher power”, you’re probably TRYING to choose survival. So between accepting 20k and 80k, given that you have access to 80k, which choice is most condusive to your survival? Between accepting people who agree with you that my points are off topic or even trolling, which choice is most condusive to your survival? How does one test whether or not accepting this wealth is a delusion that circumvents your intent? How do we make sure that this really active person is not just a rat having an electrode zapping it into a blissful “productive” DEATH? How do we make sure that we’re not that rat? By doing WORK. Intentional work.
tomndebb conceeded that refusing to accept 80k in favor of 20k is NOT a lack of both physical and psychological work… with the apologetics amendment of “but they have other issues”… “they aren’t being smart”… “they are mentally ill”…
Maybe the ‘problem’ is that they actually HAVE a mental, which from someone who doesn’t, the linguistic token of “they are mentally ill” seems predicatable enough. With all this talk of “I have children therefor I deserve more” or “people who have children deserve more” makes me wonder even further whether such individuals even know what psychological work is. As in, work under the aupices of the belief that you exist as a being who is engaged upon action that will secure your existence in terms of survival. Having children isn’t solving that problem! You’re just murdering more people. You want MORE money for THAT!! Are you kidding me!!?
I’m talking about taking responsibility for yourself. To do that, you need to figure out how to not have your intent circumvented. To accept more wealth than another person is always begging the question … a.) is their intent being circumvented b.) is your intent being circumvented
You need to demonstrate that this is NOT occurring in either instance in order to assure your survival, and also in order to assure that you are able to give this option to any further life you may wander about procuring.
When we’re talking about “smart” work, is it really “smart” to accept wealth that you have access to, when you observe that another does not, who in fact desires that access? Is your purpose for accepting that wealth translating an inherent purpose for living life, or, are you like the rat, blissfully feeding upon their own death, wholly unaware of their own existence?
olanv, tho I respect your attempt to stretch your legs in regards to your understanding of suicide logic and other theories regarding societal structure and the accumulation of wealth, I think this line of reasoning is straying way too far from the OP.
What say ye?
No. I was actually saying that I personally was addressing the OP.
I don’t see where I talked about my job at all. I said that desk jobs can be hard work. What do linguistic patterns have to do with psychological pressure anyway?
I give up. I am really trying but I can not figure out what you are talking about. Trying to interpret your posts is my idea of hard work. I need to go take a nap.
You are correct. Now I’m trying to figure out who was making an objection to defining work as psychological.
Then hopefully you’ll respect my dismissal of patronization, as it relates intimately with the topic of wealth acceptance at hand.
Looking at the OP, even though I think the inverse claim “Wealthy people are lazier in all instances” holds merit, it really doesn’t address this answer of “It came from the Calvinists”, which is maybe what the OP was seeking.
I suppose I saw the OP as relating to falsifying the claim, as opposed to giving an answer as to the origin of the claim (aka. “Who said it first?”).
With what I understand respecting falsification of the claim, I was and will assert that the inverse claim is true in all instances (i.e. wealthy people are always lazier than poor people), and the claim in the OP MIGHT be false in all instances (i.e. Poor people are lazier than wealthy people in all instances).
As for the might part about the claim in the OP, I think I have a handle (at least in my mind – whatever that’s worth) on why it is false in all instances.
Not in this thread, I have not. (Nor in any other that I can remember.)
I have only challenged your claims regarding Type A personalities (and your rebuttal was as silly as your initial claim) and your grasp of retail economics (on which which you still appear to set arbitrary and unrealistic constraints and expectations).
I’m having quite a problem with attribution. Uncommon Sense made the claim about “other issues” and “not smart” (or rather, “stupid”). As for the mental illness aspect, you were more or less suggesting that I should consider my thinking about what constitutes a type A personality as probably being more characteristic of OCD. I think my brain is even scrambling attributions from other threads at times. It’s pathetic really.