• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How many times have you been fired?

How many times have you been fired?

  • 0

    Votes: 45 55.6%

  • 1

    Votes: 15 18.5%

  • 2

    Votes: 13 16.0%

  • 3

    Votes: 2 2.5%

  • 4

    Votes: 3 3.7%

  • 5+

    Votes: 3 3.7%
  • Total voters
    81
Cephus said:
There's a difference between being fired and being laid off, you know. One is for cause, one is for lack of work.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I've been laid off when a business failed (moron criminal owner). Never fired.
 
Not surprisingly, people who have never been fired like to respond to this post.
 
Gathomas88 said:
No, Corporate HQ was stopping them, because they put a freeze on hiring, because the general consensus was that Obama's re-election was bad for the economy, and they wanted to play things safe.

This isn't a hard concept.
Click to expand...

And yet since the end of the Financial Crisis / Great Recession, we have consistently had the strongest performing economy of any large developed nation on earth...
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
And yet since the end of the Financial Crisis / Great Recession, we have consistently had the strongest performing economy of any large developed nation on earth...
Click to expand...

Oh, goodie. Yet another kneejerk, wannabe thread derailing, partisan attack post from a Lefty poster defending the economic honor of ye fair Damsel "Incumbent."

My, who could have ever seen it coming... :roll:

For the record, however, you're aware that basically our only competition in this regard are the notoriously slow-growth "Social Welfare" economies of uber-taxed, uber-regulated, and uber-mortaged Western Europe, and Japan, a country actively in the process of imploding in on itself from old age, right? :lol:

We were beating all those countries on just about every growth related indicator before 2008 as well. The Great Recession didn't really "change" anything in that regard, so much as it simply kept the same dynamic, but with the bar set lower for everyone.

Pretty much everyone else is either a developing nation, and therefore beating the pants off of us, or not a "large" nation.
 
Last edited:
chromium said:
because **** corporations, that's why

you pay someone 1/20000th what the boss makes and they aren't gonna be reliable, period
Click to expand...

Maybe that's all their work is worth.
 
0, i did have one employer refuse to give me the tuesday night i wanted, 3 weeks later the employee he gave it to....got drunk on duty and crashed the patrol truck into a ditch then fled the scene on foot. on tuesday night. many a hearty guffaw was had the following day :lamo
 
Gathomas88 said:
No, Corporate HQ was stopping them, because they put a freeze on hiring, because the general consensus was that Obama's re-election was bad for the economy, and they wanted to play things safe.

This isn't a hard concept.
Click to expand...
Elections have consequences. Apparently, some people find this concept difficult. Hiring decisions factor in predicted future business enviroment, and BO getting a second term was widely seen as not good for business. There was also a run on firearms and ammo after that election as it was generally believed that a second term would bring out the gun control nutter everyone knew BO was. His attempts to stop certain imports and ban green tips, as well as his rhetoric, proved that to be the case but surprisingly, the pubs held the line.
 
Zero, but not because I never had a fall-out with an employer; in fact, it's the complete opposite: I clashed with every professional organization with which I had a formal tie. Incidentally, however, it never came to firing. Instead it'd result in a tacit agreement that I'd finish my contract and we'd part ways forever. What's peculiar is how I reconnected with almost all of them after a long period of estrangement.
 
99percenter said:
How many times have you mean fired, "let go", laid off for any reason?
Click to expand...

Not something I've experienced or ever will at this point in my life. It's gotta be traumatic.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
Elections have consequences. Apparently, some people find this concept difficult. Hiring decisions factor in predicted future business enviroment, and BO getting a second term was widely seen as not good for business. There was also a run on firearms and ammo after that election as it was generally believed that a second term would bring out the gun control nutter everyone knew BO was. His attempts to stop certain imports and ban green tips, as well as his rhetoric, proved that to be the case but surprisingly, the pubs held the line.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. I got to see that personally. We almost literally didn't have anything left by the time the holidays were over.

That's actually the only reason I don't own an AR-15 myself right now. We sold out before I got the chance to get one. :lol:
 
EMNofSeattle said:
no one is worth 2000 times more then another person. no one.
Click to expand...

How many people you figure are able to successfully lead an Apple or Microsoft? What kind of skills and training do you need for that job? How much does that person directly affect the bottom line of the firm and the amount of money shareholders make?

Now answer those same questions about the janitor.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Oh, yeah. I got to see that personally. We almost literally didn't have anything left by the time the holidays were over.

That's actually the only reason I don't own an AR-15 myself right now. We sold out before I got the chance to get one. [emoji38]
Click to expand...
I think, based on past history, that now may be the time to buy. If it looks like Clinton is going to win by thus summer, people will rightfully worry about a return of the "assault weapon ban" as well as all the other crazy stuff being floated (universal BG checks, capacity bans, etc). I expect panic buying to start after the dem convention, which means run up in prides. This will be especially true if it looks like the dems may retake the Senate and/or the House.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
no one is worth 2000 times more then another person. no one.
Click to expand...

Has value to the economy? Yes, individuals may have value to the economy at or in excess of 2000x the lowest paid persons wage.

Look at movie stars, and sports stars...if they can bring in millions simply with their name, how are you going to deny it?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
no one is worth 2000 times more then another person. no one.
Click to expand...

if i require arcane programming to be performed, which program is essential to the success of my business, yes, i will pay that programmer 2000 times (and more) what i would offer some person without those essential skills
ditto for someone to perform my surgery
likewise for someone to pilot my plane
i do not want to hire the person who will charge me the lowest cost for such requirements
 
radcen said:
"Worth" is subjective.
Click to expand...
There is only one metric for "worth": what someone is willing to pay. That's why there are very few if not no $100/hour lawn mowers, fruit pickers, or cashiers: no one is willing to pay that, they're all low-skilled jobs that many can be trained to do on the job relatively quickly, and consequently they are easily replaceable. This is unlike a CEO, certain law practices, or medical specialities to name a few: the barrier to entry is very high, there is a severe culling to survive to get to those positions, and lives and millions if not billions if dollars are on the line. While no one is irreplaceable, the disruption caused by one of the latter leaving can affect for many months if not years.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
There is only one metric for "worth": what someone is willing to pay. That's why there are very few if not no $100/hour lawn mowers, fruit pickers, or cashiers: no one is willing to pay that, they're all low-skilled jobs that many can be trained to do on the job relatively quickly, and consequently they are easily replaceable. This is unlike a CEO, certain law practices, or medical specialities to name a few: the barrier to entry is very high, there is a severe culling to survive to get to those positions, and lives and millions if not billions if dollars are on the line. While no one is irreplaceable, the disruption caused by one of the latter leaving can affect for many months if not years.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's even that easy.

Take professional baseball players, for example. On the one hand, a mediocre veteran player can get $5 mil/yr, and I suppose that's what he's "worth", even if he tanks and/or isn't really that good.

On the other hand, the 3rd year phenom might be a far better player making a huge impact, far more than his teammate mentioned above, yet he gets paid the major league minimum ($500K+/-, whatever it is this year), because he hasn't even reached arbitration yet, let alone free agent status. There would most likely be teams willing to pay more if he were available, but his current team only pays what they have to (and maybe a tad more, but usually not much more). His "worth" would be more in an open market, but he's paid less due to artificial restrictions.

This is an outlier, granted, but an example that it's not always so simple.
 
radcen said:
I don't think it's even that easy.

Take professional baseball players, for example. On the one hand, a mediocre veteran player can get $5 mil/yr, and I suppose that's what he's "worth", even if he tanks and/or isn't really that good.

On the other hand, the 3rd year phenom might be a far better player making a huge impact, far more than his teammate mentioned above, yet he gets paid the major league minimum ($500K+/-, whatever it is this year), because he hasn't even reached arbitration yet, let alone free agent status. There would most likely be teams willing to pay more if he were available, but his current team only pays what they have to (and maybe a tad more, but usually not much more). His "worth" would be more in an open market, but he's paid less due to artificial restrictions.

This is an outlier, granted, but an example that it's not always so simple.
Click to expand...
It's still what someone is willing to pay to get what they want. The mediocre veteran player is still deemed worth 5 million to the employers, even if his numbers don't warrant it compared to others. There could be many reasons for this: fan favorite, thus his presence help ticket sales and ratings, belief that he has a standout season or two left and don't want to risk having him have it for another team, serves as a team leader/mentor and thus helps other players have better seasons, or maybe it's as simple as the owner likes him. Regardless, the person writing the check has determined that it's worth it for some reason.

Now, it sounds like the third year phenom is locked in to that team for some period of time, so there's little incentive to pay more. That is the nature of contracts. Both sides agreed to it upfront, both took a risk: the player that his performance would warrant more, the employer that it would warrant less.

Barring contractual obligations, either side coukd walk away at any point in negotiations. Striking a deal is the balance between the seller (player) and buyer (team owner) eventually deciding on a compensation package.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
It's still what someone is willing to pay to get what they want. The mediocre veteran player is still deemed worth 5 million to the employers, even if his numbers don't warrant it compared to others. There could be many reasons for this: fan favorite, thus his presence help ticket sales and ratings, belief that he has a standout season or two left and don't want to risk having him have it for another team, serves as a team leader/mentor and thus helps other players have better seasons, or maybe it's as simple as the owner likes him. Regardless, the person writing the check has determined that it's worth it for some reason.

Now, it sounds like the third year phenom is locked in to that team for some period of time, so there's little incentive to pay more. That is the nature of contracts. Both sides agreed to it upfront, both took a risk: the player that his performance would warrant more, the employer that it would warrant less.

Barring contractual obligations, either side coukd walk away at any point in negotiations. Striking a deal is the balance between the seller (player) and buyer (team owner) eventually deciding on a compensation package.
Click to expand...
It's a deal between the union and the owners, and one could say the player agrees to it by playing and accepting it, but that's a little disingenuous as similar options elsewhere simply do not exist. And also not my point. My point was solely that, barring artificial barriers like this, that 3rd year phenom would most likely be paid a lot more. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
If memory serves, I was "fired" twice, and laid off from a temporary job (kidna seasonal, frankly) once.
Both times I got fired were when I was younger and stupider.
 
radcen said:
It's a deal between the union and the owners, and one could say the player agrees to it by playing and accepting it, but that's a little disingenuous as similar options elsewhere simply do not exist. And also not my point. My point was solely that, barring artificial barriers like this, that 3rd year phenom would most likely be paid a lot more. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...
Options do exist, the player could simply not play if he thinks he's being grossly underpaid due to union deals. That's one of the problems of collective bargaining: it helps underperformers and hurts achievers, as everyone gets paid the same based on some other metric (seniority, position, etc).
 
Citizen.Seven said:
Options do exist, the player could simply not play if he thinks he's being grossly underpaid due to union deals. That's one of the problems of collective bargaining: it helps underperformers and hurts achievers, as everyone gets paid the same based on some other metric (seniority, position, etc).
Click to expand...
I was fully expecting the "no option" option. :lol:

I'm surprised you didn't trot out the "He can start his own league and get all the money he wants." option. That's always good for an eye roll and a laugh.

Regardless, considering practical real-world options, his pay is still artificially limited. "Better than nothing" still does not equal what he could get with no artificial barriers.
 
radcen said:
I was fully expecting the "no option" option. [emoji38]

I'm surprised you didn't trot out the "He can start his own league and get all the money he wants." option. That's always good for an eye roll and a laugh.

Regardless, considering practical real-world options, his pay is still artificially limited. "Better than nothing" still does not equal what he could get with no artificial barriers.
Click to expand...

True, but the source of those barriers is the contract with the players union. Artificial ceilings to pay go along with artificial minimums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom