No words can express the horror of this pension system.

One is an example.

Another example would be the employee wants to further their education. Another example is the employee wants to move to another country. Another example is that the employee is at the age of retirement and would prefer to live off of SS/investments. Another example is the employee decides to stay home with their kids. These are all examples.

The point is that when the employee feels that their continued employment is not in their best interests they leave. And yet you seem to have a problem with the employer determining that the continued employment of an employee is not in the best interests of the company. Its a two way street. As long as the arrangement is mutually beneficial it should be continued. Once it is no longer good for EITHER party it should be able to be terminated.

Lewk, are you dissecting the pension-benefit system, or who determines "disability"? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

One is an example.

Another example

---

...could be made using the research already presented in this thread about how a WalMart retail employee could have difficulty leaving because WalMart depresses wages and pushes out retail positions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The point is that when the employee feels that their continued employment is not in their best interests they leave.

---

This is statement is so broad and generic its useless. You know where this is going, you know what you're trying to avoid, and yet you keeping saying stupid shit like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Lewk, are you dissecting the pension-benefit system, or who determines "disability"? :confused:

---

Lewk has displayed enough short term thinking to suggest that LTD and its medical expenses, say for cancer treatment, aren't beneficial to the employer.

Well, it depends on the employer/employee relationship....whether or not LTD is valuable, or cost-effective. As if that's how LTD should be measured. :sour:

Someone like Steve Jobs had a "worth" several million (or billion) times above his personal and corporate health insurance premiums and claims. His expensive European non-traditional treatments, liver transplant, and extended time off were paid for by his domestic employees, international sub-conractors, and every single Apple product consumer.

The same can't be said of every other Apple employee, or their sub-contractors. The Apple HQ lunch-room lady may be employed by XYZ Services, with no benefits whatsoever. The Chinese assembly line employee most likely can't get the LTD for paralyzed hands that a US Apple worker could.

So, now we have US consumers being forced to weigh domestic and international labor costs, "human rights", and how that translates into product pricing. The free toaster with every new bank account has morphed into something different. And for good reasons.

???

I agree that strawberries in Peru are way too expensive.

ie...who's responsible for retirement pensions and disability? Who's "worthy" of those long-term benefits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous

This is statement is so broad and generic its useless. You know where this is going, you know what you're trying to avoid, and yet you keeping saying stupid shit like this.

---

Obviously, but maybe we could benefit from exploring it in-depth. Even if one disagrees with the Maslow hierarchy of needs, we can roughly say that the line dividing the argument here is that Lewk is willing to go all the way down to nutrition and housing within the personal interests column, effectively enslaving people, which obviously flies smack into the face of Enlightenment-brought values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

...could be made using the research already presented in this thread about how a WalMart retail employee could have difficulty leaving because WalMart depresses wages and pushes out retail positions.



This is statement is so broad and generic its useless. You know where this is going, you know what you're trying to avoid, and yet you keeping saying stupid shit like this.



Lewk has displayed enough short term thinking to suggest that LTD and its medical expenses, say for cancer treatment, aren't beneficial to the employer.

---

So lets be clear. Are you suggesting an employer should be *required* to keep on employees who's costs outweigh their benefits? Would you say the same if the situation was reversed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I agree that strawberries in Peru are way too expensive.

---

ha ha.

Strawberries are just a food commodity, but the US consumer expects to find fresh strawberries in the produce aisle of every grocery store, at an affordable price. Define "affordable". We want fresh strawberries, and we want them now, even in the dead of winter...as long as they don't cost too much. What does that mean, and how is that "valued"?

The costs of gas + car insurance + driving the family car to buy fresh produce? Health or environmental impacts? The appendage prices of transporting fresh strawberries from Mexico vs California around the US?

The Big Box vendors like Walmart can sell strawberries at a lower price per quart/pint than small time local growers/distributors, because Walmart buys/sells using a futures and bulk contract model. Walmart can sell any one commodity item below cost, and transfer other costs to their huge inventory and purchasing powers. 2 dollar t-shirts, 3 dollar gas, and cheap strawberries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

So lets be clear. Are you suggesting an employer should be *required* to keep on employees who's costs outweigh their benefits? Would you say the same if the situation was reversed?

---

Sorry lewk, I know this makes your head hurt, but the world isn't this black and white. You're not going to turn this into an example of theft being an excuse to allow employers to release cancer victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Sorry lewk, I know this makes your head hurt, but the world isn't this black and white. You're not going to turn this into an example of theft being an excuse to allow employers to release cancer victims.

---

:up: Lewk's wife is a cancer survivor. She didn't "steal" anything from anyone, let alone an employer.

Most of us would see that as a triumph of cutting-edge (expensive) medical science, and not just what employer-subsidized health insurance agrees to cover. We can be glad for the Lewkowskian family, give credits to medical science, and want everyone to enjoy the same "benefits". Regardless of employment status or employer subsidized insurance.

Lewk, would you agree to the same principles?

Do costs and benefits exist in only one dimension?

Of course not. Wait, who're you talking to, minx?

I am of course talking to 1D-Lewk :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I said, "It does NOT cost thousands of dollars to train a temporary/seasonal or retail/cashier jockey".

---

Good for you. Are you, like especially proud of yourself, or are you just repeating yourself so you can hear more of your voice?

I said, and am correct in saying:

Even a minimum wage cashier jockey costs thousands of dollars to train[...]

Don't like it, understand it, or agree with it? Too bad. I don't give a shit, and I don't particularly care to explain it to you. And, by the by, just to give us all an idea about where your knowledge and expertise on the subject comes from..., when was the last time you worked in a professional capacity in a corporate environment and/or took a business class? Never, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Sorry lewk, I know this makes your head hurt, but the world isn't this black and white.

---

Actually, it is pretty black-and-white, or ought to be. As a government-employee, you may just have to take the word of someone who actually works for a living for a few things here, but trust me, employment is a mutually beneficial agreement. The employee benefits by finding someone willing to translate his labor into money, and the employer benefits by putting that labor to a more profitable use than the wages and benefits paid out.

And, like all mutually-beneficial, consensual arrangements, either party ought to be free to end or renegotiate it at any time, for any reason, unless there's something like a prearranged contract in place. With "at-will" employment, which most of us are under, we can quit at any time for any reason, and the same rules ought to apply to the employer being allowed to terminate the arrangement (any time, any reason). Of course, that's not how it works, because of interference from lefties, politicians, morons and other assorted people who wouldn't know what an honest day of work looked like if it bit them in the ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Good for you. Are you, like especially proud of yourself, or are you just repeating yourself so you can hear more of your voice?
I said, and am correct in saying:
Even a minimum wage cashier jockey costs thousands of dollars to train[...]
Don't like it, understand it, or agree with it? Too bad. I don't give a shit, and I don't particularly care to explain it to you. And, by the by, just to give us all an idea about where your knowledge and expertise on the subject comes from..., when was the last time you worked in a professional capacity in a corporate environment and/or took a business class? Never, right?

---

I've tried to disagree without being disagreeable, but disagreeing with the All Knowing and Ever Powerful CitizenCain only awakens the essence of his inner Troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

These claims are not the same

---

You're right people quit even when they have benefit in order to get more. Both Lewk's statements were true though.