The image Microsoft doesn't want you to see

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

The nail has been firmly hit on the head!

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Bonson Michael, just for comparison reasons - after I read drumdude post about Poles culture, I could have told him how ignorant he was and use that word more times than you did in your reply to my post. But instead I put some arguments out and said my opinion. In your case what happened was labeling me as ignorant and that was about it. Ignorant by the way is someone who always thinks is right and does't want to hear diefferent opinion. So in that way you labeled me and excluded from discussion because you and others didn't make any point to the subject except applauding you how great it is to shut up someone talking nonsence. So I thought there is no point to waste my time here when nobody is talking about subject but my ignorance. When all of you know so much about politics and economics how that everyone is quiet?

 

​

 

Ignorant?

Of course not!

LOL!!

 

I guess you couldn't find this picture.

 

No, you are ignorant because, despite not ever having been to China, you act as if you know how things are there... among other things.

For the record, "ignorant" does NOT mean "someone who always thinks he is right and doesn't want to hear a different opinion". I suggest you check that word out in the dictionary, as it is clear that you are... ignorant about the word ignorant.

By all means, continue to give your opinion. Different opinions are what make forums great. But don't get your panties in a wad when someone with first-hand knowledge on the subject says you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I didn't want to talk about China really. I explained my point on previous page. But then, you didn't contribute in discussion with anything else but labeling me and still you are doing it. What are your opinions then - NOT ABOUT ME BEING IGNORANT - but about thing I said about unfair low pay?
Or otherwise we will continue labeling as I am tempted to label you now as an arrogant tw**!!!

 

No wonder my computer parts never come in working order.......... Its the customers that pay in the end

 

Len you make an excellent point there!

During my band days I used to use Mackie PA systems mainly the SRM450s and SW1501 subs! Now back in the day when they were all the rage you'd be guaranteed at 15 years life from such gear! Initially they were made in the US, then Mackie bought RCF (well known Italian speaker manufacturer) so they were made in the Italy. The speakers that I had were the Italian makes from the RCF factory. Now those speakers were rained on, probably p*ssed on, one actually fell out of my car and BUSTED the paving slab at the Bristol Aztec West hotel, dropped downstairs, turned up to the max...you name it! Those speakers really took some sh1t! And regardless, they never failed!

Then Mackie did something odd! They sold the RCF factory (it's now RCF again) and shifted production to China! The result? Those speaker lines are now known to be most unreliable! I go on the Mackie forums and you read people moaning about how their 'new' SRM450s or SW1501 subs overheat and cut out at gigs...at a gig?? That is just the worst possible scenario! And I don't mean a few people moaning...I mean LOTS of people moaning!

Its a shame really! And guess what? When production shifted to China (cheaper labour costs) did the unit prices go down? NO!

 

Well... that's what this thread is about. If you didn't want to talk about China, you probably should have started your own thread.

Oooo, please, don't call me that. I'm not sure I could survive if you did!

Oh, wait... I guess I can.

If you *really* want my opinion... if someone is willing to work for those wages, then the pay is not unfair. Simple as that.

See, that's how employers determine fair wages... if they can hire people who are capable of doing a particular job for a certain amount of money, they're not gonna pay more than that. If they can't, then they have to raise the salary offer.

You can go on and on and on whining about how unfair it is that some poooooor person is making six pound an hour... but if the employer can find someone else qualified to fill the position for that amount of money, the employer would be irresponsible to pay more. After all, employers aren't in business to keep people employed... employers are in business to make money.

On the flip side, if those pooooor people aren't happy with making that little, they can always look for a better job. But if they don't have any other skills, they're probably gonna be faced with the same problem no matter where they go.

And this is why your logic is flawed... you haven't thought these things through. You simply rage against the machine with no thought as to why those people make what they make. Or if you have thought them through, then you're missing some crucial information - the employer's point of view.

Call me what you will, IT2009. But, believe it or not, I'm trying to help you out by giving you information you don't have. If I *really* were an arrogant tw**, I'd let you soak in your own ignorance. Thankfully, I'm not wired like that.

 

Have to agree with every word of the above from BM, spot on.

 

Plesently surprised acutally, with final reply from you where finaly discussion continued without labeling and not saying any oppinion. And you trying to help me - as you say - it doesn't sound genuine at all. It took ages from me being "punched", and after all, me calling you arrogant tw** to get to this here.Instead of your "punch" post, this one should 've been there.
It just looks to me that "pooor" people how you call them, are useful to do cheap work. It can't be that simple. If they don't take any job, they will starve. They take whatever they find. Problem is that everyone can't get skilled as there are people less capable of studying, or with disabilities. As an example, When very well off people are out of work they can afford to be unemployed for looooong time and be picky and negotiate for months about contract points... And on the other side poooor people can't afford to be unemployed for long time and they are desperate to take anything to cover bills/food basics... So it doesn't look to me so simple and it doesn't look like emplorers and employees have same amount of choices and low pay always survives.
Sorry if this is out of topic. If anyone wants to continue with this then I will open new thread - if necessary

 

Calling people arrogant tw**s can get you banned from the forums... so remember that the next time you think you have the right to do so.

If they don't want to do cheap work, they should learn a skill. It *can* be that simple.

Everyone who wants to get skilled CAN get skilled. If they're "less capable of studying", then sorry, they're gonna be doing an unskilled job making minimum wage. Why should employers pay them more just because they are "less capable of studying"? If they want to get a better job, then they'll have to train to get it... and not all "skilled" jobs take brainpower. And disabled people can get skilled as well... just because they're disabled, that doesn't mean they're useless.

Never said they did have the same amount of choices. Life isn't fair and equal. Everybody doesn't have the same resources. That's just life. And don't pretend for an instant that you CAN'T pull yourself up by your bootstraps and succeed... I did it, others can too.

I have no idea what you mean by "low pay always survives". There will always be low-paying jobs because there are always going to be jobs that take no training or skills to do. These will ALWAYS be low-paying jobs. Always. If employers paid them twice as much, then the cost for that employer's goods and services would have to increase (that extra money to pay for salaries has to come from somewhere). Further, the employer would likely raise the salaries of the skilled laborers as well because their jobs are typically more difficult (or require more training) than unskilled positions (and the costs of goods and services would increase even more). Before you know it, those people in the low-paying jobs have the same purchasing power that they did before. That's just basic economics.

Some jobs are always going to be low paying jobs. In your "perfect world", who should be making low salaries, if not the people who make them now? Nobody? If so, then please, tell me how you think that would work.

It's completely off topic. It has nothing at all to do with this thread, which was about a news article covering the poor working conditions in China and the reporter's allegation that it's (directly or indirectly) Microsoft's fault. And that's why I initially didn't respond to your rant - it was (and still is) off topic.

 

It's quite funny, those that want to survive will do all that they can to, growing up my mum juggled 3 or 4 jobs (sometimes getting home at 2am, to be up for 6 and in town for 8:30). Why did she do that? To help us, to let us have a better life.

I should point out that growing up I was the eldest of 3 in a single parent family (in the 70's and 80's that was quite an unknown thing), we lived in a squalid damp infested flat for a number of years, the only reason things improved there was because my mother was a fighter (not literally of course), she fought to have the flat improved and more often than not won. We weren't rich, we weren't well off nor were we highly educated (the only one of us to have gone to uni is my younger brother, he is 5 years younger than me).

I left school with little to no qualifications, in fact I didn't even have an English exam (I got a U for Unclassified), what that meant is that I left school at 16 with no qualifications and very little prospect, the only thing going for me at the time was that I was joining the Army (I did and spent 10 years in the Army, from 16 - 26).

I like to think that now that I am 40 that I am doing ok for myself, I still don't class myself as rich but I do class it as doing ok. I have worked bloody hard to get where I am today, and where I am today is living in a nice house, with a loving wife and son and surviving (just).

Oh and to add a little more to this. my wife is Hungarian, she grew up behind the Iron Curtain and she can see a lot of differences when it comes to people wanting\needing to work, during the time of Communism people had to work otherwise they were arrested, now days Hungary isn't all that great, there is a lot of unemployment, corruption within the government and Hungary is not a place she will ever move back to, yet obviously Hungary appeals to the people that live there, why? because it's all they have known, of course now that communism has failed there people who choose not to work, don't. Whilst those who do want to work (and improve themselves and their families) do.

You say that the poor can't pick themselves up, well you're wrong, you have to want to pick yourself up, if you're willing to do that then that cheap job at Tesco may be all the difference between your family improving itself or not.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you have a chip on your shoulder for one reason or another and your view on people is a little jaded.

 

Nobody in their right mind can win the offshoring argument from a moral perspective. The low-paid jobs (sugar cane growers in El Salvador, sweatshop clothes manufacturers in Taiwan etc.) are just exploitative slave-labour, whilst the higher-paid jobs (technical outsourcing to India, call centres in South Africa etc.) are f***ing the population of the country of origin over. Can't win the argument on morality grounds whichever way you go. Unfortunately, it's one of the very fundamental principles of the global free-market - so until somebody comes up with a better, workable solution to free-market capitalism, we're stuck with it.

Like it or not, absolutely everyone in the West is complicit in the exploitation of the third world - whether knowingly, or unknowingly. However, I don't notice anyone on here - or anywhere else, for that matter, coming up with a better solution for the global redistribution of wealth. Communism has failed miserably (for various reasons, the main ones being that people still want the illusion that they are free to do whatever they want in life, and that no matter how fundamentally sound a belief system based on working for the good of a collective is (and communism is FAR from fundamentally sound), it's human nature to want more and better for yourself than 'the norm'). We'll never see a return to the Socialism of the 1950s-1970s - which is all good because, despite some obvious successes (education for all, the National Health Service), at its heart, Socialism without wholesale redistribution of wealth is a deeply flawed ideology.

Anyone got any better ideologies for the basis of a modern, highly-connected, globally-based, technically advanced society? Because until something that makes sense comes along, free-market capitalism is what we're stuck with. I long ago gave up giving a ****, because there is precisely zero I - or anyone else - can do about changing the status quo. No amount of Naomi Klein books, or chucking bricks through McDonalds' windows, or buying free-trade coffee will make any difference.

 

I really like that word moral was mentioned here. At least, this is all about it.
SimonD, like your wife, I came from her neighbour country Croatia and know what she went through, though Croatia, then part of Yugoslavia under Tito power was liberated from Stalin domination so we were enjoying more freedom. I educated myself here and worked for that. Now jobhunting. I never said that you can't pick yourself up. I strongly believe that people should be fighters and that it is possible to achieve things. There is nothing I like less than people who complain and do nothing to make their lives better.
It is only that one thing is contradictional to me regarding pay. How that people on benefits are better off than people who work for national minimum wage? I found that absurd. And it makes people not wanting to work. Is work so patronised? I am mortified by this fact. How that minimum wage doesn't meet living needs?
B.M.( if we talk about rules than you were the first one to cross them as you talked about me (telling me off for ignorance and that I was spreading propaganda(????!!)) and didn't talk about what was said. Furter than this I won't answer to other acid bits because it ruines discussion).
If low pay is increased than companies will have less profit but they would still have profit or not?
I didn't say disabled are useless I only ment those who really can't do than low paid jobs. And I don't want to give impression that I am talking about increasing low pay to high, I just said to increase it to meet living wage and living wage doesn't meet
nat. minimum wage. I think it is a shame esspecially for multimillion companies that take advantage of that law and even take advantage of cheap labour abroad.

 

The sooner you realise that Industry is only out to improve their bottom line the sooner you will realise that life is what it is, as long as you remember that companies only want to earn more profit and if they can do that by paying cheaper wages to people capable and willing to do it at that price then they will do so.

I recently had a agency calling me up about a Configuration Manager job (SCCM 2007), now what you have to realise is that SCCM 2007 is a niche market, it's specialised and getting someone to do the work usually costs money. One company was failing to find people to do the work and the reason for that is that they were only willing to pay 50% of the market rate, my comment to the agency was that as soon as they woke up and realise that the skills required for that work were worth more than they were offering, the sooner they would find someone willing to take on the work. So far they haven't and they have been looking for 1 month now.
There are times when being a tad stubborn can pay off however it's more likely that it will pay off for someone else, but if everyone takes a stand occasionally wages and contractor rates will start to creep up again.