Its not stonewalling. I can not help your repeated mischaracterizations and lack of comprehension of my position which is the norm for you, it seems.
All I’m asking is why would you expect high quality employees at bargain bin prices.
Why is this so hard for you to answer?
Dude.... it is pretty clear that Billy is saying that he does NOT expect "high quality employees at bargain bin prices". I am pretty sure he basically said that in the post you quoted: "First, I do not expect anything muchless a "phenom employee". ".
He is saying Wal-Mart does not care about having "high quality" employees. Management at the top has decided that they dont need them and they are willing to live with the negatives of having lower quality employees.
He is also very clearly saying that even though a bottom rung employee at Wal-Mart has no ability to move up the chain at Wal-Mart they can prove to their managers that they are a high quality worker then go apply somewhere else (like Costco) and use those managers from the previous job as a reference. TADA! Moving up the low skill worker ladder. Moving between companies is very common to obtain an increase in pay. Even in the tech world where resources (employees) are highly mobile and usually highly trained with special knowledge and companies know this... it's still usually a lot easier to get a raise by finding a new job every 3-5 years than to stay where you are.
Short term? Sure it is, as a lifestyle - nope. Hirers hate seeing people spend less than 5 years almost universally. With computer stuff being 2-3 years a project generally and most 'project based' exceptions wanting at least 2 projects out of you first, I'd think that field would stay the course overall as way. However I only hired management for such positions at VZW and never at Wegmans - so my only experience comes from my 2 years beta testing with Microprose around the time SH bought them.
Neat, they're infallible? That's an amazing retort. Just like your understanding of HR apparently exceeding mine where I have professional experience.
Ask ANY professional hirer if they like to see a series of sub 2 yr jobs on a resume for a serious career position and the answer will be a resounding 'NO!'
Rehiring and retraining are wasted energy because of short term hires that generally don't hit peak productivity until year 3-4 in most fields.
But please tell me more of how little I know of my profession.
The caveat to that is people who have a history of job hopping to progressively better positions and pay show they have the ability to climb the ladder even if the ladder isn't continuous within a specific company. You're very correct in what you say as far as dealing with most static positions which is of course extremely relevant to the thread but there are those people and also companies who look for the ravenous job rabbit and acknowledge it as a sign of advanced potential and ambition. It's definitely the exception to the rule and most companies while not emulating the Japanese in their desire for company loyalty and obedience still want more worker ants than rock stars.
There's some educated fields that is relevant to - but they're in the drastic minority and in all cases I can think of have an education background requirement.
There are some exceptions most hirers allow to like few will hold a 'I tried to starta business and it failed in 2 yyears' against you, but that's the exception not the rule.
Note: Most of those fields, I'd still personally consider jobs because the majority are contract-based either directly or right above you where you don't have a potential 30 year track at one place unless you're VERY lucky.
Where are these 30 year track careers? I cannot think of a single example off the top of my head. I think this is more of an exception not the rule.
Medical, financial, retail, construction - tech is the only regular exception but that's only for small firms usually because tech companies disappear more regularly than normal ones.
It's the most mercenary of career track categories as a result, no doubt.
Neat, they're infallible? That's an amazing retort. Just like your understanding of HR apparently exceeding mine where I have professional experience.
Ask ANY professional hirer if they like to see a series of sub 2 yr jobs on a resume for a serious career position and the answer will be a resounding 'NO!'
Rehiring and retraining are wasted energy because of short term hires that generally don't hit peak productivity until year 3-4 in most fields.
But please tell me more of how little I know of my profession.
The caveat to that is people who have a history of job hopping to progressively better positions and pay show they have the ability to climb the ladder even if the ladder isn't continuous within a specific company. You're very correct in what you say as far as dealing with most static positions which is of course extremely relevant to the thread but there are those people and also companies who look for the ravenous job rabbit and acknowledge it as a sign of advanced potential and ambition. It's definitely the exception to the rule and most companies while not emulating the Japanese in their desire for company loyalty and obedience still want more worker ants than rock stars.
There's some educated fields that is relevant to - but they're in the drastic minority and in all cases I can think of have an education background requirement.
There are some exceptions most hirers allow to like few will hold a 'I tried to starta business and it failed in 2 yyears' against you, but that's the exception not the rule.
Note: Most of those fields, I'd still personally consider jobs because the majority are contract-based either directly or right above you where you don't have a potential 30 year track at one place unless you're VERY lucky.
Where are these 30 year track careers? I cannot think of a single example off the top of my head. I think this is more of an exception not the rule.
Medical, financial, retail, construction - tech is the only regular exception but that's only for small firms usually because tech companies disappear more regularly than normal ones.
It's the most mercenary of career track categories as a result, no doubt.
I guess IBM counts as a small firm now? I know of plenty of large tech businesses that have people jumping in and out all the time. IBM has a wonderful habit of laying everyone off after a project is completed. I know of another place in the electrical utility industry that has an average employee life of 3 years (it's rare to find someone that has been there for more than 5-6 years). I work for a place that has a couple hundred engineering staff and while there are guys that have been here for 10 years there are just as many that have rotated in and out after only a few.
This is largely because business dont like giving out big raises or promotions. If I am a software engineering making 60K a year chances are I can choose to accept my 3% raise each year... or after a few years of experience I can jump ship and negotiate for a 15%-20% raise somewhere else. Why? Mostly because businesses box their employees. When you're hired right out of college you get put in the 50K-65K box, you cant make more than that because that's not what the position is for, if you dont like it they'll hire a new guy that fits that box. It doesnt matter that you do the work of a 65K-75K box, that wasnt what you were hired for. Management (upper level) wont realize that there is an issue with the size box they assigned until you are already gone.
Well 3% being their standard raise would be a sign of a problem in the company - tech is a weird field to me that was rather fledgling when I was educating compared to now. But as stated earlier 7% more raise is generally where the average worker is motivated to move rather than stay. So with 3% vs an easy 15%+ like you quote they know the issue they're creating and are intentionally fostering it.
There are plenty of tech firms that don't rotate though - sister in law is one her second job of her career - at 45 in tech, British Telecom, Google, then back to BC when she wanted to return to Boston. (She lost money doing it, Google offered everything but making a Boston branch to keep her) Somewhere around 5/10/10 for years on each leg.
Companies that intend to keep people usually look at 10-12% as a reachable increase annually - with 5-6% as the norm. (At least in sub $100k tiers) If I gave out a 3% wage bump it was always a not so subtle, 'You're not wanted, but I can't fire you' message.
Neat, they're infallible? That's an amazing retort. Just like your understanding of HR apparently exceeding mine where I have professional experience.
Well, I had three jobs in the past two years and got hired at 16.xx/hr with a period of no employment in between.
Ask ANY professional hirer if they like to see a series of sub 2 yr jobs on a resume for a serious career position and the answer will be a resounding 'NO!'
This is you, once again, pivoting away from the issue being discussed and that's getting better pay for low-wage workers....or are you more concerned with them getting career rather than better pay.
Besides, you assume someone has to job hop or I'm making some claim that someone will have to get several jobs in a short period of time....when in reality they they may only need to job hop once or twice.
But please tell me more of how little I know of my profession.
Your experiences directly contradicts mine. I'm not even sure you can quantify a "career type job". This goes without saying, the discussion is not even about obtaining a "career type job" but rather a job that pays better.
Its not stonewalling. I can not help your repeated mischaracterizations and lack of comprehension of my position which is the norm for you, it seems.
All I’m asking is why would you expect high quality employees at bargain bin prices.
Why is this so hard for you to answer?
Dude.... it is pretty clear that Billy is saying that he does NOT expect "high quality employees at bargain bin prices". I am pretty sure he basically said that in the post you quoted: "First, I do not expect anything muchless a "phenom employee". ".
He is saying Wal-Mart does not care about having "high quality" employees. Management at the top has decided that they dont need them and they are willing to live with the negatives of having lower quality employees.
He is also very clearly saying that even though a bottom rung employee at Wal-Mart has no ability to move up the chain at Wal-Mart they can prove to their managers that they are a high quality worker then go apply somewhere else (like Costco) and use those managers from the previous job as a reference. TADA! Moving up the low skill worker ladder. Moving between companies is very common to obtain an increase in pay. Even in the tech world where resources (employees) are highly mobile and usually highly trained with special knowledge and companies know this... it's still usually a lot easier to get a raise by finding a new job every 3-5 years than to stay where you are.
Short term? Sure it is, as a lifestyle - nope. Hirers hate seeing people spend less than 5 years almost universally. With computer stuff being 2-3 years a project generally and most 'project based' exceptions wanting at least 2 projects out of you first, I'd think that field would stay the course overall as way. However I only hired management for such positions at VZW and never at Wegmans - so my only experience comes from my 2 years beta testing with Microprose around the time SH bought them.
I do not think you understand how modular and adaptable the marketplace has to be these days. So much so, I will never spend 30 years with one company nor would I expect to for the simple fact, there are no pensions anymore and companies have to shift into entire new markets at a much quicker pace. It's imperative I earn the most for my time while I can. Your HR experience you keep talking about is either outdated or ignorant of the fact that there are not many manufacturing jobs that have been the norm the past consequently no one expects an employee to stick around for five to six years in most cases.
Well 3% being their standard raise would be a sign of a problem in the company - tech is a weird field to me that was rather fledgling when I was educating compared to now. But as stated earlier 7% more raise is generally where the average worker is motivated to move rather than stay. So with 3% vs an easy 15%+ like you quote they know the issue they're creating and are intentionally fostering it.
There are plenty of tech firms that don't rotate though - sister in law is one her second job of her career - at 45 in tech, British Telecom, Google, then back to BC when she wanted to return to Boston. (She lost money doing it, Google offered everything but making a Boston branch to keep her) Somewhere around 5/10/10 for years on each leg.
Companies that intend to keep people usually look at 10-12% as a reachable increase annually - with 5-6% as the norm. (At least in sub $100k tiers) If I gave out a 3% wage bump it was always a not so subtle, 'You're not wanted, but I can't fire you' message.
You talk about a subset of the working population that that in most cases will never apply to low wage workers in the first place. These are mid-career, college educated people making above 50K a year unless of course they go to school and get experience.
EDIT: In other words, the hiring managers you speak of will never consider a person who's worked at wal-mart for the past five years stocking merchandise so your argument about job hopping being a determinant is absurd. Its a no brainer that a bottom tier (say tier one out of ten) will never go straight to a mid career job (say tier 5 out of ten)
Spend one to two years at Wal-Mart, get a job at Cost Co as a team leader for two to three years.....then two to five years after that start applying for management/supervisory positions.
One thing you can do to increase the demand for retail workers is to making it illegal to combine grocery and retail in the same store. This sacrifices consumer conveniences but gives more companies a place in the market to compete consequently creating more jobs. We can then see a re-emergence of grocery stores.
One thing you can do to increase the demand for retail workers is to making it illegal to combine grocery and retail in the same store. This sacrifices consumer conveniences but gives more companies a place in the market to compete consequently creating more jobs. We can then see a re-emergence of grocery stores.
you will also see a rather sharp raise in prices for the stuff. You no longer have economy of scale, you no longer have group advertisment and lost leader where you can lose or break even on one product but your only doing it so they once in will pick up several OTHER products that you have a good mark up on. Also hire costs, seperate buildings, seperate managment staff ect.
One thing you can do to increase the demand for retail workers is to making it illegal to combine grocery and retail in the same store. This sacrifices consumer conveniences but gives more companies a place in the market to compete consequently creating more jobs. We can then see a re-emergence of grocery stores.
you will also see a rather sharp raise in prices for the stuff. You no longer have economy of scale, you no longer have group advertisment and lost leader where you can lose or break even on one product but your only doing it so they once in will pick up several OTHER products that you have a good mark up on. Also hire costs, seperate buildings, seperate managment staff ect.
You have to demonstrate prices are markedly cheaper than they were before the current "super wal-mart". As far as separate management and such, well, that's kind of the point. I'm willing to sacrifice the consumer benefit of the current wal-mart for an increase in competition for low wage workers. NOthing wrong with a little competition.
well the fact that when walmart comes to town all the small bussness close up shop might be an indicating factor. They can and do sell things at lower price than the small shop owner can get from his suppler. You can't compete with someone who is selling things (from your perspective) at a loss. They have the volume to get cheeper stuff, by breaking it up, they lose foot trafic, and lose some of their convence factor, which will lead to less volume sold, and higher prices.
well the fact that when walmart comes to town all the small bussness close up shop might be an indicating factor. They can and do sell things at lower price than the small shop owner can get from his suppler. You can't compete with someone who is selling things (from your perspective) at a loss. They have the volume to get cheeper stuff, by breaking it up, they lose foot trafic, and lose some of their convence factor, which will lead to less volume sold, and higher prices.
You did not address the point. I do not object prices could rise. What I'm asking is to what extent. For employment reasons it's better to have two different companies competing than one. More jobs. More competition. This will only hurt Wal-Mart, Target, Dollar General but help grocery stores and small buisness who want to get into retail.
You do realize your other two examples there pay much better on the low-end than Wal-Mart, right? But Wal-Mart does have the highest pay for their highest performers. [although they're quite rare]
But on what he was saying, he was trying to say the same thing you basically are - in that the parasitic practices of WalMart are geared towards creating a territorial monopoly by undercutting the mom and pop stores until they're gone then raising prices to make up for the loss. Leading to pretty much the same prices for the consumer with less protection against poor service/prices since there's a lack of competition following it (unless a Target comes in behind them - which usually has been beating them once they do with their less parasitic methodology with more costly staffing)
You do realize your other two examples there pay much better on the low-end than Wal-Mart, right? But Wal-Mart does have the highest pay for their highest performers. [although they're quite rare]
But on what he was saying, he was trying to say the same thing you basically are - in that the parasitic practices of WalMart are geared towards creating a territorial monopoly by undercutting the mom and pop stores until they're gone then raising prices to make up for the loss. Leading to pretty much the same prices for the consumer with less protection against poor service/prices since there's a lack of competition following it (unless a Target comes in behind them - which usually has been beating them once they do with their less parasitic methodology with more costly staffing)
I've never disputed this. Target does the same thing and pays the same, check it out. You should understand I'm not a staunch supporter of Wal-Mart but rather understand that forcing a company to pay more for non quantifiable reasons is not the right way to do things.
Short term? Sure it is, as a lifestyle - nope. Hirers hate seeing people spend less than 5 years almost universally. With computer stuff being 2-3 years a project generally and most 'project based' exceptions wanting at least 2 projects out of you first, I'd think that field would stay the course overall as way. However I only hired management for such positions at VZW and never at Wegmans - so my only experience comes from my 2 years beta testing with Microprose around the time SH bought them.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Medical, financial, retail, construction - tech is the only regular exception but that's only for small firms usually because tech companies disappear more regularly than normal ones.
It's the most mercenary of career track categories as a result, no doubt.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I guess IBM counts as a small firm now? I know of plenty of large tech businesses that have people jumping in and out all the time. IBM has a wonderful habit of laying everyone off after a project is completed. I know of another place in the electrical utility industry that has an average employee life of 3 years (it's rare to find someone that has been there for more than 5-6 years). I work for a place that has a couple hundred engineering staff and while there are guys that have been here for 10 years there are just as many that have rotated in and out after only a few.
This is largely because business dont like giving out big raises or promotions. If I am a software engineering making 60K a year chances are I can choose to accept my 3% raise each year... or after a few years of experience I can jump ship and negotiate for a 15%-20% raise somewhere else. Why? Mostly because businesses box their employees. When you're hired right out of college you get put in the 50K-65K box, you cant make more than that because that's not what the position is for, if you dont like it they'll hire a new guy that fits that box. It doesnt matter that you do the work of a 65K-75K box, that wasnt what you were hired for. Management (upper level) wont realize that there is an issue with the size box they assigned until you are already gone.
There are plenty of tech firms that don't rotate though - sister in law is one her second job of her career - at 45 in tech, British Telecom, Google, then back to BC when she wanted to return to Boston. (She lost money doing it, Google offered everything but making a Boston branch to keep her) Somewhere around 5/10/10 for years on each leg.
Companies that intend to keep people usually look at 10-12% as a reachable increase annually - with 5-6% as the norm. (At least in sub $100k tiers) If I gave out a 3% wage bump it was always a not so subtle, 'You're not wanted, but I can't fire you' message.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Well, I had three jobs in the past two years and got hired at 16.xx/hr with a period of no employment in between.
This is you, once again, pivoting away from the issue being discussed and that's getting better pay for low-wage workers....or are you more concerned with them getting career rather than better pay.
Besides, you assume someone has to job hop or I'm making some claim that someone will have to get several jobs in a short period of time....when in reality they they may only need to job hop once or twice.
Your experiences directly contradicts mine. I'm not even sure you can quantify a "career type job". This goes without saying, the discussion is not even about obtaining a "career type job" but rather a job that pays better.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I do not think you understand how modular and adaptable the marketplace has to be these days. So much so, I will never spend 30 years with one company nor would I expect to for the simple fact, there are no pensions anymore and companies have to shift into entire new markets at a much quicker pace. It's imperative I earn the most for my time while I can. Your HR experience you keep talking about is either outdated or ignorant of the fact that there are not many manufacturing jobs that have been the norm the past consequently no one expects an employee to stick around for five to six years in most cases.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You talk about a subset of the working population that that in most cases will never apply to low wage workers in the first place. These are mid-career, college educated people making above 50K a year unless of course they go to school and get experience.
EDIT: In other words, the hiring managers you speak of will never consider a person who's worked at wal-mart for the past five years stocking merchandise so your argument about job hopping being a determinant is absurd. Its a no brainer that a bottom tier (say tier one out of ten) will never go straight to a mid career job (say tier 5 out of ten)
Spend one to two years at Wal-Mart, get a job at Cost Co as a team leader for two to three years.....then two to five years after that start applying for management/supervisory positions.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
you will also see a rather sharp raise in prices for the stuff. You no longer have economy of scale, you no longer have group advertisment and lost leader where you can lose or break even on one product but your only doing it so they once in will pick up several OTHER products that you have a good mark up on. Also hire costs, seperate buildings, seperate managment staff ect.
You have to demonstrate prices are markedly cheaper than they were before the current "super wal-mart". As far as separate management and such, well, that's kind of the point. I'm willing to sacrifice the consumer benefit of the current wal-mart for an increase in competition for low wage workers. NOthing wrong with a little competition.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You did not address the point. I do not object prices could rise. What I'm asking is to what extent. For employment reasons it's better to have two different companies competing than one. More jobs. More competition. This will only hurt Wal-Mart, Target, Dollar General but help grocery stores and small buisness who want to get into retail.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
But on what he was saying, he was trying to say the same thing you basically are - in that the parasitic practices of WalMart are geared towards creating a territorial monopoly by undercutting the mom and pop stores until they're gone then raising prices to make up for the loss. Leading to pretty much the same prices for the consumer with less protection against poor service/prices since there's a lack of competition following it (unless a Target comes in behind them - which usually has been beating them once they do with their less parasitic methodology with more costly staffing)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I've never disputed this. Target does the same thing and pays the same, check it out. You should understand I'm not a staunch supporter of Wal-Mart but rather understand that forcing a company to pay more for non quantifiable reasons is not the right way to do things.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.