Low income families
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-01-2015, 10:32 PM
RE: Low income families
Sorry that demonic little ol' me cannot help with this subject. 'hic' 'twitch'

I'm not to speak or type on the matter, Sir or Madam Original poster.

You'res truly
Onion and bacon flavor. Get it? Flavored? HAHAH. HAH.. Hehn...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2015, 10:56 PM
RE: Low income families
(02-01-2015 04:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Corporate companies are in the business of making profit. It is not their business to make a CEO rich.

If paying a CEO 5 million gains the business 6 million i.e. surplus of 1 million then it was worth it. It would seem to be the right thing to do.
If there are plenty of worker bees willing to do low skilled work for a set price then it would seem to be the right thing to pay them that price rather than worry about adjusting wages to account for increased inflation and increased production.

But what if the company pays the CEO 3.5 mil (he's not going to miss the extra 1.5) and instead invests that 1.5 into better benefits/working environment for those worker bees. I'd bet dollars to donuts that it would increase productivity and therefore increase profit for the company. It's a win/win and all that it takes is for one greedy son of a bitch to not be so goddamn greedy because he doesn't need it. It's a waste of company investment capital if you ask me.

But then again, no one is asking me.......

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
02-01-2015, 11:57 PM
RE: Low income families
(02-01-2015 10:56 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  But what if the company pays the CEO 3.5 mil (he's not going to miss the extra 1.5) and instead invests that 1.5 into better benefits/working environment for those worker bees. I'd bet dollars to donuts that it would increase productivity and therefore increase profit for the company. It's a win/win and all that it takes is for one greedy son of a bitch to not be so goddamn greedy because he doesn't need it. It's a waste of company investment capital if you ask me.

But then again, no one is asking me.......
Well, if the track record for this particular CEO demands a 5 mill salary and the company only offers 3.5 mill then he/she takes their unique skills to another company which offers 5 million. As an employee would you prefer to work for the higher paid job?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 12:23 AM
RE: Low income families
(02-01-2015 11:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Well, if the track record for this particular CEO demands a 5 mill salary and the company only offers 3.5 mill then he/she takes their unique skills to another company which offers 5 million. As an employee would you prefer to work for the higher paid job?

For the sake of argument, those sorts of parameters should have been layed out from the get go. You're right in this case. But what would be better in the long run for the company, a CEO that can produce those numbers if their salary is met, or a CEO whose interest and investment in the company is about increasing the overall satisfaction of every worker in order to maximize the productivity and profitability of the company so that in the end the CEO would be making that salary and everyone else would be benefiting?

I realize we're dealing in hypotheticals but in real life some high end companies are starting to dabble in this type of thinking. Google is one, and there is a relatively new company in my hometown that is modeling itself likewise. Their new facility includes (I shit you not) a bar, gym, and "nap pods" among other things to encourage a stress free environment in order to increase productivity.

I suppose time will tell if these investments will pay off, but it's an interesting approach.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
03-01-2015, 12:23 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2015 12:47 AM by Anjele.)
RE: Low income families
(02-01-2015 12:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Anyway, what sparked this post is me reading a recent article about keeping your kids up with reading books during the summer holidays http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/articl...=11381374.
They talk about how some kids are advantaged by being brought into libraries and taking out many books.
Quote:"You've got those parents, you see them in the libraries and their kids are checking out 20 books at a time - they are the ones that are really going to move quickly and do well over summer,"
BTW that's my family, actually we take out about 40 or so books a week, we read to the kids each night, get our 6 year old to read to us. And often see our 6 year old excited and reading on her own, going through the stack of books.

Now in NZ, library membership is free. Taking books out is free.

Here's the offending claim in the article
Quote:Low-income families are mostly affected by holiday reading loss because of limited access to books and other learning materials.
Libraries are FREE, did I forget to mention that?
So why are these low income families not taking books home for their kids to read?

Just on the topic of the importance placed on reading...
My mother was from a dirt poor family. She grew up in a very remote area that was then, and is still, not terribly hooked up to the world. It's even difficult to get radio reception there. The weather can be brutal and the effects of it sometimes cutting them off onto a tiny section of the island, so sometimes there wasn't a lot to do to pass the hours. My grandmother and her sister, my mom and all her sisters were, and still are, voracious readers. It was often the only thing available to fill the hours.

Dad and mom married young, he in the Navy and she only 16. After a couple years dad started college and mom worked menial jobs to bring in some money - when I was a kid, we were dirt poor. But, my earliest memories of gifts and of things I had were books. Mom and dad would scrounge up whatever change they could to let me pick out books from the Scholastic Book Club. I still (at 57) have some books from my childhood. Though dad never was a big reader (other than the newspaper) I was read to and encouraged to read, as were my siblings.

My girls are big readers now. I would hold my second child on my lap to feed her a bottle while reading to my oldest child. She would hold the book and I would tell her when to turn the page.

Our economic status had no effect on the importance placed on reading. The love of books and reading was one of the few positive things I can say my mother instilled in me.

Not all families are like that though. I think it's unfair to say that poor people read less than wealthier people. I made sure my kids had books and I buy books for my grandkids. There were times when we didn't have much but there were always books for all ages in the house - still are.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
03-01-2015, 12:48 AM
RE: Low income families
(03-01-2015 12:23 AM)Anjele Wrote:  
(02-01-2015 12:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Anyway, what sparked this post is me reading a recent article about keeping your kids up with reading books during the summer holidays http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/articl...=11381374.
They talk about how some kids are advantaged by being brought into libraries and taking out many books.
BTW that's my family, actually we take out about 40 or so books a week, we read to the kids each night, get our 6 year old to read to us. And often see our 6 year old excited and reading on her own, going through the stack of books.

Now in NZ, library membership is free. Taking books out is free.

Here's the offending claim in the article
Libraries are FREE, did I forget to mention that?
So why are these low income families not taking books home for their kids to read?

Just on the topic of the importance placed on reading...
My mother was from a dirt poor family. She grew up in a very remote area that was then, and is still, not terribly hooked up to the world. It's even difficult to get radio reception there. The weather can be brutal and the effects of it sometimes cutting them off onto a tiny section of the island, so sometimes there wasn't a lot to do to pass the hours. My grandmother and her sister, my mom and all her sisters were, and still are, voracious readers. It was often the only thing available to fill what the hours.

Dad and mom married young, he in the Navy and she only 16. After a couple years dad started college and mom worked menial jobs to bring in some money - when I was a kid, we were dirt poor. But, my earliest memories of gifts and of things I had were books. Mom and dad would scrounge up whatever change they could to let me pick out books from the Scholastic Book Club. I still (at 57) have some books from my childhood. Though dad never was a big reader (other than the newspaper) I was read to and encouraged to read, as were my siblings.

My girls are big readers now. I would hold my second child on my lap to feed her a bottle while reading to my oldest child. She would hold the book and I would tell her when to turn the page.

Our economic status had no effect on the importance placed on reading. The love of books and reading was one of the few positive things I can say my mother instilled in me.

Not all families are like that though. I think it's unfair to say that poor people read less than wealthier people. I made sure my kids had books and I buy books for my grandkids. There were times when we didn't have much but there were always books for all ages in the house - still are.

growing up my family had the same attitude towards books, and that is being passed on to my girls, who walked to the library on their own for the first time today. Big Grin


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 12:56 AM
RE: Low income families
I would say that "limited access" for me while enduring poverty growing up meant limited leisure time. I mean we had tons of books and I did read, but a book never put any dough in my pocket. Odd jobs and paper routes did tho. So since the age of 9 summer was my chance to earn money for stuff I wanted that I knew mom couldn't afford.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grassy Knoll's post
03-01-2015, 01:41 AM
RE: Low income families
(03-01-2015 12:23 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  But what would be better in the long run for the company, a CEO that can produce those numbers if their salary is met, or a CEO whose interest and investment in the company is about increasing the overall satisfaction of every worker in order to maximize the productivity and profitability of the company so that in the end the CEO would be making that salary and everyone else would be benefiting?
I think it is irrelevant if every worker is satisfied or not.
What is important is the bottom line.

Of course not meeting staff satisfaction can result in churn and churn increases cost and reduces efficiencies through lack of continuity and increased need for upskilling etc.

So there is some balance required, but ultimately the CEO needs to focus on the bottom line. If staff need to be made redundant then so be it. A company isn't a charity, it isn't an orphanage. The workers aren't dependent children, they are self sufficient, responsible adults. The workers need to work hard to ensure they are valuable, they need to upskill to stay in the game. They need to make sure their skills are marketable in case they need to find a new job. That's life.

The company has no responsibility to the staff, the staff have every opportunity to quit if they want. Staff will get paid market rates for their skills and contribution. A company will produce profits and those profits go to the investors or owners. That all sounds fair to me.

Instead of complaining about how much the CEO makes, the complainer would be better off participating in some education and upskill themself for a promotion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 06:56 AM
RE: Low income families
When I was a child my family had to ration petrol. We couldn't just go places we wanted to go. If we did we wouldn't be able to pay the bills that month. We had to save for essentials such as shoes and school uniforms. I wore sandals rather than closed in shoes through the winter as winds carried down from the snowy mountains blew across the playground. I live in a country with free education and free healthcare. We were not dirt poor, and we got on ok.

To address only your narrow point about access to educational materials, some parents must decide whether to drive their children down to the library and budget to drive them again to return the books or be able to afford groceries that week. That is even if there is a car or a means of transport potentially available in the price range. When you are dealing with actual poverty those are the kinds of decisions parents must make. Then to compound this parents don't always make the best choices for their children in these contexts. Mine gave 10% to the church. There are many other ways to lose money essential for completing tasks you may take for granted, and as noted by several in this thread there are plenty of ways to lose the necessary time also.

Through no fault of their own, children in these situations do suffer compared to their more privileged cohorts.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
03-01-2015, 12:02 PM
RE: Low income families
(03-01-2015 06:56 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Then to compound this parents don't always make the best choices for their children in these contexts. Mine gave 10% to the church.
The unemployment benefit is the government (society's) way of helping pay the essential bills and helping to get people ready for finding a job.
Donating to charity is a luxury, not an essential. Government already donates to charity (on behalf of society) and gives churches tax breaks (essentially a donation to a "charity" organisation).

I find it very sad that churches request money from the poor. If that means that the children don't get books and thus get behind in education and thus don't get qualifications, don't get jobs and remain poor then this cycle is perpetuated by the churches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: