 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 10:06 AM, Stephen wrote:
> It is your job. Your employers sound as if they are running the UK side
> of your company like an outsourced third world project.
No no, they run the *entire* company like this.
According to Wolfram, my employer lost almost 1 million USD last
financial year. Consequently, there is a spending freeze on *everything*.
Then again, even back when we were making a profit, the company attitude
has always been to avoid investment wherever possible. I guess it's just
a very short-sighted company.
> It looks like
> your world view is hampered by this. No criticism to you intended.
Perhaps. But I've met plenty of people who *don't* work for this screwy
company, and most of them aren't exactly loaded either. (With a few
notable exceptions.)
> The management of the company (Burroughs
> Corporation) knew that using inferior equipment would hamper the
> workforce in producing quality goods.
Hah. Would that more companies thought this way...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> OK. As I say, I don't work in the print business personally. It just
> surprises me that anyone would shell out such a huge amount of money for
> something unless it was absolutely critical to have it.
It surprises me how anyone could think $1000 is a "huge amount of money"
for a company to spend.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> According to Wolfram, my employer lost almost 1 million USD last
> financial year. Consequently, there is a spending freeze on *everything*.
Don't worry, my employer lost 53 million USD last year :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> No they are listed on consumer sites, because nowadays they're cheap
> plausible that someone earning 7x what you do might buy one for a hobby?
And you don't even need to go that far. Double your salary, and you've probably
got at least 4x as much disposable income.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 10:40 AM, scott wrote:
>> OK. As I say, I don't work in the print business personally. It just
>> surprises me that anyone would shell out such a huge amount of money for
>> something unless it was absolutely critical to have it.
>
> It surprises me how anyone could think $1000 is a "huge amount of money"
> for a company to spend.
Perhaps for Time-Warner it isn't. For my local newspaper that employs
maybe 20 people, it probably is.
Then again, what do I know?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 10:41 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> And you don't even need to go that far. Double your salary, and you've probably
> got at least 4x as much disposable income.
That's an interesting statistic. I like that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 10:10 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> It's the "somebody earning 7x" that doesn't seem plausible.
>>
>> It is the other way around. It does not seem plausible that someone with
>> your job description and skills is earning as little as you do.
>
> Well, yeah, I'm under-paid considering the job I do. But I'm sure
> there's lots of other people who also don't earn much money.
That is true.
> What we're
> debating is how many people earn such an insane amount of money that
> thousands of pounds is nothing to them.
Interesting how you see it. I thought that it was about how a few
thousand pounds was not out of the price range of someone with a decent job.
http://www.jobserve.com/System-Administrator-Cambridge-Cambridgeshire-Contract-W5515CF963CA2BB2A.jsjob
>
>> I can say, quite categorically, that you have met and had a drink with
>> at least three people in that bracket.
>
> Really? How do you compute that?
I remember meeting you along with Dr John and Steve. I won't speak for
John but I know his what his job is and can guess what he earns,
roughly. Steve's workshop had a turnover of 2.5 million pounds per year
before he died. So even at 4% commission that put him in the six figure
bracket. As for me, I'm an independent functional consultant for SAP.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It surprises me how anyone could think $1000 is a "huge amount of money"
>> for a company to spend.
>
> Perhaps for Time-Warner it isn't. For my local newspaper that employs
> maybe 20 people, it probably is.
Do you have any idea how much it costs to employ 20 people?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 11:41 AM, scott wrote:
>>> It surprises me how anyone could think $1000 is a "huge amount of money"
>>> for a company to spend.
>>
>> Perhaps for Time-Warner it isn't. For my local newspaper that employs
>> maybe 20 people, it probably is.
>
> Do you have any idea how much it costs to employ 20 people?
Given what it must cost to employ 20 people, and the pitiful amount of
money the local newspaper presumably makes, I would imagine every last
penny counts, yes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 10:39 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 11/02/2011 10:06 AM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> It is your job. Your employers sound as if they are running the UK side
>> of your company like an outsourced third world project.
>
> No no, they run the *entire* company like this.
>
> According to Wolfram, my employer lost almost 1 million USD last
> financial year. Consequently, there is a spending freeze on *everything*.
>
> Then again, even back when we were making a profit, the company attitude
> has always been to avoid investment wherever possible. I guess it's just
> a very short-sighted company.
>
Get out before you are a statistic.
>> It looks like
>> your world view is hampered by this. No criticism to you intended.
>
> Perhaps. But I've met plenty of people who *don't* work for this screwy
> company, and most of them aren't exactly loaded either. (With a few
> notable exceptions.)
>
Of course there are lots of poorly paid people. That does not meen that
you have to be one of them.
>> The management of the company (Burroughs
>> Corporation) knew that using inferior equipment would hamper the
>> workforce in producing quality goods.
>
> Hah. Would that more companies thought this way...
Yes, but they were buggers to work for. If the unions said white the
management said black.
The toilets had no proper seat but just two crescents of wood to sit on
so that it was not possible to stay long.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
