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

>> 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.

By that analysis, I don't know *anybody* with "a decent job". (Or 
perhaps I just don't go around measuring everybody...)




Ah, Jobserve. If only these jobs actually existed. I loose track of how 
many of them I've applied for. :-/

>>> 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.

Damn. I had no idea I was in the company of such giants! o_O

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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.

Maybe it's news to you, but not every company makes negative or near 
zero profit.  Besides, you didn't answer my question, if you had 
correctly answered it you'd realise how tiny a one-off $1000 payment is 
compared to the other amounts dealt with when running a company of 20 
people.

Post a reply to this message

> By that analysis, I don't know *anybody* with "a decent job". (Or
> perhaps I just don't go around measuring everybody...)

FYI, results of the 2010 salary survey, with percentiles:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2010/tab1-7a.xls

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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.
>
> Get out before you are a statistic.

No kidding...

> Of course there are lots of poorly paid people. That does not meen that
> you have to be one of them.

Sure. That wasn't my point.

>>> 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.

Ah well, say "la V".

Post a reply to this message

On 11/02/2011 11:53 AM, scott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
> Maybe it's news to you, but not every company makes negative or near
> zero profit.

For sure. But I would expect the local newspaper to be one of the ones 
that does have tiny profit margins.

> Besides, you didn't answer my question, if you had
> correctly answered it you'd realise how tiny a one-off $1000 payment is
> compared to the other amounts dealt with when running a company of 20
> people.

Well, when you put it that way, I guess it *is* only a one-off cost...

Post a reply to this message

On 11/02/2011 11:56 AM, scott wrote:
>> By that analysis, I don't know *anybody* with "a decent job".
>
> FYI, results of the 2010 salary survey, with percentiles:

Ooo, data. Interesting.

The (arithmetic?) mean and median are both around twenty-something, 

puts you in almost the 75th percentile. (I would have expected it to be 
much higher than that, actually.)

No surprises, but if you earn as little as me, you're in about the 30th 
percentile...

(It's not a lot of money, but there must be lots of other people doing 
unskilled temp work too, which is presumably why it's the 30th and not 
the 3rd.)

Post a reply to this message