 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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...)
> The lowest paid "System Admin" job I can see in Jobserve is £250/day the
> average is about £400/day.
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,
which is about what I had expected. Apparently if you earn £30k, that
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/02/2011 04:50 PM, Invisible wrote:
> You're obviously drastically richer than almost everybody I've ever met
> in my life then. :-P
Actually, as coincidence would have it, I recently had another one of
those questionnaires from my university. They ask you all kinds of
stuff. (I don't think I'll be putting anything in the "success stories"
section. :-P ) One of the things they ask is how much you're earning.
It still amuses me that 6 months after graduating, I got this
questionnaire, and there's a box for "more than £300,000/year". Let's
think about this. How many graduates earn that kind of cash less than a
year after graduating? :-P (Obviously it's simply a standard form that
they send to everybody...)
The other interesting thing is that although there's about half a dozen
boxes, there's only one single box for "less than £25,000/year". That's
all one option; they don't even bother to split it out further - despite
the fact that this is presumably the option that the majority of people
will pick. (People who are temping while they look for the first "real"
job, etc.)
I can't remember what the other categories are off the top of my head.
Then again, I suppose it depends on what they want the data *for*...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 11:56 AM, Invisible 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.
>>
>> Get out before you are a statistic.
>
> No kidding...
>
The good folks here are not trying to put you down but are trying to
help you. It can be frustrating at times when you display such a small
town attitude but for your situation to change you will have to get out
of your comfort zone and start to trust yourself.
>> 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.
>
But it was mine.
*Your* sights are set too low if you think £1000 is out of you reach.
>>
>> Yes, but they were buggers to work for.
>
> Ah well, say "la V".
No! I said "goodbye".
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 11:51 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> By that analysis, I don't know *anybody* with "a decent job".
Shame on you.
> (Or perhaps I just don't go around measuring everybody...)
>
A commendable attitude if you want to continue the way you are.
>> The lowest paid "System Admin" job I can see in Jobserve is £250/day the
>> average is about £400/day.
>
> Ah, Jobserve. If only these jobs actually existed. I loose track of how
> many of them I've applied for. :-/
>
You should keep track of them. Before I hit my current run of employment
I had a database of all the jobs I had applied for.
> Damn. I had no idea I was in the company of such giants! o_O
You weren't in the company of anyone better than yourself. It is just
some people take the opportunities available.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> 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.
Well, it's only a very rough guess based on my situation. It will vary wildly
depending on your actual income and outgoings :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Get out before you are a statistic.
>>
>> No kidding...
>
> The good folks here are not trying to put you down but are trying to
> help you. It can be frustrating at times when you display such a small
> town attitude but for your situation to change you will have to get out
> of your comfort zone and start to trust yourself.
I'm not sure what you mean by "small town attitude", but anyway... It's
a well-known fact that I'm under-paid, and that I have had exactly no
success trying to get hired by anybody else. We've had this debate.
Actually, I was having this conversation with my girlfriend just the
other day. Perhaps with her assistance I can get somewhere. (Let's face
it, she's had more jobs that I've had hot dinners...)
>> Sure. That wasn't my point.
>
> But it was mine.
> *Your* sights are set too low if you think £1000 is out of you reach.
I *know* that £1k is out of my reach today. There's no thinking about
it. ;-) What will be in reach if I ever get a real job... well, I
wouldn't know.
>>> Yes, but they were buggers to work for.
>>
>> Ah well, say "la V".
>
> No! I said "goodbye".
Win.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (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.)
There's a sheet for only full-time workers, which is probably more what
you're looking for.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 12:47 PM, scott wrote:
>> (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.)
>
> There's a sheet for only full-time workers, which is probably more what
> you're looking for.
I'm loving how there's about a 50% difference in the average figures for
men and women. Nothing sexist about that at all! ;-)
If you look at the male/full time stats, then the mean becomes a
jaw-dropping £35k, and even the median becomes £28k. Oddly enough, £30k
is now about the 60th percentile (rather than 75th or so). And,
amusingly [or not?], my wage drops to around the 10th percentile...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 12:30 PM, Invisible wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "small town attitude", but anyway...
With luck, it'll will change. :-)
>
> Actually, I was having this conversation with my girlfriend just the
> other day. Perhaps with her assistance I can get somewhere. (Let's face
> it, she's had more jobs that I've had hot dinners...)
>
That sounds good, very good.
>>> Sure. That wasn't my point.
>>
>> But it was mine.
>> *Your* sights are set too low if you think £1000 is out of you reach.
>
> I *know* that £1k is out of my reach today. There's no thinking about
> it. ;-) What will be in reach if I ever get a real job... well, I
> wouldn't know.
>
But you will. Things change.
Do you remember one of our first conversations where I thought that you
were gay because you said that you would never have a girlfriend?
>>>> Yes, but they were buggers to work for.
>>>
>>> Ah well, say "la V".
>>
>> No! I said "goodbye".
>
> Win.
It sounds good but I was full of doubts changing jobs where I had to
take a bus 17 miles to Glasgow then 10 miles to East Kilbride.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 10:43 AM, scott wrote:
>> 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 :-)
Down the back of the sofa?
Seriously, that's a crapload of money. I've always wondered how you can
lose that much money and not be shut down...
(Apparently *a lot* of companies lose millions of dollars and yet
continue trading. But I have no idea how that's possible.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Don't worry, my employer lost 53 million USD last year :-)
>
> Down the back of the sofa?
I assume because not as many people bought stuff as they anticipated.
> Seriously, that's a crapload of money.
But you need to compare it to the revenue and value of the company. A
company that loses $50m but is only worth $150m is in trouble, but one
worth $30000m probably doesn't need to worry about losing $50m in a bad
year.
> I've always wondered how you can
> lose that much money and not be shut down...
Because the shareholders believe you have a plan to make profit at some
point...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Seriously, that's a crapload of money.
>
> But you need to compare it to the revenue and value of the company. A
> company that loses $50m but is only worth $150m is in trouble, but one
> worth $30000m probably doesn't need to worry about losing $50m in a bad
> year.
How do you determine what some company is "worth"?
>> I've always wondered how you can
>> lose that much money and not be shut down...
>
> Because the shareholders believe you have a plan to make profit at some
> point...
So it's a question of making people *believe* that you will make money
some day?
Suddenly the dot-com bubble makes *so* much more sense...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> How do you determine what some company is "worth"?
Just like anything else, whatever people are willing to pay for it.
Multiply the share price by the number of shares.
> So it's a question of making people *believe* that you will make money
> some day?
Exactly, and having a good track record of good profit, good management
and a lot of assets (like factories) helps to convince them you're a
good investment. If a company makes an announcement of bad news, the
share price will usually drop, as people won't judge it to be worth as
much any more.
> Suddenly the dot-com bubble makes *so* much more sense...
Yeh, if you have no physical assets it's very easy for your "worth" to
go to zero overnight (eg if you only have one software product, and then
Microsoft decides to buy one of your competitors and release their
software for free, you're stuffed).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:33:45 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> Yes, but they were buggers to work for.
>>>>
>>>> Ah well, say "la V".
>>>
>>> No! I said "goodbye".
>>
>> Win.
>
> It sounds good but I was full of doubts changing jobs where I had to
> take a bus 17 miles to Glasgow then 10 miles to East Kilbride.
It does - I know I've told the story here about walking away from an
intolerable job with no option, and while it's liberating to just quit,
one does tend to have doubts, that's true.
But for me, it did work out regardless, and for the better.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:29:48 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>> I think you'd be surprised what level of work goes into making even a
>> low circulation full-colour magazine.
>
> 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.
Who says it isn't absolutely critical to have a monitor like this in the
fields it's designed for?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:51:15 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>> 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...)
You know me. I like to think I have a decent job.
Those of us offering to help you don't have jobs that suck, you know. I
would guess that all of us make decent money and have jobs we like.
These offers of help aren't "the blind leading the blind" - but you've
got to be willing to work for it.
Have you done the assignment that Darren gave you to improve your writing
and writing organizational skills, for example? You do know that I've
written and so has Darren, we might just know a thing or two about how to
do these things you've declared "impossible", and if you let us, we can
help you improve your skills. But it doesn't come by you saying "I don't
have the time.". If it's important to you, make the time.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 6:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It does - I know I've told the story here about walking away from an
> intolerable job with no option, and while it's liberating to just quit,
> one does tend to have doubts, that's true.
>
Oh, the job wasn’t intolerable although I made my boss’s life pretty
tough. I’ve put up with lots worse than that. It was the worry about
being able to do it with no qualifications or relevant experience.
> But for me, it did work out regardless, and for the better.
It did for me too until I moved on to a better job.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:41:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 11/02/2011 6:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It does - I know I've told the story here about walking away from an
>> intolerable job with no option, and while it's liberating to just quit,
>> one does tend to have doubts, that's true.
>>
> Oh, the job wasn’t intolerable although I made my boss’s life pretty
> tough. I’ve put up with lots worse than that. It was the worry about
> being able to do it with no qualifications or relevant experience.
Well, yes, it was kinda like that for me, too - the work itself was OK,
but between my coworkers and my boss at that job, it wasn't easy for me,
and I'm sure (in retrospect) that I didn't make it easy for them, either.
>> But for me, it did work out regardless, and for the better.
>
> It did for me too until I moved on to a better job.
Yep, that's the way it works. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> the artists and designers who choose
> colours get very annoyed when the final product looks a totally
> different shade to what they designed.
My brother (in advertising) tells of a time when the boss sent out some
valentine calendar or some such for a test print. An hour later the printer
comes back with a sample.
Boss: "No. This is awful. It's supposed to be pink. Does this rose look pink
to you? No! It's orange. It's not even close. Go fix it."
An hour later, the printer comes back with another sample.
Boss: "Ah, this is much better. Now it's pink. *This* is what you should
have brought me in the first place." Then he hands the calendar back and
says "Now go fix it."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I'm loving how there's about a 50% difference in the average figures for
> men and women. Nothing sexist about that at all! ;-)
There are lots of reasons this sort of thing happens in addition to sexism.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> How do you determine what some company is "worth"?
>
> Just like anything else, whatever people are willing to pay for it.
> Multiply the share price by the number of shares.
And here I was thinking that the share price is just an arbitrary
plucked out of thin air and fluctuating at random...
>> So it's a question of making people *believe* that you will make money
>> some day?
>
> Exactly, and having a good track record of good profit, good management
> and a lot of assets (like factories) helps to convince them you're a
> good investment. If a company makes an announcement of bad news, the
> share price will usually drop, as people won't judge it to be worth as
> much any more.
So, like, if you own several million dollars worth of assets that you
might potentially be able to sell, people aren't worried if you make a
few thousand in losses? (Or rather, not *as* worried as if your assets
were, say, £200...)
>> Suddenly the dot-com bubble makes *so* much more sense...
>
> Yeh, if you have no physical assets it's very easy for your "worth" to
> go to zero overnight (eg if you only have one software product, and then
> Microsoft decides to buy one of your competitors and release their
> software for free, you're stuffed).
It makes it look like all you have to do is *convince* people that if
they invest enough money, "one day" you will start making a huge profit.
Of course, talking people into things is significantly easier than, say,
ACTUALLY MAKING A PROFIT.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 7:24 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It makes it look like all you have to do is *convince* people that if
> they invest enough money, "one day" you will start making a huge profit.
> Of course, talking people into things is significantly easier than, say,
> ACTUALLY MAKING A PROFIT.
Look up Ponzi scheme
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Of course, talking people into things is significantly easier than, say,
> ACTUALLY MAKING A PROFIT.
Which is exactly why about four out of five start-ups fail in the first
three years or so.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 6:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Well, yes, it was kinda like that for me, too - the work itself was OK,
> but between my coworkers and my boss at that job, it wasn't easy for me,
> and I'm sure (in retrospect) that I didn't make it easy for them, either.
>
LOL That's what happens when you're too smart for your own good '-)
>>
>> It did for me too until I moved on to a better job.
>
> Yep, that's the way it works. :-)
>
I did a count a couple of months ago and I've had 41 paying jobs. Most
of them in the last 15 years, since I've been contracting.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 17:43:45 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 11/02/2011 6:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>
>> Well, yes, it was kinda like that for me, too - the work itself was OK,
>> but between my coworkers and my boss at that job, it wasn't easy for
>> me, and I'm sure (in retrospect) that I didn't make it easy for them,
>> either.
>>
>>
> LOL That's what happens when you're too smart for your own good '-)
Indeed. :-)
>>> It did for me too until I moved on to a better job.
>>
>> Yep, that's the way it works. :-)
>>
>>
> I did a count a couple of months ago and I've had 41 paying jobs. Most
> of them in the last 15 years, since I've been contracting.
I remembered you had done something like that - I guess contracting/
consulting would lead to that - lots of interesting experiences if you
can find the work, that's for sure. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/02/2011 7:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I remembered you had done something like that - I guess contracting/
> consulting would lead to that -
Yes it has been very interesting finding out how lots of companies work.
Recently I've worked
> lots of interesting experiences if you
> can find the work, that's for sure.:-)
Yes it has been very interesting finding out how lots of companies work.
Recently I've worked in a Shipyard, the Nuclear Industry, Coca Cola, a
Wind Turbine company, Water Utilities, Rolls-Royce, Our National Lottery
and so on. I’ve also worked in a few countries too. Very mind expanding.
Finding work can be stressful but that is where PovRay helps. :-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And here I was thinking that the share price is just an arbitrary
> plucked out of thin air and fluctuating at random...
Err, no. Imagine something like ebay for selling company shares on
(remember there are a HUGE number of shares changing hand every second),
the share price is simply the price that the shares are being sold for
at that instant.
> So, like, if you own several million dollars worth of assets that you
> might potentially be able to sell, people aren't worried if you make a
> few thousand in losses? (Or rather, not *as* worried as if your assets
> were, say, £200...)
Exactly.
> It makes it look like all you have to do is *convince* people that if
> they invest enough money, "one day" you will start making a huge profit.
Yes, this is what happens when a company is "floated", you split
ownership of your company up into a fixed number of shares and ask the
public to buy them. You obviously get money for this, but you lose
ownership of some or all of your company. But if subsequently the share
price goes up, you get nothing extra (unless you are shareholder), it's
just the shareholders making money.
The better you can convince people you're going to make a huge profit,
the more money they will be likely to pay for a share of your company.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My brother (in advertising) tells of a time when the boss sent out some
> valentine calendar or some such for a test print. An hour later the
> printer comes back with a sample.
>
> Boss: "No. This is awful. It's supposed to be pink. Does this rose look
> pink to you? No! It's orange. It's not even close. Go fix it."
>
> An hour later, the printer comes back with another sample.
>
> Boss: "Ah, this is much better. Now it's pink. *This* is what you should
> have brought me in the first place." Then he hands the calendar back and
> says "Now go fix it."
Still not really seeing how having a more expensive monitor helps
here... It's not like the quality of the monitor affects what colour the
printer prints.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And here I was thinking that the share price is just an arbitrary
>> plucked out of thin air and fluctuating at random...
>
> Err, no. Imagine something like ebay for selling company shares on
> (remember there are a HUGE number of shares changing hand every second),
> the share price is simply the price that the shares are being sold for
> at that instant.
OK. I'm still fuzzy on exactly how the shares themselves are worth
something. The company [hopefully] makes money. What do the shares
actually do?
>> So, like, if you own several million dollars worth of assets that you
>> might potentially be able to sell, people aren't worried if you make a
>> few thousand in losses? (Or rather, not *as* worried as if your assets
>> were, say, £200...)
>
> Exactly.
OK. Well that at least makes sense...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Err, no. Imagine something like ebay for selling company shares on
>> (remember there are a HUGE number of shares changing hand every second),
>> the share price is simply the price that the shares are being sold for
>> at that instant.
>
> OK. I'm still fuzzy on exactly how the shares themselves are worth
> something. The company [hopefully] makes money. What do the shares
> actually do?
A "share" is literally owning a fixed share of the company, which you
are free to sell on to anyone else. Obviously if the company is
successful the shares will become more valuable and you can make a
profit by selling them later. Also, because you effectively own part of
the company, you get a (proportional) say in how the company is run, and
get a share of the profits each year (a dividend).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Obviously if the company is
> successful the shares will become more valuable and you can make a
> profit by selling them later.
This is not obvious to me.
> Also, because you effectively own part of
> the company, you get a (proportional) say in how the company is run,
I can imagine some people might find that interesting, but I would think
the majority wouldn't.
> and get a share of the profits each year (a dividend).
Now you're talking. You mean to say that you can make money simply by
owning a share? (As opposed to trading it.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Obviously if the company is
>> successful the shares will become more valuable and you can make a
>> profit by selling them later.
>
> This is not obvious to me.
Which bit? You own a fixed proportion of a company, if the company
becomes hugely more successful, the value of your proportion increases.
> Now you're talking. You mean to say that you can make money simply by
> owning a share? (As opposed to trading it.)
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> This is not obvious to me.
>
> Which bit?
The bit where a piece of paper has value because the company who's name
is printed on it has value.
>> Now you're talking. You mean to say that you can make money simply by
>> owning a share? (As opposed to trading it.)
>
> Yes.
Right. So a share has value because you can earn money from it. And the
value varies according to how profitable the company is because that
money comes from the company's profits.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/9/2011 10:43 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 09/02/2011 04:09 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>>> Oh man, that's expensive! ;-)
>>
>> Hopefully you realize that each of these costs probably less than a
>> week's salary of the person using it, right? :-)
>
> ...there are people who use colour-calibrated monitors?
I do... Though I can't afford one with built in calibration, I use an
external device to calibrate my monitor. It gets close, but no exact. I
just switched from one with a fluorescent backlight to one with an LED
backlight, and am still getting used to the color rendering of it (I'm
not sure, but I suspect my colorimeter may be trying to compensate for
the fluorescent green peak when set to measure an LCD.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/10/2011 3:25 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a
> "professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a monitor.
> And let's face it, it isn't actually going to help them take better photos.
An individual would probably not purchase said monitor, but a marketing
department, advertising company, photo studio or lab would definitely
have one on hand.
I wish I could afford such a monitor, it would be nice.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/10/2011 10:50 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Well, hypothetically you can match them. But sure, I have to wonder how
> close the match would actually look...
>
CMYK gamut is quite a bit narrower than sRGB (what most monitors are, I
don't know about the high-end monitors, but I imagine they are close to
sRGB, or AdobeRGB) The tricky part is setting up your proofing
environment to match the black and white points accurately.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/11/2011 2:58 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Well, apparently $850 works out to about £500. That I could just about
> afford. Maybe. (At the end of a long list of other stuff I still want to
> buy...)
:D I own a Canon 7D, a 40D, a few lenses. Tam 17-50 f/2.8, Canon 70-200
f/4, Sigma 10-20 (I forget the aperture range on this one, I want to say
f/3.5 5.6, doesn't matter, that isn't relevant when there's so few
designs with such a focal length range, some extender tubes, a few
flashes, a 50mm f/1.8, and some various adapter rings and polarizing
filter.
Actually, If I didn't spend so much on camera gear, I could probably
afford the monitor, but built-in calibration isn't a priority, and I'm
not doing any serious marketing work. Besides, my wife would be out for
blood if I dropped $1500 on a monitor :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 14/02/2011 13:12, Invisible a écrit :
>>> Now you're talking. You mean to say that you can make money simply by
>>> owning a share? (As opposed to trading it.)
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Right. So a share has value because you can earn money from it. And the
> value varies according to how profitable the company is because that
> money comes from the company's profits.
Well, the initial value of the share is the portion of the capital it
represents: If the company has a registered capital of 10 Millions, and
the original owner want to put 40% on the market, the initial emission
of the capital stock will be valued for 4 Millions. The number of shares
simply divide that amount.
It is sometimes more efficient to make many share at 4€/$ than just a
few at 4000€/$ : the market is more receptive (the small traders cannot
afford a 4000€/$ one, whereas they can take a lot of 4$/€ ones!)
One second after the delivery of the share to the market, a share is
worth only what other traders are ready to buy it at. They usually
forget the initial price and looks only at the ratio of dividend/price.
Dividend: each year (usually), the benefit from the company get
distributed (re-invested, salary-raise and share holders). The part for
the share holder is the dividend. The dividend may be paid in cash or
with more shares! (company's choice, not share's holder unless company
decides so). Which means that no dividend is bad for the value of the
share...
Let's look at a case: Eurotunnel (tunnel under the channel)...
Introduced at about 8, IIRC, while the tunnel was not yet done.
No dividend before the tunnel could exist, but large promise of benefits
in future (including free pass...).
Price went up to 76 over a few years.
(so, if you had bought at 8 and were selling at 76... yummy! that was
about 900% benefit! Your house of 1 Million became a castle of 10
Millions (with a park!) ! Even with inflation, very yummy...).
Events happened...
Shares get bought back (or forever lost) at 0.02 !
If you bought at 8, from 1 Million only remains 2500.
If you bought at 70 (oh, lucky, get on the wagon now!), from 1 Million
only remains less than 300!
I have the 300, can I get the million please ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/11/2011 3:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> If your local paper has any colour pages then surely they will, the
>> advertisers will demand it to ensure their company colours are correct.
>
> Surely you don't actually need an expensive specially calibrated monitor
> just to ensure that IBM Blue comes out as IBM Blue. Presumably there are
> standardised ways of describing specific print colours, and the
> advertisers will just tell you what colour they want according to some
> such standard.
>
No, they could give you the coordinates in CIE L*a*b, either that or you
take a photospectrometer to a swatch they sent you, which would cost
roughly the same as the monitor with built-in calibration.
> Now there's something I hadn't thought of... For most magazines, exact
> colour probably isn't critical. But how about those huge colour
> photographs that shops sometimes have on their walls? I guess you
> *might* conceivably want precise colour matching for that.
Really, any time you have a photo (or really, anything else) printed
(even, say someone's portrait) you want to use calibrated color. Here's
the deal: When adjusting the color balance and tone density of a photo,
you want to be sure that 1) the picture will appear on paper without
losing any detail in shadows or highlights, 2) [Most critical to have a
calibrated monitor for] the color balance is correct. If you're
adjusting color on an LCD monitor and that monitor has a green cast,
your perception will shift, once you have the picture balanced the way
you think it should be, and you send it to a press or lab for printing,
or e-mail the image to a friend, you'll soon discover that on all of the
other media, even though the picture looks fine on your screen, the
shadows are blocked up, the midtones are too dark, and everything looks
like it was tinted with a bit of pepto-bismol (everything's magenta).
That is why you want a calibrated screen.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/10/2011 10:42 AM, Darren New wrote:
>
> Compliant Standards - TUV, CCC, RoHS, CE MDD
>
> I'm guessing MDD is medical diagnostic device, for example.
>
Not only that, but for use in a medical context, every component in that
device must be certified for medical use. This means extensive testing
and underwriting. Lots of salaries being paid on that one, Medical has
some extremely strict standards for reliability. Ever notice when you
look at datasheets for electronic components, they have a disclaimer on
most that state they are not intended for use in military and medical
applications. Usually mil-spec has extended requirements for stability
at different environmental and voltages, Medical, too. And in some
cases, they'll need even tighter tolerances on output and stability.
Though, you can buy some mil-spec components they are quite a bit more
expensive. Medical-level screening would probably be even more
expensive. People get a little touchy when lives are at stake.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/02/2011 01:51 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> I have the 300, can I get the million please ?
Required XKCD quote: http://xkcd.com/592/
(Check out the alt text.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Yes, this is what happens when a company is "floated",
In the USA, this is called "going public." The private owners (and the
bank) tends to make a whole lot more money than the company is actually
worth at that moment.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Still not really seeing how having a more expensive monitor helps
> here... It's not like the quality of the monitor affects what colour the
> printer prints.
When you're creating the initial image, you need to know what it's going to
look like when it's printed.
Say you're taking pictures of meat to put on packaging. You take the photo,
then you color-balance it until it looks juicy and delicious. [*] Now you
ask your software what colors are in the photo, so you can give those colors
to the printer.
If your monitor makes pink look like orange and orange look like yellow,
then when you tell the printer to print out what you see on the monitor,
you're going to be disappointed.
The monitor doesn't affect what color the printer prints. It affects what
color you think you should be telling the printer to print.
[*] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM#t=18s
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Say you're taking pictures of meat to put on packaging.
Another point that is quite surprising (to me it was at least) is that
pretty much every mass produced food is manufactured or bought to strict
colour standards. The reason being that any "odd" coloured food tends
to get left on the shelf and scrapped, so the big shops demand the
colour is within a certain tolerance. This really is no joke, I met a
colour scientist once who worked in a bread factory, he was having
problems with the crumbs getting into the colour measurement equipment
(costing far more than $1000).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/02/2011 08:52 AM, scott wrote:
>> Say you're taking pictures of meat to put on packaging.
>
> Another point that is quite surprising (to me it was at least) is that
> pretty much every mass produced food is manufactured or bought to strict
> colour standards. The reason being that any "odd" coloured food tends to
> get left on the shelf and scrapped, so the big shops demand the colour
> is within a certain tolerance. This really is no joke, I met a colour
> scientist once who worked in a bread factory, he was having problems
> with the crumbs getting into the colour measurement equipment (costing
> far more than $1000).
What a crumby job that was!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
