 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
