On 17/11/2011 02:06 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:

> If it bills customers for that service, there there is technically a
> porift center somewhere. Even if his employer was a government entity or
> a non-profit organization.

I thought the Church was the only non-prophet organisation?

Post a reply to this message

On 17/11/2011 2:06 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> If it bills customers for that service, there there is technically a
> porift center somewhere.  Even if his employer was a government entity
> or a non-profit organization.

It is a mistake to use everyday logic or common sense when talking about 
accountancy. Profit centres are an accountancy concept and can be run as 
a separate business within a business often with its own company code 
but within the same controlling area and using the same chart of accounts.
In my work the whole thing is a bit of a pain it just adds complexity to 
an already complex SAP module.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 17/11/2011 03:04 PM, Stephen wrote:

> In my work the whole thing is a bit of a pain it just adds complexity to
> an already complex SAP module.

I've never heard of a simple SAP module. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 17/11/2011 3:08 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 17/11/2011 03:04 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> In my work the whole thing is a bit of a pain it just adds complexity to
>> an already complex SAP module.
>
> I've never heard of a simple SAP module. :-P

Fair point.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/16/2011 13:56, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> to buy 10 more PCs, does that go to the admin office cost center? Or does it

That's why accounting at a big company like AT&T or something is hugely 
complex. Don't forget that depreciation comes in there too, which tells you 
who gets billed for it if you change which profit center it is helping half 
way through the life of the cost, amongst other things.

> As I understand it, a "technical startup" is a polite way of saying "you
> will be paid peanuts and in three months' time you will be unemployed again
> because the company has been liquidated".

Only if you're naive enough to work for one like that. Some are indeed like 
that, and they suck in many who have never worked for one like that who 
believe the promises. On the other hand, if the start-up you're going to 
isn't inventing something that *you* think will be wildly successful (e.g., 
"We invented mind reading computers"), then you should be getting paid even 
more salary than you would be working a normal 9-5 job, *plus* some options. 
I.e., treat options as a nice bonus, not as part of your salary.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2011 03:34 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 13:56, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> to buy 10 more PCs, does that go to the admin office cost center? Or
>> does it
>
> That's why accounting at a big company like AT&T or something is hugely
> complex. Don't forget that depreciation comes in there too, which tells
> you who gets billed for it if you change which profit center it is
> helping half way through the life of the cost, amongst other things.

The fun thing, of course, is that *computers* depreciate in a vertical 
downward line. Almost as soon as you take the computer out of the box, 
80% of its value has vanished. By this time next year, it will 
essentially be a very expensive doorstop. It must make accountants' hair 
tingle!

>> As I understand it, a "technical startup" is a polite way of saying "you
>> will be paid peanuts and in three months' time you will be unemployed
>> again
>> because the company has been liquidated".
>
> Only if you're naive enough to work for one like that. Some are indeed
> like that, and they suck in many who have never worked for one like that
> who believe the promises. On the other hand, if the start-up you're
> going to isn't inventing something that *you* think will be wildly
> successful (e.g., "We invented mind reading computers"), then you should
> be getting paid even more salary than you would be working a normal 9-5
> job, *plus* some options. I.e., treat options as a nice bonus, not as
> part of your salary.

Personally, I'd prefer job security. But apparently that's just me...

(Did you know, there are people who actually work FOR THEMSELVES? Crazy, 
crazy people...)

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2011 9:21 AM, Invisible wrote:
> (Did you know, there are people who actually work FOR THEMSELVES? Crazy,
> crazy people...)

I've been doing that since 1997 and maybe you are right.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2011 10:25 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 18/11/2011 9:21 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> (Did you know, there are people who actually work FOR THEMSELVES? Crazy,
>> crazy people...)
>
> I've been doing that since 1997 and maybe you are right.

As far as job security goes, working for yourself has to be the least 
secure job logically possible, surely...?

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2011 11:21 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 18/11/2011 10:25 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 18/11/2011 9:21 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> (Did you know, there are people who actually work FOR THEMSELVES? Crazy,
>>> crazy people...)
>>
>> I've been doing that since 1997 and maybe you are right.
>
> As far as job security goes, working for yourself has to be the least
> secure job logically possible, surely...?

You could say that and on the surface it looks right. But on the other 
hand I wouldn’t rate highly the job security of working in a company 
that does not make a profit and the workers can sit around reading and 
playing games. Especially if it is a division of an American company 
which does not seem to have a great interest in its British subsidiary. 
(Pause for thought.)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> As far as job security goes, working for yourself has to be the least
>> secure job logically possible, surely...?
>
> You could say that and on the surface it looks right. But on the other
> hand I wouldn’t rate highly the job security of working in a company
> that does not make a profit

I'm not saying that I have amazingly good job security. I'm just saying 
that anybody who works for themselves has even less than I do. (OTOH, 
it's quite plausible the money is better...)

Post a reply to this message