Quantcast

If you think you're underpaid, get a better job, and stop crying about those who make more than you!

RJ~PWCM~JLA 2012/12/03 03:18:57
Related Topics: Baby, Crying, Job, Underpaid, Jobs
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Nothing's worse than someone who cries like a baby because they're "underpaid", and other people in different jobs make more than they do.

Stop whining, and do what it takes to get a better-paying job.

True or false?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Nancy~PWCM~JLA~POTL 2012/12/04 01:09:33 (edited)
    False.
    Nancy~PWCM~JLA~POTL
    +1
    I work two jobs and husband is now retired. The cost of living and the hidden taxation in the way of inflation is ridiculous. my retirement money has gone down the tubes and my house is worth less the cost to build it. So what gives?

    We did all the right things and paid for colleges for our children and saved all of our lives to get to this place of uncertainty.

    It is not like like we soaked off the government and we really invested wisely and now well, ithe American dream is about to ripped out from under our feet. We have and have always maintained modest lifestyle
  • RJ~PWCM... Nancy~P... 2012/12/04 16:31:55
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    Sorry to hear it.

    And yet I've never heard you whine about any of this. Sounds like you're doing what you need to do, rather than cry about how others who are better off somehow owe you.
  • texasred 2012/12/04 00:51:07
    True.
    texasred
    +1
    That's what I did.
  • Jana ♥ ♥ ♥ 2012/12/03 20:14:30
    True.
    Jana ♥ ♥ ♥
    +1
    As I have said many times on here,No matter who you are someone will always be more wealthier than you.Someone will always have a better job than you,better car, better house,and why do some people want you to have to pay more in taxes, for what you have worked your butt off for..That is called jealousy because they cant go out there and do what you do,they would rather depend on welfare or the government to give them a hand out.They want your hard earned money too.Those type of people are the scum of this world,and have no business bitching about the ones that do work and earn a good living.And I am not talking about the ones that have lost a good job,and need assistance for the family,I am talking about the ones that do not want to work, or bitch because we make more than them .I say to bad so sad. no handouts to the lazy
  • RJ~PWCM... Jana ♥ ♥ ♥ 2012/12/03 21:28:42
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    Right. Needing some temporary assistance for a short time is a whole different thing, and NOT what I'm talking about here.

    This post is for those who make a living out of stealing other people's money!
  • Claybern 2012/12/03 18:21:14
    True.
    Claybern
    That's a fact.
  • Nestofasssps 2012/12/03 17:03:27
    False.
    Nestofasssps
    The ignorance is overwhelming, as usual from the right.
    yay
  • RJ~PWCM... Nestofa... 2012/12/03 18:17:17
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    Typical lib horse crap.
  • Nestofa... RJ~PWCM... 2012/12/05 02:09:16
    Nestofasssps
    got an actual rebuttal with facts? or just wanna play word games.
    go for it sparky
  • RJ~PWCM... Nestofa... 2012/12/12 04:24:35
  • Nestofa... RJ~PWCM... 2012/12/16 20:22:41
    Nestofasssps
    so you have nothing to actually back up your claim
    didnt think you had the bottle.
  • lucky 2012/12/03 14:09:22
    False.
    lucky
    In a better economy Id agree but right now highly trained experienced workers are taking whatever jobs they can get just to survive, also a portion of those workers are past what many employees consider prime ages for hiring making it even that much more difficult to find a better paying job.

    On the other hand if your talking about people who have very little ambition and even less desire to better their circumstances you would have a point that I agree with.
  • RJ~PWCM... lucky 2012/12/03 18:18:05
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    I'm talking about people taking responsibility for their own future.
  • lucky RJ~PWCM... 2012/12/04 13:36:30
    lucky
    +1
    I agree but that also includes the CEO, every company usually has that one person who is a pain or a larger company may have a handful or more of them but if a company starts seeing a repeating pattern in employee dissatisfaction and high turn over rates, the company itself is responsible and should be responsible enough to acknowledge that just maybe the fault lays with the CEO's and the company policy.
  • RJ~PWCM... lucky 2012/12/04 16:33:52
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    I agree. If a CEO sucks they should be fired, WITHOUT these BS "golden parachute" deals.

    Ultimately, it's up to the owners - the stockholders in the case of a public co. - to put into place directors, and therefore management - that will do a good job.
  • Rave 2012/12/03 12:18:23
    False.
    Rave
    +3
    Yeah, these days they're just handing out good-paying jobs left and right. I mean, why can't these people earning less than the minimal needed for a standard life just go get a higher paying job? It's so simple and easy.

    Especially when you also have a family to support at the same time and bills to pay and can totally risk looking for jobs elsewhere and totally have the time and money for better education.
  • RJ~PWCM... Rave 2012/12/03 18:19:13
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    "they're just handing out good-paying jobs left and right"

    That shows where the left goes wrong.

    No, nobody is "handing out" jobs. You have to go find a good job. And you have to do what it takes to make yourself capable of doing that good job.

    I know this is probably an alien idea to those on the left. Didn't expect the Liberals to get it.
  • Rave RJ~PWCM... 2012/12/04 06:33:23
    Rave
    No but this is what it seems that you were implying, that it was so easy to change jobs that they must be handing them out.

    Then I made the point of irony, because of course no one hands out jobs, and not everyone has the money/time to suddenly become qualified for very high paying jobs. Everyone's situation is different and some people, especially young parents, are caught in a very low wage job trying to support their kid and running back and forth between home and the job and having no time for further education, and in the US it generally takes quite a lot of money too. The point is, minimum wage should be high enough for workers to not have to resort to government funds, because that's all the ends up happening when the employee doesn't pay that needed sum. If the employee won't pay their workers high enough, than those workers look for government aid, and then it ends up being a problem for every tax payer rather than just the employee.
  • RJ~PWCM... Rave 2012/12/04 16:36:44
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    "No but this is what it seems that you were implying, that it was so easy to change jobs that they must be handing them out."

    No way what I said could be taken to mean that. This is what I said:

    >>>> "do what it takes to get a better-paying job."
  • L1 2012/12/03 10:00:10
    True.
    L1
    +1
    True, and it's for that reason that many others will offer and do the job for a lot less.
  • ed 2012/12/03 09:59:25
    True.
    ed
    +2
    To all of those who feel as though they are under paid.Why can't you be thankful that at least you do have a job to go to?
  • RJ~PWCM... ed 2012/12/03 18:20:16
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    Because they prefer to look at others who are doing better, cry about it, and demand their money.
  • Professor 2012/12/03 08:47:32
    True.
    Professor
    +3
    I agree, whatever happened to "God helps those who help themselves."? Most entry level jobs like fast food aren't meant to be family supporting jobs but a stepping stone to a better life. When I was laid off from my well-paying union job for over 7 years I was forced to get a associate degree and retool myself to make myself more employable in the years until I was recalled. I didn't sit at home and whine how the government should support me.
  • AL 2012/12/03 08:31:35
    True.
    AL
    +2
    I just don't get it, we have a record amount of high school drop outs in this Country right now, and yet they still believe they should make just as much as everyone else anyway? REALLY?
  • sbtbill 2012/12/03 08:04:21
    False.
    sbtbill
    +4
    And if doing what it takes is organizing into a union and getting a bigger share of the pie is what it takes to get a better job what's wrong with that?

    Keep in mind we have engineers who are working in retail. We have accountants driving cabs. These are people who did exactly what you suggest but it didn't work.

    We have people who worked hard for 20 or 30 years at a job and were promoted many times and then dumped because the management was incompetent or sold out to someone with no loyalty to country or anyone else besides themselves..

    I can not say that the greedy have all the rights.
  • AL sbtbill 2012/12/03 08:40:20
    AL
    +2
    LOL! Do you really know just how big that so called pie is in the first place?How much do you really think a high school drop out is worth in the work place,for example? How about a high school graduate with very poor skills and little or no real experience then?
  • sbtbill AL 2012/12/03 18:25:15
    sbtbill
    Scince I invest in stocks and am a former stock broker. Yes, I do understand how big the pie is. For every person in your examples there are many skilled under paid people.
  • AL sbtbill 2012/12/04 05:21:16
    AL
    Oh sure there is! If that was the truth, then why don't they just quit,and find a job that pays more in that case?
  • FeedFwd... sbtbill 2012/12/04 17:28:58
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    In that case, you understand the concept of the buy-sell spread. An employer may be willing to pay a certain amount for a job, but would obviously prefer to pay less. An employee would be willing to work for a certain wage, but would obviously prefer to work for more. If the employee is willing to work for the same amount or less than the employer is willing to pay, then (assuming both parties are rational and self-interested) both will be better off with the job being offered and taken. If the employer is not willing to pay as much as the employee requires, then there will be no hire because somebody would be worse off. The interesting part and where liberals tend to get hung up on fairness is when the employee would be willing to work for less, perhaps much less than the employer is willing to pay. Neither party can really know the other party's bottom line unless one elects to tell the other. So the market brings together prospective employees with employers who wish to hire. If there is a large number of jobs and applicants, then the ,market is liquid and it is pretty easy to settle on a price. Collective bargaining can actually help with this. But just because there is a spread and the final price isn't exactly halfway between the employer's top offer and the employee's b...
    In that case, you understand the concept of the buy-sell spread. An employer may be willing to pay a certain amount for a job, but would obviously prefer to pay less. An employee would be willing to work for a certain wage, but would obviously prefer to work for more. If the employee is willing to work for the same amount or less than the employer is willing to pay, then (assuming both parties are rational and self-interested) both will be better off with the job being offered and taken. If the employer is not willing to pay as much as the employee requires, then there will be no hire because somebody would be worse off. The interesting part and where liberals tend to get hung up on fairness is when the employee would be willing to work for less, perhaps much less than the employer is willing to pay. Neither party can really know the other party's bottom line unless one elects to tell the other. So the market brings together prospective employees with employers who wish to hire. If there is a large number of jobs and applicants, then the ,market is liquid and it is pretty easy to settle on a price. Collective bargaining can actually help with this. But just because there is a spread and the final price isn't exactly halfway between the employer's top offer and the employee's bottom acceptance, doesn't mean it isn't a fair wage. If both parties are better off, then it is fair to both. It is not necessary for both to be "equally" better off (if that was even possible to measure or know) for it to be fair.
    (more)
  • AL sbtbill 2012/12/03 08:48:33
    AL
    +2
    Give me a break, you really don't expect any department store or cab company to really pay any engineer what they got,working as an engineer do you!Because if they have any sense at all,those kind of jobs would be fill in jobs until they find a better job!
  • sbtbill AL 2012/12/03 18:23:30
    sbtbill
    No I do not. I am simply pointing out that there are many people who have done everything right and can not find appropriate jobs.
  • FeedFwd... sbtbill 2012/12/04 17:41:07
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    Probably, in most cases, because government is discouraging people and businesses from hiring. Sometimes there are unfortunate choices made by those who are preparing themselves as prospective employees in the job market. What is valued as a skill tends to draw higher prices and attract more people trying to develop those skills until there is a surplus. Them the bottom falls out. This has been seen with engineers and scientists in the aerospace industry. Government decides to go whole hog in space (NASA) hires many engineers and scientists and wants more, so salaries rise. People start to go into aerospace majors and suddenly there are plenty of qualified employees, but government decides to spend less on aerospace and more for social workers or tax auditors. Now there is a surplus of qualified engineers and a shortage of jobs. So people decide to enter other fields and develop themselves in other directions. Some skill sets are more cyclic with respect to supply and demand than others. Unfortunately, school counselors, who are supposed to advise kids on career opportunities, seem to be more uninformed than anybody. It isn't just government that influences job needs and pay scales. Automation and demographics can have an effect. And in the information age, where many jobs can...
    Probably, in most cases, because government is discouraging people and businesses from hiring. Sometimes there are unfortunate choices made by those who are preparing themselves as prospective employees in the job market. What is valued as a skill tends to draw higher prices and attract more people trying to develop those skills until there is a surplus. Them the bottom falls out. This has been seen with engineers and scientists in the aerospace industry. Government decides to go whole hog in space (NASA) hires many engineers and scientists and wants more, so salaries rise. People start to go into aerospace majors and suddenly there are plenty of qualified employees, but government decides to spend less on aerospace and more for social workers or tax auditors. Now there is a surplus of qualified engineers and a shortage of jobs. So people decide to enter other fields and develop themselves in other directions. Some skill sets are more cyclic with respect to supply and demand than others. Unfortunately, school counselors, who are supposed to advise kids on career opportunities, seem to be more uninformed than anybody. It isn't just government that influences job needs and pay scales. Automation and demographics can have an effect. And in the information age, where many jobs can be done anywhere in the world with simply Internet and telephone access, these kinds of risks are very real. But it is unlikely that government is going to help and certainly not by encouraging people to go on the dole or by taxing and regulating and penalizing domestic companies into non-competitiveness or bankruptcy.
    (more)
  • BackWoo... sbtbill 2012/12/03 14:01:46 (edited)
    BackWoodsMike
    +1
    The main goal of any Corporation, Company or Business is not the employment of people, it is to provide a service, product or both at a competitive price, and in doing so make enough of a profit to give a good return to their Investors (so that they will continue to invest) and maintain a high salary for the Company Executives who have in most cases were responsible for the growth and success of the Company. In the case of privately owned Companies, the Owner has every right to make as much money as he desires for taking the chance of starting and maintaining a Business.

    Unless the Corporation, Company or Business pay their employees on a shared profit program, there is no “piece of the pie”.. there is only a $1.00 pay for a $1.00 worth of work, and promotions are given based on performance and loyalty.

    Labor unions are for insecure employees who depend on paid union negotiators to force Companies to pay $3.00 (plus outrageous benefits) for every $1.00 worth of work for everyone whether they are producers or slackers. That brings the point.. shouldn't a union member be more pissed off at their union lords for securing the same pay for the slacker standing next to them and who is only putting out 70% while they are busting their butt at 100%? to make matters worse, the union work...







    The main goal of any Corporation, Company or Business is not the employment of people, it is to provide a service, product or both at a competitive price, and in doing so make enough of a profit to give a good return to their Investors (so that they will continue to invest) and maintain a high salary for the Company Executives who have in most cases were responsible for the growth and success of the Company. In the case of privately owned Companies, the Owner has every right to make as much money as he desires for taking the chance of starting and maintaining a Business.

    Unless the Corporation, Company or Business pay their employees on a shared profit program, there is no “piece of the pie”.. there is only a $1.00 pay for a $1.00 worth of work, and promotions are given based on performance and loyalty.

    Labor unions are for insecure employees who depend on paid union negotiators to force Companies to pay $3.00 (plus outrageous benefits) for every $1.00 worth of work for everyone whether they are producers or slackers. That brings the point.. shouldn't a union member be more pissed off at their union lords for securing the same pay for the slacker standing next to them and who is only putting out 70% while they are busting their butt at 100%? to make matters worse, the union worker putting out 100% can get laid off first if the 70% slacker has a month seniority on them.

    Labor unions are a crutch for those slackers lacking the ambition and are so insecure that they are satisfied doing the same task day in and day out, paying other people to negotiate their salary and benefits, and just hanging in there until they get their overblown retirement.

    My personal story is like many.. I started out with a Company in 1970 as a Bench Technician, and worked (operative word “worked”) my way up to Senior Engineering Manager up to my retirement in 2004 at the age of 58.

    Despite the fact that the Obama administration and labor unions are forcing Companies to cut back or close down left and right, there are still Companies out there who are in search of good loyal employees who are willing to start at entrance salary and then prove their worth and work their way up.

    Just keep in mind the real goal of Business, and not the maxcist perceived goal that employees are deserving of more than they are worth.. “$1.00 pay for $1.00 worth of work” should be the rule for any Employer, anything less is not acceptable.
    (more)
  • sbtbill BackWoo... 2012/12/03 18:22:29
    sbtbill
    The goal of every worker should be to make as much money as possible. Money is the reason for work.
  • BackWoo... sbtbill 2012/12/03 20:20:06 (edited)
    BackWoodsMike
    +1
    And if a “worker” feels that he or she is getting a raw deal from their employer, then they can simply find a job where their skills are more appreciated.

    The big problem with today's society is that people (especially union employees) think a job is a right.. no where that I can find is that written. If as you say, it should be the goal for every worker to make as much money as they can, then they better work hard enough to earn it, not demand it through some type of group negotiation.

    You stated in another answer that you were an investor (and a stock broker), so you should know that if it were not for us, most Businesses would not be able to get off the ground. I don't know about you, but when I invest $20K to $50K of my hard earned money in a venture, I expect a damned good return on my investment, especially since the government takes 10%-15% of those returns (even though I already paid taxes on the money I invested).

    If one of my ventures is loosing money because of employees not pulling their weight, I cease to invest in that Business until they rectify the situation.

    I was a Manufacturing Process Engineer for a time with the Company I retired from, and part of my assignment was to review not only the vendors and shops that supplied us with components and sub assemblies, ...



    And if a “worker” feels that he or she is getting a raw deal from their employer, then they can simply find a job where their skills are more appreciated.

    The big problem with today's society is that people (especially union employees) think a job is a right.. no where that I can find is that written. If as you say, it should be the goal for every worker to make as much money as they can, then they better work hard enough to earn it, not demand it through some type of group negotiation.

    You stated in another answer that you were an investor (and a stock broker), so you should know that if it were not for us, most Businesses would not be able to get off the ground. I don't know about you, but when I invest $20K to $50K of my hard earned money in a venture, I expect a damned good return on my investment, especially since the government takes 10%-15% of those returns (even though I already paid taxes on the money I invested).

    If one of my ventures is loosing money because of employees not pulling their weight, I cease to invest in that Business until they rectify the situation.

    I was a Manufacturing Process Engineer for a time with the Company I retired from, and part of my assignment was to review not only the vendors and shops that supplied us with components and sub assemblies, but to review and adjust our own manufacturing process to make it more efficient.

    The Assemblers and Technicians knew that their jobs were on the line, and made darned sure that they worked hard to keep their job. Of course I was with a non union Company, so unlike union shops, job performance and loyalty was everything. When I saw that all the employees in my charge were as productive as they could be, I made sure that they stayed. The slackers were replaced with employees who could perform up to our standards.

    Employment is not a right, it's a privilege, and employers should have at their discretion to either employ or not employ those who will make their Business prosperous. Truthfully, if I were a Business Owner, I would look for every chance to replace a human being with automation or robotics. If a person wants a job, let them learn the skills to maintain that equipment.
    (more)
  • FeedFwd... sbtbill 2012/12/04 17:43:21
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    Then you should have selected True, not False.
  • FeedFwd... BackWoo... 2012/12/04 17:48:19
    FeedFwd ~POTL
    Actually, in many, if not most businesses, executive pay is at risk. They get paid some base amount, but the big money comes when the company performs well. when it doesn't, the executive may get little more than the base pay. Many publicly traded companies have boards who are responsible for hiring and firing executives and developing executive compensation. It seems in many cases, executives with good reputations can negotiate higher pay, less at risk pay, and better separation packages. Whether it is ideal or not, it would seem that it is fair if both parties agree.
  • RJ~PWCM... sbtbill 2012/12/03 18:24:06
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    "And if doing what it takes is organizing into a union and getting a bigger share of the pie is what it takes to get a better job what's wrong with that? "

    I never said there's anything wrong with that. I'm all for unions.

    People have the right to organize any way they wish. It's stupid union rules that drive companies into bankruptcy I'm against.

    But on the flip side - I'm also for the managers and owners of a company doing any damned thing THEY please with their money. If that includes voting themselves big bonuses - great!

    That's my point. If someone doesn't want to be the low-paid schlub, and find themselves crying about "high paid CEO's", they need to go learn how to do a CEO's job and go be a CEO themselves.
  • sbtbill RJ~PWCM... 2012/12/03 19:40:55
    sbtbill
    How many CEO jobs exist in this country 10,000, a few more a few less. Most are with small companies where the income potential is small. I've seen a lot of CEO's whose main skill is smoozing on the golf course. That brings in the business so fine. But there just aren't enough CEO jobs to go around. We need to spread the wealth around if for no other reason then because the economy will be better.

    There is a big difference between maagers and owner. Today in large corporations we have a lot of managers who rip off both investors and workers. They get away with it because of mutual fund managers who are only interested in stock prices. The real investors don't even know what they are invested in.
  • RJ~PWCM... sbtbill 2012/12/03 21:29:44
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    "How many CEO jobs exist in this country 10,000, a few more a few less."

    I never said it would be easy. But if you want CEO pay, be a CEO.

    Otherwise you're not gonna get paid that much.

    Life sucks!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/16 07:34:54

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals