pitay

1st. She trashed talked what was done before.

2nd. she took away any coffee or tea provided for employees to use, saying it cost $10000 a year to provide them.

3rd. Then she got a plan for a complete renovation of the office space, so executive officers had offices in the middle of the building that looked out over what would be open plan offices, so that no-one had the slightest bit of privacy at all. This was not done to fit more people in.

4th. Then a move to a completely different state in the country was being talked about.

I am glad I don't work there any more.

Edit: Formatting.

Just for reference I own an automatic and I'm quite happy with it.

Feel free to correct me or give more information, I am perfectly fine with being educated.

Just so you don't get me wrong.

Did you know that the effects of non-conformance have different outcomes with different people. You might say that is a useless thing to say, and you'd be right. Just as the non-explanation you put about genders and non-conformance is as well. And my post had nothing to say that it wasn't asymmetric, so your response was changing the subject.

The grandparent post you mentioned in your post before was asking for evidence before assuming that females were more susceptible to societal pressures, as that is playing to a stereotype. He suggested that it is wiser to take a neutral view. My post corrected you when you said that that post was trying to downplay the societal pressure, it wasn't.

Your response with the "all lives matter" sideshow is changing the argument again and is quite dishonest. Just like you misrepresented the "grandparent post".

The guy in the article however, actively tried to ruin her life and showed that her well being meant jack all to him, just what he could get from her.

If you are working for a boss who has contempt for his underlings, I would suggest leaving, if you want to be productive in the future. Working under that sort of manager is absolutely hazardous.

A way you can spot someone who has contempt is to notice if they put down people, even if in a backhanded kind of way, or assuming the worst about someone. I have found that showing contempt for people in a 'lower socioeconomic status' is a strong sign of them showing contempt for everyone else they can put down to elevate themselves.

If they are your manager then they are likely to go up the organisational hierarchy soon, because they are really good at self promotion if they are already your manager.

This has come from my experience in the workforce.

I don't think people have been saying "The only way you can succeed is if we, the majority, give you success" at all, certainly not the "only" part. Of course people know that success is possible without it, and inferring that the other side said that is very dishonest. Getting help is not dehumanizing at all, unlike what you say. I have seen various alterations of this sentiment spruiked by politicians to remove aid from people. I am pretty sure that the people receiving aid would not say that it dehumanizes them.

Disadvantage and advantage is compounding in almost all real life areas (social competence being a stand out one), which is why people worry about schooling for their young children and other such things that may give them advantage from a young age. The correct sort of aid could have a very large positive effect over time, unlike not giving aid.

The support of having is stronger than you suggest. The study showed a significant negative association between firm performance and pay disparity in the Korean companies as well, from a separate study where more financial information is required to be disclosed.

I will also say that the CEO compensation is reasonable in most companies, it is just that after about the 8th decile performance starts decreasing and risk increases. The real problem seems to be the more extreme CEO to average employee pay ratios.

Can you think of another reason why banks with lots of mortgage officers might have performed worse during the crisis?

A larger pay gap in the executive ranks promotes greater risk-taking.

By the way, there was the highest CEO compensation compared to employee compensation just before the GFC hit.

...I encourage you to invest in companies with CEOs who are perceived as being terrible.

I would say that is terrible advice that has nothing to do with the conversation, as we were discussing pay ratios.

Does the employee get near what they make the company? I doubt it.

Does the company need to pay the employee near what they make the company? No.

So a company does not need to pay the CEO the difference that they supposedly make the company. They just need to pay what someone will accept to do a similar job (I am not saying worse in any way), just like other employees.

Here is an article that shows that higher pay only increases performance until a point, then performance drops: http://eganassociates.com.au/high-ceo-pay-inspires-better-pe... These results came from data that compared CEO remuneration to average employee remuneration. This directly contradicts what Gizi was proposing, because the real world data shows a negative correlation between CEO pay and performance after a point. The full paper is available here http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2529112 if anyone is interested in it.

Consider the GFC, it shows how well upper management really stuffed things up at the largest companies and still got away with it, no problems, still getting huge payouts for sub par leadership. Yet when things go well, the CEO gets bonuses for things that may have had nothing to do with them. Random fluctuations are wrongfully attributed to CEOs, and they get hefty bonuses for it as well. Here is a study that shows this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151022192337.ht... , unfortunately the original source is behind a paywall so I am not linking it.

From what I see, finding the right guy to manage a company is very hit and miss in the real world. Just look at Ron Johnson. He was previously senior vice president of retail operations at Apple, and then hired as CEO of J.C. Penny. He was fired as CEO from J.C. Penny in 2013, after retail sales were down by 32% and stock prices fell steeply. This was despite him having a very successful tenure at Apple. The pricing should factor in the uncertainty and risk of the performance of someone in the position of CEO.

I have probably have not touched most of things that could be issues here, such as corruption, and that some CEOs are just extremely incompetent. I remember a CEO that was given 250 million dollars to leave because he had that much negative impact on the company he was running. This was someone that the board thought was a great hire.

Anyway, I find the post I am replying to is way too simplistic and looks at CEOs with extremely rose coloured glasses. There is a lot more to consider.

I was saying that a lot of success is due to chance, and that a lot of life events are due to chance. This got people some people saying that what I was saying was horribly depressing. The guy then proceeded to lecture me that my attitude was what was letting me down in something that I never did, and was irrelevant anyway. And that 'I may not have intended it, but that my actions are causing misery' (because I did apologize to people that saying that they were horribly depressed by me saying that life has chance in it, because I felt the need to be conciliatory).

That is what happened when I tried to be honest and disagree with someone spouting feel good bullshit or whatever else made him look good. A complete frigging cesspool.

It seems pretty clear to me where I got it from. You are definitely fine with letting people live in misery at the best. It's pretty simple, there is no "actual what the fuck" about it.

Funny that you comment on nature, when civilization has made a lot of the horrible things that have to be dealt with in nature a lot less relevant. In nature animals are violent to each other, and will kill each other even of their own species. By your logic you must support killing each other, otherwise your argument about nature would be totally hypocritical.

The more civilized a place the more people can do their own thing without worry of harm or their needs being met. What you wrote below has nothing to do with a basic income. A basic income will make people less afraid of moving employers for example, making parasites that employ people in hideous conditions lose power. Threats from those psychopaths will have a lot less punch. That is a massive gain.

A basic income does not look like it will not alter how much people work. As an example, the MINCOME project showed that the only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less in an actual experiment with a form of basic income, the people who work will still work. I will not repeat other sources here, any reader can look it up if they want.

I wouldn't assume that. As far as I can remember, this is one of the main reasons cited for the reduction in cycling. Small things can change a persons behaviour significantly.

This does not describe this site, to avoid any confusion.