the housing market

[Sarvis]

<b>Ambar</b>: True, though Corth doesn't seem to believe that.

<b>Corth</b>: You may not think it's necessary, but most employers do.

I wasn't trying to argue that it wasn't a business decision, because you're right about that.

[Corth]

Sometimes I get the feeling, Sarvis, that you think employers are some sort of mythical race of being from a different galaxy that just snapped their fingers and suddenly were making lots of money and needed to hire employees to abuse.

Uneducated people who make lots of money are themselves employers.

[Sarvis]

You clearly haven't had some of the Pointy Haired Bosses I have. :P

[Kifle]

Regardless, you didn't address my point that a private scholarship at a private university is simply a business decision and is not a 'social service'.

Eh, I'll plead ignorance on this one. Kiryan said he believed his education was subsidized in some way, and I just figured he would know since it was his education finances. Also, the scholorship didn't have to be, necessarily, from the school. There are tons of independant scholorships available to people out there -- and I'm not sure if you'd call those public funds or not, but I'd imagine it is a fine line. I also wasn't intending to rule out the possibility of non-governmental subsidizing.

[Sarvis]

So, yesterday I attended a lunch meeting with one of our new customers. While eating lunch the basic topic of conversation was other people they knew in common and where they were now, which reminded me of just how important maintaining a network is. It also came out that the salesman had been brought into our company by his brother-in-law, who was himself a friend of the CEO since high school... along with several other high ranking salesmen.

Now, how is it "fair" under your definition if a person's compensation/position is affected by relationship with the CEO? Is a person's contribution to the company worth more if he knew the CEO in high school?

You see, I don't necessarily think that business owners are "out to get us." They are, however, human and humans tend to do stupid things, make bad choices, notice form over function and do favors for their friends.

[Corth]

Hrmm.. I think there is a lot of value to a business in having employees that are known for a long time and trusted by the boss. I would imagine that it gets even more valuable as the company gets bigger, and the boss gets more and more insulated from the daily hustle and bustle of whats going on.

[Sarvis]

You're really reaching on that one...

Besides, I wouldn't trust all of my friends from High School!

[Corth]

I know I'm not reaching. I'm currently starting a business that will be managed by one of my closest high school friends. There is no way I would do it without him. I trust him innately, and due to the nature of the business I need to have a lot of trust in the person handling it for me.

[Sarvis]

I know I'm not reaching. I'm currently starting a business that will be managed by one of my closest high school friends. There is no way I would do it without him. I trust him innately, and due to the nature of the business I need to have a lot of trust in the person handling it for me.

Ok, but are you sure he's the best available business manager in the city? How is it fair to other managers who might be better?

I know you trust this guy, but how often do you hear stories about people being betrayed by their best friends? Just because you know him doesn't mean he's actually trustworthy... your relationship could just be giving you a false sense of security.

How can you state that recompense under a free market is "fair" when people who may have worked harder than your friend don't have a chance at this job, and probably wouldn't be paid as much if they did?

[Corth]

Anything I pay to anyone else is money that doesn't go into my pocket. I am not a charitable organization or a governmental entity. When I pay something, I expect to get value in return.

My friend might not be the best manager out there but I certainly derive value from the fact that I trust him. To that extent, its a good match because I value him more than most others would.

The same dynamic is at play in other businesses. If you were an owner of a business, wouldn't you prefer to hire people that you a) know, b) trust, c) like? There is value to a business owner in entering into an employment relationship with someone who brings less question marks to the table.

So my suggestion to you, Sarvis, is to start hanging out with people who are going to start businesses or are likely to be placed in a position of authority within one. Hell, YOU might even one day decide to start a business and hire the people you know, trust, and like to help you run it. :)

[Sarvis]

The same dynamic is at play in other businesses. If you were an owner of a business, wouldn't you prefer to hire people that you a) know, b) trust, c) like? There is value to a business owner in entering into an employment relationship with someone who brings less question marks to the table.

I'm not saying I wouldn't, I'm saying that it isn't fair.

It's one of those reasons why someone who works hard can end up not making much money and struggling. It is one of the reasons why the economic reality of the world is never, ever equated with fairness by anyone but a libertarian.

[Corth]

Sarvis,

Lets say you go to the grocery store to buy peaches. You want to buy three, and goodness gracious, there is a huge crate with hundreds of them. So you start squeezing the peaches.. smelling the peaches. And after 30 seconds or so you have picked out the three best ones according to your criteria of what makes a peach good.

Hiring an employee is not any different.

You need to hire three employees. There are hundreds of job applicants out there to choose from. You read their resumes.. ask them some questions. Squeeze them. Smell them. Whatever. :) Ultimately, you pick the three best employees according to your criteria of what makes an employee good.

So you ask if its fair whether I hire someone I'm friends with as opposed to someone who might have worked harder or is more knowledgeable or whatever. My answer is that of course its fair. In the same way that its fair for me to discriminate against one peach in favor of another. I am paying my own money for something, and I can use whatever criteria I want to decide what it is that I am going to buy. Trust and friendship, in the employment context, has value, just as certifications, diplomas, and licenses do.

[Sarvis]

But that doesn't make it fair to the peaches, nor does your criteria necessarily get you the best one.

But I have to go to the dentist now, so enjoy your peaches...

[Kifle]

I wish somebody would squeeze me in an interview!

[kiryan]

my comment about my education being subsidized somehow is in that there is nothing free. I went to a private college which was not subsidized in the same way state schools are, but someone had to pay. Whether it is simply limited to the other students who had to pay more so I could go to school for free or some other state/federal/tax mechanism I never bothered to think about it, but I know someone paid for my education since I didn't.

Is it fair? Someone offered it, I accepted it. Seems fair to me. Did others work harder while I slacked off and still did better, sure, but I still did better. As someone pointed out, we don't all start with the same advantages / disadvantages and while that may be unfair, I don't see it changing until we get to gattaca.

[kiryan]

as far as employing people goes, its a lot more than skills. I've personally hired a couple dozen people throughout my career and hundreds indirectly. I'm no pro. I can tell you that I've had highly highly qualified and amazingly talented employees utterly fail for all sorts of reasons that had nothing to do with their intrinsic knowledge of the job.

In Corth's situation, his license and reputation is on the line so he needs more than good skills, he needs someone he can trust. Hiring his friend, someone he trusts, allows him to focus on the things he needs to do rather than developing a trust with a random person who will probably quit within 2 years. Corth and his friend will be in sync much faster than with a stranger equaling higher efficiency for his dollars.

He may be better off interviewing 100 peaches trying to get a better one at the risk of a rotten one, but instead he's just going to buy the one he's tasted before because he doesn't need to hit a home run to be successful.

[Kifle]

my comment about my education being subsidized somehow is in that there is nothing free. I went to a private college which was not subsidized in the same way state schools are, but someone had to pay. Whether it is simply limited to the other students who had to pay more so I could go to school for free or some other state/federal/tax mechanism I never bothered to think about it, but I know someone paid for my education since I didn't.

Is it fair? Someone offered it, I accepted it. Seems fair to me. Did others work harder while I slacked off and still did better, sure, but I still did better. As someone pointed out, we don't all start with the same advantages / disadvantages and while that may be unfair, I don't see it changing until we get to gattaca.

You basically described a social service. Others work hard and you reap benefits from their labor -- whether it be from taxes, rich people handing out scholorships, other students paying a premium so you can get subsidies from the school, etc. So, why would you take a handout and then condemn the system that gives handouts? It's a bit hypocritical imo.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

You basically described a social service. Others work hard and you reap benefits from their labor -- whether it be from taxes, rich people handing out scholorships, other students paying a premium so you can get subsidies from the school, etc. So, why would you take a handout and then condemn the system that gives handouts? It's a bit hypocritical imo.

I'm in no way answering for Kiryan, just giving a different perspective on the matter, and going to try clearing up the terminology being used. If I was an A+ student and was rewarded for doing a good job when I got to college, that is not a handout. Financial aid is a handout, and only when you don't have to pay it back. If a did a good job selling a product for my company, and when Christmas came around, I received a bonus for doing a good job, that isn't a handout, it's a reward. I received a scholarship when I attended college because of my grades, but I also was given some financial aid if I also worked on campus. My wife had to apply for a loan to finish her Master's degree, which we are finishing paying off.

At no point in time were any of those "handouts". Trying to get financial aid from the government because I can't afford to pay for college and don't really want a loan, now, that's a handout.

Hope I made sense.

[Lathander]

As someone that actually does hire folks, the hardest part of the job is sourcing people. We have a department that scours Hotjobs and other sites that people post their resumes on. We have another department that does nothing but try to recruit producers. Finally, we work with outside recruiters that work to find us people. If someone that I know through my networking sends me someone, it makes my job easier which means I make more money. In addition, the fact that person referred them to me gives them some credibility to begin with that someone resume emailed to me from Hotjobs.

Sarvis, you are confusing fairness with equality. One of my motto’s that I tell folks is I treat everyone fairly but not equally. A referral from someone I know to be high quality is automatically going to have some associated advantage from the source of the lead. Sitting at one’s desk and working hard is not really working hard. Perception more important than reality, and if you are not showing value, then you really are not valuable. A hard worker is smart about marketing what they do. They take on extra duties that get them notoriety. Also, they show their success through giving credit to subordinates. Always take the blame, but share the credit!

[Sarvis]

Perception more important than reality, and if you are not showing value, then you really are not valuable.

See <b>Corth</b>, this is what I mean. Appearing to provide value is more valuable than actually providing it! You're better off being a lazy but smooth talker than a hard worker with a boss like Lathander, and unfortunately they are all too common.

[Lathander]

Now your misrepresenting what I said, but that tends to happen when you hack apart posts. I did not say being lazy is good. I said you need to promote what you do. Lazy folks in my office have it the worst. I metaphorically beat them up pretty good. Stop being lazy and read harder.

[Sarvis]

No, you beat up those who <i>appear to be</i> lazy. You really don't know if Bob is making other people do all his work then just talking up a big game. You don't know if Mary is doing 10 times the work of everyone else but never says anything to build up her contributions. That's just what happens when you go by perception.

You're the one who said perception was more important. Personally, I'd rather have people who worked hard rather than constantly told me how hard they were working.

[Lathander]

Um, or you could just look at their production. In my industry, it is fairly easy to see what folks are doing. If they have a tough month and they are experienced, I give them a nice pep talk about doing the right actions to lead to production and offer ideas on getting back to pace. Newer folks, I look if they are doing the right activities through the tracking software that looks at their calls and other actions on the computer. If they are doing the work, they get the "right actions" pep talk. If they are not doing the right actions, they get the pain in the ass treatment.

[Sarvis]

Then why do they need to be "smart about marketing what they do?"

[Corth]

Why should employees 'market what they do'?

For the same reason that GM needs to show off the bells and whistles of their new models if they want me to keep buying cars from them.

Working is another way of saying that you are selling your time. Presumably to the highest bidder at the moment, your boss. At the very least, to retain your job, you need to demonstrate to the purchaser of your time that he is getting good value for his money. Your boss is your customer, and you need to market yourself to him.

[Sarvis]

You guys are missing the point though. I'm not arguing that this isn't the reality. I'm arguing that it's not _fair_ to someone who worked hard to become good at their job, then works hard at their job to earnless than a guy who is good at marketing himself but never put in that much effort.

You keep saying all that matters is how hard you work, yet you keep giving me examples of how success is determined by the circumstances of your birth. It hardly sounds like there's been any real progress since people were born into nobility. Being born in Corth's neighborhood gets you a cushy business manager job. Being born attractive means you earn more money. Being born a Bush means you can bankrupt three businesses but still rule the country.

Image matters, not hard work.

[Corth]

I suppose if you keep telling yourself that sort of nonsense, eventually you believe it. :)

Marketing yourself IS part of your job. If your customer (boss) does not know how much value you are giving him, why should he keep paying you? If you don't market yourself, you aren't doing your job.. and you deserve what you get.

[Sarvis]

I suppose if you keep telling yourself that sort of nonsense, eventually you believe it. :)

Marketing yourself IS part of your job. If your customer (boss) does not know how much value you are giving him, why should he keep paying you? If you don't market yourself, you aren't doing your job.. and you deserve what you get.

Corth, YOU are the one telling me this. I'm just saying it isn't fair.

[Zabam]

Let me try to explain this issue in another way.

An individual may work really hard and do a great job, but only affect their their immediate environment. These folks are valued employees but will never really achieve results that extend past that environment. They pass the test, but when promotions are available will probably not advance. They will stay in that arena where they operate comfortably.

An individual may work really hard and do a great job, but extends their influence beyond their immediate envionment. They enable the acheivement of organizational goals by that extension of influence. These people are the ones who will most likely be looked at for advancement because they provide more worth to the organization and have shown an ability to affect more than their immediate surroundings. They are the "shakers and movers".

It is all about effect, not just living in a box and doing "your" work well. The resulting output of the "affect" an individual has on an organization is VERY apparent to managers who maintain a broader view of organizational success.

[Ambar]

2 workers both show up on time every day, both only take the required breaks, both are equal performers

One plays on the company baseball team, one goes home and never even gives work a second thought

which one gets the promotions do you think?

You have to take the steps that set you apart from average .. why is this so hard to comprehend?

[Sarvis]

What about the guy who goes home and works more? Less visible, right? Less chance of advancement, right? More value to the company than playing basketball, right?

And <b>Zabam</b> there's a difference between doing things beyond your "zone" and just chatting up the boss. If everyone were just judged on the work they do it would be much like the situation you described, but it isn't. You'll get farther by taking the boss out for drinks than by actually working hard. The guy who only does his own work but happens to be his boss's best friend from High School will excel anyway.

[Zabam]

Sarvis,

I do not think you got the gist of what I wrote. It it not the work, it is the impact of the work.

Now as for hanging with the boss example:
I open my house to my people about once per quarter on a Friday nite. Drinks and finger foods to relax a bit in the back yard. Much shop talk occurs even though the event is to team build and relax a bit. Great ideas are actually formed concerning how to "do things better" at work. Now.....the folks who attend and participate; network; bounce ideas; discuss process or products; how to better serve customers; how to influence other organizations who influence us, etc.....or the folks who sit home in their box. Who is impacting the organization more?
Yes, having a beer with the "boss" does have its perks. Do you know what "Face-time" is? "Initiative" is a huge factor too (something that cannot be taught in school). I have many people who can do their job. They get paid for that job. The folks who advance are the ones who have a vision beyound their job and demonstrate the initiative to make something positive happen.

So, if you sit within your box (and I'm not pointing at "you" Sarvis), you'll most likely stay within your box.

If one belongs to a bad organization, especially an organization whose values do not align with the individual..then that individual needs to seek an organization that fits better (and visa versa).

[Corth]

I suppose if you keep telling yourself that sort of nonsense, eventually you believe it. :)

Marketing yourself IS part of your job. If your customer (boss) does not know how much value you are giving him, why should he keep paying you? If you don't market yourself, you aren't doing your job.. and you deserve what you get.

Corth, YOU are the one telling me this. I'm just saying it isn't fair.

How is it not fair? If you don't do your job, you should be fired or demoted. Failing to market yourself.. i.e. let your customer (boss) know what value you are providing to him.. means that you are not doing your job.

[Sarvis]

I must have missed that part in the job description.

It still seems a bad idea to base personell decisions on how friendly you are with the personell.

Hell, we all know the rumors of women sleeping their way to the top. Is that just a fair part of their job? Just marketing themselves well, after all...

Of course, I'm fairly certain I could find a logical fallacy here if I searched. Something about changing the definition of something to include anything you want. I remember a time when working hard meant you went to work, worked your ass off and got shit done then went home. Now apparently "working hard" means chatting with your boss, throwing dinner parties, and getting on your knees when applicable.

EDIT: Almost forgot joining the basketball team!

[Corth]

You are forgetting what it means to 'work'. When you work, you are selling your time to the (presumably) highest bidder, your boss. You are the seller (of your time), and your boss is the purchaser (of your time). Like any other situation where you are selling something, if you want to retain that business, you need to let your customer know that they are getting good value for their money. Otherwise your customer will find someone else to deal with.

Marketing yourself does not necessarily mean taking part in extracurricular activities with your co-workers. It simply means that you are letting others know your value, which IS important for anyone trying to sell themself (i.e. almost all employees). Its perfectly fair for purchasers of time to choose someone who is able to demonstrate the value of the time being purchased.

[Sarvis]

Sure it's fair, for varying definitions of fair.

Do you REALLY think a business is better off judging people based on their marketing rather than the evaluated quality of their work?

Put another way, did you buy your car based solely on the manufacturer's commercials? I'm fairly certain you did more research than that, but you don't sound like you would apply the same due diligence to your employees.

[Ambar]

Sarvis you are not getting it!

I am quite sure the asskisser who doesnt perform will not succeed .. any good boss can detect asskisserism over genuine desire to advance

the great performer who also networks himself is the better employee by far

has nothing at all to do with sleeping your way to the top, it is called networking! If Joe has a spot open that is a promotion for Fred and Fred drools over the spot, but Joe doesn't know Fred wants the job .. Fred will never get it .. But if Fred has networked himself so that Joe knows he wants the spot, guess what .. if Fred qualifies he will get the promotion

perchance you dont understand corporate America???

[Sarvis]

Let's say Manager Bob has a project which needs to get done. He hands the project to a team consisting of Tim, Mary and Joe.

Over the next three weeks, Joe and Bob who are friends outside of work, go out for drinks every day at lunch. Joe talks about the project, letting Bob know how hard it is and how much time it's taking and everything else.

Three weeks later Joe hands the finished product over to Bob.

Who did the most work and highest quality work on the project?

[Kifle]

Let's say Manager Bob has a project which needs to get done. He hands the project to a team consisting of Tim, Mary and Joe.

Over the next three weeks, Joe and Bob who are friends outside of work, go out for drinks every day at lunch. Joe talks about the project, letting Bob know how hard it is and how much time it's taking and everything else.

Three weeks later Joe hands the finished product over to Bob.

Who did the most work and highest quality work on the project?

Oh, I love those "who done it" mysteries! Um, I'm gonna go with professor plum in the study with the rope!

[Ambar]

What is the point of your last post? Is it that you think it will be perceived that the guy who knows the boss outside work did more work?

Give some more information, please

It is already blatantly obvious you have held no supervisory or managerial positions .. but explain this for me, please

[Sarvis]

Well, wouldn't he? he'd trust his friend, and even without trying his friend is giving the impression he's going through a lot on this project. If the boss isn't fluent in whatever the team does (a frequent issue in my career) how would he know different?

The real answer is that you have no idea who did the best work on that project. The obvious answer, by everything you guys are saying, is that Joe worked really hard. After all, he marketed himself better, right?

[Ambar]

NO. obviously it was Mary who worked the hardest, duh .. the image of a hard working man is a myth

[Sarvis]

Nah, Mary was just very talented. While Joe was complaining how hard the project was she thought it was a breeze. Tim skipped lunch for three weeks to make sure it got done.

(And yes, I filled out the scenario when I wrote it.)

Joe is still the one visible to the boss though, Mary's talent and Tim's effort are less likely to get noticed right?

[Ambar]

One legged man .. ass kicking contest

[teflor the ranger]

The only thing that is really unfair, Sarvis, is to have a boss that has poor judgement and worse observational skills. If that's the case, and you're really a good apple, you won't have a problem finding a boss that will recognize your value.

Having trouble finding a boss that thinks you're valuable? Hmm.

Hmmmm.



This is going to get settled right now.

List of things Sarvis indicates is unfair:

Having an advantage for knowing people.
Having an advantage for being trusted.
Having an advantage for being liked.
Having an advantage for marketing yourself better.
Having an advantage for looking like you work harder.
Having an advantage for being a better peach.
Having an advantage for appearing to provide more value.

If we aren't in disagreement (other people), Sarvis, perhaps you can provide a clear, concice, and rational answer to this question:

If I know people, am trusted, well liked and market myself better than others, appear to work harder than others, and appear to provide more value; if I'm just darned peachy keen,

how is it fair that I make the same as someone who:

doesn't know anybody, is disliked, untrusted, poor at selling themselves, appear to work less hard than anyone else, appears to provide less value than others, and is just a damned ugly looking peach bruised at the bottom of the basket?


Who would you rather trust to be your child's surgeon, should they need lifesaving, risky surgury?

[Sarvis]

Who would you rather trust to be your child's surgeon, should they need lifesaving, risky surgury?

Interesting question. Ever watch Scrubs?

If so, would you rather have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Cabbage_(Scrubs_episode)">Cabbage</a> for your kids MD, or Dr. Cox?

[Corth]

Teflor pretty much summed it up...

[Sarvis]

Yes, notice all the "appearings" instead of "doings."

Maybe YOU want to live in a shallow world where quality is based on appearance and we get garbage music like Britney Spears because she has the right look. But you'll have trouble convincing me that's a good thing.

[Corth]

Sarvis,

Jon Stewart does a pretty good job making your point...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oLSNuZjx_Xc

[Ambar]

To hell with Scrubs, I am going to go to General Hospital when I get sick

OMG Sarvis .. hehehehe