Oh, please. The deterioration of morals is evident in all levels of our society, including the highest levels of our Government and Corporations. Those with the highest level of power, during much of this country's history have recognized that, again:
not everyone has the same intellectual and social skills
It is far better for our country for those people to work for a shot at a very modest "American Dream" than it is to have them on welfare, while we export their jobs to an enemy country's slaves. Better generations of Americans recognized this as being fundamentally important to our sovereignty; this is putting us on the fast track to socialism.
This, Ms. Executive, you should've learned in Organizational Behavior 101 (or even Marketing 101, if it were taught right).
Sorry I wasn't indocrinated with a business degree by a bunch of liberals; I have degrees in other areas. Probably why I can see so clearly.
If you would like a perfect compare/contrast example of the "old" business model, and the "new" business model research two older companies in Iowa: Maytag and Winnebago.
Look who is running them; compare their backgrounds and company philosophies...then take a look at the company performance and get back to me. I'll send links if you want (I'm sure you won't...LOL).
The question is ill-posed: it is much like, "Is it better to eat or to sleep?" As is these were mutually exclusive.
Nobody suggest to put these people on welfare; if you want to come up with an opinion, it would be nice if you understood what the issue is. The problem in an industry such as IT stems from the fact that wages outpaced productivity: an American worker that, say, is 10 time more productive than an Indian one must receive no more than 10 times the Indian's salary. If (s)he makes 11 times more, the wages will drop: sometimes through the renegotiation of wages at the present job, and sometimes through a change of jobs. Nobody says that the wage will drop to the level of the Indian worker: only a cut of about 9% is needed.
So, your statement is an emotional propaganda, as if the choice was between making $100,000 a year and being on welfare.
Sorry I wasn't indocrinated with a business degree
Oh, please, since when it has become noble to "justify" own shortcomings by pointing at the shortcomings of others? You clearly not only lack education in this area but don't even know what it is. Hardly anything you would hear in a business course would have anything to do with political philosophy of the instructor.
by a bunch of liberals; I have degrees in other areas. Probably why I can see so clearly.
You are not only justiftig your ignorance but also put down others without a shred of evidence. That's a violation of one of the Commandements, Ms. Conservative Executive.
If you would like a perfect compare/contrast example of the "old" business model, and the "new" business model research two older companies in Iowa: Maytag and Winnebago. It is hard to understand what you mean since you are misusing the term "business model." It also not clear what you mean by old and new --- old and new in terms of what?
Look who is running them; compare their backgrounds and company philosophies... What does that have to do with the issue? Should I also inquire about what cars the executives drive? Would that be relevant?
then take a look at the company performance and get back to me. And report to you what? Are you always so clear when you give tasks to your subordinate?
And what do you mean by performance? At your level, Ms. Executive, you should know that THE measure of performance does not exist. Oh, I forgot: you are not "indoctrinated" with basic knowledge.
I'll send links if you want Thank you, but I manage to find info when I research companies, and both are publicly traded.
(I'm sure you won't...LOL). YOu are correct: I am not eager to go look for something that you have not even specified. But I did have some detailed knowledge of the marketing strategies of Maytag in mid-1990s.