Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Week I, and still no answer from somebody about something

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Week I, and still no answer from somebody about something

    On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:24:52 -0500, AllYou! wrote
    Simple question really...... When considering whether or not to accept a promotion, or work overtime, or some similar decision (e.g., second earner status in a family, etc....), would you
    agree that the value judgment can be defined as the money on one side of the equation, and all of the other considerations (e.g., stress, time, travel, etc...) on the other?
    Sure but these additions refine and redefine it: I'd add
    "status" to the "money" side as well as "pressure from
    family" regarding status as well as the $$$ itself).


    I've seen "status" - time after time - be regarded by the
    person working or that person's family as more important
    than the $$$ itself.



    Gray Shockley
    ---------------------------------------
    President George W C Bush's business professor at
    Harvard Business School, Professor Yoshi Tsurumi, recalls
    our President as "not just as a terrible student but as
    spoiled, loutish and a pathological liar".



    And if not, why not? How would you redefine that value judgment? Alternatively, if you think this is a typical Usenet trap question of the type to which you typically resort, please explain.


  • #2
    Week I, and still no answer from somebody about something


    "Gray Shockley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected] .com...
    On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:24:52 -0500, AllYou! wrote
    Simple question really...... When considering whether or not to accept a promotion, or work overtime, or some similar decision (e.g., second earner status in a family, etc....), would you agree that the value judgment can be defined as the money on one side of the equation, and all of the other considerations (e.g., stress, time, travel, etc...) on the other?
    Sure but these additions refine and redefine it: I'd add "status" to the "money" side as well as "pressure from family" regarding status as well as the $$$ itself). I've seen "status" - time after time - be regarded by the person working or that person's family as more important than the $$$ itself. Gray Shockley
    But the real question is this, Gary, no matter what value any person places on
    any amount of types of factors in making such a decision, which amount should
    they consider on the revenue side......the gross amount of any change in pay, or
    the net amount?

    Comment


    • #3
      Week I, and still no answer from somebody about something


      "Gray Shockley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
      news:[email protected] .com...
      On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:24:52 -0500, AllYou! wrote
      Simple question really...... When considering whether or not to accept a promotion, or work overtime, or some similar decision (e.g., second earner status in a family, etc....), would you agree that the value judgment can be defined as the money on one side of the equation, and all of the other considerations (e.g., stress, time, travel, etc...) on the other?
      Sure but these additions refine and redefine it: I'd add "status" to the "money" side as well as "pressure from family" regarding status as well as the $$$ itself). I've seen "status" - time after time - be regarded by the person working or that person's family as more important than the $$$ itself. Gray Shockley
      But the real question is this, Gary, no matter what value any person places on
      any amount of types of factors in making such a decision, which amount should
      they consider on the revenue side......the gross amount of any change in pay, or
      the net amount?

      Comment


      • #4
        Week I, and still no answer from somebody about something


        "Gray Shockley" <[email protected]> wrote
        Sure but these additions refine and redefine it: I'd add "status" to the "money" side as well as "pressure from family" regarding status as well as the $$$ itself). I've seen "status" - time after time - be regarded by the person working or that person's family as more important than the $$$ itself.

        Thanks for mentioning that gross and net are at times, irrelevant to the
        person who has to make the decision.

        I've known people who take jobs that pay less (gross and net) just so they
        can gain a little sanity back.


        --
        Paul A. Thomas, CPA
        Athens, Georgia
        taxman at negia.net




        Comment


        • #5
          Week I, and still no answer from somebody about something


          "Gray Shockley" <[email protected]> wrote
          Sure but these additions refine and redefine it: I'd add "status" to the "money" side as well as "pressure from family" regarding status as well as the $$$ itself). I've seen "status" - time after time - be regarded by the person working or that person's family as more important than the $$$ itself.

          Thanks for mentioning that gross and net are at times, irrelevant to the
          person who has to make the decision.

          I've known people who take jobs that pay less (gross and net) just so they
          can gain a little sanity back.


          --
          Paul A. Thomas, CPA
          Athens, Georgia
          taxman at negia.net




          Comment


          • #6
            Week I, and still no answer from somebody about something


            "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
            news:[email protected]
            "Gray Shockley" <[email protected]> wrote
            Sure but these additions refine and redefine it: I'd add "status" to the "money" side as well as "pressure from family" regarding status as well as the $$$ itself). I've seen "status" - time after time - be regarded by the person working or that person's family as more important than the $$$ itself.
            Thanks for mentioning that gross and net are at times, irrelevant to the person who has to make the decision. I've known people who take jobs that pay less (gross and net) just so they can gain a little sanity back.
            But you and I both know that's not the question I asked you. I'm sure you
            appreciate that someone got fooled by your responses and assumed that they were
            in direct response appropriate to the question, but they were not. Here's the
            question again.......

            No matter what value any person places on any amount of types of factors in
            making such a decision, which amount should they consider on the revenue
            side......the gross amount of any change in pay, or the net amount?

            Comment


            • #7
              Week I, and still no answer from somebody about something


              "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
              news:[email protected]
              "Gray Shockley" <[email protected]> wrote
              Sure but these additions refine and redefine it: I'd add "status" to the "money" side as well as "pressure from family" regarding status as well as the $$$ itself). I've seen "status" - time after time - be regarded by the person working or that person's family as more important than the $$$ itself.
              Thanks for mentioning that gross and net are at times, irrelevant to the person who has to make the decision. I've known people who take jobs that pay less (gross and net) just so they can gain a little sanity back.
              But you and I both know that's not the question I asked you. I'm sure you
              appreciate that someone got fooled by your responses and assumed that they were
              in direct response appropriate to the question, but they were not. Here's the
              question again.......

              No matter what value any person places on any amount of types of factors in
              making such a decision, which amount should they consider on the revenue
              side......the gross amount of any change in pay, or the net amount?

              Comment

              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
              Working...
              X