Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

blankster

Non-Jobs And Anti-Jobs In The Private Sector

Recommended Posts

People talk a lot about non-jobs in the public sector but they must exist in the private sector too. For a start there are non-executive directors on the boards of many companies who get paid a lot of money to turn up at one or two board meetings a year if they feel like it.

Then there are what I call anti-jobs - i.e. where someone is employed to do something that is generally detrimental to society, like making noisy 'performance' replacement exhaust systems for boy racers to fit to their cars, working for an unscrupulous BTL landlord or selling investment 'products' that are anything but.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there are what I call anti-jobs - i.e. where someone is employed to do something that is generally detrimental to society, like making noisy 'performance' replacement exhaust systems for boy racers to fit to their cars or sell investment 'products' that are anything but.

I've just had a custom exhaust designed and fitted, dual-output and decatted, noisier than the last one.

Vroom, vroom.

VMR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've just had a custom exhaust designed and fitted, dual-output and decatted, noisier than the last one.

The thing that gets me about noisy cars and bikes is that the owner might like the sound of their own exhaust but most other people just find it a nuisance. There's someone down the road from us who had a VW Golf V6 with a special exhaust and he always gave the thing full welly and maximum revs and it made this horrid wooping noise like a vacuum cleaner with ADHD

But listen to this :D .......(Detroit 6-71supercharged 2-stroke 6-cylinder diesel engine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You miss the point.

Public sector is OUR money (thru taxation).

Private sector has to sell goods/services and make a profit. It can spend the money how it likes - it's THEIR money.

If you want to get moral - ie evil BTL - then are you happy about funding illegal wars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that gets me about noisy cars and bikes is that the owner might like the sound of their own exhaust but most other people just find it a nuisance. There's someone down the road from us who had a VW Golf V6 with a special exhaust and he always gave the thing full welly and maximum revs and it made this horrid wooping noise like a vacuum cleaner with ADHD

It's all about a lack of respect or consideration. I bet there weren't gramophone noise pollution issues 80 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You miss the point.

Public sector is OUR money (thru taxation).

Private sector has to sell goods/services and make a profit. It can spend the money how it likes - it's THEIR money.

If you want to get moral - ie evil BTL - then are you happy about funding illegal wars?

That wont hold water.

Its not THEIR money, its the shareholders money. Remember that i) the shareholders may be as blissfully unaware of the waste in the private sector as in the public sector, and ii) the shareholders may often include US through our pension plans or whatever - in which case if they are wasteful it is indeed OUR money they are wasting. And as one who works in the private sector and sees a large number of private sector companies I can assure you there is plenty of waste, just as in the public sector.

Directors (and employees) have a responsibility to ensure the best returns for the shareholders, not to squander it on non-jobs for mates, perks for mates, paying over the odds for travel and other expenses, and generally p1ssing about as if it were 'their' money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private sector has to sell goods/services and make a profit. It can spend the money how it likes - it's THEIR money.
Oh, that's OK then. I thought the banks had gambled depositers' money and lost it. Don't forget it's the banks that got us in this mess, and they were in the private sector at the time, although some are now partly publicly owned.
If you want to get moral - ie evil BTL - then are you happy about funding illegal wars?
I'm not aware that we're funding any illegal wars.
Private sector has to sell goods/services and make a profit. It can spend the money how it likes - it's THEIR money.
Or they could, until recently, borrow a large sum of money and keep going on a loss for a few years until the day of reckoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, that's OK then. I thought the banks had gambled depositers' money and lost it. Don't forget it's the banks that got us in this mess, and they were in the private sector at the time, although some are now partly publicly owned.

I'm not aware that we're funding any illegal wars.

Or they could, until recently, borrow a large sum of money and keep going on a loss for a few years until the day of reckoning.

If you are referring to the UK's current severe economic issues then NO IT ******ING WASN'T THE BANKS .....

The Banks are absolute @rseholes, evil, evil, disgraceful entities. The Banks caused a lot of economic problems.

However, this mess we are in is about 10% because of the Banks and 90% because of Gordon Brown and chums and predecessors*.

* no, I have no link, the figures are for illustrative purposes only ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether it's public or private sector waste is irrelevent. Both end up making things more expensive for us, whether it's through more tax or higher prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People talk a lot about non-jobs in the public sector but they must exist in the private sector too. For a start there are non-executive directors on the boards of many companies who get paid a lot of money to turn up at one or two board meetings a year if they feel like it.

Then there are what I call anti-jobs - i.e. where someone is employed to do something that is generally detrimental to society, like making noisy 'performance' replacement exhaust systems for boy racers to fit to their cars, working for an unscrupulous BTL landlord or selling investment 'products' that are anything but.

And? Clearly one for the file 'Haven't A Clue'

Do the products/services have a market?

Who loses out from none jobs in the private sector?

Who loses out from none jobs in the public sector?

Rearrange the following answers to the questions above:

Shareholder

Yes

Taxpayer

Do you stil give a sh1t about non-jobs in the private sector?

Interestingly noisy exhausts I am not bothered about, things like iPods and iPads are better examples of what you were trying to suggest. Technology for technology sake imho, still plenty of mongs who 'must' have one though so a market exists, however trivial and utterly useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?

You miss the point.

Public sector is OUR money (thru taxation).

Private sector has to sell goods/services and make a profit. It can spend the money how it likes - it's THEIR money.

If you want to get moral - ie evil BTL - then are you happy about funding illegal wars?

False dichotomy - people who make and sell anti-social products have no greater moral claim for their work than anyone else.

Indeed one could argue that there are perfectly good reasons for being a nurse or say a soldier, but someone who consumes finite resources to produce goods which are unneeded but merely satisfy a demand they engineer is not by anyone's standards a productive individual - regardless of whether they make a profit.

The notion that all profit is good is demonstrably a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You miss the point.

Public sector is OUR money (thru taxation).

Private sector has to sell goods/services and make a profit. It can spend the money how it likes - it's THEIR money.

If you want to get moral - ie evil BTL - then are you happy about funding illegal wars?

Not if there is a public cost attached to it. I'm thinking of the booze industry here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that gets me about noisy cars and bikes is that the owner might like the sound of their own exhaust but most other people just find it a nuisance.  There's someone down the road from us who had a VW Golf V6 with a special exhaust and he always gave the thing full welly and maximum revs and it made this horrid wooping noise like a vacuum cleaner with ADHD

But listen to this :D .......(Detroit 6-71supercharged 2-stroke 6-cylinder  diesel engine)

The biggest (mobile) anti social menace I think are excessive sound systems in cars. Should be a public bumming with a hot poker for all offenders! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People talk a lot about non-jobs in the public sector but they must exist in the private sector too. For a start there are non-executive directors on the boards of many companies who get paid a lot of money to turn up at one or two board meetings a year if they feel like it.

Then there are what I call anti-jobs - i.e. where someone is employed to do something that is generally detrimental to society, like making noisy 'performance' replacement exhaust systems for boy racers to fit to their cars, working for an unscrupulous BTL landlord or selling investment 'products' that are anything but.

NE directors are actually very useful if they do their job properly. A good NE director will have experience of lots of different companies and environments and will be able to make suggestions to the board based on these experiences. They should also act as an independent check to the executive.

The problem is that I get the impression many of the NE's are appointed after a cosy chat down the club with the CEOs. In other words they are just appointed so that they don't rock the boat and make life easy for the executive. Obviously there is a fine line between voicing different opinions at board level and being so contradictory that the board is made dysfunctional. However I don't believe most NE's are currently confrontational enough.

I think there need to be some changes to legislation regarding NE's to improve the value that these guys add in to companies because at the moment the principle is sound but the reality is somewhat different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest (mobile) anti social menace I think are excessive sound systems in cars. Should be a public bumming with a hot poker for all offenders! :lol:

Don't worry. in 10 years they'll be profoundly deaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NE directors are actually very useful if they do their job properly. A good NE director will have experience of lots of different companies and environments and will be able to make suggestions to the board based on these experiences. They should also act as an independent check to the executive.

The problem is that I get the impression many of the NE's are appointed after a cosy chat down the club with the CEOs. In other words they are just appointed so that they don't rock the boat and make life easy for the executive. Obviously there is a fine line between voicing different opinions at board level and being so contradictory that the board is made dysfunctional. However I don't believe most NE's are currently confrontational enough.

I think there need to be some changes to legislation regarding NE's to improve the value that these guys add in to companies because at the moment the principle is sound but the reality is somewhat different.

A lot of NE's are appointed to simply lubricate communication between firms. Bob meet Jim. Jim this is Bob. Jim you know that billion dollar order you need fulfilled, Bob might be able to help. Bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest (mobile) anti social menace I think are excessive sound systems in cars. Should be a public bumming with a hot poker for all offenders! :lol:

Meh. Live and let live I say.

Let the kids have their fun.. as long as they don't hut anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False dichotomy - people who make and sell anti-social products have no greater moral claim for their work than anyone else.

Indeed one could argue that there are perfectly good reasons for being a nurse or say a soldier, but someone who consumes finite resources to produce goods which are unneeded but merely satisfy a demand they engineer is not by anyone's standards a productive individual - regardless of whether they make a profit.

The notion that all profit is good is demonstrably a lie.

Agree. The problem with using money/profit only as an indicator for good/bad takes no account of the cost to society (the rest of us and future generations).

Do we really need to waste resources to satisfy manufactured needs?

It could be argued that any job in the manufacturing of 'luxury' items (ok, a vague concept) is actually a net waste to society rather than the 'wealth creation' we always hear.

It all depends on what are essentials, luxuries, wealth and indeed how important they are relative to the needs of the rest of the planet and future generations.

Perhaps now we are realising that we might not all get richer forever at no cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......

Perhaps now we are realising that we might not all get richer forever at no cost.

Only you oiks. Dave and his mates are still getting richer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?

Only you oiks. Dave and his mates are still getting richer.

There is a serious point though to be made - profit - by and of itself is exclusively a measure of a company's financial viability. It is not a measure of whether that organisation does something of social value and taken in the context of limited resources it can be seen that some companies actions are deeply damaging to the wider needs regardless of their level of profit.

There is implicitly a 'four legs good two legs bad' culture on this board i.e. anything which makes a profit is good and any use of the public sector is bad. This is demonstrably arrant nonsense. What is done by the public sector is not inherently bad and what is done by the private sector is not inherently bad either.

Profit is only one measure of an organisation and that organisation may be entirely negative to our long-term needs. To say profit is good is akin to saying 8 o'clock is good but 11 o'clock is better i.e. shows a deep misunderstanding of what the purpose of the measure is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a serious point though to be made - profit - by and of itself is exclusively a measure of a company's financial viability. It is not a measure of whether that organisation does something of social value and taken in the context of limited resources it can be seen that some companies actions are deeply damaging to the wider needs regardless of their level of profit.

There is implicitly a 'four legs good two legs bad' culture on this board i.e. anything which makes a profit is good and any use of the public sector is bad. This is demonstrably arrant nonsense. What is done by the public sector is not inherently bad and what is done by the private sector is not inherently bad either.

Profit is only one measure of an organisation and that organisation may be entirely negative to our long-term needs. To say profit is good is akin to saying 8 o'clock is good but 11 o'clock is better i.e. shows a deep misunderstanding of what the purpose of the measure is.

Quite. Production-for-profit as opposed to production-for-use is pretty much guaranteed to create wasteful non-industries like advertising and various forms of finance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wont hold water.

Its not THEIR money, its the shareholders money. Remember that i) the shareholders may be as blissfully unaware of the waste in the private sector as in the public sector, and ii) the shareholders may often include US through our pension plans or whatever - in which case if they are wasteful it is indeed OUR money they are wasting. And as one who works in the private sector and sees a large number of private sector companies I can assure you there is plenty of waste, just as in the public sector.

Directors (and employees) have a responsibility to ensure the best returns for the shareholders, not to squander it on non-jobs for mates, perks for mates, paying over the odds for travel and other expenses, and generally p1ssing about as if it were 'their' money.

Directors are a proxy for the shareholders; they perform the day-to-day running of a business on behalf of the shareholders. Shareholders have the power to remove any director and under democratic rules can find out anything that the directors do on their behalf. Directors are usually shareholders too - often the only shareholders.

If the shareholders choose unwisely, or fail to ensure that the company is being run on their behalf, they have the powers to act, and if they fail to do so, they have only themselves to blame.

There is no comparable power given to the public by the civil service. The nearest the public gets to that is voting for an MP who may be in a government that acts like a shareholder rather than a director.

As for companies being involved in antisocial behaviour, they must always act within the law, as with individuals.

In some ways I would like ASBOs to be applicable to companies, but the problem there is that ASBO procedures are inherently unjust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a serious point though to be made - profit - by and of itself is exclusively a measure of a company's financial viability. It is not a measure of whether that organisation does something of social value and taken in the context of limited resources it can be seen that some companies actions are deeply damaging to the wider needs regardless of their level of profit.

:rolleyes:

Profit implies (though this does not always hold) that people are paying the company goodly amounts of £££ for it's products or services. Therefore the company is by definition an asset to humanity - it's providing stuff people want and are prepared to pay for.

Lack of profit implies people are not prepared to pay an amount for the products which the company can afford. The failing company has two choices - improve sales or cut costs. 'Cutting costs' is interesting in the context of limited resources...

People vote for companies with their wallets every day.

On the other hand, who decides what is a "social good"? You? The government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero

Directors are a proxy for the shareholders; they perform the day-to-day running of a business on behalf of the shareholders. Shareholders have the power to remove any director and under democratic rules can find out anything that the directors do on their behalf. Directors are usually shareholders too - often the only shareholders.

If the shareholders choose unwisely, or fail to ensure that the company is being run on their behalf, they have the powers to act, and if they fail to do so, they have only themselves to blame.

There is no comparable power given to the public by the civil service. The nearest the public gets to that is voting for an MP who may be in a government that acts like a shareholder rather than a director.

As for companies being involved in antisocial behaviour, they must always act within the law, as with individuals.

In some ways I would like ASBOs to be applicable to companies, but the problem there is that ASBO procedures are inherently unjust.

Given that most FTSE 100 shares are held by the director's institutional buddies rather than individuals I'd say it's not very democratic at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

Profit implies (though this does not always hold) that people are paying the company goodly amounts of £££ for it's products or services. Therefore the company is by definition an asset to humanity - it's providing stuff people want and are prepared to pay for.

Lack of profit implies people are not prepared to pay an amount for the products which the company can afford. The failing company has two choices - improve sales or cut costs. 'Cutting costs' is interesting in the context of limited resources...

People vote for companies with their wallets every day.

On the other hand, who decides what is a "social good"? You? The government?

Profit implies nothing of the sort and nothing is given "by definition" either. Is that the sort of talk that goes across well in your tertiary sector non-industry? Thought as much. Leverage synergies! Hey-ho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.