Twitter & job cuts

[SubieRubyRoo]

That sort of law is well-intentioned but flawed, as in your example.

The easy fix would be to prorate the requirements for lesser numbers of employees - or to not have a minimum number.

Here, there are labour laws requiring employers to pay benefits to full-time empoyees - so grocery stores, particularly, hire a more workers part-time, to avoid having to pay benefits.

Why not prorate the benefits so that the employer can't dodge paying benefits?

Our company bonus (when they actually pay it) is paid March 1st of the following year. Even if you worked all 365 days of the previous year, if you leave the company for any reason between 1/1 and 2/28, you get ZERO bonus which is a crock of… dung.

They skirt the issue by basing the bonus on unrealistic EBITDA and OCF targets, and even just missing the target by an eensy bit on either metric results in a numerator of 0. Good times!

 

[Number_35]

Our company bonus (when they actually pay it) is paid March 1st of the following year. Even if you worked all 365 days of the previous year, if you leave the company for any reason between 1/1 and 2/28, you get ZERO bonus which is a crock of… dung.

They skirt the issue by basing the bonus on unrealistic EBITDA and OCF targets, and even just missing the target by an eensy bit on either metric results in a numerator of 0. Good times!

Yup, there's another couple of good arguments for prorating things.

I had my own frustrations at my job - the boss would typically write very nice things in the "essay" part of the annual review, and then tick not quite enough of the boxes "exceeds job requirements" such that I didn't get a reclass to the next level.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Yup, there's another couple of good arguments for prorating things.

I had my own frustrations at my job - the boss would typically write very nice things in the "essay" part of the annual review, and then tick not quite enough of the boxes "exceeds job requirements" such that I didn't get a reclass to the next level.

Yeah, even though we have a “big deal” performance review that’s due 2/7…. Our raises, if anything, have already been determined & pay out starting 1/15. So in reality the evaluation plays no role in making your case for a better raise. It’s like they went through the “salary best practices” book and planned the exact opposite.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Our company bonus (when they actually pay it) is paid March 1st of the following year. Even if you worked all 365 days of the previous year, if you leave the company for any reason between 1/1 and 2/28, you get ZERO bonus which is a crock of… dung.

They skirt the issue by basing the bonus on unrealistic EBITDA and OCF targets, and even just missing the target by an eensy bit on either metric results in a numerator of 0. Good times!

Its absolutely done on purpose so people don't leave. I worked at a place that was even later, and I asked why it took so long (I was in management) - and they said specifically that most hiring in my industry is done in Q1 when everyone gets there new budget so it keeps people from leaving.

The way around it is to get hired in Q1 and tell the new company you can't start until a day after the cutoff so you get your bonus. Most will let you if they really want you. I have even heard some will just pay you an equivalent starting bonus to get you there sooner.

 

[Dave Hess]

Yeah, even though we have a “big deal” performance review that’s due 2/7…. Our raises, if anything, have already been determined & pay out starting 1/15. So in reality the evaluation plays no role in making your case for a better raise. It’s like they went through the “salary best practices” book and planned the exact opposite.

What industry are you working in ?

I have to do a yearly self evaluation on 3 metrics and I always put: Exceeds Expectations

 

[SC Maintenance]

Sorry, I wasn’t meaning “you” specifically. It was meant in the public side… didn’t mean to imply I was calling you out on it. Wording

I think were in violent Agreement.

 

[SC Maintenance]

With rare exceptions, I prefer that there not be restrictions on speech. The big problem for me is that someone, likely a small group of self-appointed elites, has to decide what is unacceptable, which might well clash with most people's common sense.

If someone wants to express their stupid ideas in public, more power to them; the antidote to bad ideas is good ideas, not censorship.

My eight farthings!

I 100% agree. Let the idiots talk and expose themselves.

 

[Aredeeem]

... because the person with the highest net worth is always the smartest person in the room? I do better than most...

So I guess everyone who inherits wealth instantly gets smarter? Hmmm...

I know for a fact that MY dentist has to be worth 40 billion dollars at least

 

[Number_35]

With an IQ of 155…. he IS smarter than most people!

I suspect he's even smarter than that.

Wikipedia's article on normal distribution (the 68-97-99.5 rule) says that only 1 out of 2149 land more than 3.5 standard deviations (SD) out from the norm.

With respect to IQ, the average and median is defined as 100, and SD is 15. Therefore, an IQ of 155 is about 3.67 SDs above the average.

The 2149 figure of outliers includes people at the bottom end of the tail as well. Therefore, only 1 in 4298 have an IQ equal to or higher than 152.5. Let's round that up to 1 in 5000 for an IQ of 155. (Or the way it tails off, perhaps 1 in 10,000.)

But doesn't Elon Musk seem smarter than merely the smartest guy in a town of 5000 or 10,000? Whatever one thinks of him, it's hard to deny that he is extraordinarily intelligent.

 

[PWMDMD]

I know for a fact that MY dentist has to be worth 40 billion dollars at least

What does this have to do with the discussion?

 

[PWMDMD]

I suspect he's even smarter than that.

Wikipedia's article on normal distribution (the 68-97-99.5 rule) says that only 1 out of 2149 land more than 3.5 standard deviations (SD) out from the norm.

With respect to IQ, the average and median is defined as 100, and SD is 15. Therefore, an IQ of 155 is about 3.67 SDs above the average.

The 2149 figure of outliers includes people at the bottom end of the tail as well. Therefore, only 1 in 4298 have an IQ equal to or higher than 152.5. Let's round that up to 1 in 5000 for an IQ of 155. (Or the way it tails off, perhaps 1 in 10,000.)

But doesn't Elon Musk seem smarter than merely the smartest guy in a town of 5000 or 10,000? Whatever one thinks of him, it's hard to deny that he is extraordinarily intelligent.

So at 1 in 5000 there are 66,000 people in the US with an IQ of 155 or higher. Honest question as I don't follow him all that closely but what makes you think he's THAT smart? Again, while certainly a bright guy what objective measures other than his reported IQ which has all sorts of issues as a measure of intelligence convinces you he's a mega-genius? Net worth? The businesses he owns? While I think it would be hard to be a dummy and earn millions or billions of dollars there are lots of people with high IQs who never do and there are people with average to slightly above average who manage to accumulate that kind of wealth.

 

[OVERKILL]

I suspect he's even smarter than that.

Wikipedia's article on normal distribution (the 68-97-99.5 rule) says that only 1 out of 2149 land more than 3.5 standard deviations (SD) out from the norm.

With respect to IQ, the average and median is defined as 100, and SD is 15. Therefore, an IQ of 155 is about 3.67 SDs above the average.

The 2149 figure of outliers includes people at the bottom end of the tail as well. Therefore, only 1 in 4298 have an IQ equal to or higher than 152.5. Let's round that up to 1 in 5000 for an IQ of 155. (Or the way it tails off, perhaps 1 in 10,000.)

But doesn't Elon Musk seem smarter than merely the smartest guy in a town of 5000 or 10,000? Whatever one thinks of him, it's hard to deny that he is extraordinarily intelligent.

Yes, he seems very intelligent.

But, per @PWMDMD's point, just being a genius doesn't mean you'll end up wealthy. Many people with genius level IQ's have low motivation or other psychological handicaps that prevent them from attaining greatness (or their "full potential" if we are using the words that parents often toss out to their under-performing children). Others just bury themselves in a subject, like Stephen Hawking. Many struggle with anxiety, ADD/ADHD, depression, excessive spontaneity, boredom coupled with compulsive situational alteration...etc. There are myriad conditions that can have a profound impact on somebody who, to their peers, that know that person is brilliant, seems wildly under-performing.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Musk is a visionary; his other gifts are complementary.

 

[uc50ic4more]

That's what they get for not allowing some folks 1st amendment whether they agree or not.

How is it the Twitter can or cannot allow someone that right? They are a private company that can restrict and censor information as they wish.

I have never understood why people whine and complain about their first amendment rights on a **private platform**.

 

[PWMDMD]

And what’s your net worth lol

I guess this also begs the question - what's your net worth and if it's not high enough do we label you as unintelligent? If my net worth is more than yours then do I get to claim intellectual superiority? I hit 7-figures by my forties so it begs the question, just so we both understand the intellectual pecking order here, what's your net worth?

It's a nonsensical position...people choose to do different things in life with some of those jobs paying more than others and some requiring specific skills/knowledge/intellectual ability but I've met plenty of people with no college education working in trades or other traditionally "non-intellectual" jobs who were brilliant - their ability to take in information, understand the intricacies of a problem, formulate a response, and execute that response is as good as any other human being and better than most who would be labeled 'intelligent" based on their academic or career choices.

 

[Number_35]

So at 1 in 5000 there are 66,000 people in the US with an IQ of 155 or higher. Honest question as I don't follow him all that closely but what makes you think he's THAT smart? Again, while certainly a bright guy what objective measures other than his reported IQ which has all sorts of issues as a measure of intelligence convinces you he's a mega-genius? Net worth? The businesses he owns? While I think it would be hard to be a dummy and earn millions or billions of dollars there are lots of people with high IQs who never do and there are people with average to slightly above average who manage to accumulate that kind of wealth.

You're quite right - it's very possible that Musk has achieved what he has by having high (but not freakish) intelligence along with extreme curiousity, imagination, and ambition.

Renowned scientist Richard Feynman apparently "only" had an IQ in the 120s, but was extremely curious. That combination took him a long way.

When I was a teen, a now-defunct national magazine did a search to find Canada's most intelligent person. I can't remember the criteria they used. But anyway, the person who scored highest was a dockworker who did manual labour, not a brain surgeon, chess-master, or physicist.

 

[Aredeeem]

What does this have to do with the discussion?

Yikes, it’s called a joke PWM. Your calling is admirable, your income justifiable. Like my dentist always tells me ‘don’t be so sensitive!’

 

[Number_35]

I guess this also begs the question - what's your net worth and if it's not high enough do we label you as unintelligent? If my net worth is more than yours then do I get to claim intellectual superiority? I hit 7-figures by my forties so it begs the question, just so we both understand the intellectual pecking order here, what's your net worth?

It's a nonsensical position...people choose to do different things in life with some of those jobs paying more than others but I've met plenty of people with no college working in trades or other traditionally "non-intellectual" jobs who were brilliant.

Believe me, I am convinced that while
high income is generally correlated with intelligence, there are some glaring exceptions. I've seen some people as dumb as a bag of hammers making great money; typically they were sycophants who socialized with the bosses.

Such is the way of the world; most of us weren't willing to sell our souls to get ahead.

 

[Number_35]

Yes, he seems very intelligent.

But, per @PWMDMD's point, just being a genius doesn't mean you'll end up wealthy. Many people with genius level IQ's have low motivation or other psychological handicaps that prevent them from attaining greatness (or their "full potential" if we are using the words that parents often toss out to their under-performing children). Others just bury themselves in a subject, like Stephen Hawking. Many struggle with anxiety, ADD/ADHD, depression, excessive spontaneity, boredom coupled with compulsive situational alteration...etc. There are myriad conditions that can have a profound impact on somebody who, to their peers, that know that person is brilliant, seems wildly under-performing.

Check out Post #76 - I think we're in agreement.

 

[PWMDMD]

You're quite right - it's very possible that Musk has achieved what he has by having high (but not freakish) intelligence along with extreme curiousity, imagination, and ambition.

Renowned scientist Richard Feynman apparently "only" had an IQ in the 120s, but was extremely curious. That combination took him a long way.

When I was a teen, a now-defunct national magazine did a search to find Canada's most intelligent person. I can't remember the criteria they used. But anyway, the person who scored highest was a dockworker who did manual labour, not a brain surgeon, chess-master, or physicist.

Richard Feynman is my personal hero and I've read every book ever written about him. I think there are inherent issues with IQ as a measure of intelligence. I think Richard was much more intelligent than that score implies even with his unimaginable curiosity and ability to hammer a problem for as long as it took to understand it. Most average to slightly above average teens aren't teaching themselves calculus as a teen but his mathematical skills were only part of his genius - he was able to visualize problems (Feynman diagrams being just one example) and really understand problems in a way that extended beyond being really good at maths - he could apply an uncanny "common sense" to very difficult and hard to understand problems. His determination of what caused the Challenger crash is a prime example - people going on and on about telemetry and data and he throws a piece of O-ring in some ice water....mic drop!