Which job would you take? And why?

[bucs90]

Lets say you have two job offers. Here they are:

JOB 1:

You are hired with a group of 99 other employees. In 5 years, 50 of you will be promoted and get a 10% pay raise. The other 50 will remain there and retire making 35K a year. Of the 50 promoted, another 25 will be promoted to middle management within 5 more years, a 10% raise, to about 42K a year. Of those 25, in about 5 more years, 10 will be promoted to upper management, with a 20% raise, making over 50K a year. Everyone else retires where they are. Of those 10, 5 will have a chance to reach the upper parts of the company, making over 80K a year, and there is a strong chance one of those 5 will become VP or CEO one day, earning a huge check. All 100 employees get healthcare. This structure will continue as long as the company remains in business. Your goal is simply to compete and outsell your opponents in doing your assigned duties.

JOB 2:

You are hired with a group of 99 other employees. You all start off at 40K a year with benefits. No one is promoted. All of you will earn this salary and retire on it. Boards, managers and a CEO will be voted on or appointed by the owner of the company. Managers will also be appointed, but no pay raises will be given for managers, CEO's, only additional responsibility. All will earn the same. Your goal is to beat out your opposition companies.


So....

1- Which job would you take?
2- Which company will be more successful?

This will answer a lot of our current political economic questions.

 

[Lakhota]

Starting at what age?

 

[bucs90]

Starting at what age?

Lets say age 25.

 

[Lakhota]

What education/skill level?

 

[Lakhota]

Manual labor or office work? Job descriptions would be helpful.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Lets say you have two job offers. Here they are:

JOB 1:

You are hired with a group of 99 other employees. In 5 years, 50 of you will be promoted and get a 10% pay raise. The other 50 will remain there and retire making 35K a year. Of the 50 promoted, another 25 will be promoted to middle management within 5 more years, a 10% raise, to about 42K a year. Of those 25, in about 5 more years, 10 will be promoted to upper management, with a 20% raise, making over 50K a year. Everyone else retires where they are. Of those 10, 5 will have a chance to reach the upper parts of the company, making over 80K a year, and there is a strong chance one of those 5 will become VP or CEO one day, earning a huge check. All 100 employees get healthcare. This structure will continue as long as the company remains in business. Your goal is simply to compete and outsell your opponents in doing your assigned duties.

JOB 2:

You are hired with a group of 99 other employees. You all start off at 40K a year with benefits. No one is promoted. All of you will earn this salary and retire on it. Boards, managers and a CEO will be voted on or appointed by the owner of the company. Managers will also be appointed, but no pay raises will be given for managers, CEO's, only additional responsibility. All will earn the same. Your goal is to beat out your opposition companies.


So....

1- Which job would you take?
2- Which company will be more successful?

This will answer a lot of our current political economic questions.

Neither. I'd find an angel investor and buy both companies-merge them. Then, develop add-ons for Apple products.

Robert

 

[Lakhota]

Where are these jobs located? What are the local demographics?

 

[bucs90]

2 year degree.
Manual at first, more office work as you get promoted.
Both jobs are the same in those regards.
Job is at a car manufacturing plant.
Both in Savannah, Georgia. Non union.

 

[Lakhota]

Union or non-union?

 

[bucs90]

That should be plenty for a simple answer. You're jobless and broke. Which one you gonna take?

 

[bucs90]

non

 

[Interpol]

It's all so vague that it doesn't really inspire you to feel one way or the other about either choice.

It's all a bunch of hypotheticals, that first choice. And the second choice is weird, too, ultimately the nightmare of someone who thinks that is a scenario that would ever be plausible in the first place.

That's the problem, the plausibility factor of both of those choices is low or murky. Too many numbers based on I'm not sure what kind of economics in the first choice.

However, reading the second choice started to remind me of how the NFL is run, which is the most financially amazing sport in the world today all culminating in the largest most highly-rated tv event of the year, every single year.

Socialism and capitalism blend together quite well, thank you very much, in the world of the NFL. Seems like if you take the best of both of those ideas you get amazing ratings, packed stadiums, and 100 million viewers for a few hours every year. And then that brings the most expensive commercial time every year. And it does wonders for competition. And a weak team one year can really improve by the next year.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'....

 

[Lakhota]

JOB 1 employees "get healthcare", but what about other benefits?

 

[bucs90]

The NFL is a piss-poor example of any kind of "socialism" or left wing ideal. It's the most capitalist, ULTRA competitive "industry" I can think of. The only thing "socialist" about it is that the worst team gets the first draft pick.

If the NFL was truly a socialist model, the USFL, XFL and NFL-Europe would still exist.

 

[Lakhota]

This is an exercise in futility. It would all depend on individual circumstances. Too many variables...

 

[Jackson]

Lets say you have two job offers. Here they are:

JOB 1:

You are hired with a group of 99 other employees. In 5 years, 50 of you will be promoted and get a 10% pay raise. The other 50 will remain there and retire making 35K a year. Of the 50 promoted, another 25 will be promoted to middle management within 5 more years, a 10% raise, to about 42K a year. Of those 25, in about 5 more years, 10 will be promoted to upper management, with a 20% raise, making over 50K a year. Everyone else retires where they are. Of those 10, 5 will have a chance to reach the upper parts of the company, making over 80K a year, and there is a strong chance one of those 5 will become VP or CEO one day, earning a huge check. All 100 employees get healthcare. This structure will continue as long as the company remains in business. Your goal is simply to compete and outsell your opponents in doing your assigned duties.

JOB 2:

You are hired with a group of 99 other employees. You all start off at 40K a year with benefits. No one is promoted. All of you will earn this salary and retire on it. Boards, managers and a CEO will be voted on or appointed by the owner of the company. Managers will also be appointed, but no pay raises will be given for managers, CEO's, only additional responsibility. All will earn the same. Your goal is to beat out your opposition companies.


So....

1- Which job would you take?
2- Which company will be more successful?

This will answer a lot of our current political economic questions.

Job 1 has the promise of achieving your goals within the company by working hard. It is up to each individual to grow with the company and make their own way upon their own talents.

 

[Conservative]

Lets say you have two job offers. Here they are:

JOB 1:

You are hired with a group of 99 other employees. In 5 years, 50 of you will be promoted and get a 10% pay raise. The other 50 will remain there and retire making 35K a year. Of the 50 promoted, another 25 will be promoted to middle management within 5 more years, a 10% raise, to about 42K a year. Of those 25, in about 5 more years, 10 will be promoted to upper management, with a 20% raise, making over 50K a year. Everyone else retires where they are. Of those 10, 5 will have a chance to reach the upper parts of the company, making over 80K a year, and there is a strong chance one of those 5 will become VP or CEO one day, earning a huge check. All 100 employees get healthcare. This structure will continue as long as the company remains in business. Your goal is simply to compete and outsell your opponents in doing your assigned duties.

JOB 2:

You are hired with a group of 99 other employees. You all start off at 40K a year with benefits. No one is promoted. All of you will earn this salary and retire on it. Boards, managers and a CEO will be voted on or appointed by the owner of the company. Managers will also be appointed, but no pay raises will be given for managers, CEO's, only additional responsibility. All will earn the same. Your goal is to beat out your opposition companies.


So....

1- Which job would you take?
2- Which company will be more successful?

This will answer a lot of our current political economic questions.

Neither. I'd find an angel investor and buy both companies-merge them. Then, develop add-ons for Apple products.

Robert

way to not even try to address to OP question asked, dipshit.

 

[Conservative]

Job 1. I prefer the chance to move up on my merits, as opposed to no chance at all.

 

[BillyV]

Lets say you have two job offers. Here they are:

JOB 1:

You are hired with a group of 99 other employees. In 5 years, 50 of you will be promoted and get a 10% pay raise. The other 50 will remain there and retire making 35K a year. Of the 50 promoted, another 25 will be promoted to middle management within 5 more years, a 10% raise, to about 42K a year. Of those 25, in about 5 more years, 10 will be promoted to upper management, with a 20% raise, making over 50K a year. Everyone else retires where they are. Of those 10, 5 will have a chance to reach the upper parts of the company, making over 80K a year, and there is a strong chance one of those 5 will become VP or CEO one day, earning a huge check. All 100 employees get healthcare. This structure will continue as long as the company remains in business. Your goal is simply to compete and outsell your opponents in doing your assigned duties.

JOB 2:

You are hired with a group of 99 other employees. You all start off at 40K a year with benefits. No one is promoted. All of you will earn this salary and retire on it. Boards, managers and a CEO will be voted on or appointed by the owner of the company. Managers will also be appointed, but no pay raises will be given for managers, CEO's, only additional responsibility. All will earn the same. Your goal is to beat out your opposition companies.


So....

1- Which job would you take?
2- Which company will be more successful?

This will answer a lot of our current political economic questions.

OK, obviously a set-up, but I'll play. You would choose the job that best fits your abilities and motivation; if you don't have much of either, Job 2 is perfect for you. If you are a typical American who has been raised as a competitor and are not prepared to accept less than your full potential, you will clearly choose Job 1. Since those who would choose Job 1 will by definition be more motivated to excel, obviously Company 1 will out-compete Company 2.

It's a trick question, right?