Author
|
Topic: Is Work Working For You?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Kyle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1530
|
posted 05 November 2001 07:06 PM
What! We're not supposed to buy a house! No wonder the lefts message is so confusing. For a while I thought it was Audra had suddenly gone to "the right". Thanks for the correct 'lance. [ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: David Kyle ]
From: canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 05 November 2001 09:06 PM
quote: Plus, I don't drink
My point exactly! quote: Selling six times more real estate than anyone else? and bragging about it?
Did you check out the actual CLC page, as opposed to the Tupelo realtor, Tommy_Paine?
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 13 March 2002 02:03 AM
Welp, I finally dug up the proper game theoretic model for employers vs employees and as is my wont, I'm re-using a thread. (You know, reduce, reuse and recycle. )----- The job applicant's options for any single job offer are: 1. Take the minimum wage offer, and have a means of living. 2. Refuse the minimum wage offer, and starve. 3. Attempt to negotiate for a higher wage, which fails because there is another unemployed person willing to take the minimum wage, because it is better than nothing. The employers options for any single job applicant are: 1. Hire this applicant at the minimum wage. 2. Hire this applicant at a higher wage. 3. Refuse to hire this employee at a higher wage, in favor of another unemployed person to whom the minimum wage is better than nothing. The employer wins this game because he has two best options (#1 and 3) compared to the applicant's one (#1). ----- Thus why the employer holds the cards and the employee doesn't.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|