Does Society Need a Lower Class? - Page 3

Urban Ranger · March 4, 2003, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It ain't like CEOs work a Hell of lot and put in more hours than the workers in the factory or anything

It might be true, but you will need to provide evidence for it. What's more, you need to show that what they are doing is good for the stakeholders and not just themselves, a la Princess Carly.

Urban Ranger · March 4, 2003, 00:32

Quote:

Originally posted by ciaran
The wishful thinking of a future with robots brings up this interesting point: if you had a robot that could function as a human, then you would be dealing with an intellect that effectively does so as well (function as a human).

Not necessarily. A robot doesn't have to be intelligent. In fact, there are many robots in use in manufacturing, e.g. automobiles. Electrolux recently built a robotic vacuum cleaner for the house - it just doesn't look like a human.

Kramerman · March 4, 2003, 00:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II

no i think you didnt get me. During the first two pages of thread people kept saying "until robots do all our work", over and over again as if robots that did our work existed there would be no lower class. The point is that There still will be a lower class. And it doesnt have to be human..... it can be the space monkeys that cross our galactic border and live on our planet as an illegal alien... You can interpret the word, alien in both ways!

I was refering to robots in the distant future, i thought i didnt have to state the obvious that it wouldnt be anytime soon...

ciaran · March 4, 2003, 01:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not necessarily. A robot doesn't have to be intelligent. In fact, there are many robots in use in manufacturing, e.g. automobiles. Electrolux recently built a robotic vacuum cleaner for the house - it just doesn't look like a human.

A robot that is performing intelligent tasks does need to be. Being a janitor needs above-robot intelligence (even though the job itself is next to being unskilled). By above-robot I mean way above current robot intelligence standards.

ciaran

Imran Siddiqui · March 4, 2003, 01:37

Quote:

It might be true, but you will need to provide evidence for it.

This is for European CEOs:

http://www.lexmark.com/WW/Corporate/...-false,00.html

Quote:

The report, which investigated the business pressures faced by CEOs across Europe and the time management skills required, found that almost half the UK CEOs questioned never get home in time to see their children during the week compared to only 12% of CEOs in Spain. In France, over half (54%) don’t manage to get home in time to see their children more than three times a week.

Despite the average European CEO’s working day standing at 9.8 hours, there is still not enough time during the week to cope with the work overload. A staggering third of UK respondents say they work every weekend while nearly half (46%) admit they forfeit weekends with their family at least once a month and more often than not fortnightly. Not far behind is Germany with 28% of CEOs working every weekend, and 30% working weekends on a monthly basis. This compares to only 18% of Spanish CEOs.

Here is a plea to CEOs and Executives to give their children more of their time.

http://www.hjb.com.au/largenews/youth.htm

And this is shocking:

http://www.aspirenow.com/Leader_0300_work_smarter.htm

Quote:

In a poll taken by Booz, Hamilton & Allen (see Strategy & Business Review, Q1, 2000) the top 50 traditional NYSE company CEOs put in 20 - 25 hours less a week than the "new" breed of top 50 dot.com CEOs. The average work week for the dot-com CEO is over 85 hours a week.

This also shows that CEOs in the top 50 companies put in on average 60 hours per week.

http://www.industryweek.com/Columns/...p?ColumnId=379

Quote:

50% of all chief executives say they work from 55 to 65 hours per week. Assuming they take weekends off, which is probably a flawed assumption, these folks claim they’re putting in 11-to-13-hour workdays. Another 33% claim workweeks of 66 hours or more. In a five-day workweek, they’d be clocking a minimum of 13.2 hours a day. In a six-day workweek, they would have us believe they devote 11 hours or more to their jobs each day. A minuscule 3% confess to working only 44 hours a week or less.

A poll of Fortune 500 CEOs:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/ceo/a...390039,00.html

Quote:

How many hours per week do you work?

More than 70 -> 36
60 to 70 -> 39
50 to 59 -> 18
40 to 49 -> 7
Less than 40 -> none

DuncanK · March 4, 2003, 01:42

Imran,

Just because they are at work doesn't mean they are working. Anyway, they pretty much make their own hours.

Urban Ranger · March 4, 2003, 01:42

Imran,

Number of hours one asserts spending on a job is a meaningless measurement. It's what that person does that counts. I know all about those dotcom CEO's. I worked in a few of them.

Japher · March 4, 2003, 01:43

Lower class? What is lower class? Lower paid?

Well, domi-arigato Mr. Roboto, but that has nothing to do with lower class, since you ain't paying them diddly squawt.

Basically what you are asking is does society need somebody to look down upon, and do those ppl that "we" look down need somebody to strive to be? And the answer is a resounding YES.

While these ppl are performing "less skilled" labor, they are still required for more than just there ability to perform a menial task. They are required to perform a task that, while menial, requires a certain amount of logic, problem sovling skills, and intermediate manipulative ability.

Lower class society performs a function that is irreplaceable... doing those things that yuppies just feel they are too good to do. They represent what those who are not lower class want to be and strive to increase the standards of what middle and and upper class really are... a bunch of saps.

So, if you think it is merely job description that seperates the two, think again. Some of the most respectable, hardworking ppl I know are working "second-hand jobs" and wouldn't see themsleves doing anythin but, and I love them. Yet, aspiration and determination are not there game plan.

So, are they needed... No. Do we want them... Yes. Do they want to be there... No. Do we want them to be there... Yes. Will they stay there... I hope not.

Will we do what we can to make sure they are kept there?

Well, there in lies the question.

Imran Siddiqui · March 4, 2003, 01:46

Quote:

Just because they are at work doesn't mean they are working. Anyway, they pretty much make their own hours.

Oh Lord

. Since you are making the positive assertion, I'm just going to ask you to prove it.

Quote:

Number of hours one asserts spending on a job is a meaningless measurement. It's what that person does that counts.

And most of them work through paperwork, answer work related email (spending hours on that alone), spend great amount of time in meetings to decide the future decision of the company, pitch their company to other companies.

They don't just go to work and play mini golf in their offices! Why would you spend time in the office and ignore your own kids if you weren't doing anything important?!

DuncanK · March 4, 2003, 02:02

Giving orders and taking orders are two different things.

DuncanK · March 4, 2003, 02:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why would you spend time in the office and ignore your own kids if you weren't doing anything important?!

POWER!

Imran Siddiqui · March 4, 2003, 02:07

You haven't proven that CEOs aren't 'working' during their time at the office yet.

DuncanK · March 4, 2003, 02:12

They didn't take there job for the work. They took it for the power. Time spent working (if they did any) would be time away from excercising their power.

Are you saying that if you had the choice between working and excercising power you would work? That is the choice they get to make, and they choose power all day long.