The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology

gb96 · 2011-09-19 Reply Admin

IT:
It's nice to see that there, just as any other company, ("Cleaning" || "Cleaner") > "IT"

In some organisations "Cleaner" is the euphamism for someone who's list you really do not want to be on.

2011-09-19 Reply Admin

Luiz Felipe:
Paul:
Sigivald:
Wanna know why so many more families are two-income now, compared to then?
That's easy. One to make the money, the other to make enough to pay the taxes. Seriously, when over 40% of your income goes to one type of tax or another, it is like you are working two days a week (40% of your time) to pay taxes. Monday and Friday of every week, you're working for the man, not for yourself.
Are you talking seriusly? you live really in EUA. Or you are from Brazil?

Yes, seriously, at least 40%. U.S. Federal tax is around 35%, plus or minus, varies from one year to the next but not usually down. Then a few percent for state income tax, depending on where you live. Plus sales taxes of up to 10%, but since you don't spend all your income on sales taxable items it isn't fair to lump in the whole 10%. Then there's property taxes, gas taxes, phone taxes, taking a deep breath taxes... I'm sure the total is well over 50% but let's say 40% so we don't have to figure it to the penny and argue over it.

D-Coder · 2011-09-19 Reply Admin

Paul:
Sigivald:
Wanna know why so many more families are two-income now, compared to then?
That's easy. One to make the money, the other to make enough to pay the taxes. Seriously, when over 40% of your income goes to one type of tax or another, it is like you are working two days a week (40% of your time) to pay taxes. Monday and Friday of every week, you're working for the man, not for yourself.

F*** that s***, Monday and Friday are mine.

The Man can have Wednesday and Thursday, those usually suck.

2011-09-19 Reply Admin

I was going to ask what if you were in a Senior IT position. Then would it not return 1.6?

Then I had a WTF thought they might not have any Senior IT positions, after all who needs them.

CAPTHCA: nulla - the feminine form of null

2011-09-19 Reply Admin

John Cougar Mellencamp:
Larry:
TRWTF is men named Dianne.

Damn straight - I wrote "a little ditty about Jack and Dianne", not "a little ditty about Jack and some weirdo freak who called himself Dianne."

Your hardly in a position to talk, your some weirdo freak whose middle name is Cougar.

2011-09-19 Reply Admin

They would, the trouble is if they try to open a lemonade stand the government will shut them down.

So they stay unemployed and we have fail CEO's.

2011-09-19 Reply Admin

Paul:
I'm asking why that doesn't happen more often with all the idle hands sitting around. It isn't entirely a rhetorical question.

ISBN 978-0140296723 makes for an interesting read.

2011-09-19 Reply Admin

I've been reading this freaking site for years now but this has to be up there with the best. There are so many layers to this wtf. So many aspects of it are so typical and poke fun at so many areas of company stupidity. The crappy code is just a bonus.

Zemm · 2011-09-19 Reply Admin

John Galt:
They would, the trouble is if they try to open a lemonade stand the government will shut them down.
So they stay unemployed and we have fail CEO's.

Of course there are other countries that encourage unemployed people to start their own businesses.

Coyne · 2011-09-20 Reply Admin

1968:
During the Dot Com boom, the money for all of that investment came from those old rich white guys. They didn't have a clue - investing in any hare-brained schemes. no business plans, no concept of how to make a return, crazy overvaluations. After the crash, some of them lost bundles and had to go back to work for a while, boo hoo.

Gasp! You're right. To get even with, ahem, I mean, get money out of those banker guys, we need to come up with more hare-brained schemes that look money-making but they don't understand.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Zemm:
John Galt:
They would, the trouble is if they try to open a lemonade stand the government will shut them down.
So they stay unemployed and we have fail CEO's.

Of course there are other countries that encourage unemployed people to start their own businesses.

Where the hell is Austria?

nomdeplume · 2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Since this is apparently a system used by the finance team, the low priority afforded to IT may actually be a subtle complement. i.e. the IT people tend to get their invoices in well before they actually need to be paid, therefore they can safely be given a lower priority than the marketing twerps who routinely submit invoices to finance the day after they needed them paid.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

frits:
Roberto:
mathrick:
Working as a PHP programmer that is.
Please try to show some sensitivity. I had a son who was a PHP programmer, and let me assure you: it is no laughing matter.
First of all, there is no such thing as "was a PHP programmer". That's not how it works. It's not a curable condition. I think it's you who could use sensitivity pointers.

Oh but it is. Down, not across.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Larry:
TRWTF is men named Dianne.

Your mobile phone operates courtesy of a man named Sophie.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

gb96:
IT:
It's nice to see that there, just as any other company, ("Cleaning" || "Cleaner") > "IT"

In some organisations "Cleaner" is the euphamism for someone who's list you really do not want to be on.

yes but then he would be ranked right under the CEO.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

} elseif(strstr($title, 'IT')) {
    throw new KickMeInTheNutsackException("I'm your slave, mistress");
} else {

There, fixed that for you.

ochrist · 2011-09-20 Reply Admin

random dude:
Which do you want dealt with sooner? A backed up toilet, or some network issue?

If the toilet has been backed up, can't you just restore it?

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

History Buff:
Paul:
That's easy. One to make the money, the other to make enough to pay the taxes. Seriously, when over 40% of your income goes to one type of tax or another, it is like you are working two days a week (40% of your time) to pay taxes. Monday and Friday of every week, you're working for the man, not for yourself.

Top US income tax rate in the 50's was 90%. Just sayin'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_income_tax_rates#Marginal

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

But....:
1968:
Paul:
Gordy Gecko:
What all of these idiots have in spades is one or more of:

Money from inheritance/past companies/lottery/drug money...
OK I'll give you the gambling and crime thing but as for the legitimately obtained money, where do you think that came from? More inheritance/past companies/lottery/drug money? It can't be turtles all the way down. At some point somebody who didn't already have a ton of money came up with a good idea and made a ton of money. I'm asking why that doesn't happen more often with all the idle hands sitting around. It isn't entirely a rhetorical question. Maybe the "public/private partnerships" have locked things up so tight newcomers can't get a toenail in. If so, maybe we need to fix that...

Basically being lucky.

If you were a supplier during WWII and you did a good job, you made a bundle. These are things like noodles, steel and wrought iron, clothing, very prosaic stuff.

If you were WASP after WWII in America, you've got it made. High wages, low taxes, low prices, pensions, comfortable retirements. A single wage earner could provide for a family, buy a house, a car or two, and send the kids through higher education.

These days, wages are relatively low, taxes are crazy, high prices (blame fuel costs), no prospects for pensions, working to the grave.

During the Dot Com boom, the money for all of that investment came from those old rich white guys. They didn't have a clue - investing in any hare-brained schemes. no business plans, no concept of how to make a return, crazy overvaluations. After the crash, some of them lost bundles and had to go back to work for a while, boo hoo.
Sure, the investment may come from the old rich white guys (and therefore some profit goes back to them), but they are simply investors. It's the people who convinced those investors who are making the decisions.

ie It's we're still not in a position where people have been lucky enough to inherit positions running the show.

Interesting that you mention investors. Don't you think the very idea of investors means (as it did in the dot com boom) that a go-getter like yourself may be able to convince someone else to spend their money on your great ideas, reducing (to nil potentially) the capital you have to outlay?
Sure, it's hard work convincing people to invest, and it's probably even harder to actually run a company, but I'll let you believe that if only you had millions of dollars you could make millions of dollars by keeping employees happy...

There's two types of people in this world:

Those who make excuses

Those who do stuff

It reminds me of a quote I once saw on a plaque: "They didn't know it couldn't be done, so they went ahead and did it"

How did they know they had done it, if they didn't know what they were doing - or do they still not know?

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Eurosceptic:
Larry:
TRWTF is men named Dianne.

Don't forget French guys named "Dominique".

...and Italian men called Andrea, Nicola and Paula.

(CAPTCHA: bene!)

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Smitt-Tay:
Awesome, IT ranks below Cleaning.

No surprise. You can automate a lot of IT. Cleaning is a physical process.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

I've read through 3 pages of comments, and nobody has noticed another WTF. Some clueless wonders questioned the "highest ranking" for the new guy, and it was pointed out this higher rank was "compared to his peers". But... "This resulted in all finance requests from IT channeling through this single person" - the implication is that all requests are channelled through IT, and if all requests are channeled through IT, why are there non-IT rankings listed? From the way the story read, all requests would have a rank of 0.6 or 1.0. The CEO doesn't enter a request, he has IT enter it, so it gets 0.6 no matter who requested it.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

BitDreamer:
I've read through 3 pages of comments, and nobody has noticed another WTF. Some clueless wonders questioned the "highest ranking" for the new guy, and it was pointed out this higher rank was "compared to his peers". But... "This resulted in all finance requests from IT channeling through this single person" - the implication is that all requests are channelled through IT, and if all requests are channeled through IT, why are there non-IT rankings listed? From the way the story read, all requests would have a rank of 0.6 or 1.0. The CEO doesn't *enter* a request, he has IT enter it, so it gets 0.6 no matter who requested it.

No, you misunderstand.

"... all finance requests from IT channeling through this single person ..."

The implication is not that all finance requests channel through IT.

It means: All finance requests ... which come from IT ... end up being channeled through this single person.

What you have interpreted it is as:

All finance requests ... get channeled through IT ... and so through this single person.

Go away and learn how to parse English.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Yuri:
We could play a game, you name someone who has inherited success, and we'll find someone who created success. We'll start with the one someone already mentioned: Steve Jobs

Paris Hilton

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Plasto:
Yuri:
We could play a game, you name someone who has inherited success, and we'll find someone who created success. We'll start with the one someone already mentioned: Steve Jobs
Paris Hilton

Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, Amy Winehouse.

The Great Lobachevsky · 2011-09-20 Reply Admin

QJo:
Plasto:
Yuri:
We could play a game, you name someone who has inherited success, and we'll find someone who created success. We'll start with the one someone already mentioned: Steve Jobs
Paris Hilton
Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, Amy Winehouse.

Charlie Sheen? :)

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Hare:
Gordy Gecko:
I really wonder sometimes. If people this stupid can run companies and be successful, what could a SMART person do? I swear, I've seen so many corporate WTFs in a few short years.. if and when I ever get my own company off the ground I'm going to run it right. 6 hour days (paid for 8 though), no micromanagement, flex time, can access any websites you want, no monitoring tools.. a little trust and respect goes a long way - people won't dick you over if you treat them like human beings and not pawns that exist to let you act out some feudal/plantation fantasy.

You may want to screen for sociopaths. They will, in fact, dick you over for any or no reason at all. And they can't care (Note: CAN'T care, physically incapable of caring) about doing so. 4 out of every 100 people; hiding amongst us in plain sight.

I'm not hiding. And I'm being a smart sociopath, if I find someone that treats me as a human being I won't ruin it by screwing them over.

frits · 2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Zemm:
John Galt:
They would, the trouble is if they try to open a lemonade stand the government will shut them down.
So they stay unemployed and we have fail CEO's.

Of course there are other countries that encourage unemployed people to start their own businesses.

Considering the high failure rate of new businesses, coupled with the fact that it takes a long time to turn a profit (on average), that seems like money well spent.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

frits:
Zemm:
John Galt:
They would, the trouble is if they try to open a lemonade stand the government will shut them down.
So they stay unemployed and we have fail CEO's.

Of course there are other countries that encourage unemployed people to start their own businesses.
Considering the high failure rate of new businesses, coupled with the fact that it takes a long time to turn a profit (on average), that seems like money well spent.

That sounds sarcastic. What's your view on what the job of government is, may I ask?

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Yuri:
Jay:
Gordy Gecko:
I'm sure they would if they had the money or connections to fund it, and the charisma to sell it. Something the "idiot CEO" has in spades, and the reason why they win and you lose.

Yep. What all of these idiots have in spades is one or more of:

Money from inheritance/past companies/lottery/drug money that can be used to immediately get office space, hire people to shill the company, and handle all of that

Connections with people who can provide #1 above or who have connections of their own that can do #1.

Without #1 and #2 it's hard for Joe American to get his business off the ground, but Jack Money can do it easily with family money or savings.

Well, on the realistic side:

Are there incompetents who are CEOs because they inherited the company from daddy? Sure.

But there are plenty of people in America who have started companies with a few thousand dollars of savings, working out of their garage. (Apple comes to mind.) Yes, the son of a billionaire has an obvious advantage over the average guy. But if you're so smart, you could succeed despite not having all the advantages.

And saying, "Well, HE only managed to build a successful business because he had the charisma to attract investors" ... well, that's a pretty valuable skill, isn't it? Might as well say, "He only succeeded because he had the engineering talent to invent a new and useful product, the marketing skill to attract investors, and the administrative ability to organize the business. If it weren't for that, he never would have succeeded! I could build a succesful business too if only I wasn't so busy watching TV and taking naps on the sofa!"
I'm not even convinced the son of a billionaire has that much of an advantage. Sure they have upfront capital which gets them started, and may have a seemingly infinite supply of funds which they pump through the business, but it seems this puts them in a more likely position to lose big time than win big time. People who have had to work hard to get somewhere (ie not the rich-kid) usually appreciate the value of money more, and are probably more likely to use it wisely. The rich-kid, on the other hand, is more likely to spend friviously early (possibly overestimating the potential of the business).

We could play a game, you name someone who has inherited success, and we'll find someone who created success. We'll start with the one someone already mentioned: Steve Jobs

That's Second Generation Syndrome. You see it all too often. Take a local big car salesplace thingy here. People from all over the region knows it, and chances are big they drive a car from there. It was good value, and you know your car'd get serviced well and within a decent timespan. Then daddy, who created all of that, retired and leaves the place to his kids. Now, if you buy a car there, you can wait for a year or so if you're lucky. If you walk into the showroom, obviously expressing interest in buying a car, you think they'll come out of their office? Nope, even though they see you clear enough, it's YOU the customer who has to go into their office. Coming out to greet a potential customer's below them. They're acting all: "We can pull this off, for we are [that car salespoint company thing]" and up to a point, it's true. Their daddy made it so good it'll survive a generation of arrogant nitwits like that. But by the time they retire, the whole place'll be in shambles.

And that car salespoint company thing's just one example. There're way plenty of them out there (of which I've seen several others in my area).

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

The poop... of DOOM!:
Yuri:
Jay:
Gordy Gecko:
I'm sure they would if they had the money or connections to fund it, and the charisma to sell it. Something the "idiot CEO" has in spades, and the reason why they win and you lose.

Yep. What all of these idiots have in spades is one or more of:

Money from inheritance/past companies/lottery/drug money that can be used to immediately get office space, hire people to shill the company, and handle all of that

Connections with people who can provide #1 above or who have connections of their own that can do #1.

Without #1 and #2 it's hard for Joe American to get his business off the ground, but Jack Money can do it easily with family money or savings.

Well, on the realistic side:

Are there incompetents who are CEOs because they inherited the company from daddy? Sure.

But there are plenty of people in America who have started companies with a few thousand dollars of savings, working out of their garage. (Apple comes to mind.) Yes, the son of a billionaire has an obvious advantage over the average guy. But if you're so smart, you could succeed despite not having all the advantages.

And saying, "Well, HE only managed to build a successful business because he had the charisma to attract investors" ... well, that's a pretty valuable skill, isn't it? Might as well say, "He only succeeded because he had the engineering talent to invent a new and useful product, the marketing skill to attract investors, and the administrative ability to organize the business. If it weren't for that, he never would have succeeded! I could build a succesful business too if only I wasn't so busy watching TV and taking naps on the sofa!"
I'm not even convinced the son of a billionaire has that much of an advantage. Sure they have upfront capital which gets them started, and may have a seemingly infinite supply of funds which they pump through the business, but it seems this puts them in a more likely position to lose big time than win big time. People who have had to work hard to get somewhere (ie not the rich-kid) usually appreciate the value of money more, and are probably more likely to use it wisely. The rich-kid, on the other hand, is more likely to spend friviously early (possibly overestimating the potential of the business).

We could play a game, you name someone who has inherited success, and we'll find someone who created success. We'll start with the one someone already mentioned: Steve Jobs

That's Second Generation Syndrome. You see it all too often. Take a local big car salesplace thingy here. People from all over the region knows it, and chances are big they drive a car from there. It was good value, and you know your car'd get serviced well and within a decent timespan. Then daddy, who created all of that, retired and leaves the place to his kids. Now, if you buy a car there, you can wait for a year or so if you're lucky. If you walk into the showroom, obviously expressing interest in buying a car, you think they'll come out of their office? Nope, even though they see you clear enough, it's YOU the customer who has to go into their office. Coming out to greet a potential customer's below them. They're acting all: "We can pull this off, for we are [that car salespoint company thing]" and up to a point, it's true. Their daddy made it so good it'll survive a generation of arrogant nitwits like that. But by the time they retire, the whole place'll be in shambles.
And that car salespoint company thing's just one example. There're way plenty of them out there (of which I've seen several others in my area).

The real WTF is the tribal / clan mentality that expects the offspring to do what daddy done. Any modern parent worth its salt would kick the little blighters out as soon as they are old enough to express their own version of "aaaww it's not fair" and only let them come back when they've kicked about a bit and got some smarts.

As for the business, when you retire, expect to sell it, unless your offspring shows a real aptitude and enthusiasm for your business (there's usually only one), in which case keep them on as employees, unless / until they can buy you out. Then do with your wealth what you will, with the understanding that whatever you have left after you're dead goes to the offspring - and if they still need it in order to get up and running, they're as useless as they proved to be.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

What's funny (and sad) is that apparently the IT dept has no "Director" or "Seniors".

A Senior IT Engineer (or maybe just Senior Engineer, still in the IT dept) would still have priority.

The fact that the article states this ICT guy got on top of everyone else suggests nothing less that they were all just a bunch of n00bs.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

The poop... of DOOM!:
Then daddy, who created all of that, retired and leaves the place to his kids. Now, if you buy a car there, you can wait for a year or so if you're lucky. If you walk into the showroom, obviously expressing interest in buying a car, you think they'll come out of their office? Nope, even though they see you clear enough, it's YOU the customer who has to go into their office. Coming out to greet a potential customer's below them. They're acting all: "We can pull this off, for we are [that car salespoint company thing]" and up to a point, it's true. Their daddy made it so good it'll survive a generation of arrogant nitwits like that.

So why the hell does anybody buy a car there? Businesses like that need to fail, and fail fast. Is it because they are the only dealership in town? Then get off your ass, quit bitching, and start a competing dealership. That's how it is supposed to work. What are the barriers that prevent that from happening? That's where we need to focus so we can fix the system.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

The Great Lobachevsky:
QJo:
Plasto:
Yuri:
We could play a game, you name someone who has inherited success, and we'll find someone who created success. We'll start with the one someone already mentioned: Steve Jobs
Paris Hilton
Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, Amy Winehouse.
Charlie Sheen? :)

Jim Walton, William Clay Ford Jr.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Paul:
So why the hell does anybody buy a car there? Businesses like that need to fail, and fail fast. Is it because they are the only dealership in town? Then get off your ass, quit bitching, and start a competing dealership. That's how it is supposed to work. What are the barriers that prevent that from happening? That's where we need to focus so we can fix the system.

I can answer this from experience: The company has built up a loyal customer base and has the marketing/PR/schmoozing owner to maintain an appearance of being a top-notch and respectable business even when everything goes to shit. I've seen this personally - a company that was almost literally a scam, spent no money on anything at all, was run by clueless idiots who wanted to pretend to be important people, and yet they were often in the papers with articles written about how great deals they offered and how great a company they were. That's more than enough to punt aside the people who say "That company is terrible, I bought a car and not only was it a lemon but their service was terrible!" because it's "Smith's Used Cars is an amazing company with great deals. CEO John Smith Jr. is a pillar of the community and a remarkable man" coming from the newspaper articles and marketing bollocks.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

anonymouser:
frits:
Roberto:
mathrick:
Working as a PHP programmer that is.
Please try to show some sensitivity. I had a son who was a PHP programmer, and let me assure you: it is no laughing matter.
First of all, there is no such thing as "was a PHP programmer". That's not how it works. It's not a curable condition. I think it's you who could use sensitivity pointers.
Maybe his son is dead, you insensitive clod!

Please try to show some sensitivity. I had a son who was laughing matter, and let me assure you: he was no PHP programmer.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Anonymous:
Please try to show some sensitivity. I had a son who was laughing matter, and let me assure you: he was no PHP programmer.

Dear ANONYMOUS,

In case you can’t tell, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on being insensitive towards PHP "programmers" clearly shows that you’re too young and too stupid to be reading The Daily WTF.

Go away and grow up.

Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Bert Glanstron:
Anonymous:
Please try to show some sensitivity. I had a son who was laughing matter, and let me assure you: he was no PHP programmer.

Dear ANONYMOUS,

In case you can’t tell, this is a grown-up place. The fact that you insist on being insensitive towards PHP "programmers" clearly shows that you’re too young and too stupid to be reading The Daily WTF.

Go away and grow up.

Sincerely, Bert Glanstron

No quack.

hatterson · 2011-09-20 Reply Admin

BitDreamer:
I've read through 3 pages of comments, and nobody has noticed another WTF. Some clueless wonders questioned the "highest ranking" for the new guy, and it was pointed out this higher rank was "compared to his peers". But... "This resulted in all finance requests from IT channeling through this single person" - the implication is that all requests are channelled through IT, and if all requests are channeled through IT, why are there non-IT rankings listed? From the way the story read, all requests would have a rank of 0.6 or 1.0. The CEO doesn't *enter* a request, he has IT enter it, so it gets 0.6 no matter who requested it.

"finance requests from IT" are not the same as "finance's requests channeled through IT"

Presumably "finance requests from IT" are when IT requests funds to do one thing or another outside of normal operations (new server, additional storage, etc.)

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

The internet is a series of clogged tube

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

The poop... of DOOM!:
That's Second Generation Syndrome. You see it all too often. Take a local big car salesplace thingy here. People from all over the region knows it, and chances are big they drive a car from there. It was good value, and you know your car'd get serviced well and within a decent timespan. Then daddy, who created all of that, retired and leaves the place to his kids. Now, if you buy a car there, you can wait for a year or so if you're lucky. If you walk into the showroom, obviously expressing interest in buying a car, you think they'll come out of their office? Nope, even though they see you clear enough, it's YOU the customer who has to go into their office. Coming out to greet a potential customer's below them. They're acting all: "We can pull this off, for we are [that car salespoint company thing]" and up to a point, it's true. Their daddy made it so good it'll survive a generation of arrogant nitwits like that. But by the time they retire, the whole place'll be in shambles.
And that car salespoint company thing's just one example. There're way plenty of them out there (of which I've seen several others in my area).

Is their slogan, "Come on down!" by any chance?

da Doctah · 2011-09-20 Reply Admin

itsmo:
But....:
It reminds me of a quote I once saw on a plaque: "They didn't know it couldn't be done, so they went ahead and did it"

How did they know they had done it, if they didn't know what they were doing - or do they still not know?

I don't know.

hoodaticus · 2011-09-20 Reply Admin

WthyrBendragon:
IT can automate a lot of you.

FTFY

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Sorry, have to wait until the cleaning crew is done with the computer.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Gordy Gecko:
Paul:
So why the hell does anybody buy a car there? Businesses like that need to fail, and fail fast. Is it because they are the only dealership in town? Then get off your ass, quit bitching, and start a competing dealership. That's how it is supposed to work. What are the barriers that prevent that from happening? That's where we need to focus so we can fix the system.

I can answer this from experience: The company has built up a loyal customer base and has the marketing/PR/schmoozing owner to maintain an appearance of being a top-notch and respectable business even when everything goes to shit. I've seen this personally - a company that was almost literally a scam, spent no money on anything at all, was run by clueless idiots who wanted to pretend to be important people, and yet they were often in the papers with articles written about how great deals they offered and how great a company they were. That's more than enough to punt aside the people who say "That company is terrible, I bought a car and not only was it a lemon but their service was terrible!" because it's "Smith's Used Cars is an amazing company with great deals. CEO John Smith Jr. is a pillar of the community and a remarkable man" coming from the newspaper articles and marketing bollocks.

Of course there's also the fact that in socialist societies, the government protects that status quo. I'm not saying the U.S. is socialist, but we're seeing more and more of it.

For example, licensing. You have to get a license from the government to be allowed to open certain types of business. This is always sold as being to protect the consumer from dishonest or incompetent businesses. But ever notice who's always behind it? Is it a mass uprising of consumers who have been cheated? Rarely. Usually it's the existing businesses. Why? Because as established businesses, they'll always be grandfathered in one way or another. And it creates barriers to new competition.

How often have you heard, "In this state you need a license to become a hairdresser, but anyone can hang out a shingle and call himself X". Surely the obvious question is, Why do you need a license from the government to become a hairdresser? In places where you don't need such a license, is there a serious problem of incompetent hairdressers who, what, accidentally shave people bald or die their hair purple? Is hairdressing such a hard job that it takes years of intensive training to do it? No, surely the answer is just the opposite. It is pretty easy to be a competent hair dresser. Many young women cut and style their friends' hair with little or no training and do a decent job. It doesn't take a lot of capital investment: All you need is a chair, a few combs and brushes, and maybe some electric clippers. Total investment is probably $100 or so. And all this makes it too easy for someone to start a new hairdressing business. So something has to be done to keep them out, or all the established hairdressers could be run out of business. So make them go through long and irrelevant training and pay a bunch of money to get a license.

I understand in Louisianna you now need a license to be a flower arranger. Of all the jobs that pose potential danger to the customer, this has to be pretty low on the list. How many people are injured or killed by bad flower arrangements?

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Matt Westwood:
The alternative to paying taxes is, of course, to have to finance every damn part of the infrastructure yourself. I'd be a little annoyed if, whenever I wanted to get a shipment of raw materials from somewhere else to my factory, I had to send out a team of workers to mend the road first. Having paid my taxes, at least I can reasonably expect the road to be passable between there and here, knowing that the responsibility for that has been shelved to someone else. And so on.
Admittedly most of everybody's taxes are to pay off the debt that the gubmint have incurred going to war. Or, in the case of the US, into space as well, which unfortunately hasn't paid off yet (although if as much effort had been poured into setting up the infrastructure to go asteroid mining as went into the futile wars that we Western nations indulged in since 1945, we might sorted that latter issue out by now).

Infrastructure: You're assuming that the only possible alternative to "do it yourself" is "the government does it". But this is obviously false. I don't make my own shoes. Is that because the government supplies me with shoes? No, I buy them at the shoe store.

I'll cheerfully admit that roads are a relatively difficult thing for private companies to run. There would be issues of how a private organization could acquire long, contiguous stretches of land to build the road without having powers of eminent domain. (But then, it's not so clear that giving the government the power to seize people's property with the government deciding when and where and for how much is a perfect solution, either.) There would be issues of how they could efficiently charge people for use of the road, without having to have a toll booth at the entrance to every parking lot. On the other hand, I bet if the government quit running the roads, someone would figure out how to do it. I recall that when radio was first invented, people said that just obviously this had to be run by the government, because how could you charge people to listen to a radio broadcast when anyone could buy a radio and tune in your station? How would you even know who was listening? But then entrepaneurs came up with a solution: Don't charge people to listen; charge advertisers.

I don't know what country you're from, but only a small portion of government debt is to pay off wars. Assuming that debt is proportional to total spending -- i.e. if you spent $100 on A and $50 on B and your income was less than $150, then 2/3 of the debt is for A and 1/3 is for B -- U.S. government spending breaks down about like this (you can get similar numbers at many web sites, do you need a reference?)

military 20% veterans benefits 3% social security 21% medicare 15% poverty relief 16% health & education 4% government employee retirement 3% transportation 3% interest on the debt 10%

and them miscellaneous other things to use up the remaining 5%

Personally I'd agree that military spending is too high, but it's not all that big a chunk of the total. I haven't checked this but I'd guess that most other countries spend a lower percentage of their national income on the military than the U.S. does.

The space program is less than 1% of the U.S. federal budget. It doesn't even show up on most lists. It peaked in the 1960's when the U.S. was trying to get to the moon, at about 4 1/2 %.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

TheSHEEEP:
Eric Bolton:
Am I missing something? Since it didn't match, it would return 1, which is still lower than everything except the cleaners. What difference would this have made? Do the cleaners make a lot of requests, drowning out IT?

Yeah, indeed not THAT funny. He got the highest rank of IT department, and higher than cleaners.

Here is something more funny: Your mom.

She's not that funny. She does squeal like a piggy, though.

Matt Westwood · 2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Jay:
Matt Westwood:
The alternative to paying taxes is, of course, to have to finance every damn part of the infrastructure yourself. I'd be a little annoyed if, whenever I wanted to get a shipment of raw materials from somewhere else to my factory, I had to send out a team of workers to mend the road first. Having paid my taxes, at least I can reasonably expect the road to be passable between there and here, knowing that the responsibility for that has been shelved to someone else. And so on.
Admittedly most of everybody's taxes are to pay off the debt that the gubmint have incurred going to war. Or, in the case of the US, into space as well, which unfortunately hasn't paid off yet (although if as much effort had been poured into setting up the infrastructure to go asteroid mining as went into the futile wars that we Western nations indulged in since 1945, we might sorted that latter issue out by now).

Infrastructure: You're assuming that the only possible alternative to "do it yourself" is "the government does it". But this is obviously false. I don't make my own shoes. Is that because the government supplies me with shoes? No, I buy them at the shoe store.

I'll cheerfully admit that roads are a relatively difficult thing for private companies to run. There would be issues of how a private organization could acquire long, contiguous stretches of land to build the road without having powers of eminent domain. (But then, it's not so clear that giving the government the power to seize people's property with the government deciding when and where and for how much is a perfect solution, either.) There would be issues of how they could efficiently charge people for use of the road, without having to have a toll booth at the entrance to every parking lot. On the other hand, I bet if the government quit running the roads, someone would figure out how to do it. I recall that when radio was first invented, people said that just obviously this had to be run by the government, because how could you charge people to listen to a radio broadcast when anyone could buy a radio and tune in your station? How would you even know who was listening? But then entrepaneurs came up with a solution: Don't charge people to listen; charge advertisers.

I don't know what country you're from, but only a small portion of government debt is to pay off wars. Assuming that debt is proportional to total spending -- i.e. if you spent $100 on A and $50 on B and your income was less than $150, then 2/3 of the debt is for A and 1/3 is for B -- U.S. government spending breaks down about like this (you can get similar numbers at many web sites, do you need a reference?)

military 20% veterans benefits 3% social security 21% medicare 15% poverty relief 16% health & education 4% government employee retirement 3% transportation 3% interest on the debt 10%

and them miscellaneous other things to use up the remaining 5%

Personally I'd agree that military spending is too high, but it's not all that big a chunk of the total. I haven't checked this but I'd guess that most other countries spend a lower percentage of their national income on the military than the U.S. does.

The space program is less than 1% of the U.S. federal budget. It doesn't even show up on most lists. It peaked in the 1960's when the U.S. was trying to get to the moon, at about 4 1/2 %.

I'm a Brit.

Shoes argument: straw man.

Roads argument: Maybe they would band together and keep the roads mended but it wouldn't be very good. Similar with the railways. When the government ran the railways they were better, less expensive and more efficient than since they privatised them. Universities now are rubbish now they are not paid for by the government. Despite all the propaganda, our National Health Service is extremely good, and I will hospitalise anyone who misrepresents it in order to score stupid political points. The Post Office (the geezers who deliver the mail) used to be an institution to be proud of.

Ultimately the only arguments I've seen against taxation stem from personal selfishness.

Kudos to you for having done your homework on the numbers, tho.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

Jay:
Gordy Gecko:
I'm sure they would if they had the money or connections to fund it, and the charisma to sell it. Something the "idiot CEO" has in spades, and the reason why they win and you lose.

Yep. What all of these idiots have in spades is one or more of:

Money from inheritance/past companies/lottery/drug money that can be used to immediately get office space, hire people to shill the company, and handle all of that

Connections with people who can provide #1 above or who have connections of their own that can do #1.

Without #1 and #2 it's hard for Joe American to get his business off the ground, but Jack Money can do it easily with family money or savings.

Well, on the realistic side:

Are there incompetents who are CEOs because they inherited the company from daddy? Sure.

But there are plenty of people in America who have started companies with a few thousand dollars of savings, working out of their garage. (Apple comes to mind.) Yes, the son of a billionaire has an obvious advantage over the average guy. But if you're so smart, you could succeed despite not having all the advantages.

And saying, "Well, HE only managed to build a successful business because he had the charisma to attract investors" ... well, that's a pretty valuable skill, isn't it?

TRWTF is you thinking that charisma is a skill!

The son of a millionaire has a boatload of connections and that means investors - not just daddy's friends but also others. And the boy has seen how to do it, so he'll hit the ground running. Besides, having money of your own and people knowing that will buy a lot of confidence in the investment.

2011-09-20 Reply Admin

a lot of places I worked, the IT department is considered the "catch all" department. Something not working that uses electricty?? Must be IT, because my computer uses electricity!

Squeaky hinge on the door? Hey I see you IT guys with screwdrivers all the time taking apart cases.. You can fix the door too right? Um no.. go to maintenance.

Oh while you are hear pressing the power button on my computer because I was too stupid to do it myself, could you please refill the water cooler.

My computer at home is running slow, can I bring it in for you to fix it? Is it a work computer? No... Ok Sure. Rate is $65 an hour.

The Importance Scale and Dianne Wegg

Leave a comment on “The Importance Scale and Dianne Wegg”