"I think you are wasting our time"



  • I think that everyone is jumping on the emoticon thing for the wrong reason - business doesn't have to be a bunch of stuffy idiots in suits.  In fact, if a candidate applied for a job I was offering with emoticons, I would consider them to be a better person than the regular canned "professional" letter.  Especially in a startup, which usually is trying to be "hip" and "cool" in order to entice people to come and work for them.

    That said, I have never heard of a phone and a car being standard perks anywhere, at any company.  But I'm only experienced in my limited area so I don't know about the rest of the world.  

    Also, this startup is probably like all of the rest - they want someone who will work long and hard on their product, but will accept little or no money as compensation.  They think that the word "startup" is magic and will easily get the best programmers out there to work on "the next MySpace/Youtube/Facebook/etc." in hopes of hitting it big.  Since most startups are just trying to jump on the "Web 2.0" bandwagon, and are usually started by people without a technical background to begin with, they think that great programmers will jump for joy and be willing to work 80+ hours a week for sweat equity or a menial salary, all so they can say they work for a startup and, in the founder's dreams anyway, say they created the [i]Next Big Thing[/i].

    In short:  In my opinion the OP is right, and the company was wrong.  They, in fact, were about to waste [b]your[/b] time.



  • @Da' Man said:

    Pssst! Don't tell them! Do you really want to have a mass immigration of American IT-guys
     

    You do realize that hardly anyone here would take a car over salary right? At least not anyone with any common sense...

    Most sensible people would rather get extra salary and OWN the car so they can actually have a higher net worth and have a car if they leave or get fired.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    In fact, if a candidate applied for a job I was offering with emoticons, I would consider them to be a better person than the regular canned "professional" letter.
     

    Yes, but you also think that the tax laws in America are illegal and that people shouldn't submit tax returns because it could incriminate you.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    You do realize that hardly anyone here would take a car over salary right? At least not anyone with any common sense...

    Most sensible people would rather get extra salary and OWN the car so they can actually have a higher net worth and have a car if they leave or get fired.

     

    The logic is right, but you forgot something:

    A car lease + fuel might cost 1000€ a month.

    Giving you a car + fuel card costs the company then 1000€ a month.

    If you as an employee decide you'd like to have that 1000€ in hard cash, the company would be forced to pay over 2000€ a month, of which half goes to the government.

    So, if you would neglect to take the car, you would at best receive 500€.

    I don't know about you, but I can't pay a similar brand new car, its insurance and fuel on 500€ a month.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Yes, but you also think that the tax laws in America are illegal and that people shouldn't submit tax returns because it could incriminate you.

     

    You forgot that I use a Mac and was afraid of using .NET 3.5, and that I supported Ron Paul.



  • @wooter said:

    I don't know about you, but I can't pay a similar brand new car, its insurance and fuel on 500€ a month.
     

    I don't know about you, but I negotiate for my salary and live within my means.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I don't know about you, but I negotiate for my salary and live within my means.
     

    Hence, a car is for a larger percentile of jobs regarded as benefits.  I wish you very much luck trying to negotiate a sudden wage increase by +500€, not to mention the difference you'll have to pay on your income tax (which ends up that you would need to ask for about 1400€ cash if you would like to own a car, instead of having it given by your employer.

    I don't see the issue, by the way, since quite alot of US cars are actually not owned by their drivers, but by the bank.  You do realise that "leasing", "renting" and "financing" a car are concepts Europe learned from the US, right? :)



  • Hey wooter :-)

    I agree with you  - well, for the most part: If I'm on first-name terms with a client, I would still say "Dear Benoit.. " or whatever his first name is in the email, and in fact even in written letters. And I would continue to use informal addressing at least in German (="du"), though I would probably be more careful with it in French. But that's probably just a matter of personal style, And I'm not implying my style is better, it's just that this works and has worked for me. But if we were all the same.. 

    Also true, maybe I've overestimated the "regular" fringe benefit situation here in Belgium (as you may guess, I'm an Expat here), or in fact I may have even over-estimated theselling power of my CV - but nevertheless the WTF remains: if "competetive" is too much for the company, I immediately loose faith in the quality of products this company may produce one day. And then I may be on the buying end (or rather not, because I would look into other suppliers who may also employ people who are willing to pay for too little (this being Belgium after all) but at least don't admit to it.

    In any case, this point may have been lost in all the discussion about emoticons and cars, so I thank you for your advice (which was - different to certain other's - actually well grounded and helpful.



  • @wooter said:

    I wish you very much luck trying to negotiate a sudden wage increase by +500€, not to mention the difference you'll have to pay on your income tax (which ends up that you would need to ask for about 1400€ cash if you would like to own a car, instead of having it given by your employer.
     

     Apparently I am doing something right, and you are doing something wrong then. I am able to afford all my vehicles, with insurance, gas, etc quite easily.

    @wooter said:

    I don't see the issue, by the way, since quite alot of US cars are actually not owned by their drivers, but by the bank.  You do realise that "leasing", "renting" and "financing" a car are concepts Europe learned from the US, right? :)
     

    Financing a car results in ownership. In some cases so does leasing.

    Getting a company car never will.



  • @Da' Man said:

    I thank you for your advice (which was - different to certain other's - actually well grounded and helpful.
     

    Everyone here has given you 'well grounded' advice. Your choice to ignore it is the only thing not 'well grounded'.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

     Apparently I am doing something right, and you are doing something wrong then. I am able to afford all my vehicles, with insurance, gas, etc quite easily.

    Oh gosh!  You're just like your friend!  You know what they say about when you ASS-U-ME things :)

    I'm pretty sure most people who are given a car, make enough that they could buy their own car.  But it's more fun if you can save, instead of spending it on work-related transportation :)

    You've heard about the concept?  To save? :)



  • @wooter said:

    I'm pretty sure most people who are given a car, make enough that they could buy their own car.  But it's more fun if you can save, instead of spending it on work-related transportation :)
     

    Apparently not, judging by your argument that the money is cut from your salary and replaced by the car benefit.

    @wooter said:

    You've heard about the concept?  To save? :)

    You are asking the guy who doesn't have to worry about his company paying for his transportation? Interesting.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Apparently not, judging by your argument that the money is cut from your salary and replaced by the car benefit.

    The money is not cut.  You get either the choice of 40% to pay up for a car, or a car.  In all ways, taking the money will only do one thing for you: you still have a car when you leave the company.  You might drive a cheaper, smaller, older, less safe and less economical car, but you'd keep your car.  I don't know about you, but if it's only car ownership that arouses you, you've got problems.

    I know a few who started depending on their company cars, and that's unhealthy.  But hey, what's the difference with Americans staying with a company for +15 years to get a decent amount of holidays, you know :D

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    You are asking the guy who doesn't have to worry about his company paying for his transportation? Interesting.

    So what happens when the job ends?  Your supa-dupa US built car runs on butterflies and smiles?  Not on your savings, because that would mean you would not be a Real American :). Can't have savings, must have credit reports! :)

     



  • @wooter said:

    But hey, what's the difference with Americans staying with a company for +15 years to get a decent amount of holidays, you know
     

    Are you always this full of shit?

    I had a 'decent amount of holidays' the first year I was with my company.

    In 15+ years, I will have a ridiculous amount.

    @wooter said:

    So what happens when the job ends? 

    You mean when the next job begins? What is your point? Are you in the habit of being unemployed? I am not.

    @wooter said:

    Not on your savings, because that would mean you would not be a Real American :). Can't have savings, must have credit reports! :)

    Again, you are full of shit. 

     

    Try getting a clue of what you are talking about. You are making yourself out to be an arrogant retard (although I am getting some idea that this is the real you).

    Or you can keep talking out of your ass, we are all having a good laugh at your expense.



  • @wooter said:

    I know a few who started depending on their company cars, and that's unhealthy.  But hey, what's the difference with Americans staying with a company for +15 years to get a decent amount of holidays, you know :D
    That is a minority.  Average stint at a company is 2 years in my area.  Companies are always doing things to try to retain people, but the 15+ year veteran is rare.  In a unit of 300+ people, we have like 4 right now.  4! 

    (My coworkers tell me) back in the "day," a lot of companies had a 10 year vesting program for their 401k, basically forcing people to stay.  Now, that's been relaxed to five years in most companies, and 3 years in mine.

    With regards to vacation, I get 15 days (after 2 years it becomes 20), my friend gets 25 with a different company in under 2 years.  What's "a decent amount of vacation" to you?



  • @Da' Man said:

    <font color="#0000ff" face="Verdana" size="2">I do not believe we can make a competitive enough offer that would interest you. <font color="#000000"> </font>All the best,</font>

    Er, did I miss something? I didn't even talk about money so far. In fact, I (stupidly) even made it clear that I am willing to work for less if the work is interesting enough. What are they looking for? An idiot who is willing to work for next to nothing - well, then I already disqualified myself by showing off with my experience :-)

    In my experience, though, most experienced developers (web or otherwise)
    will have a good clue about how much they are worth (we get job offers
    from certain headhunters from time to time :-) and it will be relatively
    difficult to find somebody who is willing to work under value.

    OK, that was a bit fresh, but I had to get back into the game. I also suggested an "informal" meeting one of these days just to see if there is any way to see if there is any posibility to cooperate.

    The HR person who wrote back had a different opinion:

    <font color="#0000ff" face="Verdana" size="2"><font face="Times New Roman">I feel as though we would be wasting our time as I said before I do not believe that we can make you an offer which will swipe you of your feet .</font></font>

     

    The above is all code for "Hmm, yeah.  You sound like you've done this before and are going to ask for things like comp time when we start asking you to work Saturdays and, a month or two later, Sundays, too.  We're looking for someone who will just sign the boilerplate offer of employment, work for a year or two until hopelessly burned out, and then quit before we have to start paying for things like vacation time." 

    You weren't, by chance, applying for work with a company that makes beverage distribution software out in the microbrew capitol of the world, were you?  I received similar treatment a year ago while looking for a job, except I specified a salary range and was later told that my 9.5 years of experience was really only worth 2 years, but they would graciously start me at a junior-level position for 60% of my asking price (and only 75% of my current salary, disregarding that I was moving from a very small market that paid well below industry average into a larger market with a real tech sector).  Except, they never made that offer, just told me what I was worth to them and stopped responding to any further calls.  It's amazing how the guy who had time to call me two or three times a day leading up to my interview was suddenly "in meetings" from 7AM to 7PM.


    The best part, though, is that even 16 months later that company is still looking to fill the position I interviewed for.


  • @wooter said:

    You might drive a cheaper, smaller, older, less safe and less economical car, but you'd keep your car.  I don't know about you, but if it's only car ownership that arouses you, you've got problems.
     

    It has nothing to do with car ownership being arousing. You forget that those of us who live in the US have to travel farther to get across some cities than many Europeans have to travel to get across their entire countries. Having a car in some parts of the country is a requirement, not a luxury - see most of Texas outside Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio for example, or all of Southern California, or the entire states of New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota, etc.

    And we get high enough wages that we don't have to stoop to a "cheaper, smaller, older, less safe and less economical car"; I drive a late model Ford Explorer by choice so I can tow my boat to the lakes I like to fish, but I have other friends who choose to drive Porsches and BMWs and Mercedes, all of which they pay for themselves. :-) 



  • @livid said:

    The above is all code for "Hmm, yeah.  You sound like you've done this before and are going to ask for things like comp time when we start asking you to work Saturdays and, a month or two later, Sundays, too.  We're looking for someone who will just sign the boilerplate offer of employment, work for a year or two until hopelessly burned out, and then quit before we have to start paying for things like vacation time." 
     

    No, the above was all code for "Ok, we've figured out that you're a pompous, arrogant ass who highly overrates the value of your skills and composes email like a little juvenile script kiddie. However, we're too professional (and polite) to say that, so we'll just say we can't afford to pay the "competitive" excessive salary you'll be expecting for those supposed skills, apologize for wasting your time, and keep looking for someone who really knows what they're doing who will work for a salary comensurate with their abilities who can communicate at an adult and professional level with our clients."

    It was probably something with your attitude that cost you the opportunity, too. Nine and a half years experience doesn't mean the same as 9 * 1 year + 6 months, you know.



  • @livid said:

    The above is all code for "Hmm, yeah.  You sound like you've done this before and are going to ask for things like comp time when we start asking you to work Saturdays and, a month or two later, Sundays, too.  We're looking for someone who will just sign the boilerplate offer of employment, work for a year or two until hopelessly burned out, and then quit before we have to start paying for things like vacation time."
     

    Ah, you won't believe how good it feels to know that there is at least one other person who sees this the same way as I do :-)

    @livid said:

    You weren't, by chance, applying for work with a company that makes beverage distribution software out in the microbrew capitol of the world, were you?
     

    No no, it's an Internet consulting firm. A startup obviously.

    @livid said:

    I received similar treatment a year ago while looking for a job, except I specified a salary range and was later told that my 9.5 years of experience was really only worth 2 years, but they would graciously start me at a junior-level position for 60% of my asking price (and only 75% of my current salary, disregarding that I was moving from a very small market that paid well below industry average into a larger market with a real tech sector).  Except, they never made that offer, just told me what I was worth to them and stopped responding to any further calls.  It's amazing how the guy who had time to call me two or three times a day leading up to my interview was suddenly "in meetings" from 7AM to 7PM.

    Normally, I would just assume, they have found an idiot to fill the post, so they stopped bothering to call you, but...

    @livid said:

    The best part, though, is that even 16 months later that company is still looking to fill the position I interviewed for.
     

    .. probably they just understood that they won't get you where they want you, so they have to keep looking for somebody with less experience (or negotiation skills).

     BTW: I just checked - the job I was applying to is also still open. Unfortunately it doesn't say: "If you expect stings like a 'competetive salary', don't bother applying."



  • @KenW said:

    And we get high enough wages that we don't have to stoop to a "cheaper, smaller, older, less safe and less economical car"
     

    I think you are missing the point about the whole 'company car' thing.

    To pay for a reasonable car, I would have to pay all in all, let's say about 250 Euro per month, either for leasing or for the credit rates, or at least as a loss in book value (i.e. I have to save the money to buy a new one after some time.

    For me to earn 250 Euro, the company would have to pay me close to 350 Euro. That's just how it is here.

    For the company, to least a similar car would come for something closer to 200 Euro.First because it is cheaper for a company, secondly because they can deduct all kind of things from their taxes, including "investments" in company cars, etc.

    So I would agree to 350 Euro *less* salary if they give me a car that costs them less than 200. Sounds like a good deal for the company, doesn't it?

    Plus I don't have to bother about the paperworks and insurance and so on...



  •  @Da' Man said:

    Filed Under: I want a car

     Maybe you should move to a country where you make enough money where this is not prohibitively expensive? Maybe a new career path?

    Also, this burning need for a car, but not being able to afford it has lost you one potential job, how many more do you plan to lose?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    ...
     

    Tell me, do you actually have any other hobbies except flaming here. Why don't you get yourself a job?



  • @Da' Man said:

    Why don't you get yourself a job?
     

    Funny, you are the unemployed one that cannot afford a car...



  • @tster said:

    Am I the only one that knows how much I want to make and would actually give them a number.  I'm not saying I'de give them the minimum amount I would take the job for, but I would give them a number that would make me happy and which I think would be an acceptable deal for them.

     <hints id="hah_hints"></hints>
    If they ask at the end of an interview and it looks like they really want to hire you then sure, throw out a number.  If they ask before the interview even starts then I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to give the sales pitch first, and discuss the "price" afterwards.  Job interviews are just another type of marketing after all, and that's a common enough marketing tactic.  You might get a comfortable salary by spitting out a number, but you might also be able to arrange for something more comfortable with a bit of strong negotiation.

    There's nothing wrong with either approach.  There's a higher risk of being called on your BS and subsequently turned down if you try to negotiate too high, but some people are willing to take that risk.  It's not as though most employers won't try the same BS to negotiate down given the opportunity; that's why they want you to play your cards first, because you effectively establish an upper bound.   Kind of the opposite of a car sale where they ask you "what would you pay" and negotiate up from what they now know is your comfort level.  Some people prefer to just opt out of that crap and give a take-it-or-leave-it offer, which guarantees a "reasonable" result but not necessarily the best one.

    Six of one, half a dozen of the other.  It comes down to personality and I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here. 



  • @Da' Man said:

    I think you are missing the point about the whole 'company car' thing.
     

    No, actually I think you are. The point about the car is that you asked for benefits that the company wasn't willing to provide you, because they don't share your overinflated sense of your l337 skillz and the value thereof.

    @Da' Man said:

    To pay for a reasonable car, I would have to pay all in all, let's say about 250 Euro per month, either for leasing or for the credit rates, or at least as a loss in book value (i.e. I have to save the money to buy a new one after some time.

    For me to earn 250 Euro, the company would have to pay me close to 350 Euro. That's just how it is here.

    So what? For me to earn $1,000,000 US, the company would have to pay me $1,350,000 US. What's your point?

    The company offers you money. It's either enough to meet your own needs, or it's not. If it is, you take the job. If it's not, you negotiate a different salary. If they're willing to come to an agreement, you take the job; if you can't work out an agreement, you don't.

    Saying that you're so special that this internet startup should provide you an unspecified "competitive" salary (competitive with what - Bill Gates' net worth?) and agree to provide a car and phone on top of that is ludicrous. I'd suggest you see a psychiatrist - your swelled head could use the services of a shrink.

    Get over yourself. You're not near as special as you think you are. The rest of the planet doesn't owe you a living, or need to bow and scrape in your presence. Nobody's that impressed with a programmer wanna-be that can't even hold a professional conversation via e-mail without stooping to juvenile, moronic emoticons.

    Based on the quality and intelligence (or lack thereof) shown in this thread, I [i]might[/i] consider hiring you to tend my lawn. Maybe. If I could make sure you'd only be around when no one else who knows me will be, so I wouldn't be tainted by the association with you. 



  • @Da' Man said:

    I think you are missing the point about the whole 'company car' thing.

     <hints id="hah_hints"></hints>

    I don't think anyone missed the point.  We all understand that it's cheaper to lease a car (or anything else) as a business than as an individual.  The point you seem to have missed is that you don't own it.  The company effectively tells you what you can and can't do with it.  You can't trade it in if you hate it.  You can't mod it.  You probably shouldn't drive the shit out of it or go off-roading.  Possibly, you can't even use it all the time for your own leisure.  It's not your car!

    You're also joined at the hip with the company; if my employer asks me to take a 9-hour drive to another province (not that they ever would), I can tell them sorry, that's too much of an inconvenience, please book a flight.  When you have a company car, you're expected to go wherever they want you to go with it.

    This situation is a net loss for you, even if it costs you slightly less.

    In addition, if you truly use the car entirely for business then you are still allowed to write it off as a business expense, so the difference isn't as much as you seem to believe.

    No company wants to lease a car for you just to save you money or sweeten the deal.  If they get you a car, it's because they need you to drive it for them.  The idea that you would expect a company go through such an administrative headache for a desk jockey is laughable.



  • @Aaron said:

    If they get you a car, it's because they need you to drive it for them.
     

    Agree with your post, but I might as well point out it extends to cell phones as well.

     

    Asking for a cell phone up front is pretty goddamn stupid.



  • @KenW said:

    It has nothing to do with car ownership being arousing. You forget that those of us who live in the US have to travel farther to get across some cities than many Europeans have to travel to get across their entire countries. Having a car in some parts of the country is a requirement, not a luxury - see most of Texas outside Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio for example, or all of Southern California, or the entire states of New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota, etc.

    And we get high enough wages that we don't have to stoop to a "cheaper, smaller, older, less safe and less economical car"; I drive a late model Ford Explorer by choice so I can tow my boat to the lakes I like to fish, but I have other friends who choose to drive Porsches and BMWs and Mercedes, all of which they pay for themselves. :-) 

    Except that's about to change ... hell, in fact it is already changing. The main reason this "oil crisis" is hitting the US so hard is because of this car dependency; it wouldn't be that bad if the modern city-planning wasn't so car-based, with no regards to public transportation. Besides some large cities (NYC, Chicago, San Francisco) that have extensive public transportation systems, most cities require long drives, thus turning the car into a necessity. Some people in the Midwest even choose to live in another city than the one they work on, even if the cities are 40 or 60 miles apart.

    So with your current increase of gas prices, some people have reverted to carpooling, or basically just moving back from the suburban/rural areas back into the actual city, where you get less commuting time by either driving less, or using mass transit.

    I've always found it funny that while most Mexican cities have low-quality, but frequent public transportation systems, when I was in El Paso I had to either wait 40 minutes for a bus (ok, nice bus; with A/C and all) or walk 1 mile to the mall under 40+ºC temperatures and a scorching desert sun. Of course, that was if I didn't want to use a car, that is...



  • @Aaron said:

    I don't think anyone missed the point.  We all understand that it's cheaper to lease a car (or anything else) as a business than as an individual.  The point you seem to have missed is that you don't own it.  The company effectively tells you what you can and can't do with it.  You can't trade it in if you hate it.  You can't mod it.  You probably shouldn't drive the shit out of it or go off-roading.  Possibly, you can't even use it all the time for your own leisure.  It's not your car!

    You're also joined at the hip with the company; if my employer asks me to take a 9-hour drive to another province (not that they ever would), I can tell them sorry, that's too much of an inconvenience, please book a flight.  When you have a company car, you're expected to go wherever they want you to go with it.

    This situation is a net loss for you, even if it costs you slightly less.

    Having been in this situation, I totally agree. Some companies do let you use the car for whatever you want, but the fuel card usually has a monthly limit, so if you have personal use for the car, any extra fuel will come out of your pocket.

    And something I've found as a rule-of-thumb is that when the job offers a car, and especially if the job asks you to have a valid drivers license as a requirement, you will definitely have to do a lot of driving for work-related stuff. I once had to turn down a job offer because my drivers license had recently expired; about 3 months later I found the guy who actually took that job. He had to check out the state toll highway's tollbooths for tech support, updates, whatever. Which meant that most of the time, he was doing over 100-kilometer drives, sometimes just to "press the any key" or reboot a b0rked NT server. Glad I didn't take that job :)

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Asking for a cell phone up front is pretty goddamn stupid.

    Given my experience with company-provided cellphones, I'd rather ask not to be given one. In fact, I actually refused a Nextel back in 2005, because I knew perfectly well what would be the "price" attached to this one.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I might as well point out it extends to cell phones as well.

     <hints id="hah_hints"></hints>
    Well of course, but I just sort of dismissed that part out of hand... cell phones are so cheap to begin with (especially in Europe), I can't even fathom the idea of asking for one as a "benefit".  They're always an imposition.  Usually companies just sort of throw them at people whom they want to be able to reach out of the office and those people grudgingly accept.

    You might as well ask for a company shock collar and branding iron pressed against your rear end while you're at it.



  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    The main reason this "oil crisis" is hitting the US so hard is because of this car dependency; it wouldn't be that bad if the modern city-planning wasn't so car-based, with no regards to public transportation.

    Bullshit, the "oil crisis" isn't hitting the US that hard at all.  Some people bitch and carpool to save money, but it's nothing more than an inconvenience anyway.  And you seem to think public transportation is free or something and doesn't consume oil at all.

     

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    Some people in the Midwest even choose to live in another city than the one they work on, even if the cities are 40 or 60 miles apart.

    You act like 40 to 60 miles is a tremendous drive.  Personally, I wouldn't like to drive that far, but that's about 30-45 minutes of driving, depending on traffic.  Not really much worse than public transit in most cities.

     

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    I've always found it funny that while most Mexican cities have low-quality, but frequent public transportation systems, when I was in El Paso I had to either wait 40 minutes for a bus (ok, nice bus; with A/C and all) or walk 1 mile to the mall under 40+ºC temperatures and a scorching desert sun. Of course, that was if I didn't want to use a car, that is...

    So you find it funny that you could not adapt to the transportation system presented to you?  That's like a midwesterner driving through Manhattan and "finding it funny" that traffic moves slowly and that they'd get to their destination faster and cheaper if they took a train.  How idiotic. 



  • @Aaron said:

    Well of course, but I just sort of dismissed that part out of hand... cell phones are so cheap to begin with (especially in Europe), I can't even fathom the idea of asking for one as a "benefit".  They're always an imposition.  Usually companies just sort of throw them at people whom they want to be able to reach out of the office and those people grudgingly accept.

    You might as well ask for a company shock collar and branding iron pressed against your rear end while you're at it.

    Agreed.  I always hated having a company cell because I had to carry 2 phones (personal and company).  At my current job, they just pay $100 towards my cell bill each month, which is at least a lot more convenient. 



  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    The main reason this "oil crisis" is hitting the US so hard is because of this car dependency; it wouldn't be that bad if the modern city-planning wasn't so car-based, with no regards to public transportation.
    No it isn't. The "oil crisis" is hitting us especially hard because we've had gasoline for such astonishingly low prices for years, coupled with the weakening US dollar -- which is the trade currency for oil. And all this at a time when oil demand has never been higher (And demand will only increase; just watch what happens as China continues to modernize). If the US has a higher car dependency than other countries, it likely has a lot to do with the fact that the US is larger and more populous than any other country of equivalent industrialization. Hell, the US is nearly as large as all of Europe (including the backwards parts that still think cars are powered by the devil). Consider the necessary infrastructure of a country of such size. Not to mention that Europe has many cities where cars are infeasible because they were built prior to the notion of the automobile, and they simply cannot handle them.



  • @bstorer said:

    @Da' Man said:
    And - heck, it was a web developer position -  the same as I would expect a craftsman to use some terms of the trade in his application, I don't think it is wrong to use emoticons in an application to such a position.
    Unless you're counting your MySpace page as Web Developer experience, there is no use of emoticons in your "trade".
     

    Funny you say that, because in a recent talk i attended by terry chay he noted that by adding a smily to the subject line of their registration page they got 20% more follow troughs on the signup. So knowing about smilies might be part of a webdevelopers job afteral :) ( i tried looking for a source, but i don't think his presentation is uploaded anywhere, i did find a crappy phone cam picture though )

    Of course knowing how/when to use them basically comes down to, almost never and certainly not in your correspondence with a company unless they already hired you.



  •  On the topic of owning a car vs getting a car from work:

    There is not much difference.  If you're not into customizing your car (which many Europeans are not into), a company issued car has many advantages over getting your own car.  Fuel is paid for, just like European-wide insurance, travel insurance, a replacement car and much more.  Trying to negotiate the value of all these things to be paid in cash is going to prove very hard, since it indeed would cost the company more than double to really pay you out this value cash, and many companies will just not bother.  There is an option to get a lesser taxed amount paid out for any mileage you do with your own car, but it won't pay for all expenses.  Not to mention that that won't cover any private trips, which a company issued car is allowed to do to.

    In essence: yes, you would be able to afford your own car with the wages that go with a company-issued car, but most people just don't bother and have more money to save or to spend on a 'weekend' fun car.



  • @bstorer said:

    @danixdefcon5 said:
    The main reason this "oil crisis" is hitting the US so hard is because of this car dependency; it wouldn't be that bad if the modern city-planning wasn't so car-based, with no regards to public transportation.
    No it isn't. The "oil crisis" is hitting us especially hard because we've had gasoline for such astonishingly low prices for years, coupled with the weakening US dollar -- which is the trade currency for oil. And all this at a time when oil demand has never been higher (And demand will only increase; just watch what happens as China continues to modernize). If the US has a higher car dependency than other countries, it likely has a lot to do with the fact that the US is larger and more populous than any other country of equivalent industrialization. Hell, the US is nearly as large as all of Europe

    It would of course have nothing to do with that cars don't run on oil. The oil first needs to be refined and the usa has a lot of those refineries. I'm not saying america doesn't use a lot of gasoline/diesel themselves, but saying oil import == car use, is simply wrong.

    Talking about cars and all with the oil prices is nice, but the biggest reason people talk about cars is because consumers can actually directly see what the oil price is doing. However oil is used for many more things. (Although i assume diesel/gasoline for consumer use is the main chunk of it)

    (including the backwards parts that still think cars are powered by the devil). Consider the necessary infrastructure of a country of such size. Not to mention that Europe has many cities where cars are infeasible because they were built prior to the notion of the automobile, and they simply cannot handle them.
     

    Care to point out where these "many cities" are? 

     



  • @stratos said:

    @pesto said:
    (including the backwards parts that still think cars are powered by the devil). Consider the necessary infrastructure of a country of such size. Not to mention that Europe has many cities where cars are infeasible because they were built prior to the notion of the automobile, and they simply cannot handle them.

    Care to point out where these "many cities" are? 

     

    London, United Kingdom.



  • @DrJokepu said:

    @stratos said:

    @pesto said:
    (including the backwards parts that still think cars are powered by the devil). Consider the necessary infrastructure of a country of such size. Not to mention that Europe has many cities where cars are infeasible because they were built prior to the notion of the automobile, and they simply cannot handle them.

    Care to point out where these "many cities" are? 

     

    London, United Kingdom.

     

    Last time i was there, there where more then enough cars driving around.



  • @stratos said:

    It would of course have nothing to do with that cars don't run on oil. The oil first needs to be refined and the usa has a lot of those refineries. I'm not saying america doesn't use a lot of gasoline/diesel themselves, but saying oil import == car use, is simply wrong.

    It's not oil imports that matter. If the oil is being refined and then sold to, say, Europe, then the costs are going to impact Europe, not the United States. Since we're discussing the price impact to the US, we have to look at US consumption, not import.



  • @stratos said:

    @DrJokepu said:

    London, United Kingdom.

     

    Last time i was there, there where more then enough cars driving around.

     

    Clearly you didn't pay much attention; most vehicles in Central London are either cabs, vans, lorries. Commuters rarely use automobiles to commute because of the congestion and the congestion charge itself, which is a daily charge of £8 if you drive into Central London between 7am ans 6p. The streets and the roads are narrow and the congestion is unbearable. During the day walking is actually faster than driving. From my home, the bus trip to my office during the morning rush houris about and hour and a half but about 20 minutes with the tube. Parking is a hell as well. Almost nobody uses cars to commute to Central Londo, except people with lots of money or free time, or people who work outside office hours.



  • @DrJokepu said:

    Clearly you didn't pay much attention; most vehicles in Central London are either cabs, vans, lorries. Commuters rarely use automobiles to commute because of the congestion and the congestion charge itself, which is a daily charge of £8 if you drive into Central London between 7am ans 6p. The streets and the roads are narrow and the congestion is unbearable. During the day walking is actually faster than driving. From my home, the bus trip to my office during the morning rush houris about and hour and a half but about 20 minutes with the tube. Parking is a hell as well. Almost nobody uses cars to commute to Central Londo, except people with lots of money or free time, or people who work outside office hours.

     

    New York is the same way.



  • @bstorer said:

    And all this at a time when oil demand has never been higher (And demand will only increase; just watch what happens as China continues to modernize).

    The oil market will probably collapse soon, though.  This has been a recurring feature of history.  The demand increases dramatically and strains supply so prices jump.  However, producers cannot resist massively expanding their production to take advantage of these high prices, which causes the supply to increase and the prices to collapse.  The oil market is actually quite fascinating and its inability to establish even supply is a result of the fact that most oil production is heavily nationalized.  Like any type of Communist system, it is significantly less efficient than capitalism at dealing with fluctuations in supply and demand. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    And all this at a time when oil demand has never been higher (And demand will only increase; just watch what happens as China continues to modernize).

    The oil market will probably collapse soon, though.  This has been a recurring feature of history.  The demand increases dramatically and strains supply so prices jump.  However, producers cannot resist massively expanding their production to take advantage of these high prices, which causes the supply to increase and the prices to collapse.  The oil market is actually quite fascinating and its inability to establish even supply is a result of the fact that most oil production is heavily nationalized.  Like any type of Communist system, it is significantly less efficient than capitalism at dealing with fluctuations in supply and demand. 

     

    AFAIK the OPEC hasn't been able to find enough new oil fields to meet supply growth + old field degredation sinds 2004. So i think your fear of communist threat in market suply is for the moment pretty unfounded



  • @stratos said:

    AFAIK the OPEC hasn't been able to find enough new oil fields to meet supply growth + old field degredation sinds 2004. So i think your fear of communist threat in market suply is for the moment pretty unfounded

    Several oil producing countries have been spending resources to expand production.  The "Communist threat" already exists in the market, which is why it's so goddamn unstable and touchy.  Almost all oil production is controlled by government entities.  That is the definition of Communism and it's the reason for the oil market being a major pain in the ass.  I have no idea what your inferior education system has taught you, but I have to wonder what you are even thinking when you post half the time.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @stratos said:

    AFAIK the OPEC hasn't been able to find enough new oil fields to meet supply growth + old field degredation sinds 2004. So i think your fear of communist threat in market suply is for the moment pretty unfounded

    Several oil producing countries have been spending resources to expand production.  The "Communist threat" already exists in the market, which is why it's so goddamn unstable and touchy.  Almost all oil production is controlled by government entities.  That is the definition of Communism and it's the reason for the oil market being a major pain in the ass.

    Are you talking world market or US market? because in the world market there already is a free market, although of course OPEC is a big chunk of that market, but free none the less.

    If your talking just the US oil market, i simply wouldn't know.

    I have no idea what your inferior education system has taught you, but I have to wonder what you are even thinking when you post half the time.

    funny, i feel the same way about you. 



  • @stratos said:

    because in the world market there already is a free market, although of course OPEC is a big chunk of that market, but free none the less.

    Are you out of your mind?  What part of the international oil market is free?  Almost every single oil-producing nation has government-controlled production. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @stratos said:

    because in the world market there already is a free market, although of course OPEC is a big chunk of that market, but free none the less.

    Are you out of your mind?  What part of the international oil market is free?  Almost every single oil-producing nation has government-controlled production. 

     

    AFAIK there is no one organisation overlooking the entire market. So you are pretty much free to set up your MorbiusOil company and start trading in oil on the world market. OPEC might forbid its members to deal with you if you violate some of their rules, but hey that's their free choice.



  • @stratos said:

    AFAIK there is no one organisation overlooking the entire market. So you are pretty much free to set up your MorbiusOil company and start trading in oil on the world market. OPEC might forbid its members to deal with you if you violate some of their rules, but hey that's their free choice.

    Since I don't have access to any crude oil, that would be a bit of a problem.  The vast majority of the world's oil fields are state-owned which significantly reduces competition in the market and adds all kinds of political bullshit to the mess.  When the means of production are controlled by a government, that is clearly Communism.  That is the opposite of a free market.  What part of this are you failing to understand?  You might as well argue that the USSR and China had a free market economy because their governments were "free" to trade with one another.  The world oil supply is overwhelming state-controlled, the results of which are shortages, poor infrastructure and growth planning, politcally-motivated cartels like OPEC and a generally unstable supply.  Add to that massive environmental destruction and human rights violations committed by governments that have an incentive to skew the legal system to favor the state-run oil companies and you have the mess we see today.



  • What drivel are you spewing now morbiuswilters.

    There is no competition in oil 'cause OPEC is a cartel. Producer nations control a resource that the world needs and are able to gain more power by forming themselves into cartel. That they can set price, regulate supply and one can't undercut the other- that's the point of a cartel. It has nothing to do with communism- but it is anti competitive, and that's the point of a cartel -they get richer.

    You seem to think that because the state runs a corporation it's communism- but that's actually endearing, and makes your arguments funny.

    The "mess we see today" is largely due to the fact that large emerging economies are demanding more oil, supplies or refinable crude is dwindling, energy futures are being heavily traded and someone invaded Iraq. - Sure there's instability in other oil producers, Nigeria as recent example, but this is small fry compared to Iraq and the threat hanging over the region. 

    There are bottlenecks, and they aren't in the supply side, but rather due to a lack of infrastructure in the demand side. Oil companies have not being building new refining capacity.

    Check your facts, then get back to me. I give you a E- more effort required. 

     



  • @matterific said:

    There is no competition in oil 'cause OPEC is a cartel. Producer nations control a resource that the world needs and are able to gain more power by forming themselves into cartel. That they can set price, regulate supply and one can't undercut the other- that's the point of a cartel. It has nothing to do with communism- but it is anti competitive, and that's the point of a cartel -they get richer.

    You seem to think that because the state runs a corporation it's communism- but that's actually endearing, and makes your arguments funny.

    And what do you think the definition of Communism is?  It's government control of production.

     

    @matterific said:

    The "mess we see today" is largely due to the fact that large emerging economies are demanding more oil, supplies or refinable crude is dwindling, energy futures are being heavily traded and someone invaded Iraq. - Sure there's instability in other oil producers, Nigeria as recent example, but this is small fry compared to Iraq and the threat hanging over the region.

    Iraq has very little to do with oil prices.  The increased demand is causing a problem, but as I pointed out originally the state-run oil companies are pretty bad at managing supply which is why this sudden increase in demand is causing them problems and driving up price.  In the long run, however, we will see massive investment in oil production to take advantage of the high prices.  As has happened many times in the past, the state-run companies will over-extend their operations and end up with a surplus of oil which will cause the bottom to fall out the market and lead to another 10 years of very low prices.

     

    @matterific said:

    There are bottlenecks, and they aren't in the supply side, but rather due to a lack of infrastructure in the demand side. Oil companies have not being building new refining capacity.

    Refining capacity has very little to do with it.  If there was a lack of refining capacity, then we would see the price of gas but not crude oil go up.  However, the increase in gas price has been almost entirely due to surges in crude oil prices.  There is plenty of refining capacity in China and even the US imports very little gasoline to deal with refining shortfalls. 


Log in to reply