Re: Some recent DNA threads

Never overlook the “accounting reality” angle. Which says that (and I am very sorry to have to say it, in consideration of everyone involved): I don’t have to know what they are actually doing ... cheapest labor wins.

The simple reason why I say that “I am very sorry to have to say it” is that ... there exists a very influential segment of our business population that was trained-up in a hypothetical “business” world in which Companies™ make Widgets™. The only differentiator that actually matters, in their hypothetical world, is: unit labor cost.

In other words ... “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” You are (correctly!!) telling me that, not only do you know more than three people who cost one-sixth as much as you do, but you can accomplish more, too. But, the only thing that I see is “a way to reduce unit labor costs by 50%.” Even if those three people require half-again as much time to fumble their way through to an acceptable-enough solution, I have reduced labor costs by at least 25% and I have removed from the payroll, at a single stroke, one “cost center” that cost six times more.

Surely, I am due a fat promotion.

Yes, you are absolutely right that “it sucks to be any one of those three people!” But no one ever got rich by consigning people to a fate that they deserved. “The numbers say that,” not only have I just reduced labor-costs by a whopping 25%, but I have also eliminated the organization’s dependency upon one expensive labor-unit (with an atttitude...) and replaced it with a pool of labor that is more-or-less completely interchangeable. I have eliminated the business requirement for Shakespeare and replaced it with ... Haplorrhini. My business goal is to sell tickets, to fill every seat in the Old Globe Theater and to sell lots of wine in the process ... not to create a lasting work of literature.

Now, please!! Before you dismiss this posting as a rant and with “you must be an [!!] and obviously completely full of [!!!!]” ... I want you to please, for once: Stop and. Be afraid. Become very afraid. One hundred fifty years ago, you could have been an expert third-generation gunsmith who was utterly certain that Mr. Eli Whitney was similarly full of [!!!].

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Some recent DNA threads by Boldra (Deacon) on May 08, 2012 at 07:33 UTC
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Being afraid does not help you think clearly. It actually does the opposite. If you have a sound argument, you don't need to rely on an emotional response. Even if you do need to rely on an emotional response, subtlety will work better than just telling your audience what you want them to feel. - Boldra	[reply]
Re^3: Some recent DNA threads by Argel (Prior) on May 09, 2012 at 20:18 UTC
"Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid" is a colloquialism and should not be taken literally. It's downright scary that some of you are. Well, not really, but that's another colloquialism. Ironic given that poor "written English skills" are part of the OP's complaint. Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks My deviantART gallery	[reply]
Re^4: Some recent DNA threads by Anonymous Monk on May 09, 2012 at 20:33 UTC
"Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid" is a colloquialism and should not be taken literally. It's downright scary that some of you are. Well, not really, but that's another colloquialism. Ironic given that poor "written English skills" are part of the OP's complaint. No it isn't, its a tagline from a movie -- you have no idea what it means, or what sundialsvc4 meant by it, the only safe meaning is the literal meaning	[reply]
Re^5: Some recent DNA threads by Argel (Prior) on May 11, 2012 at 00:44 UTC
Re^6: Some recent DNA threads by Anonymous Monk on May 11, 2012 at 07:45 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^2: Some recent DNA threads by marto (Cardinal) on May 08, 2012 at 09:45 UTC
Fear is the mind killer. Encouraging people to be afraid is counter productive.	[reply]
Re^3: Some recent DNA threads by sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on May 08, 2012 at 13:12 UTC
I do not intend here to be a fearmonger, not in the literal sense, but I do intend to plainly say that there is a reason why people who seem remarkably uninformed in programming of all sorts are successfully flooding into the market and displacing people who know how to do the same job better and faster. Therefore, if you are (of course...) such a person, actually on either side of that fence, you have a selling job to do. Labor cost is the number-one component of any white-collar type operation, so you have to be able to argue the case that, even though you “cost more,” you cost less. Meanwhile, if you are on the other side of that equation, you have a far more difficult problem: having displaced yourself or been displaced thousands of miles from home, you have been dumped into a situation where you might not be expected to succeed because you are, well, interchangeable. I have had the opportunity to talk with a lot of very smart men and women who are in that situation right now. Being a student of history as an avocation, I find eerie but familiar parallels with the past in today’s labor relations in this professional-market segment.
Re^4: Some recent DNA threads by Anonymous Monk on May 08, 2012 at 13:39 UTC
Being a student of history as an avocation, I find eerie but familiar parallels with the past in today’s labor relations in this professional-market segment. I don't see it :/ Even if we disregard your erroneous Eli Whitney reference, and guess correctly you were talking about Samuel Colt, the parallel doesn't hold. Gunsmiths were very rare, much much rarer than blacksmith/whitesmith/goldsmith and they catered to the rich. What Samuel Colt did was open-up new markets, he didn't diminish or devalue gunsmiths -- the rich still kept buying their lavish custom guns, lavish custom guns which Samuel Colt wasn't selling because he made money by selling to armies in bulk	[reply]
Re^2: Some recent DNA threads by Anonymous Monk on May 08, 2012 at 07:52 UTC
One hundred fifty years ago, you could have been an expert third-generation gunsmith who was utterly certain that Mr. Eli Whitney was similarly full of [!!!]. Eli Whitney died in 1825, 187 years ago	[reply]