secks
SERENITY NOW!!!
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2003
- Posts
- 175
Re: Non-sequiturs
Wages and economics are never "collateral" to employment. Read up on labor supply and demand. Good grief. Demand low, supply high, increase demand by working for less or even paying for the job.
Look at your argument: there exist pilots who are more than happy to eat $hit in order to get within spitting distance of a plane, so should you. Uh, sorry, just because some pilots are willing to do it doesn't make it "the right way".
Or because they couldn't get meaningful experience any other way, or didn't want to. This is where your analogy breaks down. Airlines don't need exceptional pilots, they judge on the basis of hours. Radio stations, on the other hand, hire on the basis of talent. Thus, in aviation, plenty of low hours applicants are passed over by equally-skilled competitors who simply have more hours. In radio, you get passed over because you just suck.
Don't you see how subjective and emotional this argument is? "no job is worth buying from the employer, you lower yourself by doing so, PFT signifies that you tolerate unfair treatment".
First of all, you can't state declaratively that no job is worth buying. It all depends on how much someone wants a job. If a person is happy in legally doing something he initially paid to do, then who are you to judge?
Second, "lowering oneself" is a vague and subjective idea. Again, if someone is happy paying for the opportunity to perform a job, then who are you to judge? Do CFIs who work for anything under $30/hr "lower themselves"? How about $10/hr?
Third, "unfair treatment" is another subjective idea. Does a person who works for minimum wage and excessively long hours tolerate unfair treatment (ahem, CFIs, freight dogs, etc.)? Does that make this person inferior to someone who is unwilling to work at such a low wage? And exactly what is "unfair", anyway? Nobody forced these people into aviation.
What if a pilot started up a business which operated at a loss so he could fly aircraft? I happen to know someone who came from money and did something very similar to that. Is he or is he not paying for the job? I'm simply trying to point out that these distinctions you make are completely arbitrary: the point at which someone lowers himself, what constitutes unfair treatment, etc.
bobbysamd said:That is preposterous. Some jobs simply do not pay much money. No "concessions" are being made. Once more, pay-for-training is an employment issue only. Wages and economics are collateral to this issue.
Wages and economics are never "collateral" to employment. Read up on labor supply and demand. Good grief. Demand low, supply high, increase demand by working for less or even paying for the job.
Not a rational argument to whom? To you? Have you ever heard of the term, "entry-level job?" Once again, and I will not repeat it, flight schools and other training providers graduate dozens of pilots who would be happy to (1) flight instruct, (2) fly freight, and (3) fly corporate, which can involve cleaning latrines (and even have to do their own flight planning), to get the opportunity to build experience to make them eligible to fly heavies or whatever.
Look at your argument: there exist pilots who are more than happy to eat $hit in order to get within spitting distance of a plane, so should you. Uh, sorry, just because some pilots are willing to do it doesn't make it "the right way".
I would not expect you to know anything about broadcasting, but there are those who will buy radio stations just to be on the air, because they want to be on the air so badly. Probably because they were not good enough to be hired.
Or because they couldn't get meaningful experience any other way, or didn't want to. This is where your analogy breaks down. Airlines don't need exceptional pilots, they judge on the basis of hours. Radio stations, on the other hand, hire on the basis of talent. Thus, in aviation, plenty of low hours applicants are passed over by equally-skilled competitors who simply have more hours. In radio, you get passed over because you just suck.
That is not what I said. Read what I wrote again. To save your the effort, for the final time, I stated, in my opinion, that no job is worth buying from an employer. You lower yourself by doing so. As I have written elsewhere, after having worked for years and having been taken advantage by employers and/or simply been screwed by them, you learn to appreciate the value of an employer treating you fairly. P-F-T signifies from the beginning that you will tolerate unfair treatment. I cannot comprehend why that is so hard to understand.
Don't you see how subjective and emotional this argument is? "no job is worth buying from the employer, you lower yourself by doing so, PFT signifies that you tolerate unfair treatment".
First of all, you can't state declaratively that no job is worth buying. It all depends on how much someone wants a job. If a person is happy in legally doing something he initially paid to do, then who are you to judge?
Second, "lowering oneself" is a vague and subjective idea. Again, if someone is happy paying for the opportunity to perform a job, then who are you to judge? Do CFIs who work for anything under $30/hr "lower themselves"? How about $10/hr?
Third, "unfair treatment" is another subjective idea. Does a person who works for minimum wage and excessively long hours tolerate unfair treatment (ahem, CFIs, freight dogs, etc.)? Does that make this person inferior to someone who is unwilling to work at such a low wage? And exactly what is "unfair", anyway? Nobody forced these people into aviation.
Of course, if that's what you want to do . . . . I knew plenty of people in radio who pulled down their pants and bent over.Nothing wrong with starting a business to build hours and experience. Many pilots bought airplanes and instructed in them. By the way, that is not the same as buying a radio station and putting yourself on the air because no one will hire you.
<Sigh>
What if a pilot started up a business which operated at a loss so he could fly aircraft? I happen to know someone who came from money and did something very similar to that. Is he or is he not paying for the job? I'm simply trying to point out that these distinctions you make are completely arbitrary: the point at which someone lowers himself, what constitutes unfair treatment, etc.