Are your kids on vacation? Have them help you!!

		Head banger wrote:
		working today, then off till friday.  must clean up the house then,  sigh!!!      Painkiller87 wrote: Good morning everyone!! AH its good to have the week off for some well deserved rest from work. Plus be with the family during the holidays and New Years. How's everyone's holidays go?

I know of at least one person who would have listened to it recently. Tooladamus.

		MG_Metalgoddess wrote:
		LMAO..  I have not listened to Nostradamus in a while... I have to be in the mood for it! And since Iam usally crabby  I put in Screamin for VENG!!!!!!!!!!   LMAO      jimmyjames wrote: It's almost as much fun as listening to Nostradamus all the time..... but not quite.      MG_Metalgoddess wrote: LOL I hadnt noticed... LMAO       jimmyjames wrote: If you've got some time to kill you could try playing the song association game by yourself, It works for some people.

Headbanging has been branded a "health hazard" by the first ever study into the sacred heavy metal ritual.

A report, published in today's British Medical Journal by Declan Patton and Andrew McIntosh from the School For Risk And Safety Sciences at the University Of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia concluded that headbanging leaves participants with "similar effects to whiplash."

The pair conducted an extensive study of headbanging, attending numerous concerts and observing various headbanging techniques. They were then able to come up with a biomechanical analysis and a "theoretical headbanging model".

The study showed that a typical death metal song has approximately 146 beats-per-minute, which, combined with headbanging arcs of at least 45 degrees, will more than likely "cause mild head and neck injury." They also warned that faster tempos and wider arcs provide a "definite risk of mild traumatic brain injury."

Headbanging has been branded a "health hazard" by the first ever study into the sacred heavy metal ritual.

A report, published in today's British Medical Journal by Declan Patton and Andrew McIntosh from the School For Risk And Safety Sciences at the University Of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia concluded that headbanging leaves participants with "similar effects to whiplash."

The pair conducted an extensive study of headbanging, attending numerous concerts and observing various headbanging techniques. They were then able to come up with a biomechanical analysis and a "theoretical headbanging model".

The study showed that a typical death metal song has approximately 146 beats-per-minute, which, combined with headbanging arcs of at least 45 degrees, will more than likely "cause mild head and neck injury." They also warned that faster tempos and wider arcs provide a "definite risk of mild traumatic brain injury."

Headbanging has been branded a "health hazard" by the first ever study into the sacred heavy metal ritual.

A report, published in today's British Medical Journal by Declan Patton and Andrew McIntosh from the School For Risk And Safety Sciences at the University Of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia concluded that headbanging leaves participants with "similar effects to whiplash."

The pair conducted an extensive study of headbanging, attending numerous concerts and observing various headbanging techniques. They were then able to come up with a biomechanical analysis and a "theoretical headbanging model".

The study showed that a typical death metal song has approximately 146 beats-per-minute, which, combined with headbanging arcs of at least 45 degrees, will more than likely "cause mild head and neck injury." They also warned that faster tempos and wider arcs provide a "definite risk of mild traumatic brain injury."

Headbanging has been branded a "health hazard" by the first ever study into the sacred heavy metal ritual.

A report, published in today's British Medical Journal by Declan Patton and Andrew McIntosh from the School For Risk And Safety Sciences at the University Of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia concluded that headbanging leaves participants with "similar effects to whiplash."

The pair conducted an extensive study of headbanging, attending numerous concerts and observing various headbanging techniques. They were then able to come up with a biomechanical analysis and a "theoretical headbanging model".

The study showed that a typical death metal song has approximately 146 beats-per-minute, which, combined with headbanging arcs of at least 45 degrees, will more than likely "cause mild head and neck injury." They also warned that faster tempos and wider arcs provide a "definite risk of mild traumatic brain injury."

Good Morning my fellow metallians!!! 

Now then, having responded to that, lets turn to our friend strat;
Decent wage? Interesting enough but, again, rather vague. How does one define "decent". I am almost certain that you and I would differ there, right?  Pensions? Hmm. That is a way that a company rewards a LONG TERM employee. It is a good thing, unless you are a slug that is jumping from job to job with no loyalty. Decency seems to be your theme but again I ask, how do you define the word? If your bills are paid and you can eat, is that decent? If you can take a vacation once a year or every other year , is that decent? If you make enough to go out and buy a home, is that decent? Hmm...

Earning a position. ( Please see my previous comments on Paulson) There is a reason business schools exist. The things they teach are important. Just how would you propose we define "earn"? And just where do you get the information that substantiates your "competitiion" theory? Thousands of others that want the position? Wow. I find that difficult to believe, given that the position requires certain elements that many (if not most) people simply do not possess. And "buying" the positions? How is that done? Inherit it? How? Just what criteria should be employed in determining who runs a corporation? And make NO mistake, it is not a "useless" position.  Forget Corporate Structure for just a moment. Someone has to lead. Decisions (very HARD decisions) must be made. I suppose we could just go down to the assembly line and pick some guy "screwing in the tail lights" for the position? Oh yeah, VERY qualified.

Do you really think I am being naive when I say that YOU have as much opportunity as anyone else?? It is a shame that you do not think as highly of yourself as I do. You're right, not everyone can be a winner. good point. But I can tell you this, ALL "winners" believe in themselves. That's a start. It takes time, man. It does not happen overnight. Or in a year. Or in two. Hard work and dedication are only part of it. Focus and drive are others. Setting goals and all that "naive" type stuff.

As for the symbiosis analogy, I liked it. Very illustrative, although I do not completely agree. It is the economics of fundamental business. Supply and demand. In some way, we all rely on one another.  We can argue the virtues of the "system" all day long but if you really think about it, you choose your life man. If tail light assembly does not strike you as a "decent" way to make a living, do something else.  Getting an education is an obvious first step. But it does open doors. Then you too could be part of this mysterious "competition" to inherit a chance to purchase a job..........HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

		_strat_ wrote:
		Formula... There is no "formula" that I would know of. If you ask me, all this shit with wages and pensions is bullshit. If one works a decent work, one should be able to live a decent life, end of story. Earning the position... Good job, if such a position or such an income could actualy be earned. Which it cant be. It can be won in a competition with thousands of others who want to get to the same spot, it can be bought with connections, hell, maybe it can even be inherited over there in the States, for all I know. I fail to see any logic whatsoever in claiming that anyone can earn so much power over the lives of so many people, who cant do anything else but to comply, or get fired. And thats just the problem. That all the power, the control of a corporation, in some cases power to control entire national economies, is concentrated in the hands of the few. Now, I dont care how much they are stressed, how hard they try (even if they did try to do anything else apart from filling their bank accounts), if they fuckup, they fuckup good. Just like they did now. And responsability... Please. They should be held responsible, since they hold such a disproportionate amount of power, but they are not. Just look at whats happening now (at least it is happening here). Over the last few years, we had a wonderfull economic growth. Splendid. All the indexes were up, statistics were looking great, CEOs, politicians, managers were all smiling... And all that time, most of the working class lived in appauling conditions. The unions were staging strikes like crazy, and all they managed to get were a few cents here and there on the minimal wage. In short, when there was money, they wouldnt share it. But now, just before the reccesion, they talk about us "pulling together", working longer for less, and saving what can still be saved. They wouldnt share the good times, no. But when the shit hits the fan, they will pack their suitcases full of stolen money from the years of economic growth, and leave us with the debts that they created in the first place. Then the opportunity bit... You dont actualy think that they are growing and expanding their businesses out of solidarity with us? That we would get new jobs? Theyre doing it for themselves, and thats it. You think that I would be given an opportunity to get the job I have now, if the company wouldnt be sure that they would be making more money off me than they spend on me? And, of course, do you think that the big fish would let us near their positions, just to give us the opportunity to succed? Thats just plain naive. There is opportunity, sure. But not everyone can be a winner. Basic logic: if there are 5 different people competing for 1 job, 1 of them gets it, the others dont, no matter how hard they try. Not everyone can succed in this system. Infact, only a few can. Oh, and the equipment part... They wouldnt have food on the table, if there were no people that would buy and use their products. That is called a symbiosis. However, I still stand by the position that the CEOs are parasites.      Deep Freeze wrote: OK, let's address the comments. First; just how do you propose we "justify" an income? What formula do you feel is "fair" and , if so, why is that fairer than earning the position or whatever system we have now? What makes their income so terrible? Because it is greater than ours?? Is that it? Is that all? Next; you claim that it is "us" who "put food on their tables". Really? Can the same be said for the person that manufactures the items YOU use on the job? I mean, without them, YOU would not have food on the table, correct? Now, by this logic, YOU are the "elite", no? Next; we so often hear about all the "bad" things CEOs do.  They make countless decisions that affect thousands of lives and, when one or two of them go bad, we are so quick to condemn that whole. Amazing. In most cases, it IS because of these people and their ability that we, the common man, are given the opportunity to succeed. As for education, it is out there for everyone. (At least in the US) NOT every single CEO is a Harvard Business grad. Are there privileged? Certainly. In every country, in all social systems, there are the few. Does not mean that YOU strat could not run a corporation if you so desired. The question then becomes, are you motivated? Do you have ambition? I scoff when I see people going on about how the "little guy" is so abused by the system. Whatever. You can be just about anything you want to be IF you have the drive. I do not see the Business Leaders of the world as "parasites" They are no worse than you and me. We all rely on each other and I, for one, could NOT dowhat they do. I am not qualified nor do I have that kind of drive. I like my weekends! I like my evenings.      _strat_ wrote: The issue here would be, that even if they work more, it hardly warrants such ridiculously high incomes. Incomes that are made by the entire company, not just that one person that carries his laptop to the toilet. MM has a valid point. The wages of the beourgeois are really just the tip of the iceberg. With all the incomes that they get, they could have retired at 35 or even before that, and would be much better of than the rest of us, who will have to work until we are old and gray, and get a pension that will barely sustain us. Than there is the issue of responsability. Yes, they get a lot of shit. BUT they do a lot of shit themselves. As I mentioned earlier, their fuckups are much more serious than ours, and affect all of us. But with the current legislature in most countries, a CEO or a manager that screws something up, will like as not get away with it. And of course their decisions. Outsourcing is a great example. Is outsourcing the jobs somewhere else responsible to the workers that are being outsourced? Yet it is done more and more.  The thing is, that if a bourgeois works 24/7, I dont really care about it. The rest of us still put bread on his table, not the other way around. Even if a person works non-stop all his/her waking hours, its still just one person. Can he/she do more than thousands of others that also provide income for the company, and get a considerably smaller piece of it? Thats impossible. These people may be visionaries, planners, and whatnot, but the problem is that they are the elite that get to fulfill their visions and dreams. The rest of us cant, because the game forces us to fulfill theirs. And thats another point: all of us cannot be CEOs and managers. Bourgeoisie is by definition a minority social class. All of us cannot afford the education to get there, all of us wont get the sam opportunities to be at the right plave at the right time, and all of us dont have connections to the elite that would get us there. All that said... They are parasites. We can do without them. Infact, we were doing quite well without them for decades until the privatisation. Oh, and mybe we should continue this in the Social issues thread? Just a thought.      Deep Freeze wrote: Very well. I look forward to your response! It has become all the rage, (at least in the US), to complain about corporate CEO's and their ilk. It amazes me. Really.  I noticed the comment about "working two or three hours" and had to laugh. Of course, I also noticed the equal pay for equal hours bit. *ugh* To begin with, the CEO of any large corporation is not some guy that has randomly landed the position. He is not some "lucky stiff" that hit the lottery and managed to get the top spot by sheer accident. In order to even get to the level of CEO in a large corporation, one must have a certain level of education, training, experience and a proven track record in management. In short, they earn it. A CEO does not start his day at nine in the morning and quit at noon! The average, yes average CEO, works on a 24 hour basis. Of course, he does sleep, although I cannot imagine how, but business at that level never stops. CEO's work even when they are home. Even when they are sitting on the can!!! I am not making this up. They are on the phone or on a plane or in a car or in a meetings or doing something ALL day and into the night, everyday, including weekends! And let's not even get into the issue of dealing with CONSTANT problems and issues;  personnel problems, breakdowns, economic problems, law changes, shareholders..! To suggest that they should be paid for equal hours is just silly. No company could afford it!! The average working man only sees a brief moment in the life of a CEO, usually when that guy is dealing with some catastrophe. Or when he is leaving his high-stress positon and is (rightfully) getting a large pay-out to leave. These men are TEN cuts above the average guy. They are visionaries, planners, thinkers, creators, decision makers and incredible leaders. The level of stress and amount of responsibility they deal with is beyond comprehension. It is oh so chic to point the finger at the guy making the "big bucks". Is there abuse? Certainly. That happens at every level. But the fact is, people are paid to "screw in the tail light" and others are paid to make sure they do it. Still others are paid to order enough tail lights while still others deliver them. Somewhere, there is even a guy designing a better tail light! Business is multi-level. Without the people at the top, the people at the bottom would not get that coveted pay check at all! Is there a better way? Possibly. THAT is just ONE reason why CEO's get paid what the do. To find a better way. To create it, plan it, design it, implement it and accept its success or failure. How many average workers are even capable of that kind of accomplishment ? There are many that think they can but are not able to actually do it. Talk is cheap, as they say. Those that actually can do it rise from day-worker "up the ladder", as it were. They earn it. There's that word again. Earn. Funny how that word is rarely used when a CEO is caught in the bright lights of TV cameras while trying to explain why some guy fifty levels below him did something stupid and cost the company millions and now the CEO has to answer for it!! That's right! It is his responsibility, even though he never even met the moron. As far as I am concerned, people just do not get it. A CEO is far more than some figurehead. They get paid (comparatively) a LOT of money and they deserve every dime. If there are people in the world that feel they could do the job better, my only comment would be to get the education and EARN the job!