Speaking of Politics as usual

[Xavier_Onassis]

Why not just let people who think they need hjanitors hire them, and let people who don't can empty their own trash or let the salesmen do it?

This is an utterly pointless discussion.

[BT]

that might not be possible. I mention it`s under a unrelated catagory like building maintenance.

such study may not be made.

unless it`s ABM, but that`s cheating since it`s that business best intererst for that research to have a positive result .

Probably a good reason that claims that can't be backed up, shouldn't be made.

[sirs]

I am not arguing that janitors do not provide a service to the company, but i would like to see some numbers that back up the claim that their presence increases productivity and revenue.

ONE LAST TIME, the "numbers" are the same ones you have yet to provide that demonstrate that hiring Janitors apparently decreases productivity and revenue.  Just throwing out a hypothetical pay rate per hour doesn't cut it.  The back-up is that they're hired and the compnay doesn't fail as a result.  Been that way since the 1st page.  So, why you keep asking for something that you yourself can't provide for your contrary position, is a bit mind boggling.  Oh wait, I forgot, you're going to take that as some personal attack.  My bad

[BT]

ONE LAST TIME, the "numbers" are the same ones you have yet to provide that demonstrate that hiring Janitors apparently decreases productivity and revenue.

Another misrepresentation. I claimed that the cost of a janitor is not outweighed by increased productivity and thus increased revenue. You claimed the opposite.

I provided real life examples of my hypothesis, you have provided zilch.

[sirs]

My "real life" example is that Janitors are hired, and businesses manage not to fail

[BT]

Nice deflection to go along with your misrepresentations.

Sad really.

[sirs]

You just can't help digging that pit.  I'd ask where the so-called misrepresentation, this time's supposed to be, but knowing the end-around erroneous deduction we'd be privvy to, leads me to just say "we disagree".  Yes, sad indeed

[BT]

You just can't help digging that pit.  I'd ask where the so-called misrepresentation, this time's supposed to be, but knowing the end-around erroneous deduction we'd be privvy to, leads me to just say "we disagree".  Yes, sad indeed

Misrepresentation:

I never claimed that hiring a janitor would throw a business into the red, nor did i claim that hiring janitors decrease productivity though they certainly add cost to the operation.

Your claim was that they increased productivity and thus increased profits at such a rate as to negate their costs.

And your proof of this was that they were hired in the first place.  Which isn't proof at all.

All their hiring proves is that the cost of a janitor was acceptable in light of the profitability of the other segments of the ledger. Not that their hiring increased productivity and or profitability.

[Plane]

I see. So, Sirs, the worldwide economic meltdown that occurred in the fall of 2008, the meltdown that has Greece, Ireland, Spain, the UK, etc., etc., either bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy, isn't part of our present economic uncertainty? Instead, it's the overspending on the part of the democrats that has caused it?

In a word, wow.

bsb

It is no mere coincidence that the Congress (power of  purse) became Pelosi park at that time.

[Plane]

If a small business requires its employees to clean up after themselves the lost time at profit making activities might be a lessor cost than another minimum wage hire.

If a business were of sufficient size to adzorb the hiring of another employee and this employees work keeping the business site clean allows other employees to spend more time productively such that his wage is compensated , or more, then hireing a janitor becomes a wise division of labor and his work is a value that does show up on the bottom line.

This isn't merely a matter of scale either , it is a matter of compareing the value of work lost to the value of time saved and the balance point should be easy to find in a particular case even if more difficult to generalise.

Imagine that your lawyer is a very good one that is justified to charge $200 or more each hour he spends on your case even though he is a one man shop. Would you be pleased to learn that he spends an hour each day cleaning his office?

[BT]

Imagine that your lawyer is a very good one that is justified to charge $200 or more each hour he spends on your case even though he is a one man shop. Would you be pleased to learn that he spends an hour each day cleaning his office?

As long as I am not being billed for that time, what he does on his own time is his business.

[Plane]

Imagine that your lawyer is a very good one that is justified to charge $200 or more each hour he spends on your case even though he is a one man shop. Would you be pleased to learn that he spends an hour each day cleaning his office?

As long as I am not being billed for that time, what he does on his own time is his business.

If you are being billed then.

[kimba1]

actually you are whether its stated or not.

a lawyer has alot of non billable time and that naturally effects the cost of the billable time.

thier is alot of things a lawyer does that cannot be charged and some of it is very time consuming.

it`s a very dangerous game for the associate . I`ve seen quite afew do so much non-billable work they get fired and it`s totally not his or her fault.

some partners are chicken___t and don`t admit it`d thier fault for assigning those jobs.

[BT]

If you are being billed then.

Then if the attorney is ethical he is thinking about my case while he cleans. Kind of like your mayor example. I normally enter into contracts that are quoted by the job and not the hour, so as long as the billing is within budget, i don't have a problem with them multitasking.

[sirs]

You just can't help digging that pit.  I'd ask where the so-called misrepresentation, this time's supposed to be, but knowing the end-around erroneous deduction we'd be privvy to, leads me to just say "we disagree".  Yes, sad indeed

Misrepresentation: I never claimed that hiring a janitor would throw a business into the red, nor did i claim that hiring janitors decrease productivity though they certainly add cost to the operation.

Nor did I claim you made such a claim.  Questions around that "theme" is not an accusation, much less a misrepresentation

Your claim was that they increased productivity and thus increased profits at such a rate as to negate their costs.

Precisely, with the proof being they're being hired in the 1st place, and said company not failing

And your proof of this was that they were hired in the first place.  Which isn't proof at all.

Your opinion is duely noted.  We will simply have to disagree.  I think we're done here