mathcat345 replied to your post “File under: Try not to take it personnaly”
Interesting that "more responsibilities" does not equate with "additional pay." Congratulations, but I won't use all capitals because you should get more money!
The TL;DR the below Response:
Thank you, and while I may agree, this is the world we live in.
----------------------------------------
The I stood on my soap box response:
Could I tell them to shove it into their proverbial pipe? I most certainly could. However, then I'd have to start again at a new place - and what's worse, it is unlikely to be any better.
Because, these are the joys of capitalism. Where growth is expected regardless of any evidence to the contrary and the assumption that a free market will somehow create prosperity and that money will trickle down. It is a world where a $100 Million dollar profit isn't celebrated but peddled as a "disappointing result against projections" or worse "$x million down from last financial year" implying that it is somehow a "loss".
In such a world, where the Warren Buffett style of shareholders are now the minority and the mover-and-shaker day-trading wall street wolves are the ones herding the stock-market sheep, what else can one expect from global corporations? There are less sales, the individual sale amounts are lower, the goods and services that once were premium or special are now all commoditized, the ability to wring any revenue from the existing markets is harder and harder ... so the only place to stretch out the profit waistband is by dieting in the operational expenditure. Thus, the recent playbooks have all been the same - removing stationary and coffee, reducing the corporate services, and reductions in the cost of labour - both by a "reduction in force" and by double-loading staff.
The funny thing is, the entire free market capitalism model that all of this is based on may very well be a perfect model for consumerism - it is however actually contrary to the basics of economics. It creates massive economic divides - and I am not just talking about people's income here - but you can actually see many developed countries now sporting the oh-not-so-enviable "multi-speed economy" as the industries that used to be supported by economical drivers are pushed out for the compulsive commoditised consumerized market that seek out newer, cheaper, far more easily abused workforces to prey upon to provide those goods or services we demand be provided at cheaper rates whilst the corporate shareholders demand greater profits.
With all of that, how can anyone expect it to be different?
Capitalism is fine, but just like any spoilt child, it needs discipline and boundaries, otherwise it runs amok. Let the market look after itself? Sure, OK, but who is looking after the country? Who is ensuring the population isn't being abused? Who is looking after the welfare of the two? Without which, who can ensure that the economy remains healthy? How can it remain so if it is being being bled dry and abused on one end and failing to look after it's citizens on the other?
I believe that Capitalism needs a Government that has a socialist bias to tell it to go back to its room and not come out until it realises what it did wrong. It needs to put the people, their welfare and the welfare of the state above the desires and threats of those who through neither word nor action have demonstrated any care for the same.
Perhaps then, this entire conversation would be different.