Room Attendant Salaries

[goodml]

Your just a big ole stinker Rusty! We love ya for it too!

[Cruiz'nTall]

[quote name='xpcdoojk']I feel like I have been reading the writings of a graduate of the Noam Chomsky school of economic theory. Of course Mr. Chomsky isn't an economist. ;) As an economist, I am simply at a loss for words to describe the BS posted by our 33 year old 4 countries lived in genius.

I am sorry I was out of town all weekend and missed this momentous load. :D Hopefully, he/she has run out of thoughts on this topic, but somehow I doubt. The funniest thing is after 7 pages of discourse, I am still looking for the point.

jc[/QUOTE]What I find amusing, is that many of you enjoy taking peripheral jabs at my arguments, without providing any of your own. Anyone can make a general statement dismissing an arguement, but without providing a valid counter argument, that statment is reduced to a platitude.

I also find it amusing that many of you throw in a 50 cent word here and there that you looked up in your Roget's thesaurus as a feeble attempt to compensate for otherwise unremarkable, if not ungrammatical prose.

This thread has gone on way too long, and I have grown tired of its increasing irrelevance to the original thread, and my original post. Most of you have posted replies to my posts, criticising (weakly) my logic and reasoning. The very nature of this process puts me in a defensive stance - constantly having to defend my original position. Of course, my original points will have been lost in this discussion. It is an artifact of the process.

Someone interestingly referred to Noam Chomsky who was a linguist and psychologist by trade (and the father of the anti-behaviourist perspective on language development).

I am a psychologist by trade, so if you want to argue psychology, be my guest. If you want to talk about economics, then maybe you should mention, instead, Nobelaureate Herbert Simon, whom I was taught by at my alma mater, Carnegie Mellon.

For those of you that want to continue this discussion, start a new thread, apporpriately titled, and I will be happy to continue this "discourse" for as long as you can stomach it.

I think we've beaten this thread to death.

P.S. Using the term "B.S." is a dullards way of contributing nothing to an argument but making them "feel" better about it, nonetheless. Seems like a lot of you feel really good in your posts...ignorance is truly bliss.

[Cruiz'nTall]

[quote name='xpcdoojk']I feel like I have been reading the writings of a graduate of the Noam Chomsky school of economic theory. Of course Mr. Chomsky isn't an economist. ;) As an economist, I am simply at a loss for words to describe the BS posted by our 33 year old 4 countries lived in genius.

I am sorry I was out of town all weekend and missed this momentous load. :D Hopefully, he/she has run out of thoughts on this topic, but somehow I doubt. The funniest thing is after 7 pages of discourse, I am still looking for the point.

jc[/QUOTE]
I, for one would love to hear your perspective - if you have one that is interptetable, and relevant - which remains to be seen.

I also assume, when you use the term, economist - you hold the degree of Ph D in economy - and perhaps teach at a univeristy - a standard fairly recognized in academia - which I sincerely doubt, but is nonetheless remotely possible.

If this holds true, I will then simply state that all of that is simply academic, any way - since my posts have very little to do with economic theory and more to do with global ethics. If you understood the argument, and had even a weak understanding of ethics - you would have come to that conclusion on your own.

Then again, assumption is the mother of all ____ ups, isn't it?

[Cruiz'nTall]

[quote name='wolfganghowell']Rusty - I'm glad I wasn't drinking either.

I still don't understand why CT insists on remaining here and actually taking cruises. His views of cruise lines are, as I stated, the Evil Empire. SO QUIT CRUISING ON THEM AND CONTRIBUTING TO THEM SINCE YOU HATE THEM SO MUCH.

And CT, I was not being insensitive to foreign nationals by stating that I will lobby against outsourcing. I totally blame the companies that replace AMERICAN workers and hire foreign nationals to do AMERICAN jobs. There is absolutely nothing insensitive in that. I don't think Americans should go into other countries and take jobs from their citizens. And many countries have laws in place to prevent it. Your contempt for Americans shows through very clearly. This board is a microcosm of American society yet you insulted and berated every single poster who challenged your ideas. A true adult can look at issues from both sides and make a considered decision. You have your ideas and anyone who questions them is wrong. Your behavior on this board has been embarassing. You deliberately choose to inflame everyone and have turned a rather common subject on these boards into a rant where you insulted every single poster - breaking the guidelines of this board. I am surprised the hosts have not pulled this nonsense.[/QUOTE]I find your comments interesting since everyone has attacked me on comments based in my original post, not the other way around. I have only responded to scathing remarks by others who have used derogatory comments towards me. Perhaps you should go back and read peoples responses.

Secondly you keep claiming you aren't being insensitive to foreign "nationals" - and you keep referring to them like this, which is, in and of itself, insensitive.

[Quote]And CT, I was not being insensitive to foreign nationals by stating that I will lobby against outsourcing. I totally blame the companies that replace AMERICAN workers and hire foreign nationals to do AMERICAN jobs. There is absolutely nothing insensitive in that. I don't think Americans should go into other countries and take jobs from their citizens. [/Quote]You have got to be kidding me right? A wolf in sheeps clothing...you make statements like this and you claim to not be insensitive. What happened to America, land of opportunity - equal opportunity? What difference does it make what your nationality is and since when are high paying jobs AMERICAN jobs only? This blatent insensitivy boggles my mind. I don't see you complaining that the high majority of low paying service jobs are held by minorities in this country - for instance Mexican and Cuban "foreign nationals" working on farms and serving you at McDonalds and Disney World. It is only when these foreign "nationals" actually become educated and take high paying jobs that Americans actually want - that it becomes a social injustice.

And yes, Americans don't tend to take on the role of "foreign nationals" in other countries, because those foreign workers make cents on the dollar compared to ours - i.e. we don't appreciate working in sweat shops for 39 cents an hour with no benefits, but we don't mind if foreigners do.

In fact, it is the wide majority of your comments, and those like you who are embarassing. You question my adulthood in your post, as if, I am not developed enough to not be egocentric - and that there is some correlation between adulthood, and the capacity to entertain multiple perspectives. Look at the other posters on here who are engrained in no particular perspective, but rather are just criticising mine. Have they reached your hypothetical level of "adulthood?" If you judge their behavior by the same standards you apparently are holding mine too, they are no better, and even worse then my supposed behaviour. But I don't see you criticising them. Of course not - what good would it do you to be objective and even handed in your criticism. You don't even know what it means to be biased.

The truth of the matter is that the majority of the posters to my comments have been flaming my original and subsequent posts not the other way around.

Because I chose to defend myself against, invalid and derogatory criticism, I am now not an adult? An adult who can consider different perspectives? I can consider multiple perspectives, but only when you've made that perspective valid by applying critical logic, reasoning, and persuasion. I am not going to accept a perspective just because it is out there - but then again, critical thought is hard to come by around here, isn't it?

When you partake in throwing stones, make sure you don't live in a glass house...

[Cruiz'nTall]

[quote name='Ocean Boy']Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black....[/QUOTE]
Oh no.

Got me good on that one.

Looks like I'll have to pack it up now.

Wow, didn't think you'd bring out the big guns on me.

Man, I can barely walk after that zinger...

"It stings, it stings the eyes."

[Cruiz'nTall]

[quote name='Mark_K']Most people aren't very good at being objective regarding the quality of their own arguments. However, a count of the people persuaded by yours might give you an indication. [/Quote]One has to be capable of critical, logical reasoning in order to be persuaded. I can only do so much.

[Quote] By law, RCI (and other cruselines) is required to do their best to maximize the value of their shareholders' investment, it's part of their fiduciary responsibility. They do a pretty good job, while at the same time providing acceptable (less than harsh) living conditions for their employees.[/QUOTE]Well, in principle your argument holds, however, unfortunately for you, US labor laws don't apply to their workforce since it is an international workforce not governed by US Labor and Tax laws. Darn. You were close though. Sorry, try again.

Secondly, it is the companies responsibility to the shareholders to not take unnecessary financial risks in their obligation to maximize the value of the company with respect to its earnings, stock value, and potential for future profit. Abiding by labor laws is not optional or prioritized below these goals.

Technically speaking RCCL, could do whatever it pleased - it only provides the minimum amount it needs to keep their workforce engaged in employment. That is a standard that we should admonish, not endorse.

[Mark_K]

Cruiz'n Tall,

Sorry, you try again, this is not a labor law issue. RCI is a publicly traded stock in the U.S. (NYSE), and is therefore bound by all rules/regulations set forth by the SEC. Probably 90%+ of the Fortune 500 have employees not covered by US Labor Law. This fact is immaterial to their fiduciary responsibilities as a company publicly traded in the US.

Also, could you reconcile these two bolded statements for me?

[QUOTE=Cruiz'nTall]Well, in principle your argument holds, however, unfortunately for you, [b]US labor laws don't apply to their workforce since it is an international workforce not governed by US Labor and Tax laws[/b]. Darn. You were close though. Sorry, try again.

Secondly, it is the companies responsibility to the shareholders to not take unnecessary financial risks in their obligation to maximize the value of the company with respect to its earnings, stock value, and potential for future profit. [b]Abiding by labor laws is not optional or prioritized below these goals[/b].[/QUOTE]It would seem to me that if the laws don't apply, abiding by them would be optional.

[Mark_K]

Cruiz'n Tall,

PS - Providing "the minimum amount it needs to keep their workforce engaged in employment" is just another way of saying providing a competitive compensation package. It should be neither, admonished, nor admired, but expected.

[bUU]

Not only that, but abiding with laws that aren't applicable, to the detriment of long-term shareholder value, is a violation of the applicable fiduciary responsibilities.

[Rustynail]

[B][SIZE=3][COLOR=DarkRed]Cruiz'nTall,

What's your opinion on peanut butter and jam? Personally I don't understand why one would mix the two however the statistics show that the majority of people prefer the two together.

Hmmm.....one of life's wonders isn't it?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]

[xpcdoojk]

CT

You are quite the wit. I pegged you brilliantly with the Noam Chomsky school of economic thought. IE psycho babble socialism with just a trace of insanity. I did teach economics in a university before getting a real job and am sorry that you lack the understanding of the economics underlying your socialistic view of the labor force. I was afraid I had never heard of your learned economics nobelaureate, so after I did a little internet research while he certainly appeared to be a brilliant man, I failed to learn much of his economics background as it appear he wrote mostly decision theory which is very nice and all, but really isn't much concerned with nuts and bolts economics not to mention the fact that his association with your fine college was in the department of psychology and not the economics department. This and the fact that he died in 2001 at the age of 85, makes one wonder at the remarkable student/mentor relationship you must have shared with this amazing individual. :rolleyes:

I am pretty much done with this thread except with my enjoyment of your antisocial behavior hidden behind your contempt of most American's and posters in this forum. I will be eating my popcorn and laughing at your simplistic platitudes. :p

jc

[greybear]

Rustynail, you raise a valid point. I've never understood that either - I prefer my peanut butter with molasses, not jam. I am sure that cruizin'tall could tell us the socioeconomic reasons as to why the PBJ came into existence and how it's probably linked to evil north americans who are to lazy to cook themselves a real meal.

Cruizn'tall - A psychologist by trade who has gone back to grad school at the tender age of what... 32??? thats what I think you stated in an earlier post. Hmmmm, sounds like a failed practise to me. It is forseeable though that a psychologist with your confrontational, pompous, self-righteous, superiority complexed attitude would have a hard time keeping his clients... Were you clumsily trying to embody Fritz Pearls? are you a true militant of his Gestalt therapy?

Have you ever thought that maybe people don't spend much time responding to your original post and the "arguments" contained therein because not many of us feel that your "arguments" are sound enough to warrant a response?

Last question : through your years of education and experience in the field of psychology, you arrived at which of the following self diagnosis : narcissistic personality disorder or scitzophrenia with delusions of grandeur???

[xpcdoojk]

Gosh, Greybear, I am glad I am on your side on this one. Some of you lawyers are better at psychology than the professionals. :D I think you summed it up beautifully for the jury. I have to concur with your judgement! :D :D

jc

[greybear]

Thanks for your support jc! My psychobabble was flowing freely this morning.

[xpcdoojk]

You do know, GB, that they have meds for that. It can get dangerous, as exhibited in this thread, when it isn't controlled! :D :p ;)

jc

[yarlenna]

[QUOTE=Cruiz'nTall]I don't think I've seen a comment so insensitive on this board in a long time.

First off, I know several peolple that work in the cruiselines and, despite the fact that they are foreigners, they work harder then most in any industry. Not only do they work 7 days a week, but they have to deal with people who don't value any service and don't tip at all - and it would suprise you to know how many people on any given cruise are either horrible tippers, and or don't bother to tip, period.

Their shifts are usually 6 months in duration -time spent away from their family and friends. Whatever their particular socioeconomic status is in their home country, it is despicabley arrogant for you to say that they are lucky to have their job. I'd love to see how long you would last in it. Just because they are foreigners, doesn't mean they aren't human beings.

-Cruiz'nTall[/QUOTE]

Well said! Bravo

[xpcdoojk]

Yarlenna, I wonder if coal miners think that cleaning up rooms on a cruise ship is the hardest industry? Perhaps these people should consider working on a crab boat, which I think is statistically the most dangerous job? Don't get me wrong, I always tip my waiters and room attendants. I fail to see however, the point of this thread or most of the points made in this thread especially the one you gave a bravo to. I think to assume that most of us view these people as less than human beings is presumptive, wrong, and plain dumb. I always try to treat everyone on a cruise with respect including those working on the ship. In fact, I find more shared humanity with the crew than I do with many passengers. So applauding this statement is dissappointing to me.

jc

[CaseyT]

Cruz'nTall: I have just read through this thread and would like to respond to both your op and the one immediately before by RiSJN.

I believe that a statement was made that the majority of cruiseline workers are foreign nationals - any one that has cruised knows this to be an accurate statement. The post goes on to say that they are "lucky' to have these positions, despite noted working conditions and hardships. The rationale is that the money earned with the cruiseline is far more than that which can be earned in a similar position in the employees home country.

To say "someone is lucky to have a position" may sound the same as "they feel fortunate" but the connotation is very different and IMHO prompted your op. I am open to correction on this last point but if I am correct the remainder of this thread evolved as part of a breakdown in communication.

The impression I have received in brief conversations I have had with Cruise Personnel is that in general they feel fortunate to have their positions, but would much prefer to have good paying, secure jobs, back home ( which I believe is more to your point). I can relate to this aspiration and would hope this helps me see the server behind the service.

CaseyT

[Cruiz'nTall]

[quote name='greybear']Rustynail, you raise a valid point. I've never understood that either - I prefer my peanut butter with molasses, not jam. I am sure that cruizin'tall could tell us the socioeconomic reasons as to why the PBJ came into existence and how it's probably linked to evil north americans who are to lazy to cook themselves a real meal.

Cruizn'tall - A psychologist by trade who has gone back to grad school at the tender age of what... 32??? thats what I think you stated in an earlier post. Hmmmm, sounds like a failed practise to me. It is forseeable though that a psychologist with your confrontational, pompous, self-righteous, superiority complexed attitude would have a hard time keeping his clients... Were you clumsily trying to embody Fritz Pearls? are you a true militant of his Gestalt therapy?

Have you ever thought that maybe people don't spend much time responding to your original post and the "arguments" contained therein because not many of us feel that your "arguments" are sound enough to warrant a response?

Last question : through your years of education and experience in the field of psychology, you arrived at which of the following self diagnosis : narcissistic personality disorder or scitzophrenia with delusions of grandeur???[/QUOTE]
Should I dignify any of this with a response...hmm, let me think about whether it warrents even the time I would take typing it out....I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

And, what conclusion have you drawn - that because I said I am a psychologist by trade, you immediately assume that implies clinical psychology -

I am an experimental psychologist - not a clinical one, but if you had even the slightest understanding of the area you might have asked for clarification instead of charging into the interpretation that best suited your lamblasting response. Take note that I have never criticised anyone at at a level that would suggest their psychololgical health was somehow in jeopardy - only their logic and reasoning.

Your post only solidifies the perspective of what kind of person you really are.

[Cruiz'nTall]

[quote name='xpcdoojk']CT

You are quite the wit. I pegged you brilliantly with the Noam Chomsky school of economic thought. IE psycho babble socialism with just a trace of insanity. I did teach economics in a university before getting a real job and am sorry that you lack the understanding of the economics underlying your socialistic view of the labor force. I was afraid I had never heard of your learned economics nobelaureate, so after I did a little internet research while he certainly appeared to be a brilliant man, I failed to learn much of his economics background as it appear he wrote mostly decision theory which is very nice and all, but really isn't much concerned with nuts and bolts economics not to mention the fact that his association with your fine college was in the department of psychology and not the economics department. This and the fact that he died in 2001 at the age of 85, makes one wonder at the remarkable student/mentor relationship you must have shared with this amazing individual. :rolleyes:

I am pretty much done with this thread except with my enjoyment of your antisocial behavior hidden behind your contempt of most American's and posters in this forum. I will be eating my popcorn and laughing at your simplistic platitudes. :p

jc[/QUOTE]Yes, the power of internet searching. I anticipated your search of Herb Simon. Perhaps you can't draw the links between the facts that I am in psychology - he taught in psychology, but won the Nobel prize in economics. Herb was loved by all at CMU and his death was very tragic. I am thankful that I got to know him through the interactions that we had. My interactions with him regarding economics, I think, would be more meaningful then anything I would ever read on this board regarding the topic, unless in addition to having a Ph D you have also won the Nobel prize?

How silly of me. I see you haven't provided any meaningful insight into the "load" that you have referred to regarding my comments. Again, signifying how little you really have to say about anything, but how pompous and self serving (i.e. "pegged you brilliantly") you are nonetheless.

Hmm...and interestingly, you didn't answer my question as to whether you hold a Ph D in economics. I would love to know what University you taught at - whether your status was adjunct or tenure track, and where you received your Ph D from (if in fact you possess one).


[Quote]I am pretty much done with this thread except with my enjoyment of your antisocial behavior hidden behind your contempt of most American's and posters in this forum. I will be eating my popcorn and laughing at your simplistic platitudes. [/Quote][color=blue]Typical. I question, and challenge a certain perspective and I am now branded as un-American. You sound, quite frankly, like a Republican. In which case, I am very un-Republican, - a charge I gleefully plead no contest too.[/color]
[color=blue] [/color]
[color=blue][/color]
[color=blue] [/color]
[color=blue]I am just as, if not more, American then anyone on this board. Suggesting otherwise is simply removing the thin veil of bigotry that you have been wearing in your brief and predictably inconsequential time on this board. You have taken plenty of opportunity to criticize, but have done nothing to support your claims.[/color]
[color=blue] [/color]
[color=blue][/color]
[color=blue]Hope you have enjoyed your stay.[/color]

[Cruiz'nTall]

[quote name='Rustynail'][b][size=3][color=darkred]Cruiz'nTall,[/b]

[b]What's your opinion on peanut butter and jam? Personally I don't understand why one would mix the two however the statistics show that the majority of people prefer the two together.[/b]

[b]Hmmm.....one of life's wonders isn't it?[/color][/size][/b][/QUOTE]
My preference is for peanut butter on one side of the bread, and jelly spread on the other - but to each his own.

And, please cite the statistics on the topic. If you are going to mention them, provide the source.

[Cruiz'nTall]

[quote name='Mark_K']Cruiz'n Tall,

Sorry, you try again, this is not a labor law issue. RCI is a publicly traded stock in the U.S. (NYSE), and is therefore bound by all rules/regulations set forth by the SEC. Probably 90%+ of the Fortune 500 have employees not covered by US Labor Law. This fact is immaterial to their fiduciary responsibilities as a company publicly traded in the US.

Also, could you reconcile these two bolded statements for me?

It would seem to me that if the laws don't apply, abiding by them would be optional.[/QUOTE]
Yawn....

Well, apparently you have trouble reading between the lines. The first statement applies directly to RCCL. The fact that they are publically traded does not affect their workforce one iota (they neither are obligated to collect taxes of any kind, report income from their workforce, or provide any benefits).

The second statement applies broadly to any company. Your previous statement was that companies by law are required to maximize their profit as per their shareholders interests. This does not include labour practices that conflict with labour laws. Given that in RCCL's case they really don't have to abide by them given the nature of their workforce (which is in international territory (i.e. water) and never in the US.

[Cruiz'nTall]

[quote name='Mark_K']Cruiz'n Tall,

PS - Providing "the minimum amount it needs to keep their workforce engaged in employment" is just another way of saying providing a competitive compensation package. It should be neither, admonished, nor admired, but expected.[/QUOTE]
P.S. - Wrong. RCCL's primary competition is ....other cruiselines that adopt the same policy of minimum compensation. This is not a typical work force. The cruiselines band together on this issue so that they are not forced to compete at higher levels of employee compensation and salary (the largest, and single most easiest expendeture they can control that will maximize their profit).

Thankyou, come again.

[Cruiz'nTall]

[quote name='xpcdoojk']Yarlenna, I wonder if coal miners think that cleaning up rooms on a cruise ship is the hardest industry? Perhaps these people should consider working on a crab boat, which I think is statistically the most dangerous job? Don't get me wrong, I always tip my waiters and room attendants. I fail to see however, the point of this thread or most of the points made in this thread especially the one you gave a bravo to. I think to assume that most of us view these people as less than human beings is presumptive, wrong, and plain dumb. I always try to treat everyone on a cruise with respect including those working on the ship. In fact, I find more shared humanity with the crew than I do with many passengers. So applauding this statement is dissappointing to me.

jc[/QUOTE]Actually, you are quite wrong. Timber-cutters have the highest fatality rate, and are therefore judged as having the most dangerous occupation.

[url="http://money.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.asp"]http://money.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.asp[/url]

But that is besides the fact. In my original post, which Yarlenaa was responding too, I never referred to cruiseline employees having the most "dangerous" or even worst occuption. Only that they work hard, long hours and spend considerable time away from their families - a distinction that is found in other occupations. My response was in reaction to comments made that glorified the position and suggested that they live "luxuriosuly" on the ship and that they are payed handsomely "4,000" a month, all of which is ludicrous (the average tip based salary is less then $1,500 a month).

Am I surprised at your and others blatent misrepresentation of my arguements? Of course not. It is quite typical to build a straw man that is consequently beaten down when one doesn't understand the argument that they are criticising.

[Quote] So applauding this statement is dissappointing to me.[/Quote]Dissappointing is definately the right term, however it needs to be applied in the reverse direction.

[wallie5446]

CT,
When a US Citizen is employed by a line they are required to with hold US Federal Income Tax. Since they are not a US Co they do no OASDI.
My Daughter has to pay 100% of the SS & Medicare.