French Run - posted on behalf of TOG

It doesn't matter _who_ you bill, it's the fact that you can bill such
stupid amounts that is important here.

Some poor bastard has to pay for it at the end of the day. The balance
sheet might show silly profit figures, but that's at the expense of
someone down the 'food chain' - ie. there's some poor bastard barely
surviving on minimum wage, partially contributed to by the fact that the
multinational's legal team charge more per day than said poor **** earns
in a year.

 

Previously on usenet, 'Hog said...

I was bankrupted, I have every reason to be.

--
Lozzo : The anti-Timo
ZZR1100D, GPZ500S, CB250RS x3
BOTAFOT#57/70a, BOTAFOF#57, MIB#22, TCP#7,
ANORAK#9, DIAABTCOD#14, UKRMT5BB, IBW#013, MIRTTH#15a/16,
BotToS#8, GP#2, SBS#10, SH#3, DFV#14, BONY#9.
Url for ukrm newbies : http://www.ukrm.net/faq/ukrmscbt.html
http://www.glfuk.com/ for MJK Leathers in the UK.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

wrote in 4ax.com:

Erm, burnt, we weren't talking about earnings. The point was the type of
people I bill which gives some clue as to what type of work I do. [1]

[1] Say, as opposed to a high street conveyancer. They definitely bill
extortionate rates to poor cunts

 

Oi! **** off with yer generalisations, sunshine.

I'm fucking loaded, me.

Or was that lardy?

I forget.
--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/KH500A8/TS250C
|_\_____/_| ..62743../..14835.../..3157./.19406
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 YTC#4 PM#5
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 two#11 WG*
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17
'^'

 

Lawyers and Accountants. Ivy on the tree of business.

 

Well I'd generally agree, but not in Kiran's case. Just look at those
fucking eyebrows. Stone the ****.

 

Previously on usenet, SteveH said...

Said 'poor bastard' should have studied harder at school and done what
Kiran did. I know a few people from quite deprived backgrounds who,
despite not being the sharpest tools in the box, have gone on to become
very successful and wealthy people. It's all down to application,
confidence and a desire to make it, not necessarily intelligence.

--
Lozzo : The anti-Timo
ZZR1100D, GPZ500S, CB250RS x3
BOTAFOT#57/70a, BOTAFOF#57, MIB#22, TCP#7,
ANORAK#9, DIAABTCOD#14, UKRMT5BB, IBW#013, MIRTTH#15a/16,
BotToS#8, GP#2, SBS#10, SH#3, DFV#14, BONY#9.
Url for ukrm newbies : http://www.ukrm.net/faq/ukrmscbt.html
http://www.glfuk.com/ for MJK Leathers in the UK.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

What's a "stupid amount" ? I'm wondering how you draw the line.

That's always been the way it works, if the people at the bottom want
more they need to find a way to move up the food chain, be it education,
initiative, or just old fashioned hard graft. Or all of those things.

 

Are you saying it changed your whole outlook?

 

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:14:51 +0000, wrote:

Only if you are stupid enough to buy into the 'things will make you
happy' consumer culture.

I can feel a rant brewing, time for bed, let it simmer in the lonley
darkness for a while to emerge fully formed in the light of a bright
new day.

 

Hey, that's shareholders' dividends

 

Oh, I think I know what you meant to say. I just thought it was worth
expressing what I thought.

And, late? Wuss! I was up at 4 for an early start, home at 10, working
till 11 and will be up at 6 to pack to go away[1] for a few days.

But... with that killer rebuke I'm stuck.


[1] Not like *that*, well not this time.

 

Where does that come into it?

The 'poor ****' down the food chain might be completely happy with what
they do (lets not forget job satisfaction is pretty high on a lot of
people's list of priorities), even if they're capable of much more.

Does this mean they have the right to be shafted by the people higher up
the chain?

 

He's only doing so well because he saved a fortune buying only one
eyebrow.

 

(SteveH) wrote in

See, if you knew what I did, you might realise that we save far more than
we cost.[1] If we didn't, we'd be out of business.

And remind me, who do you work for again? Remind me what they do for the
poor shelf stacking minimum wage people they employ.

[1] Say, for example spending just over $6m in legal fees on a dipuste
that's gone on for over 4 years, but having saved over $450m as a result
of it. You go figure.

 

eyebrows? that's one to many surely.

 

Or maybe they're happy doing what they're doing - it's just that they
should be paid a decent wage for doing it?

 

And I'm glad you pulled me up on it, I need to start writing what I
mean, not 'what my brain is churning'.

"luxury"

Have a nice trip.

 

I was, awkwardly, trying to illustrate that if one assumed you had a
hideously, obscene income that if you wanted something it wouldn't be a
case of 'billing some poor **** for a few hours' since the sort of
things you'd want would cost a couple of months salary.

i.e. as you earn more, the toys get more expensive.

sure, it was off at a tangent but since when were we meant to strictly
follow a thread? I must have missed that meeting.

 

That's always the reason legal-types use to justify what they charge.

And it doesn't wash with me.