| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/2 |
| 2004/2/18-24 [Finance/Investment, Finance/Shopping] UID:12295 Activity:nil |
2/18 Immediate position open for Sr. Systems Engineer (sysadmin)
at http://Walmart.com. If you meet the criteria, please e-mail me.
We've been getting weak resumes from our less-than-technical
recruiter. /csua/pub/jobs/walmart.com -- Marco
\_ Walmart? I'd rather be a janitor at MSFT.
\_ MSFT is far more evil than Walmart.
\_ awww...all that sysadmin talk's gone???
\_ maybe people should start a new thread when they think of some
cool entertaining flame war related to a job post. That will
be less likely to be censored and won't provide a disincentive
for alums to post jobs.
\_ jealousy.
\_ all that salary talk probably made it harder to find a
schmuc^H^H^H^H^H^Hqualified candidate.
\_ Do you know the general pay range for this? 60-80, 80-100, 100+?
\_ Our rates are very competitive. Conservatively, I expect a
qualified candidate would easily clear $80K. -- Marco
\_ How about employee discounts at Wal-Mart stores?
\_ More importantly, how about stock options?
\_ Is this really considered competitive for a senior person?
It looks average, or even a bit below, to me.
\_ It's quite low. Senior Sysadmins should clear 100k at any
company. Mid level people make into the 90s. 80k is
certainly not competitive. A few weeks ago I turned down
110k and another company I'm currently talking with will
be offering me 110k plus other benefits that will make it
worth it to give up my current 120k. At 80k I wouldn't
even consider applying or telling my friends about it if
they were senior level. Then again, so few sysadmins
survive more than 3-5 years that anyone who hits the 5 year
mark is considered senior even though they're only just
becoming useful at that point. It's a strange world we
live in. I've always wondered what happened to the ones
who didn't survive. I suppose they become developers?
--15+ years SA
\_ These numbers are too high for anywhere outside of
Silicon Valley. Also, 15+ yrs. is a huge amount of
experience and would increase your salary over most.
http://sageweb.sage.org/jobs/salary_survey
\_ If you need five years to become a good sysadmin
then you must be pretty dumb. Sysadmin is a support
function, if you design your netopology correctly
your day-to-day is basically just monitoring and
replacing defects. Once a month or so you'll need
to add in more storage or add in a couple more
machines. Again, if you designed your netop correctly
this is a piece of cake. Backups are relatively
easy nowadays with the right RAID. I mean seriously,
I sysadmin EDA software, which is a bitch, and it
didn't take me five years to "become useful."
\_ Sorry, you are just wrong. There are some things
you can only learn by working on a wide variety
of systems. Also, all the senior level jobs
include at least some management.
require at least some management.
-SA with 10 yrs exp
\_ I sense a dick-waving contest coming on...
\_ "They've got bigger dicks? BOMB THEM!" --GC
\_ Someone has to fix the cash registers.
\_ He said "conservatively" and "easily"
\_ Marco, thank you for posting this. No one should ever be
attacked for posting a job on the motd. I never understood
the suicidal "I'm too good for your stinking job!" attitude
so many motd idiots have towards alums posting jobs. This is
part of what is called "networking", you clods. It's *the* best
way to find a new or better job.
\_ I'm talking about a very well paying job doing real
systems work at one of the world's largest ecommerce
operations. If all of the stuff below disturbs you, by
all means, do not send me your resume. If you want a
good job; please let me know. -- Marco
\_ Some people have ethical problems with Walmart.
Some are just fucking with you, and some might want
the job.
\_ That's because sysadmins charge more than $6.80/hr.
\_ in the grand scheme of things when you consider which
companies stand to totally destroy the lower middle class
and lower class income brackets, Walmart is completely satanic
and threatens to lower the quality of life of millions
Americans directly and indirectly. You can say that that's
just the effect of the free market, and I would happen
to agree with you, but it does not make it suck less.
This brings up the question of if I were completely down
on my luck and I was offered a job with something that
I consider Evil(tm), such as Walmart/Microsoft/Halliburton/
Archer Daniels Richland or whatever that ethanol leech
behomoth corporation is named, if I would take it. I'm not
sure.
\_ If you are talking about Walmart squeezing out smaller
companies and offering the newly unemployed low-wage,
non-unionized jobs with few/no health benefits -- you have
a point, but please be more specific next time.
\_ Not that we don't appreciate the job posting, but which is more evil
Walmart or Microsoft?
\_ Is that a joke? I'd say that Microsoft is Evil, they way I might
say an American politician is evil, even though even the worst
American politician is better than Kim Jung Il, and even the
worst software company is better than Walmart.
\_ They're evil for different reasons. Plus as a sysadmin you'd
be more directly helping MS be evil.
\_ There are people who will argue whether the flames are blue or
green, when the point is that their arse is on fire.
\_ Walmart isn't Evil. They can't be evil. They sell Linux
and Linux isn't Evil is it?
\_ They sell Windows too.
\_ Walmart significantly increased the standard of living of the
(under)employed. According to
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
the "poor" enjoys a lot of amenities in life. In fact they
would be considered middle class or even upper class in coutries
that you are so worried about taking our jobs away. What makes
this possible is the low prices introduced by stores like Walmart.
I don't have any love for walmart, but during the time I was
employed, I got everything from walmart and it kept my expense
down and finance afloat. Most of the people who trashes walmart
are those too rich to know the need of the low income Americans.
\_ that is interesting and i value your opinion, but could
you find more evidence of this not coming from an incredibly
right wing think tank like the Heritage Foundation? I happen
to be from one of those little towns that Wal-Mart has
indirectly completely devestated. You can probably
say "that's because of cheap labor available from China,
quit whining." and once again I agree but it still sucks.
I think there is a direct temporary short term benefit,
like as you said when you're poor it's pretty awesome and
convenient to be able to go to walmart and clothe yourself
almost completely for under $30, but in the long term
the presence of a walmart directly depresses or destroys
the possibility of any local retail jobs that have any
chance of offering a liveable wage. Maybe everyone in
America needs to retrain immediately for jobs in the
New Economy. I have not read of any evidence that
the current or even past presidential administrations
actively care or are offering any leadership in this area.
\_ Bush's job training program is "be a Halliburton
contractor in the front lines in Iraq so when you
get shot and killed we can NOT REPORT it because
you were a civilian non existent contractor but
since you don't go in the 'troops killed' column,
we don't have to tell anyone and the american
public doesn't and won't care.
[reformatted - formatd]
\_ Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, etc weren't exactly great job
creation plans. People die in war zones, shit happens.
They get hazard pay.
Also to endlessly argue that the very poor in this country
are much better off than say arsenic poisoned homeless
dudes in Bangladesh or entire generations of people who
live in garbage dumps in Manila and never see solid land
is a circular argument, it's not going to win me over.
\_ Whatever you think of its source and author, you should
consider its facts and arguments in their own rights.
The data that article cites comes from US govt reports.
See the article and its references. And let me just quote
"The average poor American has more living space than the
average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens,
and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are
to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those
classified as poor.)"
\_ Living space != standard of living. If it did, we'd be
sending food and blankets to the Japanese.
\_ It's part of the whole picture. And the average
japanese are miserable in that regard.
\_ does living space automatically equate to a higher
standard of living? Mongolian steppe herders
probably have spaces the size of Delaware all to
themselves.
\_ see above, and your comparison is not valid. You know
how much tent space per person they have?
\_ I don't think living density in this country is going to
approach japanese or european or southeast asian or
chinese levels any time soon unless we suddenly run
out of oil, we have pretty hard to overcome urban
sprawl problems, that ironically walmart has
exploited very successfully.
\_ Japan: 127,214,499 ppl in 374,744 sq km.
USA: 290,342,554 ppl in 9,158,960 sq km
Or roughly half as many people in 1/24th the space.
The US will never achieve this level of pop density.
\_ does the above include (or exclude?) areas
of the US you're not going to live in, like
national parks or volcanoes or the sides
of mountains or Houston?
\_ Of course, as well as huge chunks of Hokkaido
and numerous inhospitable rocks in dispute with
Russia.
\_ None may enter the sacred forests of Hokkaido,
reknowned for their countless soap factories.
\_ So why support a company that makes billions by rapidly
furthering us towards a great equalization of global poor people
by lowering the standard of living of poor people in the US to
India's poor? Is that how globalization is supposed to work?
Great! Actually no one is really saying how much they
love Walmart, and I bet they just pave over all the poor
people at Marco's work and he has little concept of it and
is probably a nice guy. I know a couple of people who work
at Chevron-Texaco and they had absolutely NO IDEA why people
would keep 'blocking the main road to campus' or protesting
or giving them mean looks when they went to work in San Ramon.
I mean, come on, they have college degrees from UCB but
they choose to be really stupid. I answer their evite
party invites with NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
\_ Well, Walmart sells cheap stuff.
\_ Now you see many of the so called "liberals" are haters.
\_ what is this "so called" stuff? I AM a liberal
and damn fucking proud of it, ok not proud enough
to sign my name today, check back later. I notice
none of today's posters are sufficiently walmart
loving or frothing at the mouth, what happened to
free market guy? or free republic guy? on vacation?
\_ And what about Chicom troll? You'd think cct would have
a (painfully incoherent) opinion about all of this.
\_ Has it occurred to you that Marco's giving a
"conservative estimate," such that he sets an
appropriate expectation, and such that he isn't
brokering a salary negotiation? I'm pretty sure
http://Walmart.com will pay market for you superstars out
there. --chris
\_ I said "average" or "below". |
| 4/2 |
|
| sageweb.sage.org/jobs/salary_survey -> sageweb.sage.org/jobs/salary_survey/ Salary Surveys As part of its ongoing effort to gain recognition and advancement for system administrators, SAGE annually conducts a System Administrator Salary survey. The 2002 SAGE Salary Survey The 2002 SAGE Salary Survey is now online. Weve also got a compendium of the comments about various topics that the respondents submitted. It makes fascinating reading, especially on the current hot topics like outsourcing and overtime with no compensation. |
| www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm Backgrounder #1713 January 5, 2004 | 23 Executive Summary | 24 Download PDF | 25 Send to a Friend Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers--to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II. While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat. Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians. Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care. The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home. In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty. While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. Ownership of Property and Amenities Among the Poor Table 1 shows the ownership of property and consumer durables among poor households. The typical home owned by the poor is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths. It has a garage or carport and a porch or patio and is located on a half-acre lot. The house was constructed in 1967 and is in good repair. The median value of homes owned by poor households was $86,600 in 2001 or 70 percent of the median value of all homes owned in the United States. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own microwaves; Poor households are well-equipped with modern entertainment technology. It should come as no surprise that nearly all (97 percent) poor households have color TVs, but more than half actually own two or more color televisions. One-quarter own large-screen televisions, 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player, and almost two-thirds have cable or satellite TV reception. More than a third have telephone answering machines, while a quarter have personal computers. While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury, they are notably different from conventional images of poverty. Housing Conditions A similar disparity between popular conceptions and reality applies to the housing conditions of the poor. Most poor Americans live in houses or apartments that are relatively spacious and in good repair. As Chart 1 shows, 54 percent of poor households live in single-family homes, either unattached single dwellings or attached units such as townhouses. Department of Energy shows that Americans have an average of 721 square feet of living space per person. This survey showed the United States to have by far the most spacious housing units, with 50 percent to 100 percent more square footage per capita than city dwellers in other industrialized nations. The average poor American has more square footage of living space than does the average person living in London, Paris, Vienna, and Munich. Poor Americans have nearly three times the living space of average urban citizens in middle-income countries such as Mexico and Turkey. Poor American households have seven times more housing space per person than the general urban population of very-low-income countries such as India and China. To assess the validity of this argument, Table 4 presents national housing data for 15 West European countries. These data represent the entire national housing stock in each of the 15 countries. In general, the national data on housing size are similar to the data on specific European cities presented in Table 3 and Appendix Table A. The housing of poor Americans (with an average of 1,228 square feet per unit) is smaller than that of the average American but larger than that of the average European (who has 976 square feet per unit). Overall, poor Americans have an average of 439 square feet of living space per person, which is as much as or more than the average citizen in most West European countries. However, data from the American Housing Survey indicate that such is not the case. The most common "severe problem," according to the American Housing Survey, is a shared bathroom, which occurs when occupants lack a bathroom and must share bathroom facilities with individuals in a neighboring unit. However, the problems affecting these units are clearly modest. While living in such units might be disagreeable by modern middle... |
| Walmart.com -> www.walmart.com/ Entertainment Centers Styles and sizes for every home and television. Medicare Recipients Enroll today to save on prescriptions with Medicare-approved drug discount cards. |
| walmart.com -> www.walmart.com/ Entertainment Centers Styles and sizes for every home and television. Medicare Recipients Enroll today to save on prescriptions with Medicare-approved drug discount cards. |